I despise comment deletion April 17, 2006 4:18 PM Subscribe
This is why I despise comment deletion.
*furiously hits refresh, not wanting to miss the train wreck*
posted by LarryC at 4:21 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by LarryC at 4:21 PM on April 17, 2006
hoh boy!! Calling the Admin names wont really help your case here. FYI
posted by wheelieman at 4:26 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by wheelieman at 4:26 PM on April 17, 2006
I'll put some pop-corn in while we wait. Regular or unsalted?
posted by tkolar at 4:26 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by tkolar at 4:26 PM on April 17, 2006
You lost me at 3.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 4:27 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 4:27 PM on April 17, 2006
Regular for me please!!
posted by wheelieman at 4:27 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by wheelieman at 4:27 PM on April 17, 2006
Footnotes for a callout are never helpful either
posted by wheelieman at 4:28 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by wheelieman at 4:28 PM on April 17, 2006
Actually, I think I want to be a part of the train wreck.
C_D, you oblivious wanker you. Without comment deletion AskMe would go from the clear spring of cool water that it is, to a rancid bowl of puss. AskMe is a rare civilized corner of the whole damn internet. The price of comment deletion is that sometimes the editors get it wrong. But not often, and it is a small price to pay for the value gained.
posted by LarryC at 4:29 PM on April 17, 2006
C_D, you oblivious wanker you. Without comment deletion AskMe would go from the clear spring of cool water that it is, to a rancid bowl of puss. AskMe is a rare civilized corner of the whole damn internet. The price of comment deletion is that sometimes the editors get it wrong. But not often, and it is a small price to pay for the value gained.
posted by LarryC at 4:29 PM on April 17, 2006
*lights lighter and holds it above his head*
posted by wheelieman at 4:30 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by wheelieman at 4:30 PM on April 17, 2006
"Golden Flavoring" on mine, tkolar. Seriously, Civil_Disobedient, calling jess an idiot is, well, idiotic. Too bad about #3, there. Otherwise, I would have agreed with you.
Jimbob, I assume you mean that the deletions were the wrong decision... right? Not that jess is an idiot?
posted by brundlefly at 4:32 PM on April 17, 2006
Jimbob, I assume you mean that the deletions were the wrong decision... right? Not that jess is an idiot?
posted by brundlefly at 4:32 PM on April 17, 2006
*applies fuse to wheelieman's lighter*
posted by flabdablet at 4:32 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by flabdablet at 4:32 PM on April 17, 2006
*drops cracker down back of C_D's trousers*
posted by flabdablet at 4:35 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by flabdablet at 4:35 PM on April 17, 2006
*lights lighter and holds it above his head*
We need audience participation lines for MeTa threads.
posted by Gator at 4:36 PM on April 17, 2006
We need audience participation lines for MeTa threads.
posted by Gator at 4:36 PM on April 17, 2006
*drops cracker down back of C_D's trousers*
*pictures flabdablet dropping a saltine down back of C_D's trousers, shakes head confusedly, then finally gets it.*
posted by brundlefly at 4:39 PM on April 17, 2006
*pictures flabdablet dropping a saltine down back of C_D's trousers, shakes head confusedly, then finally gets it.*
posted by brundlefly at 4:39 PM on April 17, 2006
Without comment deletion AskMe would go from the clear spring of cool water that it is, to a rancid bowl of puss.
Deleting comments isn't how you keep the water clean. Even an adult can piss in the pool. Jess deletes far too many comments just to be on the safe side of potential controversy, which is idiotic when they directly contribute to answering the question.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:42 PM on April 17, 2006
Deleting comments isn't how you keep the water clean. Even an adult can piss in the pool. Jess deletes far too many comments just to be on the safe side of potential controversy, which is idiotic when they directly contribute to answering the question.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:42 PM on April 17, 2006
And the rest of you can get off your knees. Jess and Matt's boots are plenty shiny already.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:43 PM on April 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:43 PM on April 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
I'm agreeing with both Larry C and CD. Deletion is a vital weapon, and sometimes good messages get killed by friendly fire.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:44 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by five fresh fish at 4:44 PM on April 17, 2006
Wait, I was supposed to be licking their boots when I was down there?
posted by Gamblor at 4:45 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by Gamblor at 4:45 PM on April 17, 2006
I have no idea how delete-happy J is these days, 'cause I'm not paying enough attention to notice it...
posted by five fresh fish at 4:45 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by five fresh fish at 4:45 PM on April 17, 2006
*watches disappointed as dripping condescension extinguishes fuse*
posted by flabdablet at 4:45 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by flabdablet at 4:45 PM on April 17, 2006
*********** *** * * * ****** *************
(****** * ***** *)
** ******** * * ***** ******************!!
posted by fire&wings at 4:49 PM on April 17, 2006
(****** * ***** *)
** ******** * * ***** ******************!!
posted by fire&wings at 4:49 PM on April 17, 2006
Civil_Disobedient : "Jess deletes far too many comments just to be on the safe side of potential controversy, which is idiotic when they directly contribute to answering the question."
Purely, fiercely, pettily accurately: the question was a yes or no question. To "answer the question" should require no more than one word in most cases, with the exception of "Maybe. If, also, X, then Yes. If Y, then No."
ecss/html being hard or not doesn't contribute to answering the question, unless someone else had all the information to provide a yes or no answer, except whether or not ecss/html was hard or not. I suppose this deletion could have whacked that possibility, but I'd say the odds of someone knowing everything needed to answer the question except whether ecss/html was hard or not is somewhere on the order of 0.0001%.
Civil_Disobedient : "Deleting comments isn't how you keep the water clean. Even an adult can piss in the pool."
Well, yeah. Which is why you clean the pool, even if adults are the only ones who use it. Which is why we have moderators that delete comments, even though we're all adults here.
posted by Bugbread at 4:52 PM on April 17, 2006
Purely, fiercely, pettily accurately: the question was a yes or no question. To "answer the question" should require no more than one word in most cases, with the exception of "Maybe. If, also, X, then Yes. If Y, then No."
ecss/html being hard or not doesn't contribute to answering the question, unless someone else had all the information to provide a yes or no answer, except whether or not ecss/html was hard or not. I suppose this deletion could have whacked that possibility, but I'd say the odds of someone knowing everything needed to answer the question except whether ecss/html was hard or not is somewhere on the order of 0.0001%.
Civil_Disobedient : "Deleting comments isn't how you keep the water clean. Even an adult can piss in the pool."
Well, yeah. Which is why you clean the pool, even if adults are the only ones who use it. Which is why we have moderators that delete comments, even though we're all adults here.
posted by Bugbread at 4:52 PM on April 17, 2006
evil to make money from deleteds
posted by brain_drain at 4:59 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by brain_drain at 4:59 PM on April 17, 2006
Wait, wait, wait. Is C_D wearing pants? Because if he is, I note this with astonishment.
posted by Gator at 5:08 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by Gator at 5:08 PM on April 17, 2006
Where can I get one of these bowls of puss?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:14 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:14 PM on April 17, 2006
Dammit
posted by Joeforking at 5:19 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by Joeforking at 5:19 PM on April 17, 2006
The price of comment deletion is that sometimes the editors get it wrong. But not often, and it is a small price to pay for the value gained.
*head explodes*
posted by mlis at 5:23 PM on April 17, 2006
*head explodes*
posted by mlis at 5:23 PM on April 17, 2006
Is "Jess" an acceptable abberviation now? Because that saves me a good four keystrokes. That's four more keystrokes for freedom.
posted by ludwig_van at 5:26 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by ludwig_van at 5:26 PM on April 17, 2006
I think civil_disobedient's deleted comment should be reproduced in its entirety, here. Obviously it won't support his "jess is an idiot" nonsense, but it might support his argument about itchy trigger fingers.
posted by shmegegge at 5:37 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 5:37 PM on April 17, 2006
Don't Mess with Jess[amyn] or the Librarian Aveger is gonna serve you up a can o' whupass.
posted by fourcheesemac at 5:47 PM on April 17, 2006
Jesschoo?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 5:52 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 5:52 PM on April 17, 2006
If you get this worked up about comments about HTML vs. coding difficulty, you may need to stop doing both and get out in the sunlight.
posted by smackfu at 6:02 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by smackfu at 6:02 PM on April 17, 2006
You had me at 'hello'.
posted by blue_beetle at 6:06 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by blue_beetle at 6:06 PM on April 17, 2006
I forgot what I was going to type here, but I assure you, it was a zinger.
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 6:11 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 6:11 PM on April 17, 2006
I'm not an idiot, I don't care what your footnotes say. The three comments showed up (1) early in the thread at a point at which (2) the poster hadn't really gotten a good answer to his/her question which was (3) anonymous which meant that he/she couldn't follow up and say "stop with the derail I need an answer to my question." The responses which (4) didn't address the questions ["how much?"] directly were already spawning their own (5) derail side-discussion in a question that wasn't already answered.
It has nothing to do with unpleasantness or controversy; it has to do with people feeling like AskMe is a place they can get answers to their questions and not listen to a bunch of people discuss the topic involved in their question without giving them any direct help. There would have been a ton of ways for those comments to have spoken to the issue of salary. They didn't. If I recall correctly (and I may not, because I am of course an idiot) they didn't even address the poster at all. They were flagged as derails and removed.
Anonymous threads are a bitch because we do assume that the original poster isn't going to be able to take part in keeping the thread on-topic which is how threads at least sometimes avoid being derailled, the OP steps in and says "Um, back to me...."
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:18 PM on April 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
It has nothing to do with unpleasantness or controversy; it has to do with people feeling like AskMe is a place they can get answers to their questions and not listen to a bunch of people discuss the topic involved in their question without giving them any direct help. There would have been a ton of ways for those comments to have spoken to the issue of salary. They didn't. If I recall correctly (and I may not, because I am of course an idiot) they didn't even address the poster at all. They were flagged as derails and removed.
Anonymous threads are a bitch because we do assume that the original poster isn't going to be able to take part in keeping the thread on-topic which is how threads at least sometimes avoid being derailled, the OP steps in and says "Um, back to me...."
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:18 PM on April 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
Do you seriously think that comments are deleted to avoid unpleasantness? Really? Wow. You don't pay very much attention to goings on around here, do you?
posted by oddman at 6:29 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by oddman at 6:29 PM on April 17, 2006
People see what they want to see. When you've already made your conclusions, it's easy to find evidence for them.
posted by smackfu at 6:34 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by smackfu at 6:34 PM on April 17, 2006
You disagreeing with Jess doesn't make her an idiot. When Jess had a problem with me, I took it to e-mail and we settled things like adults. We may not be BFF, but I think we both came out of it with a better sense of the other person, and we may even be on the road to liking each other. I think part of that was that I separated the office from the individual. Because she does something wrong (IYHO) doesn't mean her job (volunteer, I believe? not paid) is easy. She does a lot and you ought to respect that, as well as the fact that we're all human.
I oppose deletion in almost all its forms, but I also oppose name-calling at a second-grade level. Mostly because with my hyper-acute intellect, I skipped the second grade, and so am bitter about all the tomfoolery I missed out on.
posted by Eideteker at 6:38 PM on April 17, 2006
I oppose deletion in almost all its forms, but I also oppose name-calling at a second-grade level. Mostly because with my hyper-acute intellect, I skipped the second grade, and so am bitter about all the tomfoolery I missed out on.
posted by Eideteker at 6:38 PM on April 17, 2006
Actually, I think jess does get paid. Like 2 bucks or something.
posted by puke & cry at 6:47 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by puke & cry at 6:47 PM on April 17, 2006
"That is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put." -- Winston Churchill
posted by knave at 6:49 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by knave at 6:49 PM on April 17, 2006
Coincidentally, "I don't care what your footnotes say," also makes for an effective shut-down line if you ever need to get an amorous David Foster Wallace to leave you alone.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:50 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:50 PM on April 17, 2006
"Hey baby, have you seen my footnotes? They're really long."
posted by smackfu at 6:57 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by smackfu at 6:57 PM on April 17, 2006
Metafilter : love it or leave it.
posted by crunchland at 6:59 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by crunchland at 6:59 PM on April 17, 2006
Psst... I heard Eideteker and Jessamyn like each other! Eideteker and Jessamyn sitting in an Ask Me, D-E-L-E-T-I-N-G.
posted by ND¢ at 6:59 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by ND¢ at 6:59 PM on April 17, 2006
I'm pretty sure they don't delete comments over at metachat.org.
posted by crunchland at 7:03 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by crunchland at 7:03 PM on April 17, 2006
Dammit, iNDie, who told you? *blushes, runs from the thread*
Oh, wait, this isn't MetaChat. I'm not the Flirt here, I'm the sarcastic badass (of an army of 5,000 of them).
Knave gets a point for spotting the reference!
posted by Eideteker at 7:04 PM on April 17, 2006
Oh, wait, this isn't MetaChat. I'm not the Flirt here, I'm the sarcastic badass (of an army of 5,000 of them).
Knave gets a point for spotting the reference!
posted by Eideteker at 7:04 PM on April 17, 2006
I wonder what comments were deleted, mine still seem to be there.
*shrug*
posted by delmoi at 7:09 PM on April 17, 2006
*shrug*
posted by delmoi at 7:09 PM on April 17, 2006
I'm not an idiot, I don't care what your footnotes say.
I just really like that line. I hope I get a chance to use it at work.
posted by marxchivist at 7:29 PM on April 17, 2006
I just really like that line. I hope I get a chance to use it at work.
posted by marxchivist at 7:29 PM on April 17, 2006
Eideteker and Jessamyn sitting in an Ask Me, D-E-L-E-T-I-N-G.
Does he get to vote?
posted by mlis at 7:36 PM on April 17, 2006
Does he get to vote?
posted by mlis at 7:36 PM on April 17, 2006
Big web developer talk from a guy whose domain is now parked?
posted by boo_radley at 7:53 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by boo_radley at 7:53 PM on April 17, 2006
And the rest of you can get off your knees. Jess and Matt's boots are plenty shiny already.
I don't think many people have been vocally disagreeing with the subject of your post, here. It's the juvenile use of the word "idiot." Calling you on that is not the same as kissing admin ass. This could have been a constructive thread if you hadn't derailed it in the post itself.*
Was that a record for derailment? Did anyone have a stopwatch?
posted by brundlefly at 7:55 PM on April 17, 2006
I don't think many people have been vocally disagreeing with the subject of your post, here. It's the juvenile use of the word "idiot." Calling you on that is not the same as kissing admin ass. This could have been a constructive thread if you hadn't derailed it in the post itself.*
Was that a record for derailment? Did anyone have a stopwatch?
posted by brundlefly at 7:55 PM on April 17, 2006
Bah! there was supposed to be an "*" next to that footnote.
posted by brundlefly at 7:56 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by brundlefly at 7:56 PM on April 17, 2006
Civil_Disobedient - your pissy reaction is, oddly enough, entirely obedient (you took it to MeTa just like a good boy), but not at all civil (where do you get off calling Jessamyn an idiot?).
