"Feel free to have another bitch session about me."
April 26, 2006 2:53 PM   Subscribe

If you'd like one more chance to rail on about dios, here's your chance. (Me? I don't care. I'm just tired of seeing good posts highjacked.)
posted by 327.ca to Etiquette/Policy at 2:53 PM (201 comments total)

I'd just like to thank furtive, n_s_1 and others for making posts of substance.
posted by selfnoise at 2:56 PM on April 26, 2006


PEAK DIOS
posted by loquacious at 3:01 PM on April 26, 2006


We fight them in the grey so we don't have to fight them in the blue.
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:02 PM on April 26, 2006


For pete's sake.

Look, that is a topic that interests me immensely, and I think there are very important things at stake there.

But the "call to arms" advocacy posts of people wanting others to jump on board their pet issues are bad posts. I stated in thread why that is.

Would that people wouldn't wig out over every post, but I was commenting on the topic of the post. The post wasn't about information on Darfur. The post was about how one should act in response to the authors' view that we have screwed up there.

An excellent could (and should) be written that gives the issue there full light without it being cheapened into some pet issue call to arms.
posted by dios at 3:03 PM on April 26, 2006


Oh, so the railing against him was the hijacking? Sorry, don't follow your logic on that one. For what it's worth, here's a copy of my post (as I hope it will soon be removed, along with his comments):

And even though I agree that the topic is terrible and want something to be done about it, I will not give this a free pass. People know how to get involved if they want.

Yes, and apparently you don't know how to skip a post. Free pass... get over yourself.

The goal of a post should be to inform people about it. The goal of a post shouldn't be "Did we mess up or really fuck up big time? Let's protest and fix this by telling your Representative what I think they need to hear."

VS

What can U.S. citizens do to help end this genocide? For starters, take to the streets: you can register for an April 30th demonstration on the Golden Gate Bridge & at the Presidio, or in Washington, DC. You can also ask your Rep. to sponsor House Resolution 723, a measure that urges the President to help deploy a NATO bridging force to the Darfur region.

You notice - absolutely nowhere - does it say should. So thanks for interpreting the point of the FPP for the entirety of fucking MetaFilter - can't let this slide, then you won't even have enough tickets to hand out (in place of your hitherto generously dispersed free passes?) due to the absolute deluge of CALLS TO ACTION. The sad thing is, nobody has to bring up a strawman image of you that's insufferable and stuffed with double standards. You make quite the display on your own. All of your comments in this thread should be removed, as well as anyone who replied to you. Worthless, the lot of them - start with this one. I will not give you a free pass.

--

Just as you were so dissapointed in the results of that thread and took it to MeTa, as he could and should have. Personally, I didn't feel he deserved another thread on the grey when the issues are the exact same as they always are with him. Similarly, the little text indicator that was added basically due to his ability to spawn these clusterfucks reads