I fully support Jessamyn's choice in this one. Even now, tangents about whether HTML is really "code" are apparent - leaning very far away from relevance. I didn't see what was deleted, but it smells like good admin work to me.
posted by scarabic at 8:49 PM on April 17, 2006
I fully support Jessamyn's choice in this one. Even now, tangents about whether HTML is really "code" are apparent - leaning very far away from relevance. I didn't see what was deleted, but it smells like good admin work to me.
posted by scarabic at 8:49 PM on April 17, 2006
I don't know how to 1
1 Get my numeral up in the air like that.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:46 PM on April 17, 2006
1 Get my numeral up in the air like that.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:46 PM on April 17, 2006
&&&&&&&&
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:49 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:49 PM on April 17, 2006
Hmm, in retrospect that just looks like two lines of very small ampersands.
posted by tkolar at 10:24 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by tkolar at 10:24 PM on April 17, 2006
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
posted by MetaMonkey at 10:39 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by MetaMonkey at 10:39 PM on April 17, 2006
needs more blink.
posted by boo_radley at 10:40 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by boo_radley at 10:40 PM on April 17, 2006
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
posted by tkolar at 10:46 PM on April 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by tkolar at 10:46 PM on April 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
And thus tkolar learns the hard way that the <big> tag works in preview but is stripped out of the posts.
posted by tkolar at 10:49 PM on April 17, 2006
posted by tkolar at 10:49 PM on April 17, 2006
Wheeee!
I'm gonna sleep good tonight!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:01 PM on April 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
I'm gonna sleep good tonight!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:01 PM on April 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
...because Jess is an idiot...
Whatever.
You may think she is too heavy-handed. I haven't notied either way, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion, and you likely have been here much longer than I.
You might, however, be interested to know that overly aggressive deletion is not really something you'd generally call someone an idiot about. It's both unjustified and impolite.
Not that that stops the rest of the internet from impolitic behavior...
posted by RikiTikiTavi at 11:38 PM on April 17, 2006
Whatever.
You may think she is too heavy-handed. I haven't notied either way, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion, and you likely have been here much longer than I.
You might, however, be interested to know that overly aggressive deletion is not really something you'd generally call someone an idiot about. It's both unjustified and impolite.
Not that that stops the rest of the internet from impolitic behavior...
posted by RikiTikiTavi at 11:38 PM on April 17, 2006
Humbug, Jess, humbug.
The three comments showed up (1) early in the thread
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
at a point at which (2) the poster hadn't really gotten a good answer to his/her question
False. The poster had already gotten a few answers to the question. As in, actual numbers. What the poster didn't get was any explanation as to why the numbers could be so disparate. Which is why, as bugbread so clearly misunderstands, AskMe is not simply about Yes or No answers to questions that may have more layers to them.
For example, if my answer to the question, "How much do you think I can get for this pile of dirt?" was to point out that, "Hey, there's dirt everywhere, you know" that's actually not directly answering the question, but it adds an additional element, WHY, that the poster didn't originally ask, and yet still contributes to answering the question. Amazing that.
which was (3) anonymous which meant that he/she couldn't follow up and say "stop with the derail I need an answer to my question."
Oh, thank goodness you were there to stop the trainwreck. There could have been some ugly shit going down in Aisle 13 of AskMe.
The responses which (4) didn't address the questions ["how much?"] directly
You've already said that.
were already spawning their own (5) derail side-discussion in a question that wasn't already answered.
Again. You don't need to footnote the same point over and over again.
I do contract work in the IT field. At the company I'm currently at, the lead developers had about 3 interviews a week with people that shared something in common with myself: they all needed a job. I've been there, and it sucks to need a job. They would go into their conference room, talk with the candidate, then give pleasant handshakes when the applicant left. Then they'd go back to their desks, sit down and laugh at the applicants. And on one hand it pissed me off--someone needs this, went through the trouble of polishing up their resume, got dressed up and headed downtown with gas money they can ill afford, went through nervousness, to expectfulness, to (inevitably) letdown when they find out they're not getting the position. And on the other hand, I could kind of see their point. The candidates were overselling themselves, and wasting the developers' time. Why? Because they saw "web developer" in the paper, and came a-knockin' because no one told them that, in the real world, HTML and CSS were not "web development."
When I see questions regarding salary in AskMe, I often think that there are two main possibilities for the OP: the first is that they've already got a job, and are trying to trade up. The second is that they're looking to get into a field, and want to know what to expect. Telling someone they can expect $80,000 a year doing HTML markup is setting them up to be bitterly disappointed. But there are plenty of real web development jobs that do pay that kind of dough, provided you're willing to learn. But (as someone else mentioned in the thread), there are a million kids coming out of college every year that can put "HTML" on their resume that would gladly take $35k a year. Because it's fundamentally easier to learn than a proper programming language like C or Java or .NET or whatever the flavor of the month is. And as long as it's so easy to pick up, there will never be enough demand to support higher salaries.
The problem is that people learn some HTML and javascript and all of a sudden get these pie-in-the-sky dreams--circa-1998--of making huge bucks. And when someone tries to smack them back into reality, they get their fucking comments deleted by someone who knows better. I guess they can thank you when they get some free time. Like 9-5, Monday-Friday.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:46 PM on April 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
The three comments showed up (1) early in the thread
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
at a point at which (2) the poster hadn't really gotten a good answer to his/her question
False. The poster had already gotten a few answers to the question. As in, actual numbers. What the poster didn't get was any explanation as to why the numbers could be so disparate. Which is why, as bugbread so clearly misunderstands, AskMe is not simply about Yes or No answers to questions that may have more layers to them.
For example, if my answer to the question, "How much do you think I can get for this pile of dirt?" was to point out that, "Hey, there's dirt everywhere, you know" that's actually not directly answering the question, but it adds an additional element, WHY, that the poster didn't originally ask, and yet still contributes to answering the question. Amazing that.
which was (3) anonymous which meant that he/she couldn't follow up and say "stop with the derail I need an answer to my question."
Oh, thank goodness you were there to stop the trainwreck. There could have been some ugly shit going down in Aisle 13 of AskMe.
The responses which (4) didn't address the questions ["how much?"] directly
You've already said that.
were already spawning their own (5) derail side-discussion in a question that wasn't already answered.
Again. You don't need to footnote the same point over and over again.
I do contract work in the IT field. At the company I'm currently at, the lead developers had about 3 interviews a week with people that shared something in common with myself: they all needed a job. I've been there, and it sucks to need a job. They would go into their conference room, talk with the candidate, then give pleasant handshakes when the applicant left. Then they'd go back to their desks, sit down and laugh at the applicants. And on one hand it pissed me off--someone needs this, went through the trouble of polishing up their resume, got dressed up and headed downtown with gas money they can ill afford, went through nervousness, to expectfulness, to (inevitably) letdown when they find out they're not getting the position. And on the other hand, I could kind of see their point. The candidates were overselling themselves, and wasting the developers' time. Why? Because they saw "web developer" in the paper, and came a-knockin' because no one told them that, in the real world, HTML and CSS were not "web development."
When I see questions regarding salary in AskMe, I often think that there are two main possibilities for the OP: the first is that they've already got a job, and are trying to trade up. The second is that they're looking to get into a field, and want to know what to expect. Telling someone they can expect $80,000 a year doing HTML markup is setting them up to be bitterly disappointed. But there are plenty of real web development jobs that do pay that kind of dough, provided you're willing to learn. But (as someone else mentioned in the thread), there are a million kids coming out of college every year that can put "HTML" on their resume that would gladly take $35k a year. Because it's fundamentally easier to learn than a proper programming language like C or Java or .NET or whatever the flavor of the month is. And as long as it's so easy to pick up, there will never be enough demand to support higher salaries.
The problem is that people learn some HTML and javascript and all of a sudden get these pie-in-the-sky dreams--circa-1998--of making huge bucks. And when someone tries to smack them back into reality, they get their fucking comments deleted by someone who knows better. I guess they can thank you when they get some free time. Like 9-5, Monday-Friday.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:46 PM on April 17, 2006 [1 favorite]
I'm amazed at the gall, CD.
Most well-adjusted folk would get the clue at this point that they are over the line. You simply think you have the floor - to air not only your complaints about Jessamyn, but even more incredibly valuable thoughts about the relative costs of HTML sourcing. Yes, we all lived through 2001 oh guru of pricing realtiy, thank you very much.
Do you really think you can just continue that conversation?
Sheesh. How much are contract clue-finders paid in your city?
posted by scarabic at 11:53 PM on April 17, 2006
Most well-adjusted folk would get the clue at this point that they are over the line. You simply think you have the floor - to air not only your complaints about Jessamyn, but even more incredibly valuable thoughts about the relative costs of HTML sourcing. Yes, we all lived through 2001 oh guru of pricing realtiy, thank you very much.
Do you really think you can just continue that conversation?
Sheesh. How much are contract clue-finders paid in your city?
posted by scarabic at 11:53 PM on April 17, 2006
I don't know much but I'm pretty sure Jess isn't an idiot. The last time I paid attn. to a rant like CD's my kids were in elementary school and I was trying to show them the error of their ways (So and so is a poopyhead). Apparently CD needs some additional parenting.
posted by Carbolic at 12:09 AM on April 18, 2006
posted by Carbolic at 12:09 AM on April 18, 2006
Yes, we all lived through 2001 oh guru of pricing realtiy, thank you very much.
You apparently missed the AskMe question that started this. Long story short: apparently some people didn't get the message. Perhaps you'd like to contribute your wide breadth of knowledge in said thread, unless you're afraid such comments will be deemed off-topic. As to your other question, Jess asked that this be taken to MeTa if it bothered anyone. It bothered me. So I brought it to MeTa.
How much are contract clue-finders paid in your city?
Somewhat less than the snivelling toadies.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:13 AM on April 18, 2006
You apparently missed the AskMe question that started this. Long story short: apparently some people didn't get the message. Perhaps you'd like to contribute your wide breadth of knowledge in said thread, unless you're afraid such comments will be deemed off-topic. As to your other question, Jess asked that this be taken to MeTa if it bothered anyone. It bothered me. So I brought it to MeTa.
How much are contract clue-finders paid in your city?
Somewhat less than the snivelling toadies.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:13 AM on April 18, 2006
If a rude fuck, who may have salient advice, waxes lyrical in my general vicinity for all to hear, I will walk away afterwards not more knowledgeable for having been priviliged to hear their spiel on matters esoteric and cogent; no, I'll wander off thinking: "What a rude fuck".
posted by peacay at 12:15 AM on April 18, 2006
posted by peacay at 12:15 AM on April 18, 2006
C_D, you may want to give some serious consideration to your use of the word idiot, and whether or not said usage was in any way merited, either in terms of its accuracy or appropriateness.
I say this because it's fairly clear by now that you've given that idea no consideration whatsoever.
posted by shmegegge at 12:37 AM on April 18, 2006
I say this because it's fairly clear by now that you've given that idea no consideration whatsoever.
posted by shmegegge at 12:37 AM on April 18, 2006
could someone delete the people eating popcorn in this thread ? I can't hear the movie.
posted by sgt.serenity at 12:58 AM on April 18, 2006
posted by sgt.serenity at 12:58 AM on April 18, 2006
"Jess asked that this be taken to MeTa if it bothered anyone. It bothered me. So I brought it to MeTa."
Yeah, and you did it with something approaching a double hand gesture to one of the most popular, respected and useful members, so MeTa is bringing it back to you.
There may have been a good point here, but the stench of your indignation soured everything before you began.
This is not a winning ticket. Why not settle down and try again with a little less intensity?
posted by NinjaTadpole at 1:38 AM on April 18, 2006
Yeah, and you did it with something approaching a double hand gesture to one of the most popular, respected and useful members, so MeTa is bringing it back to you.
There may have been a good point here, but the stench of your indignation soured everything before you began.
This is not a winning ticket. Why not settle down and try again with a little less intensity?
posted by NinjaTadpole at 1:38 AM on April 18, 2006
Where is the quality control?
posted by Faint of Butt at 2:59 AM on April 18, 2006
posted by Faint of Butt at 2:59 AM on April 18, 2006
What peacay said. Once you get hit with the incivility, the job-market lecture doesn't make much of an impression.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:03 AM on April 18, 2006
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:03 AM on April 18, 2006
Two questions:
posted by AmbroseChapel at 3:10 AM on April 18, 2006
- Why do people say stuff like "HTML Code Monkey"? I don't see that in many other fields. Do photographers call each other "35mm film monkeys"? Do chefs call each other "saucepan monkeys"? It bugs me.
- Have the people who think HTML/CSS is simple actually tried doing it lately?
posted by AmbroseChapel at 3:10 AM on April 18, 2006
1. Lots of other jobs are sometimes monkeys. The original may be "grease monkey" for mechanic. The other popular variant is "[whatever] jockey".
2. I don't think that would make a good AskMe question, so maybe this is the place for it.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:20 AM on April 18, 2006
2. I don't think that would make a good AskMe question, so maybe this is the place for it.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:20 AM on April 18, 2006
C_D, you may want to give some serious consideration to your use of the word idiot, and whether or not said usage was in any way merited, either in terms of its accuracy or appropriateness.
I did.
Ask Metafilter is for helping people to find answers to their questions. Not all questions have simple answers. Deleting comments that contribute to answering the question is idiotic, since that's the point of AskMe.
And sorry Abrose. Had I not called an admin an idiot, I suppose this could have been the thread you were looking for.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:23 AM on April 18, 2006
I did.
Ask Metafilter is for helping people to find answers to their questions. Not all questions have simple answers. Deleting comments that contribute to answering the question is idiotic, since that's the point of AskMe.
And sorry Abrose. Had I not called an admin an idiot, I suppose this could have been the thread you were looking for.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:23 AM on April 18, 2006
Chefs are pretty insulting to each other , theres a chef and then theres the under-chef.
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:23 AM on April 18, 2006
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:23 AM on April 18, 2006
Personally, I find writing high-performance device drivers in PowerPC assembler *much* easier than trying to make any reasonably complex web page render acceptably on all browsers.
Dealing with HTML makes me nauseous.
And if XML is such a magnificent way to represent structured data, why wasn't CSS built on top of it?
XML-RPC... bleauuugh!
XML-RPC to a localhost server... aaaaarghhhh!
posted by flabdablet at 4:00 AM on April 18, 2006
Dealing with HTML makes me nauseous.
And if XML is such a magnificent way to represent structured data, why wasn't CSS built on top of it?
XML-RPC... bleauuugh!
XML-RPC to a localhost server... aaaaarghhhh!
posted by flabdablet at 4:00 AM on April 18, 2006
Is that something I'd have to be a monkey to understand?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:12 AM on April 18, 2006
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:12 AM on April 18, 2006
The other popular variant is "[whatever] jockey".
There's a huge difference between "jockey" and "monkey".
I'd be much happier to be called a jockey.
Personally, I find writing high-performance device drivers in PowerPC assembler *much* easier than trying to make any reasonably complex web page render acceptably on all browsers.
You should try those new TABLES the kids are using now. They make layout a lot simpler.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 4:30 AM on April 18, 2006
There's a huge difference between "jockey" and "monkey".
I'd be much happier to be called a jockey.
Personally, I find writing high-performance device drivers in PowerPC assembler *much* easier than trying to make any reasonably complex web page render acceptably on all browsers.
You should try those new TABLES the kids are using now. They make layout a lot simpler.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 4:30 AM on April 18, 2006
Chefs are pretty insulting to each other , theres a chef and then theres the under-chef.
But do they, implicitly, speak disparagingly of the profession itself?
posted by AmbroseChapel at 4:32 AM on April 18, 2006
But do they, implicitly, speak disparagingly of the profession itself?
posted by AmbroseChapel at 4:32 AM on April 18, 2006
Hi, Devil's Advocate here.
If you had called almost anyone else an idiot, this discussion wouldn't even exist. There is no doubt of that.
However, you did call someone an idiot who clearly has the respect of the community. Said community have clearly indicated that your behaviour is not acceptable. Live with it or don't, but you should at least accept the community opinion and move on. We all make mistakes. No biggie, unless you want to make it one.
posted by dg at 4:33 AM on April 18, 2006
If you had called almost anyone else an idiot, this discussion wouldn't even exist. There is no doubt of that.
However, you did call someone an idiot who clearly has the respect of the community. Said community have clearly indicated that your behaviour is not acceptable. Live with it or don't, but you should at least accept the community opinion and move on. We all make mistakes. No biggie, unless you want to make it one.
posted by dg at 4:33 AM on April 18, 2006
I've been in Civil_Disobedient's position here in Metatalk. I knew I was in the minority, and there were few (or no) voices of support for my point, but I just kept slugging away, in an effort to save a little face, even though I figured I probably wasn't changing any minds.
Yeah. It's pretty ugly from this side of it, too.
posted by crunchland at 4:52 AM on April 18, 2006
Yeah. It's pretty ugly from this side of it, too.
posted by crunchland at 4:52 AM on April 18, 2006
AmbroseChapel: "Why do people say stuff like "HTML Code Monkey"? I don't see that in many other fields. Do photographers call each other "35mm film monkeys"? Do chefs call each other "saucepan monkeys"? It bugs me."
"Code monkey" has a very clear and (IMHO) extremely disparaging meaning. A code monkey is someone who's only there to bang out code. Essentially a glorified typist. A real programmer (or coder, note the lack of a simian nickname) has say in the design and architecture of the application.
Few programmers want to be code monkeys, in the same way that few photographers want to be "bottle washers".
posted by Plutor at 4:54 AM on April 18, 2006
"Code monkey" has a very clear and (IMHO) extremely disparaging meaning. A code monkey is someone who's only there to bang out code. Essentially a glorified typist. A real programmer (or coder, note the lack of a simian nickname) has say in the design and architecture of the application.
Few programmers want to be code monkeys, in the same way that few photographers want to be "bottle washers".
posted by Plutor at 4:54 AM on April 18, 2006
Civil_Disobedient writes "Ask Metafilter is for helping people to find answers to their questions. Not all questions have simple answers. Deleting comments that contribute to answering the question is idiotic, since that's the point of AskMe."
What you don't seem to want to acknowledge is that your own opinion in this matter is just that, an opinion, and as such, no more fundamentally valid than Jessamyn's. In addition, as Jessamyn indicated in her response to you, which you snarked without apparently understanding, she had more information to work with than you did: the comments had apparently been flagged. Everyone understands that you're pissed, now everyone understands that you're a jerk as well. Repeating the comment that made your jerkiness apparent cures neither of the conditions from which you appear to suffer.
posted by OmieWise at 5:27 AM on April 18, 2006
What you don't seem to want to acknowledge is that your own opinion in this matter is just that, an opinion, and as such, no more fundamentally valid than Jessamyn's. In addition, as Jessamyn indicated in her response to you, which you snarked without apparently understanding, she had more information to work with than you did: the comments had apparently been flagged. Everyone understands that you're pissed, now everyone understands that you're a jerk as well. Repeating the comment that made your jerkiness apparent cures neither of the conditions from which you appear to suffer.
posted by OmieWise at 5:27 AM on April 18, 2006
To be a fly on this wall...beautiful, just beautiful.
posted by mrmojoflying at 5:47 AM on April 18, 2006
posted by mrmojoflying at 5:47 AM on April 18, 2006
Live with it or don't, but you should at least accept the community opinion and move on.
You're mistaking C_D for someone with an ounce of sense.
You know how in the summer, in certain parts of the world, there are swarms of flies and you can pretty much ignore them except that once in a while one gets into the room and starts buzzing and buzzing and buzzing and it drives you nuts until someone gets the flyswatter and swats the fucker? Well, this thread is like that, except nobody's going to get the flyswatter, so we just have to wait until the fly, exhausted by its futile efforts, folds its wings and crawls under the sideboard.
posted by languagehat at 6:03 AM on April 18, 2006
You're mistaking C_D for someone with an ounce of sense.
You know how in the summer, in certain parts of the world, there are swarms of flies and you can pretty much ignore them except that once in a while one gets into the room and starts buzzing and buzzing and buzzing and it drives you nuts until someone gets the flyswatter and swats the fucker? Well, this thread is like that, except nobody's going to get the flyswatter, so we just have to wait until the fly, exhausted by its futile efforts, folds its wings and crawls under the sideboard.
posted by languagehat at 6:03 AM on April 18, 2006
Sailing crew you pick up in random bars: deck monkeys.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:05 AM on April 18, 2006
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:05 AM on April 18, 2006
Let's break it down for you scientific like, C_D.
There is a question about compensation. Good answers give a range and perhaps suggest a justification. Anonymous can then sort through the answers and decide for himself which of the justifications are pertinent to his situation and therefore which answers are really the best for him. Bad answers engage the other answers in a tete a tete over who's opinion has more merit. It is not an objective fact that one kind of programming is harder than some other kind. All sorts of people display different aptitudes and propensities. I for one learned the rudiments of C++ in three months while it's taken me a over a year to even start to grasp CSS. See how that goes? There is no single fact of the matter about which of those two is harder. At best you can make broadly general claims about which of those should be harder. That doesn't particularly address the question that anonymous asked does it? Really bad answers decide to argue about which unjustifiable claim is the best one and neglect anonymous's question altogether.
Gee, I wonder which of the categories the deletions fit into.
So here's a question. Just thought of it. Can admins delete only one part of a post, or is it all or nothing?
posted by oddman at 6:15 AM on April 18, 2006
There is a question about compensation. Good answers give a range and perhaps suggest a justification. Anonymous can then sort through the answers and decide for himself which of the justifications are pertinent to his situation and therefore which answers are really the best for him. Bad answers engage the other answers in a tete a tete over who's opinion has more merit. It is not an objective fact that one kind of programming is harder than some other kind. All sorts of people display different aptitudes and propensities. I for one learned the rudiments of C++ in three months while it's taken me a over a year to even start to grasp CSS. See how that goes? There is no single fact of the matter about which of those two is harder. At best you can make broadly general claims about which of those should be harder. That doesn't particularly address the question that anonymous asked does it? Really bad answers decide to argue about which unjustifiable claim is the best one and neglect anonymous's question altogether.
Gee, I wonder which of the categories the deletions fit into.
So here's a question. Just thought of it. Can admins delete only one part of a post, or is it all or nothing?
posted by oddman at 6:15 AM on April 18, 2006
I don't pick up sailors in bars.
posted by Joeforking at 6:16 AM on April 18, 2006
posted by Joeforking at 6:16 AM on April 18, 2006
As well you shouldn't Joe, they tend to be rather heavy.
posted by oddman at 6:17 AM on April 18, 2006
posted by oddman at 6:17 AM on April 18, 2006
What the fuck are you even on about? She let you make your point SEVERAL TIMES before deleting anything. Is your complaint that you didn't get to ram your opinion down anyone's throat there, ergo anyone who removed your bile must be an idiot?
You knew that you were derailing from the start (hence the 'code monkeys screeching' comment), and Jessamyn still let you go back and forth several times. Jesus Christ, could you be more in the wrong here?
posted by klangklangston at 6:36 AM on April 18, 2006
You knew that you were derailing from the start (hence the 'code monkeys screeching' comment), and Jessamyn still let you go back and forth several times. Jesus Christ, could you be more in the wrong here?
posted by klangklangston at 6:36 AM on April 18, 2006
"I'm not an idiot, I don't care what your footnotes say" is pure genius
posted by matteo at 6:56 AM on April 18, 2006
posted by matteo at 6:56 AM on April 18, 2006
I see that my point about reconsidering your use of the word idiot has fallen on deaf ears. Allow me to make the point more clearly.
Name calling and insults don't have a place in legitimate complaints about administrative practice on the site. let's imagine, if we can, the two scenarios proposed by the implication that jessamyn is an idiot:
1. jessamyn is an idiot.
2. jessamyn is not an idiot.
in the event of number 1, what you are doing is making fun of someone who has the equivalent of an incurable disease, where her own stupidity prevents her from properly performing her job on the site. so you've decided to insult somone with a mental deficiency. awesome. let's all make a fucking habit of that.
as remote as that possibility is, the event of number 2 being the case doesn't really put you in any better of a light. in the event of number 2, not only will you be wrong, but pointlessly hurtful toward another member of the community, and all because you didn't get to have your whole argument sit in someone else's askme thread.
so consider your use of the word again. how important is it to you to be needlessly and inaccurately hurtful, or even accurately hurtful toward someone who just can't help her condition? Are you one of those guys who goes into mcdonald's and makes fun of the developmentally disabled employees?
I'm not saying jessamyn is an idiot, btw, everybody. I'm just posing a hypothetical to make a point.
posted by shmegegge at 7:03 AM on April 18, 2006
Name calling and insults don't have a place in legitimate complaints about administrative practice on the site. let's imagine, if we can, the two scenarios proposed by the implication that jessamyn is an idiot:
1. jessamyn is an idiot.
2. jessamyn is not an idiot.
in the event of number 1, what you are doing is making fun of someone who has the equivalent of an incurable disease, where her own stupidity prevents her from properly performing her job on the site. so you've decided to insult somone with a mental deficiency. awesome. let's all make a fucking habit of that.
as remote as that possibility is, the event of number 2 being the case doesn't really put you in any better of a light. in the event of number 2, not only will you be wrong, but pointlessly hurtful toward another member of the community, and all because you didn't get to have your whole argument sit in someone else's askme thread.
so consider your use of the word again. how important is it to you to be needlessly and inaccurately hurtful, or even accurately hurtful toward someone who just can't help her condition? Are you one of those guys who goes into mcdonald's and makes fun of the developmentally disabled employees?
I'm not saying jessamyn is an idiot, btw, everybody. I'm just posing a hypothetical to make a point.
posted by shmegegge at 7:03 AM on April 18, 2006
Are you one of those guys who goes into mcdonald's and makes fun of the developmentally disabled employees?
Er, doesn't everyone?
posted by five fresh fish at 7:04 AM on April 18, 2006
Er, doesn't everyone?
posted by five fresh fish at 7:04 AM on April 18, 2006
yeah, after I clicked post I realized that I do that all the time. my bad.
posted by shmegegge at 7:05 AM on April 18, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 7:05 AM on April 18, 2006
Is it worse to be a code monkey than a script kiddie?
How about a clap boy, or best boy grip??
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:12 AM on April 18, 2006
How about a clap boy, or best boy grip??
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:12 AM on April 18, 2006
Name calling and insults don't have a place in legitimate complaints about administrative practice on the site.
I respectfully disagree. Insulting people is an excellent way to convince others of the validity of your position.
You insufferable pack of douchebags.
posted by Gamblor at 7:16 AM on April 18, 2006
I respectfully disagree. Insulting people is an excellent way to convince others of the validity of your position.
You insufferable pack of douchebags.
posted by Gamblor at 7:16 AM on April 18, 2006
I am now convinced that the regurgitated pond scum just above must be correct.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:17 AM on April 18, 2006
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:17 AM on April 18, 2006
A script kiddie is below code monkey. A code monkey can at least write code. A script kiddie just downloads shit and runs it.
posted by Plutor at 7:18 AM on April 18, 2006
posted by Plutor at 7:18 AM on April 18, 2006
Things I have learned from this thread already knew:
1. Jessamyn is not an idiot and deserves thanks for her under-appreciated work.
2. Civil_Disobient is a mewling, rampallian noodledick.
posted by dios at 7:20 AM on April 18, 2006
1. Jessamyn is not an idiot and deserves thanks for her under-appreciated work.
2. Civil_Disobient is a mewling, rampallian noodledick.
posted by dios at 7:20 AM on April 18, 2006
Things I have learned from this thread:
1. The true meaning of Christmas.
posted by terpsichoria at 7:27 AM on April 18, 2006
1. The true meaning of Christmas.
posted by terpsichoria at 7:27 AM on April 18, 2006
Things I have learned from this thread:
1. The meaning of "rampallian".
Ram`pal´lian (răm`păl´yan)
n. 1. A mean wretch.
posted by Gamblor at 7:29 AM on April 18, 2006
1. The meaning of "rampallian".
Ram`pal´lian (răm`păl´yan)
n. 1. A mean wretch.
posted by Gamblor at 7:29 AM on April 18, 2006
Civil_Disobedient : "Which is why, as bugbread so clearly misunderstands, AskMe is not simply about Yes or No answers to questions that may have more layers to them."
There must be a clarity problem here, because I don't believe that AskMe is simply about Yes or No questions, but you seem to have parsed me as believing so.
A "Yes/No" question is poorly phrased, but people should be adult enough to understand that it probably means "Yes/No, and why?".
With certain questions, people can answer the question. People who can't are useless, and yet have a striking tendency to post "I don't know, but..." type answers. With other questions, some people can answer the question, and others can't, but can provide information that will help others to answer the question. This is common in a multipart question ("I want to convert five bags of wheat into a monetary equivalent in gold. How can I?" Answer 1: I don't know about converting to gold, but you can sell your wheat on eBay to get cash, and you can probably use that cash to buy gold. Answer 2: "If you have that cash, you can actually take it to Bank X and remit it for gold.")
You are saying that people posted comments which helped others provide an answer to whether a certain salary was sufficient. In my opinion, this question was of the former type, not the latter. Either a person can answer the question, or they can't. Arguing about php/html/css will not enable someone else to finally have the "key" to answer the question.
So for this kind of question, either answer, or do not. Debating things under the guise of "providing usefull information that enables others to answer the question" is just a load of horse puckey.
If that's unclear, let me quote oddman in almost his entirety, because I agree completely, and it's what I think most people are trying to tell you (though oddman has phrased it best):
oddman : "There is a question about compensation. Good answers give a range and perhaps suggest a justification. Anonymous can then sort through the answers and decide for himself which of the justifications are pertinent to his situation and therefore which answers are really the best for him. Bad answers engage the other answers in a tete a tete over who's opinion has more merit. It is not an objective fact that one kind of programming is harder than some other kind. All sorts of people display different aptitudes and propensities. I for one learned the rudiments of C++ in three months while it's taken me a over a year to even start to grasp CSS. See how that goes? There is no single fact of the matter about which of those two is harder. At best you can make broadly general claims about which of those should be harder. That doesn't particularly address the question that anonymous asked does it? Really bad answers decide to argue about which unjustifiable claim is the best one and neglect anonymous's question altogether."
posted by Bugbread at 7:33 AM on April 18, 2006
There must be a clarity problem here, because I don't believe that AskMe is simply about Yes or No questions, but you seem to have parsed me as believing so.
A "Yes/No" question is poorly phrased, but people should be adult enough to understand that it probably means "Yes/No, and why?".
With certain questions, people can answer the question. People who can't are useless, and yet have a striking tendency to post "I don't know, but..." type answers. With other questions, some people can answer the question, and others can't, but can provide information that will help others to answer the question. This is common in a multipart question ("I want to convert five bags of wheat into a monetary equivalent in gold. How can I?" Answer 1: I don't know about converting to gold, but you can sell your wheat on eBay to get cash, and you can probably use that cash to buy gold. Answer 2: "If you have that cash, you can actually take it to Bank X and remit it for gold.")
You are saying that people posted comments which helped others provide an answer to whether a certain salary was sufficient. In my opinion, this question was of the former type, not the latter. Either a person can answer the question, or they can't. Arguing about php/html/css will not enable someone else to finally have the "key" to answer the question.
So for this kind of question, either answer, or do not. Debating things under the guise of "providing usefull information that enables others to answer the question" is just a load of horse puckey.
If that's unclear, let me quote oddman in almost his entirety, because I agree completely, and it's what I think most people are trying to tell you (though oddman has phrased it best):
oddman : "There is a question about compensation. Good answers give a range and perhaps suggest a justification. Anonymous can then sort through the answers and decide for himself which of the justifications are pertinent to his situation and therefore which answers are really the best for him. Bad answers engage the other answers in a tete a tete over who's opinion has more merit. It is not an objective fact that one kind of programming is harder than some other kind. All sorts of people display different aptitudes and propensities. I for one learned the rudiments of C++ in three months while it's taken me a over a year to even start to grasp CSS. See how that goes? There is no single fact of the matter about which of those two is harder. At best you can make broadly general claims about which of those should be harder. That doesn't particularly address the question that anonymous asked does it? Really bad answers decide to argue about which unjustifiable claim is the best one and neglect anonymous's question altogether."
posted by Bugbread at 7:33 AM on April 18, 2006
You're mistaking C_D for someone with an ounce of sense.
What a thoroughly typical MeTa pile-on. [USER_X] acts like a dick, and everyone responds as if he's a troll who's never made a worthwhile contribution. On AskMe, he's proved knowledgeable and helpful many times over, just as he's proven to be both intelligent and articulate. I realize it dilutes the pile-on to acknowledge that, but...tough.
Without having read the deleted comments, I can't second-guess Jessamyn if she was responding to flags. But based strictly on what I've read here, I see C_D's point. I like that AskMe is limited to discussions that answer the question, but that's exactly what I would want — discussions that answer the question, as opposed strictly to answers.
Having said that, you can count me among those you lost at (3), C_D. You've got a nasty habit of being unable to voice objection without tossing in a rude insult. I'll pay you the compliment of assuming you understand why that's bad and skipping the lecture, but you can add me to the list of those who've noticed that tendency from you. FYI.
posted by cribcage at 8:08 AM on April 18, 2006 [1 favorite]
What a thoroughly typical MeTa pile-on. [USER_X] acts like a dick, and everyone responds as if he's a troll who's never made a worthwhile contribution. On AskMe, he's proved knowledgeable and helpful many times over, just as he's proven to be both intelligent and articulate. I realize it dilutes the pile-on to acknowledge that, but...tough.
Without having read the deleted comments, I can't second-guess Jessamyn if she was responding to flags. But based strictly on what I've read here, I see C_D's point. I like that AskMe is limited to discussions that answer the question, but that's exactly what I would want — discussions that answer the question, as opposed strictly to answers.
Having said that, you can count me among those you lost at (3), C_D. You've got a nasty habit of being unable to voice objection without tossing in a rude insult. I'll pay you the compliment of assuming you understand why that's bad and skipping the lecture, but you can add me to the list of those who've noticed that tendency from you. FYI.
posted by cribcage at 8:08 AM on April 18, 2006 [1 favorite]
What amazes me is how many people here who know exactly what to do about trolls (ignore them) are engaging C_D and giving him all the attention that he craves.
I imagine that he's just about peeing in his Depends right now at all of the people he's managed to rile up with a single word.
posted by tkolar at 10:01 AM on April 18, 2006
I imagine that he's just about peeing in his Depends right now at all of the people he's managed to rile up with a single word.
posted by tkolar at 10:01 AM on April 18, 2006
tkolar, that was your sixth comment here. Just sayin'.
posted by graventy at 10:12 AM on April 18, 2006
posted by graventy at 10:12 AM on April 18, 2006
AmbroseChapel wrote..
Two questions:
Why do people say stuff like "HTML Code Monkey"?[...]
Have the people who think HTML/CSS is simple actually tried doing it lately?
I can only speak from a software engineer's perspective, but there's definitely resentment of the encroachment on the word "coder" by HTML folks.
While HTML is definitely a distinct skill, it is just one of thousands of data encoding schemes, and a comparatively simple one at that (try Lempel-Ziv sometime). It took me about a month to get the hang the advanced aspects of HTML, and other software engineers I've known had similar learning curves.
Software engineering is a skill that takes many years to learn, and in order to practice it you are required to learn something equivalent to HTML once a month for years on end.
So while software engineers are quite happy that there is a market for people who can write HTML, we get a bit touchy when it feels like their profession is being confused with ours.
This all came to a head during an acquisition a few years ago when .... I believe it was AskJeeves ... acquired a content producing company, and the payroll department innocently moved the HTML Coders from the content company into the same pay ladder as the Software Engineers at AskJeeves. The HTML Coders were quite happy, as their pay quite literally doubled overnight. The Software Engineers were not impressed.
Anyways, right or wrong, that's why you see denigration of HTML Coders from the Software Engineering community.
posted by tkolar at 10:49 AM on April 18, 2006 [1 favorite]
Two questions:
Why do people say stuff like "HTML Code Monkey"?[...]
Have the people who think HTML/CSS is simple actually tried doing it lately?
I can only speak from a software engineer's perspective, but there's definitely resentment of the encroachment on the word "coder" by HTML folks.
While HTML is definitely a distinct skill, it is just one of thousands of data encoding schemes, and a comparatively simple one at that (try Lempel-Ziv sometime). It took me about a month to get the hang the advanced aspects of HTML, and other software engineers I've known had similar learning curves.
Software engineering is a skill that takes many years to learn, and in order to practice it you are required to learn something equivalent to HTML once a month for years on end.
So while software engineers are quite happy that there is a market for people who can write HTML, we get a bit touchy when it feels like their profession is being confused with ours.
This all came to a head during an acquisition a few years ago when .... I believe it was AskJeeves ... acquired a content producing company, and the payroll department innocently moved the HTML Coders from the content company into the same pay ladder as the Software Engineers at AskJeeves. The HTML Coders were quite happy, as their pay quite literally doubled overnight. The Software Engineers were not impressed.
Anyways, right or wrong, that's why you see denigration of HTML Coders from the Software Engineering community.
posted by tkolar at 10:49 AM on April 18, 2006 [1 favorite]
clearly, the use of idiot was an expression of frustration. people objecting to it are simply buttlickers. in my world, all comment deletion is the work of idiots, since there is no way to do it fairly, even-handedly and consistently, and actually, no benefit and no point to it at all. what you end up with is far worse than the occasional zit - a community blog presenting a faux face to the world, a plastic surgery lie. the grapes of wrath with all the cusswords blacked out.
posted by quonsar at 10:55 AM on April 18, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by quonsar at 10:55 AM on April 18, 2006 [1 favorite]
clearly, the use of idiot was an expression of frustration. people objecting to it are simply buttlickers. in my world, all comment deletion is the work of idiots,
If you can't manage a level of civil discourse, then fuck off back to usenet.
Oooops! Wait, now I did it!
Damn, this trolling sure is easy and fun!
posted by tkolar at 11:00 AM on April 18, 2006
If you can't manage a level of civil discourse, then fuck off back to usenet.
Oooops! Wait, now I did it!
Damn, this trolling sure is easy and fun!
posted by tkolar at 11:00 AM on April 18, 2006
Damn, another fly! Will someone close the window already?
posted by languagehat at 11:00 AM on April 18, 2006
posted by languagehat at 11:00 AM on April 18, 2006
graventy wrote...
tkolar, that was your sixth comment here. Just sayin'.
Yeah, I know. I'm forcing myself to program in VB.NET right now, and I'll do just about anything to procrastinate. Sorry.
posted by tkolar at 11:04 AM on April 18, 2006
Damn, another fly! Will someone close the window already?
Wouldn't just be easier to clean up the pile of shit on the floor?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:04 AM on April 18, 2006
Wouldn't just be easier to clean up the pile of shit on the floor?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:04 AM on April 18, 2006
I wonder how many times these things have to happen before people who should be old enough to know better realize "Hey... if I make an argument and include in it insulting and rude behavior it fails regardless of the quality of the argument!"
Or maybe what happens is that those people reach the conclusion that they should just leave out the argument part and just be rude. Sure would explain a lot about teh interwub.
Personally I think there's not enough deleting in AskMe.
posted by phearlez at 11:16 AM on April 18, 2006
Or maybe what happens is that those people reach the conclusion that they should just leave out the argument part and just be rude. Sure would explain a lot about teh interwub.
Personally I think there's not enough deleting in AskMe.
posted by phearlez at 11:16 AM on April 18, 2006
what you end up with is far worse than the occasional zit - a community blog presenting a faux face to the world, a plastic surgery lie.
quonsar has posted 96
links and popped 7501 zits on MetaFilter
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:41 AM on April 18, 2006
quonsar has posted 96
links and popped 7501 zits on MetaFilterposted by Armitage Shanks at 11:41 AM on April 18, 2006
tkolar has it on why people are called HTML 'Code' monkeys. Last I checked, people doing markup didn't have to know anything about when to use quicksort vs. radix, memory management, variable scope, etc. All the intellectually challenging and tricky portions of programming are removed, and so there's serious - and entirely justified - disdain from people who actually have to create and implement complex algorithms. This is not to say that HTML/CSS can't be leveraged elegantly by intelligent people, just that it's a fundamentally different and frankly easier task.
I'm forcing myself to program in VB.NET right now
That's not programming. That's suffering.
posted by Ryvar at 11:54 AM on April 18, 2006
I'm forcing myself to program in VB.NET right now
That's not programming. That's suffering.
posted by Ryvar at 11:54 AM on April 18, 2006
Love 'im, bless 'im, squeeze 'im - I am longing for the day when comments are re-opened on Everlasting Blort.
Er, no - wait...
posted by dash_slot- at 12:00 PM on April 18, 2006
Er, no - wait...
posted by dash_slot- at 12:00 PM on April 18, 2006
[q - you know I loves ya, but really - I only ever see carping & whining lately from your pen. Whatever happened to the absurdist, acerbic lampooner? I take it that community blogging ain't your bag, so...why limit yourself to pricking at Mefi, Mefi admins, Mefi policy? You could always DIY and grab a slice of the action!]
posted by dash_slot- at 12:07 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by dash_slot- at 12:07 PM on April 18, 2006
1. Why do people say stuff like "HTML Code Monkey"? I don't see that in many other fields. Do photographers call each other "35mm film monkeys"? Do chefs call each other "saucepan monkeys"? It bugs me.
They (clearly) do it as a means of denigrating the field of which they speak. "Grease monkey" (thank you, Kirth) is a great example: The term was coined as a term of scorn. So was "code monkey".
What remains unanswered is why the REAL CODERS feel such a burning need to heap scorn upon lesser beings such as the code monkeys.
2. Have the people who think HTML/CSS is simple actually tried doing it lately?
My experience as what C_D would describe as an "HTML Code Monkey" is that most "web developers" can't code HTML for shit. They treat it like something that's beneath them, and consequently -- as a general rule, mind you -- do a crappy job. And then get offended when you have to change it to, say, make the links visible to a search engine.* Because, you know, they know more than you do, you miserable little code monkey.
Now, that's not to say that "code monkeys" deserve the big bucks. But they also don't deserve to have the REAL CODERS dump their pisspots over the balcony onto the "code monkeys'" heads.
--
*This was my personal favorite of recent memory: They'd coded the site in such a way that all the navigation links were JavaScript onClick events triggering a window.location() call. So, not only was most of teh site invisible to search engines, it was wildly non-compliant with ADA. Not wise, considering that this particular consulting firm made a good 70% of their income from gov't contracts....
posted by lodurr at 12:27 PM on April 18, 2006
They (clearly) do it as a means of denigrating the field of which they speak. "Grease monkey" (thank you, Kirth) is a great example: The term was coined as a term of scorn. So was "code monkey".
What remains unanswered is why the REAL CODERS feel such a burning need to heap scorn upon lesser beings such as the code monkeys.
2. Have the people who think HTML/CSS is simple actually tried doing it lately?
My experience as what C_D would describe as an "HTML Code Monkey" is that most "web developers" can't code HTML for shit. They treat it like something that's beneath them, and consequently -- as a general rule, mind you -- do a crappy job. And then get offended when you have to change it to, say, make the links visible to a search engine.* Because, you know, they know more than you do, you miserable little code monkey.
Now, that's not to say that "code monkeys" deserve the big bucks. But they also don't deserve to have the REAL CODERS dump their pisspots over the balcony onto the "code monkeys'" heads.
--
*This was my personal favorite of recent memory: They'd coded the site in such a way that all the navigation links were JavaScript onClick events triggering a window.location() call. So, not only was most of teh site invisible to search engines, it was wildly non-compliant with ADA. Not wise, considering that this particular consulting firm made a good 70% of their income from gov't contracts....
posted by lodurr at 12:27 PM on April 18, 2006
in my world, all comment deletion is the work of idiots, since there is no way to do it fairly, even-handedly and consistently,...
I.e.: If you can't be perfect, don't even try.
Would that people who most fervently espouse that message could take it to heart...
posted by lodurr at 12:29 PM on April 18, 2006
I.e.: If you can't be perfect, don't even try.
Would that people who most fervently espouse that message could take it to heart...
posted by lodurr at 12:29 PM on April 18, 2006
Ryvar wrote...
[...] challenging and tricky portions of programming are removed, and so there's serious - and entirely justified - disdain from people who actually have to create and implement complex algorithms.
Well, just to be clear I don't think disdain of HTML writers is appropriate unless they are going around trying to pass themselves off as programmers.
Creating web content is definitely a skill on its own, and I have a lot of admiration for someone who can create a really good web page layout. I just wish they would stick to calling themselves "Web Content Designers", and not confuse HTML with real coding.
posted by tkolar at 12:31 PM on April 18, 2006
[...] challenging and tricky portions of programming are removed, and so there's serious - and entirely justified - disdain from people who actually have to create and implement complex algorithms.
Well, just to be clear I don't think disdain of HTML writers is appropriate unless they are going around trying to pass themselves off as programmers.
Creating web content is definitely a skill on its own, and I have a lot of admiration for someone who can create a really good web page layout. I just wish they would stick to calling themselves "Web Content Designers", and not confuse HTML with real coding.
posted by tkolar at 12:31 PM on April 18, 2006
stupid software engineers calling themselves "engineers" .. it's not like you're building BRIDGES or something hard, you know.
posted by kcm at 12:35 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by kcm at 12:35 PM on April 18, 2006
"Coder" is an interesting term. It's slang, and very non-standard slang, at that. I've heard it used both as a synonym and an antonym for "scripter".
In my experience, coders who want to disinguish themselves from (for lack of a better term) "layout coders" call themselves "programmers" or "software engineers."
BTW, a "software engineer" is a very specific thing, that's different from a "coder" or a "programmer"; and the vast majority of people who have that as a job title, aren't. Just sayin'.
posted by lodurr at 12:37 PM on April 18, 2006
In my experience, coders who want to disinguish themselves from (for lack of a better term) "layout coders" call themselves "programmers" or "software engineers."
BTW, a "software engineer" is a very specific thing, that's different from a "coder" or a "programmer"; and the vast majority of people who have that as a job title, aren't. Just sayin'.
posted by lodurr at 12:37 PM on April 18, 2006
stupid software engineers calling themselves "engineers" .. it's not like you're building BRIDGES or something hard, you know.
i bet very few of them can drive a train, too.
posted by keswick at 12:39 PM on April 18, 2006
i bet very few of them can drive a train, too.
posted by keswick at 12:39 PM on April 18, 2006
I had to learn to drive a train for my BSE. the computer science majors didn't. big difference.
oh, and a class about some signals or circuits or something, I didn't really pay attention either time.
posted by kcm at 12:41 PM on April 18, 2006
oh, and a class about some signals or circuits or something, I didn't really pay attention either time.
posted by kcm at 12:41 PM on April 18, 2006
kcm write...
stupid software engineers calling themselves "engineers" .. it's not like you're building BRIDGES or something hard, you know.
My father teaches Mechnical Engineering and we have this argument all the time :-)
Him: "Real engineering is founded on solid and well understood techniques."
Me: "It must be nice to work in a field that hasn't made any forward progress in the last century."
Him: "Solid engineering takes years, and produces a product that can last for centuries."
Me: "Software is replaced roughly once every two years, the underlying hardware every five."
Him: "What you do isn't the real thing, it's just bastardized engineering."
Me: "Hah hah, I got you to use the word 'engineering' to describe what I do."
So as you can see, it usually goes quite well.
posted by tkolar at 12:50 PM on April 18, 2006
stupid software engineers calling themselves "engineers" .. it's not like you're building BRIDGES or something hard, you know.
My father teaches Mechnical Engineering and we have this argument all the time :-)
Him: "Real engineering is founded on solid and well understood techniques."
Me: "It must be nice to work in a field that hasn't made any forward progress in the last century."
Him: "Solid engineering takes years, and produces a product that can last for centuries."
Me: "Software is replaced roughly once every two years, the underlying hardware every five."
Him: "What you do isn't the real thing, it's just bastardized engineering."
Me: "Hah hah, I got you to use the word 'engineering' to describe what I do."
So as you can see, it usually goes quite well.
posted by tkolar at 12:50 PM on April 18, 2006
tkolar: I should have specified that the disdain is over the use of the word 'Code/Coder', you're right. Other than that I agree with you and lodurr completely.
posted by Ryvar at 12:51 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by Ryvar at 12:51 PM on April 18, 2006
lodurr wrote...
BTW, a "software engineer" is a very specific thing, that's different from a "coder" or a "programmer"; and the vast majority of people who have that as a job title, aren't. Just sayin'.
It's true. And if I meet one more Software Architect who never does any programming, I will kick him (they're always male for some reason) square in the nuts.
posted by tkolar at 12:54 PM on April 18, 2006
BTW, a "software engineer" is a very specific thing, that's different from a "coder" or a "programmer"; and the vast majority of people who have that as a job title, aren't. Just sayin'.
It's true. And if I meet one more Software Architect who never does any programming, I will kick him (they're always male for some reason) square in the nuts.
posted by tkolar at 12:54 PM on April 18, 2006
Whatever happened to the absurdist, acerbic lampooner?
Guy on a stick stole his soul.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:54 PM on April 18, 2006
Guy on a stick stole his soul.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:54 PM on April 18, 2006
So Quonsar, what level of moderation is acceptable to you? And if the answer is none, what would you do to keep the place from becoming a shit hole? It is easy to criticize, and no one does it better than you. But what would you do here if you were #1?
posted by LarryC at 1:01 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by LarryC at 1:01 PM on April 18, 2006
tkolar, oh, damn, amen. I used to work at a place where they actually tried to sell me to clients as an architect, because I write specs and do requirements analysis. Embarrassing. (No, not an ethical company...) Needless to say, I DID NOT LET THEM.
I think I would probably take a different tack in defending the idea of SW engineering. I would say that it does in fact use "solid and well-understood techniques". I would compare what software engineers do c. 2006 to what engineers on the cutting edge of any physical discipline do. That the materials aren't as well understood as you'd like, does not mean that what you do with them isn't engineering.
posted by lodurr at 1:03 PM on April 18, 2006
I think I would probably take a different tack in defending the idea of SW engineering. I would say that it does in fact use "solid and well-understood techniques". I would compare what software engineers do c. 2006 to what engineers on the cutting edge of any physical discipline do. That the materials aren't as well understood as you'd like, does not mean that what you do with them isn't engineering.
posted by lodurr at 1:03 PM on April 18, 2006
But what would you do here if you were #1?
Pissing elephants, 24/7.
posted by crunchland at 1:10 PM on April 18, 2006
Pissing elephants, 24/7.
posted by crunchland at 1:10 PM on April 18, 2006
lodurr wrote...
I think I would probably take a different tack in defending the idea of SW engineering. I would say that it does in fact use "solid and well-understood techniques". I would compare what software engineers do c. 2006 to what engineers on the cutting edge of any physical discipline do. That the materials aren't as well understood as you'd like, does not mean that what you do with them isn't engineering.
Well the things is, I don't really disagree that software engineering as it is usually practiced is a sloppy discipline. I've always worked at companies with very fast turnaround times for new features, and there is seldom the luxury of really understanding all of the ramifications of what you're doing before shipping it.
I remember in my early days at cisco there was an advertising campaign where they got quotes from large customers, and one came from a Canadian hospital: "For life critical networks, we rely on Cisco routers." The software engineering staff all had a good laugh and reminded themselves to never get sick in Canada.
It's not that we felt that we were bad programmers, it's that we knew that most of our time and attention was on creating new features and shoving them out the door as quickly as possible. It was another eight years before Cisco got serious about system reliability, and it took twenty senior engineers working full time for a year to even get a good start on it.
So basically, I don't think a criticism of most software as poorly engineered crap is terribly off base. I do, however, think that is more of a product of rushed software engineers and less of a reflection on Software Engineering as a discipline.
Right, back to VB.NET. I want to be doing this. I need to be doing this. It's for a charity and I promised I'd do it. Little children will starve if I don't finish this. Really. Bill Gates is God and Microsoft Windows an ideal programming environment. I like the Kool-aid. I will drink the Kool-aid.
I am drinking the Kool-aid now...
posted by tkolar at 2:07 PM on April 18, 2006
I think I would probably take a different tack in defending the idea of SW engineering. I would say that it does in fact use "solid and well-understood techniques". I would compare what software engineers do c. 2006 to what engineers on the cutting edge of any physical discipline do. That the materials aren't as well understood as you'd like, does not mean that what you do with them isn't engineering.
Well the things is, I don't really disagree that software engineering as it is usually practiced is a sloppy discipline. I've always worked at companies with very fast turnaround times for new features, and there is seldom the luxury of really understanding all of the ramifications of what you're doing before shipping it.
I remember in my early days at cisco there was an advertising campaign where they got quotes from large customers, and one came from a Canadian hospital: "For life critical networks, we rely on Cisco routers." The software engineering staff all had a good laugh and reminded themselves to never get sick in Canada.
It's not that we felt that we were bad programmers, it's that we knew that most of our time and attention was on creating new features and shoving them out the door as quickly as possible. It was another eight years before Cisco got serious about system reliability, and it took twenty senior engineers working full time for a year to even get a good start on it.
So basically, I don't think a criticism of most software as poorly engineered crap is terribly off base. I do, however, think that is more of a product of rushed software engineers and less of a reflection on Software Engineering as a discipline.
Right, back to VB.NET. I want to be doing this. I need to be doing this. It's for a charity and I promised I'd do it. Little children will starve if I don't finish this. Really. Bill Gates is God and Microsoft Windows an ideal programming environment. I like the Kool-aid. I will drink the Kool-aid.
I am drinking the Kool-aid now...
posted by tkolar at 2:07 PM on April 18, 2006
But do they, implicitly, speak disparagingly of the profession itself?
I may have heard the odd little remark here and there...
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:24 PM on April 18, 2006
I may have heard the odd little remark here and there...
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:24 PM on April 18, 2006
My diploma has the word "engineer" on it, and I got it from an engineering school, so I can call myself engineer all day long. Screw you code monkeys.
posted by smackfu at 2:30 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by smackfu at 2:30 PM on April 18, 2006
pah, that's nothing. my residence documents say my profession is "philosopher" (seriously - blame translation issues and a misunderstanding of what a "phd" is!)
posted by andrew cooke at 2:54 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by andrew cooke at 2:54 PM on April 18, 2006
You're mistaking C_D for someone with an ounce of sense.
No, my belief is that he has much more than an ounce of sense, given his (maybe her, but I don't think so) history here and I was hoping (not very hopefully, I admit) to appeal to that. Should have known better, shouldn't I?
posted by dg at 3:45 PM on April 18, 2006
No, my belief is that he has much more than an ounce of sense, given his (maybe her, but I don't think so) history here and I was hoping (not very hopefully, I admit) to appeal to that. Should have known better, shouldn't I?
posted by dg at 3:45 PM on April 18, 2006
CD got to rant on his job, we got to taunt and ridicule him, Jess got the respect she deserves.
Everyone wins! Quick, close the thread!
posted by Eideteker at 3:59 PM on April 18, 2006
Everyone wins! Quick, close the thread!
posted by Eideteker at 3:59 PM on April 18, 2006
tkolar:
It took me about a month to get the hang the advanced aspects of HTML, and other software engineers I've known had similar learning curves.
I can only repeat my question -- have you tried to learn HTML lately? You don't mention CSS at all so it's possible you're entirely correct with respect to, say, HTML 3.2.
I absolutely agree that what you call "software engineering", (which I for cultural reasons would call "programming") is a much harder skill than coding HTML.
But proper, professional web development these days is a mind-boggling tangle of exceptions piled on revisions piled on bugs piled on special cases piled on subclauses. You start by coding XHTML/HTML/CSS, and then begin the real work of testing.
We're required to make our sites work on about a hundred different browsers, on Windows, Mac, Linux and other platforms, and new browsers appear on a regular basis. Plus we're not allowed to use tables to lay out pages any more because it's not politically correct.
The code must not only display correctly for someone with a GUI, it must have an underlying correctness as well, and everyone's a critic because you're code is visible. If you cut corners with, I don't know, memory management or something in your compiled .EXE, who's going to know or care? But woe betide the HTML [disparaging term] whose code simply works. It must look good under the hood as well.
To me there's a huge difference between people who could code web pages back in the Netscape 3 days and the modern professional.
But anyway, I think we can all agree that the main problem isn't one type of "coder"s level of respect or disdain for another type of "coder", it's a problem with the word itself and the use and misuse of other words like it. The story you tell of the Hum Res department blandly assuming that "everyone who does something with computers we don't understand" was in the same basket, is a perfect example.
And there is of course a special level of hell reserved for people who call themselves, or others, "HTML Programmers".
posted by AmbroseChapel at 4:06 PM on April 18, 2006
It took me about a month to get the hang the advanced aspects of HTML, and other software engineers I've known had similar learning curves.
I can only repeat my question -- have you tried to learn HTML lately? You don't mention CSS at all so it's possible you're entirely correct with respect to, say, HTML 3.2.
I absolutely agree that what you call "software engineering", (which I for cultural reasons would call "programming") is a much harder skill than coding HTML.
But proper, professional web development these days is a mind-boggling tangle of exceptions piled on revisions piled on bugs piled on special cases piled on subclauses. You start by coding XHTML/HTML/CSS, and then begin the real work of testing.
We're required to make our sites work on about a hundred different browsers, on Windows, Mac, Linux and other platforms, and new browsers appear on a regular basis. Plus we're not allowed to use tables to lay out pages any more because it's not politically correct.
The code must not only display correctly for someone with a GUI, it must have an underlying correctness as well, and everyone's a critic because you're code is visible. If you cut corners with, I don't know, memory management or something in your compiled .EXE, who's going to know or care? But woe betide the HTML [disparaging term] whose code simply works. It must look good under the hood as well.
To me there's a huge difference between people who could code web pages back in the Netscape 3 days and the modern professional.
But anyway, I think we can all agree that the main problem isn't one type of "coder"s level of respect or disdain for another type of "coder", it's a problem with the word itself and the use and misuse of other words like it. The story you tell of the Hum Res department blandly assuming that "everyone who does something with computers we don't understand" was in the same basket, is a perfect example.
And there is of course a special level of hell reserved for people who call themselves, or others, "HTML Programmers".
posted by AmbroseChapel at 4:06 PM on April 18, 2006
Everybody should just call themselves "wizards" and be done with it. You're a perl/java wizard? Bob over there is an HTML wizard. Jim is an accounting wizard. Marvin is a human resources wizard.
Since nobody is actually using magic, nobody will have any means to argue to others whether they are true wizards or not. And anyone (like "wizardry wizards") who claim they are actually using magic will lose the argument by dint of pure silliness.
posted by Bugbread at 4:23 PM on April 18, 2006 [1 favorite]
Since nobody is actually using magic, nobody will have any means to argue to others whether they are true wizards or not. And anyone (like "wizardry wizards") who claim they are actually using magic will lose the argument by dint of pure silliness.
posted by Bugbread at 4:23 PM on April 18, 2006 [1 favorite]
Said community have clearly indicated that your behaviour is not acceptable. Live with it or don't, but you should at least accept the community opinion and move on. We all make mistakes. No biggie, unless you want to make it one.
Honestly, the community as a whole is like any other mob. You have only to take a look at the comments here for proof. I did pay attention to the few voices of reason here, like your own, and recognize that if I had the heart to care about the disparaging opinions of those who can't take the time to read before jumping into a pile-on (languagehat, really, very disappointing), then clearly calling-out a well-loved member and calling her an idiot would certainly be a foolish thing to do.
But I have always insisted that this place is better off without comment deletion (save for some glaring exceptions). Used to be, before the Time of Jess, that deletion was a pretty rare occurance. Instead, if you spouted off racist crap or or generally were a nuissance, you just got your ass banned for a while, or even permanently. That was how you kept the pool clean.
And, as some have said already, what happens is you make some mistakes when you're deleting things, but there's no way on God's good green earth that Jess would ever apologize for that. No... let's all concern ourselves with the big issue, which is that I called someone an idiot when they screwed up. Have the heavens fallen, yet?
Anyway, I appreciate your appeal to common sense, but I will never agree to the sorts of frivolous comment deletion that have been happening since Jess came on board.
Thanks, quonsar and cribcage.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:29 PM on April 18, 2006 [1 favorite]
Honestly, the community as a whole is like any other mob. You have only to take a look at the comments here for proof. I did pay attention to the few voices of reason here, like your own, and recognize that if I had the heart to care about the disparaging opinions of those who can't take the time to read before jumping into a pile-on (languagehat, really, very disappointing), then clearly calling-out a well-loved member and calling her an idiot would certainly be a foolish thing to do.
But I have always insisted that this place is better off without comment deletion (save for some glaring exceptions). Used to be, before the Time of Jess, that deletion was a pretty rare occurance. Instead, if you spouted off racist crap or or generally were a nuissance, you just got your ass banned for a while, or even permanently. That was how you kept the pool clean.
And, as some have said already, what happens is you make some mistakes when you're deleting things, but there's no way on God's good green earth that Jess would ever apologize for that. No... let's all concern ourselves with the big issue, which is that I called someone an idiot when they screwed up. Have the heavens fallen, yet?
Anyway, I appreciate your appeal to common sense, but I will never agree to the sorts of frivolous comment deletion that have been happening since Jess came on board.
Thanks, quonsar and cribcage.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:29 PM on April 18, 2006 [1 favorite]
And more specifically, cribcage:
You've got a nasty habit of being unable to voice objection without tossing in a rude insult. I'll pay you the compliment of assuming you understand why that's bad and skipping the lecture, but you can add me to the list of those who've noticed that tendency from you. FYI.
Noted, and thanks.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:31 PM on April 18, 2006 [1 favorite]
You've got a nasty habit of being unable to voice objection without tossing in a rude insult. I'll pay you the compliment of assuming you understand why that's bad and skipping the lecture, but you can add me to the list of those who've noticed that tendency from you. FYI.
Noted, and thanks.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:31 PM on April 18, 2006 [1 favorite]
Civil_Disobedient : "Used to be, before the Time of Jess, that deletion was a pretty rare occurance. Instead, if you spouted off racist crap or or generally were a nuissance, you just got your ass banned for a while, or even permanently. That was how you kept the pool clean."
In my opinion and memory, that was how the pool wasn't kept clean, which is why matt took jessamyn as a moderator in the first place.
posted by Bugbread at 4:35 PM on April 18, 2006
In my opinion and memory, that was how the pool wasn't kept clean, which is why matt took jessamyn as a moderator in the first place.
posted by Bugbread at 4:35 PM on April 18, 2006
well, I for one agree completely with you on the deletion angle, but saying "calling someone an idiot isn't the end of the world" doesn't excuse the fact that you still came in here and called someone an idiot. Did the heavens fall when your comment was deleted? no? then apologize and act like a grownup. maybe someday you can make a proper callout of jessamyn's crappy administration practices.
posted by shmegegge at 4:37 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 4:37 PM on April 18, 2006
This seemed fairly close to a proper callout. What was missing? And let's not pretend "decorum" is an acceptable answer in Meta. C_D went a touch over the top and then the mob jumped ugly because the mob can and now we're here discussing how web developers have to cotton to "hundreds of browsers".
posted by yerfatma at 5:11 PM on April 18, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by yerfatma at 5:11 PM on April 18, 2006 [1 favorite]
AmbroseChapel wrote...
have you tried to learn HTML lately? You don't mention CSS
I've had limited exposure to CSS -- from what I've seen it is inestimably tedious, but not that hard to get your brain around.
But proper, professional web development these days is a mind-boggling tangle of exceptions piled on revisions piled on bugs piled on special cases piled on subclauses. You start by coding XHTML/HTML/CSS, and then begin the real work of testing.
Yep, and this is why I have respect for HTML(et al.) creation as a profession. I'm facing this problem right now with some volunteer work I'm doing -- despite the fact that I'm quite comfortable picking up several new programming languages, a new IDE (feh), and a new operating system to create the backend of a website, I'm simply not competent to create frontend web content that will work on all of the browser combinations out there.
As you say, writing the HTML itself is easy. The skill comes in accounting for the hundreds of different OS/browser combinations that are your audience.
In contrast, when writing C you generally have a single well-known audience (the compiler) in mind, but it can be devilishly tricky to get it right. Even if you are working with an ideal compiler that follows the language spec exactly the same way you understand it, subtle logic problems occur with startling regularity.
<story>
I inherited my first professional project from a fellow who was getting out of computer programming. In the code directory amongst everything else was a small file called "why". The contents:
"Why be a computer programmer when you can sit in small room staring at a flourescent light bulb doing logic problems in your head all day?"
</story>
What I refer to as "real coding" involves repeatedly and consistently doing logic problems that make an Advanced Sudoku look like the Jr. Jumble.
I think one of the reasons people (including myself) get so tetchy about all this is that programming in any language should be really easy. I mean really, what's so difficult? You have some variables where you can store and retrieve values, and you have a very small list of logical operations you can perform on them. You'd have to be an idiot to screw that up.
And yet every single one of us does screw it up, day after day after day. And while we're sitting there pounding our heads on our desks, trying to track down exactly how we screwed up this time, some little punk saunters by and says "I put a few brackets around markup symbols. I'm a programmer just like you." And then you kill them and no jury in the land convicts you.
That's just a theory, though. In my case there hasn't even been an indictment yet.
posted by tkolar at 5:12 PM on April 18, 2006
have you tried to learn HTML lately? You don't mention CSS
I've had limited exposure to CSS -- from what I've seen it is inestimably tedious, but not that hard to get your brain around.
But proper, professional web development these days is a mind-boggling tangle of exceptions piled on revisions piled on bugs piled on special cases piled on subclauses. You start by coding XHTML/HTML/CSS, and then begin the real work of testing.
Yep, and this is why I have respect for HTML(et al.) creation as a profession. I'm facing this problem right now with some volunteer work I'm doing -- despite the fact that I'm quite comfortable picking up several new programming languages, a new IDE (feh), and a new operating system to create the backend of a website, I'm simply not competent to create frontend web content that will work on all of the browser combinations out there.
As you say, writing the HTML itself is easy. The skill comes in accounting for the hundreds of different OS/browser combinations that are your audience.
In contrast, when writing C you generally have a single well-known audience (the compiler) in mind, but it can be devilishly tricky to get it right. Even if you are working with an ideal compiler that follows the language spec exactly the same way you understand it, subtle logic problems occur with startling regularity.
<story>
I inherited my first professional project from a fellow who was getting out of computer programming. In the code directory amongst everything else was a small file called "why". The contents:
"Why be a computer programmer when you can sit in small room staring at a flourescent light bulb doing logic problems in your head all day?"
</story>
What I refer to as "real coding" involves repeatedly and consistently doing logic problems that make an Advanced Sudoku look like the Jr. Jumble.
I think one of the reasons people (including myself) get so tetchy about all this is that programming in any language should be really easy. I mean really, what's so difficult? You have some variables where you can store and retrieve values, and you have a very small list of logical operations you can perform on them. You'd have to be an idiot to screw that up.
And yet every single one of us does screw it up, day after day after day. And while we're sitting there pounding our heads on our desks, trying to track down exactly how we screwed up this time, some little punk saunters by and says "I put a few brackets around markup symbols. I'm a programmer just like you." And then you kill them and no jury in the land convicts you.
That's just a theory, though. In my case there hasn't even been an indictment yet.
posted by tkolar at 5:12 PM on April 18, 2006
saying "calling someone an idiot isn't the end of the world" doesn't excuse the fact that you still came in here and called someone an idiot.
Uh, yeah. Exactly. You're disappointed because I didn't respond to your childish outburst with the respect you feel you deserve? Give me a break. Respect is earned. When you behave in a way that deserves it, you get it; when you don't, you don't. I've never denied you've made contributions here, and I'm sure you will again, but in this particular case you very successfully impersonated someone without a lick of sense. You happened to play the one note that resonates with dear quonsar these days, so he joined in with his cracked tambourine; if you're grateful for that, you really are scrabbling for crumbs.
C_D went a touch over the top and then the mob jumped ugly
Right, he went a touch over the top and then the mob jumped ugly. Nice PR there; there's a place in the administration for you. How about C_D jumped ugly and the crowd responded appropriately?
posted by languagehat at 5:20 PM on April 18, 2006
Uh, yeah. Exactly. You're disappointed because I didn't respond to your childish outburst with the respect you feel you deserve? Give me a break. Respect is earned. When you behave in a way that deserves it, you get it; when you don't, you don't. I've never denied you've made contributions here, and I'm sure you will again, but in this particular case you very successfully impersonated someone without a lick of sense. You happened to play the one note that resonates with dear quonsar these days, so he joined in with his cracked tambourine; if you're grateful for that, you really are scrabbling for crumbs.
C_D went a touch over the top and then the mob jumped ugly
Right, he went a touch over the top and then the mob jumped ugly. Nice PR there; there's a place in the administration for you. How about C_D jumped ugly and the crowd responded appropriately?
posted by languagehat at 5:20 PM on April 18, 2006
deletion was a pretty rare occurance. Instead, if you spouted off racist crap or or generally were a nuissance, you just got your ass banned for a while, or even permanently. That was how you kept the pool clean.
This part I'm happy to go along with. Comment deletion is a waste of time for both commenters and admins, and does nothing at all to discourage bad actions, while taking up what I can only assume is far too much of mattandjess's collective time. Timeouts and bans, visible ones, do discourage bad actors.
Comment deletion is a bad policy, and the goal of better discussion can and should be achieved by other means that address the root cause.
Also, thanks to dios for 'rampallian'. Not often a word-hound like me picks up a new one. Particularly felicitous in combination with 'noodledick'. I will use that in future, I suspect.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:21 PM on April 18, 2006 [1 favorite]
This part I'm happy to go along with. Comment deletion is a waste of time for both commenters and admins, and does nothing at all to discourage bad actions, while taking up what I can only assume is far too much of mattandjess's collective time. Timeouts and bans, visible ones, do discourage bad actors.
Comment deletion is a bad policy, and the goal of better discussion can and should be achieved by other means that address the root cause.
Also, thanks to dios for 'rampallian'. Not often a word-hound like me picks up a new one. Particularly felicitous in combination with 'noodledick'. I will use that in future, I suspect.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:21 PM on April 18, 2006 [1 favorite]
yeah, this thread was worth it for the "rampallian noodledick" phrase alone. Awesome.
posted by scody at 6:07 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by scody at 6:07 PM on April 18, 2006
... but I will never agree to the sorts of frivolous comment deletion that have been happening since Jess came on board.
I don't know that jessamyn being promoted from "one of us" to "one of them" was the trigger for an increase in comment deletions - it seems to me that it was the other way around - mathowie felt the need for some assistance in stemming the flood and the promotion came because one human couldn't handle it all, therefore the increase in the need for cleanups triggered jessamyn's promotion.
I also agree that deleting comments does nothing to solve the underlying cause of fuckwititis, because it removes the symptoms but leaves the fuckwit in place to continue infecting the community. Taking away the priviledge of participating, either temporarily or permanently solves the underlying cause, although less so in these days of easily obtainable user accounts. Making these timeouts/bans visible is important so that they serve as a warning to others who are like-minding while proving to the outraged that "something is being done".
*gets down fron soapbox*
posted by dg at 6:17 PM on April 18, 2006
I don't know that jessamyn being promoted from "one of us" to "one of them" was the trigger for an increase in comment deletions - it seems to me that it was the other way around - mathowie felt the need for some assistance in stemming the flood and the promotion came because one human couldn't handle it all, therefore the increase in the need for cleanups triggered jessamyn's promotion.
I also agree that deleting comments does nothing to solve the underlying cause of fuckwititis, because it removes the symptoms but leaves the fuckwit in place to continue infecting the community. Taking away the priviledge of participating, either temporarily or permanently solves the underlying cause, although less so in these days of easily obtainable user accounts. Making these timeouts/bans visible is important so that they serve as a warning to others who are like-minding while proving to the outraged that "something is being done".
*gets down fron soapbox*
posted by dg at 6:17 PM on April 18, 2006
Hey, get the hell offa my soapbox!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:26 PM on April 18, 2006
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:26 PM on April 18, 2006
Right, he went a touch over the top and then the mob jumped ugly. Nice PR there; there's a place in the administration for you. How about C_D jumped ugly and the crowd responded appropriately?
Sure, if you want to apply the word "appropriately" to every single anti-C_D comment in the thread. I doubt you do. Thanks for the gratuitous "place in the administration" comment; shooting for a spot in the White House communications staff?
stavros said what I want to say about comment pruning far better than I could. There are at least two camps on the issue and I stated my take on this thread the way I did on purpose (because I felt that way about it, because I've met the person in person, etc.). I apologize that it so offended your sense of decorum. I hope it didn't turn the mob away, what with the overwhelming number of defenders in this thread.
It's not a big deal. The comment deletions feel heavy-handed. That's about it. But get fired up about it if you need to.
posted by yerfatma at 6:47 PM on April 18, 2006
Sure, if you want to apply the word "appropriately" to every single anti-C_D comment in the thread. I doubt you do. Thanks for the gratuitous "place in the administration" comment; shooting for a spot in the White House communications staff?
stavros said what I want to say about comment pruning far better than I could. There are at least two camps on the issue and I stated my take on this thread the way I did on purpose (because I felt that way about it, because I've met the person in person, etc.). I apologize that it so offended your sense of decorum. I hope it didn't turn the mob away, what with the overwhelming number of defenders in this thread.
It's not a big deal. The comment deletions feel heavy-handed. That's about it. But get fired up about it if you need to.
posted by yerfatma at 6:47 PM on April 18, 2006
deleting comments does nothing to solve the underlying cause of fuckwititis
If you do discover said cure, are you telling me your first order of business will be saving MetaFilter? I hope you grow it in a swimming pool and dump it worldwide from hot-air balloons like at the end of V.
posted by scarabic at 6:58 PM on April 18, 2006 [1 favorite]
If you do discover said cure, are you telling me your first order of business will be saving MetaFilter? I hope you grow it in a swimming pool and dump it worldwide from hot-air balloons like at the end of V.
posted by scarabic at 6:58 PM on April 18, 2006 [1 favorite]
I'm curious about the turn the C_D thread of this thread has taken. Particularly given Jessamyn's comment in the original thread:
[a few comments removed, please take further "is CSS?HTML hard/easy?" discussion to email or metatalk]
Is it my imagination, or is there absolutely nothing in that phrasing that suggests anyone was being a fuckwit, or controversial, or anything other than off-topic for the question at hand?
Had she created a MetaTalk thread and copied the messages in question into it before deleting them, would we be having this discussion? Or is the issue that she felt the question was going off track and made a decision without consulting C_D?
I ask merely for informational purposes.
posted by tkolar at 7:24 PM on April 18, 2006
[a few comments removed, please take further "is CSS?HTML hard/easy?" discussion to email or metatalk]
Is it my imagination, or is there absolutely nothing in that phrasing that suggests anyone was being a fuckwit, or controversial, or anything other than off-topic for the question at hand?
Had she created a MetaTalk thread and copied the messages in question into it before deleting them, would we be having this discussion? Or is the issue that she felt the question was going off track and made a decision without consulting C_D?
I ask merely for informational purposes.
posted by tkolar at 7:24 PM on April 18, 2006
Why the hell should she have to consult C_D?
The OP, perhaps*, but regardless, we have a responsibility to follow the rules and the mods have a responsibility to enforce them. That's that.
I'm against deletions in MeFi, but they are neccessary in AskMe:
*Getting Anonymous Askers to vet the relevance of every response would be a huge, stupid hassle, if not outright impossible.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:10 PM on April 18, 2006
The OP, perhaps*, but regardless, we have a responsibility to follow the rules and the mods have a responsibility to enforce them. That's that.
I'm against deletions in MeFi, but they are neccessary in AskMe:
Ask MetaFilter is as useful as you make it. Please limit comments to answers or help in finding an answer. Wisecracks don't help people find answers. Thanks.Right under the imput box. Everytime we click Post, we're basically accepting a TOS. If people aren't okay with that, and are worried that their precious, every-one-a-winnah responses may get the boot, maybe they should reconsider their reply, or just not reply at all.
*Getting Anonymous Askers to vet the relevance of every response would be a huge, stupid hassle, if not outright impossible.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:10 PM on April 18, 2006
Civil_Disobedient writes "I did pay attention to the few voices of reason here.."
Where exactly is the evidence for this again?
See, we/us mob (wow, that borks the sensibilities) frame the situation in terms of not particularly giving a bugger about the content of your callout because you were unjustifiably rude. Don't you get that?
You have an opportunity to rehabilitate your reputation by apologizing. You lost face at footnote 3.
posted by peacay at 8:55 PM on April 18, 2006
Where exactly is the evidence for this again?
See, we/us mob (wow, that borks the sensibilities) frame the situation in terms of not particularly giving a bugger about the content of your callout because you were unjustifiably rude. Don't you get that?
You have an opportunity to rehabilitate your reputation by apologizing. You lost face at footnote 3.
posted by peacay at 8:55 PM on April 18, 2006
So, pecay, did you happen to catch jess's what a bunch of dicks post? Her little vent on pigs/whiners with penises? Her little homage to getting even? Does metaphor make her rudeness more palatable, or did this little turd fly over your head? As for C_D's content, I agree that the deletions are inconsistent. An interesting, philosophical AskMe question about justice is deleted as chatfilter, to be followed by a longwinded, undeleted thread called Why do you enjoy shopping?
MetaFilter has rough edges. It's uneven. It's messy. It's noisy. It's vibrant. On balance, Matt's an excellent moderator. Maybe Jess needs to step back for a wider view and take things less personally. I've visited blogs where everyone's politely greasing each other's philosophy and credentials, and I find them insular and boring.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 12:15 AM on April 19, 2006
MetaFilter has rough edges. It's uneven. It's messy. It's noisy. It's vibrant. On balance, Matt's an excellent moderator. Maybe Jess needs to step back for a wider view and take things less personally. I've visited blogs where everyone's politely greasing each other's philosophy and credentials, and I find them insular and boring.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 12:15 AM on April 19, 2006
"or generally were a nuissance, you just got your ass banned for a while, or even permanently. That was how you kept the pool clean."
So.... she should have given you a temporary ban for wanting to continue arguing after you'd made your point (something that seems to have carried over here to MeTa as well)?
"Maybe Jess needs to step back for a wider view and take things less personally. I've visited blogs where everyone's politely greasing each other's philosophy and credentials, and I find them insular and boring."
What the fuck are you even on about? Jess's fine, and AskMe isn't for arguments and digressions. If you find well supported answers insular and boring, you should feel free to fuck right off.
posted by klangklangston at 12:21 AM on April 19, 2006
So.... she should have given you a temporary ban for wanting to continue arguing after you'd made your point (something that seems to have carried over here to MeTa as well)?
"Maybe Jess needs to step back for a wider view and take things less personally. I've visited blogs where everyone's politely greasing each other's philosophy and credentials, and I find them insular and boring."
What the fuck are you even on about? Jess's fine, and AskMe isn't for arguments and digressions. If you find well supported answers insular and boring, you should feel free to fuck right off.
posted by klangklangston at 12:21 AM on April 19, 2006
weapons-grade pandemonium writes "did you happen to catch jess's what a bunch of dicks post? Her little vent on pigs/whiners with penises? Her little homage to getting even? Does metaphor make her rudeness more palatable"
Well I have seen it now. You're not serious are you? If so, you should put the bottle, the joint and the pills down, turn off the computer and go for a nice long walk.
posted by peacay at 12:54 AM on April 19, 2006
Well I have seen it now. You're not serious are you? If so, you should put the bottle, the joint and the pills down, turn off the computer and go for a nice long walk.
posted by peacay at 12:54 AM on April 19, 2006
If you find well supported answers insular and boring, you should feel free to fuck right off.
You're not serious are you? If so, you should put the bottle, the joint and the pills down, turn off the computer and go for a nice long walk.
Two well-supported answers, right there.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 1:01 AM on April 19, 2006
You're not serious are you? If so, you should put the bottle, the joint and the pills down, turn off the computer and go for a nice long walk.
Two well-supported answers, right there.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 1:01 AM on April 19, 2006
what I see weapons-grade's point as being is as follows:
jessamyn clearly uses metafilter to vent her personal frustrations, as shown by her penis post which she claims was about pig penis curiosity even though it then goes on to make fun of men with small penises indescribably, and even contains the tags "micropenis" and "pencildick." it would be a mistake to believe her to be as non-judgemental as people like to say she is when her own posts and choices in deletion are so suspect.
that is what I believe he is saying. I don't know how much I agree with, but I'll say that klangklangston seems to be giving some knee-jerk fanboy response instead of giving weapons' comment any thought. peacay as well, I suppose.
posted by shmegegge at 1:56 AM on April 19, 2006
jessamyn clearly uses metafilter to vent her personal frustrations, as shown by her penis post which she claims was about pig penis curiosity even though it then goes on to make fun of men with small penises indescribably, and even contains the tags "micropenis" and "pencildick." it would be a mistake to believe her to be as non-judgemental as people like to say she is when her own posts and choices in deletion are so suspect.
that is what I believe he is saying. I don't know how much I agree with, but I'll say that klangklangston seems to be giving some knee-jerk fanboy response instead of giving weapons' comment any thought. peacay as well, I suppose.
posted by shmegegge at 1:56 AM on April 19, 2006
Let me get this straight. WPG makes a wild accusation that a post by Jessamyn is a thinly veiled slur against the complainers in the community thereby either justifying or exempting any wrongdoing by Civil_Disobedient's pointed personal abuse and if I disagree with WPG's assessment of purported metaphorical implications from said post then I have to bring evidence in support?
Ha.
posted by peacay at 2:24 AM on April 19, 2006
Ha.
posted by peacay at 2:24 AM on April 19, 2006
no no. wpg makes an accusation that jessamyn's administrative practices aren't nearly as objective or community spirited as people think, and you don't have to do anything about that at all. I just think your response about drugs and whatnot came from a position of not having understood, or tried to understand, his comment at all. Whatever might be wrong with his position, it's not some drug fueled random nonsense. It's just something you don't necessarily agree with. Hell, I agree with some of it, but the whole package seems a little far fetched to me.
posted by shmegegge at 2:31 AM on April 19, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 2:31 AM on April 19, 2006
shmegegge, I think I understood WGP (to get them in the right order). It's just that, like Civil_Disobedient, he's started the spiel with irrationality and rudeness. I really have no opinion on WGP's substance intake; that was just my hint that what they said is weird and argument-defeating and that they are a bit wound up by it all.
See, I've been attacking methodology here and not personality. And in fact I have no strong opinion about Jessamyn's comment-axing but if people can't voice their opinions on the subject matter then their outlandish accusations or abuse deserve to be criticized.
posted by peacay at 2:49 AM on April 19, 2006
See, I've been attacking methodology here and not personality. And in fact I have no strong opinion about Jessamyn's comment-axing but if people can't voice their opinions on the subject matter then their outlandish accusations or abuse deserve to be criticized.
posted by peacay at 2:49 AM on April 19, 2006
eh, fair enough. I didn't see what he said as an insult in that way, but it makes sense.
posted by shmegegge at 2:56 AM on April 19, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 2:56 AM on April 19, 2006
"Her little vent on pigs/whiners with penises? Her little homage to getting even? Does metaphor make her rudeness more palatable, or did this little turd fly over your head?"
That's assuming so much, and taking personally something so general, that it makes my head swim. As far as I can see in this thread no one has argued that Jessamyn is any kind of saint, just that she does a generally good job at a thankless task. That she is also liked because of her generally good attitude is apparent as well. WGP's implication seems to be that she's actually wildly vindictive and her motivations are base and not to be trusted. The evidence is a post on pig penises? A post which was resolutely un-editorialized (except perhaps in the tags, perhaps)? It's more than a stretch. Meanwhile, C_D continues to act aggrieved, insisisting that the main objections here were to his position rather than to his gratuitous insult to Jessamyn. If he had any balls, or if he really cared about the issue that he's supposedly so fired up about, he'd apologize for his behavior and move on.
The people who are acting as if the comment deletions are only Jessamyn's doing are kissing Matt's ass.
posted by OmieWise at 4:36 AM on April 19, 2006
That's assuming so much, and taking personally something so general, that it makes my head swim. As far as I can see in this thread no one has argued that Jessamyn is any kind of saint, just that she does a generally good job at a thankless task. That she is also liked because of her generally good attitude is apparent as well. WGP's implication seems to be that she's actually wildly vindictive and her motivations are base and not to be trusted. The evidence is a post on pig penises? A post which was resolutely un-editorialized (except perhaps in the tags, perhaps)? It's more than a stretch. Meanwhile, C_D continues to act aggrieved, insisisting that the main objections here were to his position rather than to his gratuitous insult to Jessamyn. If he had any balls, or if he really cared about the issue that he's supposedly so fired up about, he'd apologize for his behavior and move on.
The people who are acting as if the comment deletions are only Jessamyn's doing are kissing Matt's ass.
posted by OmieWise at 4:36 AM on April 19, 2006
I think the lesson to be learned from all of this is that, whether you are right or wrong about a person being an idiot, if the point you want to debate is not the person's idiocy, but the correctness or incorrectness of their actions, then the most prudent approach would be to not mention the idiocy angle.
posted by Bugbread at 4:48 AM on April 19, 2006
posted by Bugbread at 4:48 AM on April 19, 2006
Or maybe that calling someone from metafilter an idiot is redundant. We're all idiots for caring so much about this lunatic collective.
posted by crunchland at 4:54 AM on April 19, 2006
posted by crunchland at 4:54 AM on April 19, 2006
Indeed, bugbread.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:55 AM on April 19, 2006
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:55 AM on April 19, 2006
I don't have much more to say on this than what I already said, except
did you happen to catch jess's what a bunch of dicks post? Her little vent on pigs/whiners with penises? Her little homage to getting even?
That's really not what that post was about. I'd just learned about penis wine and enjoyed the play on words. If I start having "get even" fantasies about anyone I step away from the keyboard.
Used to be, before the Time of Jess, that deletion was a pretty rare occurance.
This was also, for the most part, before the time of the flag queue (allegedly a bold new step towards community policing, applied with mixed results for some) as well as before AskMetafilter. If there's more deletion going on in the blue, it's mostly Matt's doing, combined with the fact that we now have a flagging queue.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:02 AM on April 19, 2006
did you happen to catch jess's what a bunch of dicks post? Her little vent on pigs/whiners with penises? Her little homage to getting even?
That's really not what that post was about. I'd just learned about penis wine and enjoyed the play on words. If I start having "get even" fantasies about anyone I step away from the keyboard.
Used to be, before the Time of Jess, that deletion was a pretty rare occurance.
This was also, for the most part, before the time of the flag queue (allegedly a bold new step towards community policing, applied with mixed results for some) as well as before AskMetafilter. If there's more deletion going on in the blue, it's mostly Matt's doing, combined with the fact that we now have a flagging queue.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:02 AM on April 19, 2006
The people who are acting as if the comment deletions are only Jessamyn's doing are kissing Matt's ass.
What -- insight?
Here's the way I see it: There was a crap job (trying to enforce some civility or order onto Metafilter), it wasn't getting done by the available labor pool (Matt), so Matt asked Jessamyn to help. She helped, in the way that was intended by Matt, and she gets shit for it. And she does.
What's really interesting to me about this is not the uncivility and the weird and slightly hyperbolic interpretations of a few recent posts, such as the penis thing. (Really, do we then assume that dios's FeetMeat post was some kind of meta-comment on Matt's or Jess's sexual proclivities or foot-care regime?) What interests me is the clear demonstration -- really, for the umpteenth time -- that Matt's free pass doesn't apply to Jessamyn.
For me, it just accentuates that Matt's been getting a free pass. That he's used it gracefully, I would never dispute, but yeah, he's gotten one.
As for the "comment deletion = BAD" concept -- at best, it's blue-sky -- yearning for return to an idyllic past that never was. There's never been a civil [note small-"c"] community that worked -- that did not devolve into a hierarchy of the powerful over the weak -- that did not have something analogous to comment deletion. Keeping it to a minimum is a good ideal, but given that AskMe is intended to fulfill a specific purpose, I don't see a problem with pruning to make it work better.
posted by lodurr at 5:05 AM on April 19, 2006
What -- insight?
Here's the way I see it: There was a crap job (trying to enforce some civility or order onto Metafilter), it wasn't getting done by the available labor pool (Matt), so Matt asked Jessamyn to help. She helped, in the way that was intended by Matt, and she gets shit for it. And she does.
What's really interesting to me about this is not the uncivility and the weird and slightly hyperbolic interpretations of a few recent posts, such as the penis thing. (Really, do we then assume that dios's FeetMeat post was some kind of meta-comment on Matt's or Jess's sexual proclivities or foot-care regime?) What interests me is the clear demonstration -- really, for the umpteenth time -- that Matt's free pass doesn't apply to Jessamyn.
For me, it just accentuates that Matt's been getting a free pass. That he's used it gracefully, I would never dispute, but yeah, he's gotten one.
As for the "comment deletion = BAD" concept -- at best, it's blue-sky -- yearning for return to an idyllic past that never was. There's never been a civil [note small-"c"] community that worked -- that did not devolve into a hierarchy of the powerful over the weak -- that did not have something analogous to comment deletion. Keeping it to a minimum is a good ideal, but given that AskMe is intended to fulfill a specific purpose, I don't see a problem with pruning to make it work better.
posted by lodurr at 5:05 AM on April 19, 2006
"that is what I believe he is saying. I don't know how much I agree with, but I'll say that klangklangston seems to be giving some knee-jerk fanboy response instead of giving weapons' comment any thought. peacay as well, I suppose."
Wait, it was a "fanboy" response? Someone better knock that cock of stupidity out of your mouth before the come of idiocy renders you further unable to function. WGP made a paranoid bizarro assertion and I called it bullshit. Just because y'all have some sort of weird step-mom issues that you've gotta work out with Jess doesn't mean I'm doing this for her benefit.
The comment deletion in the thread was GOOD. The complaints about it are RETARDED. The allegation that her making a penis post is somehow over-the-top in form or content is STUPID. I don't need any level of argument to refute your or WGP's wide-eyed and addle-pated assertions because they're risible on their face.
posted by klangklangston at 7:16 AM on April 19, 2006
Wait, it was a "fanboy" response? Someone better knock that cock of stupidity out of your mouth before the come of idiocy renders you further unable to function. WGP made a paranoid bizarro assertion and I called it bullshit. Just because y'all have some sort of weird step-mom issues that you've gotta work out with Jess doesn't mean I'm doing this for her benefit.
The comment deletion in the thread was GOOD. The complaints about it are RETARDED. The allegation that her making a penis post is somehow over-the-top in form or content is STUPID. I don't need any level of argument to refute your or WGP's wide-eyed and addle-pated assertions because they're risible on their face.
posted by klangklangston at 7:16 AM on April 19, 2006
I didn't interpret Jessamyn's FPP that way.
Then again, I'm neither a pig nor a dick, and I'm hung from here to eternity.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:19 AM on April 19, 2006
Then again, I'm neither a pig nor a dick, and I'm hung from here to eternity.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:19 AM on April 19, 2006
Yeah, never before have the micropenised lept to out themselves so resolutely.
posted by klangklangston at 7:22 AM on April 19, 2006
posted by klangklangston at 7:22 AM on April 19, 2006
Normally, I favour civility in discussion. However, incivility can occassionally come up with gems such as this:
klangklangston : "Someone better knock that cock of stupidity out of your mouth before the come of idiocy renders you further unable to function."
I'm also really, really confused about what WGP saw in jessamyn's penis post. Who/what was she attacking? Who/what was she trying to get even with? Is there some backstory that makes this clear? Did somebody post something about having a tiny penis, while also insulting jessamyn, and thereby her front page post is some sort of revenge? What additional info am I missing that ties jessamyn posting things about penis with jessamyn being a bad moderator?
posted by Bugbread at 7:37 AM on April 19, 2006
klangklangston : "Someone better knock that cock of stupidity out of your mouth before the come of idiocy renders you further unable to function."
I'm also really, really confused about what WGP saw in jessamyn's penis post. Who/what was she attacking? Who/what was she trying to get even with? Is there some backstory that makes this clear? Did somebody post something about having a tiny penis, while also insulting jessamyn, and thereby her front page post is some sort of revenge? What additional info am I missing that ties jessamyn posting things about penis with jessamyn being a bad moderator?
posted by Bugbread at 7:37 AM on April 19, 2006
But proper, professional web development these days is a mind-boggling tangle of exceptions piled on revisions piled on bugs piled on special cases piled on subclauses.
I am curious about who created that situation. Was it the code monkey poseurs, or the CS-degreed Software Engineers, or some other group?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:22 AM on April 19, 2006
I am curious about who created that situation. Was it the code monkey poseurs, or the CS-degreed Software Engineers, or some other group?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:22 AM on April 19, 2006
But proper, professional web development these days is a mind-boggling tangle of exceptions piled on revisions piled on bugs piled on special cases piled on subclauses.I am curious about who created that situation. Was it the code monkey poseurs, or the CS-degreed Software Engineers, or some other group?
If by "create" you mean "who wrote the actual code", that would be the software engineers.
If you mean, "how did this chaos come to be?" the answer lies at Adam Smith's door.
In emerging technological markets the major difference between products is what features they provide (as opposed to established markets, where quality and brands are more important).
This means that companies are constantly pushing ahead, standards or no, adding whatever functionality they can.
The standards organizations tend to lag behind the industry, spending their time documenting whatever standards emerge from the jostle of hundreds of companies trying to get their solutions to market first.
Over time a clear leader emerges from the market and compatability with their implementation becomes the gold standard. This happened with Cisco for network protocols, and is currently happening with Microsoft Explorer for web browsers.
The only possible solution I see to this problem is to grant standards committees legal status, and create penalties for implementers who step outside the lines, or release features before they've been standardized. Needless to say, this solution is the antithesis of the free market.
So as I say, take it up with Adam Smith.
posted by tkolar at 9:17 AM on April 19, 2006
Thanks for the answer, but I doubt that a long-dead economist had a lot to do with Web design. I'll buy the "rush to market" part, though.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:53 AM on April 19, 2006
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:53 AM on April 19, 2006
Please don't buy any of it. You write XHTML to standards, do the same for the CSS, then tweak the CSS as needed to support the browsers you have explicitly decided to support. Done properly, the whole thing degrades gracefully for alternate browsers, search engines, etc.
It's not an easy thing to learn, but it's not impossible and once you get the hang of it, it's not "a mind-boggling tangle of exceptions piled on revisions piled on bugs piled on special cases piled on subclauses".
posted by yerfatma at 11:27 AM on April 19, 2006
It's not an easy thing to learn, but it's not impossible and once you get the hang of it, it's not "a mind-boggling tangle of exceptions piled on revisions piled on bugs piled on special cases piled on subclauses".
posted by yerfatma at 11:27 AM on April 19, 2006
yerfatma wrote...
support the browsers you have explicitly decided to support.
I take it you're part of the reason that lynx gets less useful every year?
posted by tkolar at 12:06 PM on April 19, 2006
support the browsers you have explicitly decided to support.
I take it you're part of the reason that lynx gets less useful every year?
posted by tkolar at 12:06 PM on April 19, 2006
No, I'm not. See "degrades gracefully for alternate browsers". XHTML + CSS should make your site better in text-only user agents, not worse.
posted by yerfatma at 12:28 PM on April 19, 2006
posted by yerfatma at 12:28 PM on April 19, 2006
yes, it was a fanboy response. in fact, everything you write nowadays is little more than knee-jerk stupidity. the "jess is fine" doesn't even respond to the substance of what he said. further, you've immediately leaped to classify me as having shared wgp's position, even though I repeatedly said that I didn't agree with everything he said. oh, and the "if you don't like it, fuck off" answer is just more "you leave my jessamyn alone!" bullshit.
summary: you're an asshole. stop posting things because you don't have anything worthwhile to say.
posted by shmegegge at 5:11 PM on April 19, 2006
summary: you're an asshole. stop posting things because you don't have anything worthwhile to say.
posted by shmegegge at 5:11 PM on April 19, 2006
posted by brain_drain at 5:24 PM on April 19, 2006
I am curious about who created that situation.
Microsoft. But they also gave us XMLHTTPRequest (aka AJAX) and element.innerHTML. I don't think it quite makes up for ActiveX and their lack of PNG support.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:42 PM on April 19, 2006
Microsoft. But they also gave us XMLHTTPRequest (aka AJAX) and element.innerHTML. I don't think it quite makes up for ActiveX and their lack of PNG support.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:42 PM on April 19, 2006
shemgegge, are you seriously bothering to respond to someone who wrote "I don't need any level of argument to refute your or WGP's wide-eyed and addle-pated assertions because they're risible on their face"? That sentence is like someone was asked to dance a quick box step and wound up doing the lead to Swan Lake instead. In a tutu made of shit. "Here are fifteen words I saw in other posts this month, strung together. Make of them what you will."
posted by yerfatma at 6:29 PM on April 19, 2006
posted by yerfatma at 6:29 PM on April 19, 2006
"That sentence is like someone was asked to dance a quick box step and wound up doing the lead to Swan Lake instead. In a tutu made of shit."
First, you find the metaphor. And then you kill it.
"yes, it was a fanboy response. in fact, everything you write nowadays is little more than knee-jerk stupidity."
Hold on, I need to respond the the substance of the idea that somehow "micropenis" was a crypto-editorialism? And to call it bullshit is "fanboy"? Again, schmeggege, that's retarded. I know you wanted to dress WGP's comment up in finery and take it to the ball (even if you placed some meager caveat upon it), but it's still lipstick on the pig.
I'm not pointing out that there was a moon landing because I'm a Neil Armstrong fanboy, I'm pointing it out because the alternative is so fucking moronic as to not be worth considering. You can waste your time justifying solipsists and creationists, and tilting at some sort of "fanboy" windmill if you want to, but frankly that'll just prove that you're the librarian of the idiot congress.
And if you can't tell the vast majority of my comments from my bouts of knee-jerk bullshit, then clearly that come has rendered you unable to function. Shmeggege? Try Schmuck.
posted by klangklangston at 7:19 PM on April 19, 2006
First, you find the metaphor. And then you kill it.
"yes, it was a fanboy response. in fact, everything you write nowadays is little more than knee-jerk stupidity."
Hold on, I need to respond the the substance of the idea that somehow "micropenis" was a crypto-editorialism? And to call it bullshit is "fanboy"? Again, schmeggege, that's retarded. I know you wanted to dress WGP's comment up in finery and take it to the ball (even if you placed some meager caveat upon it), but it's still lipstick on the pig.
I'm not pointing out that there was a moon landing because I'm a Neil Armstrong fanboy, I'm pointing it out because the alternative is so fucking moronic as to not be worth considering. You can waste your time justifying solipsists and creationists, and tilting at some sort of "fanboy" windmill if you want to, but frankly that'll just prove that you're the librarian of the idiot congress.
And if you can't tell the vast majority of my comments from my bouts of knee-jerk bullshit, then clearly that come has rendered you unable to function. Shmeggege? Try Schmuck.
posted by klangklangston at 7:19 PM on April 19, 2006
yeah, you're stil just an asshole, and nothing you've said here is worthwhile.
posted by shmegegge at 7:23 PM on April 19, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 7:23 PM on April 19, 2006
Quonsar,
I yearn for you tragically.
R O Shipman
Chaplain
posted by flabdablet at 7:33 PM on April 19, 2006
I yearn for you tragically.
R O Shipman
Chaplain
posted by flabdablet at 7:33 PM on April 19, 2006
Shmeg— Try to make it sound a little more like you're leaving disgruntled comments on a LiveJournal.
posted by klangklangston at 7:36 PM on April 19, 2006
posted by klangklangston at 7:36 PM on April 19, 2006
sure thing. in return, I hope you'll keep pretending that this is the somethingawful forums.
posted by shmegegge at 8:14 PM on April 19, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 8:14 PM on April 19, 2006
.
posted by RikiTikiTavi at 10:28 PM on April 19, 2006
posted by RikiTikiTavi at 10:28 PM on April 19, 2006
crypto-editorialism . . . retarded . . . finery . . . take it to the ball . . . meager caveat . . . lipstick on the pig . . . solipsists . . . tilting at some sort of "fanboy" windmill . . . librarian of the idiot congress.
Save the cliches and purple prose for your creative writing class.
posted by yerfatma at 4:15 AM on April 20, 2006
Save the cliches and purple prose for your creative writing class.
posted by yerfatma at 4:15 AM on April 20, 2006
"a touch over the top"..."jumped ugly" ... "have to cotton to" ... "dance a quick box step..." etc. etc.
I didn't realize that your cliches and tortured metaphors were the only acceptable ones. Please forgive my presumption.
Shmeg— Never been to SA. How am I pretending I'm there? By refuting your ridiculous assertion with ridicule?
posted by klangklangston at 6:42 AM on April 20, 2006
I didn't realize that your cliches and tortured metaphors were the only acceptable ones. Please forgive my presumption.
Shmeg— Never been to SA. How am I pretending I'm there? By refuting your ridiculous assertion with ridicule?
posted by klangklangston at 6:42 AM on April 20, 2006
I kind of like librarian of the idiot congress. It has a certain texture to it, you know?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:45 AM on April 20, 2006
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:45 AM on April 20, 2006
I didn't realize that your cliches and tortured metaphors were the only acceptable ones. Please forgive my presumption.
Now you know. Learn something every day.
posted by yerfatma at 8:08 AM on April 20, 2006
Now you know. Learn something every day.
posted by yerfatma at 8:08 AM on April 20, 2006
Your cliche cascade has shown me the light!
posted by klangklangston at 8:42 AM on April 20, 2006
posted by klangklangston at 8:42 AM on April 20, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
1HTML Code Monkey
2It's easy work that tons of people can do, and there's already plenty of people who have done the hard stuff for you.
3True.
4And really, that's what AskMe is all about, right?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:18 PM on April 17, 2006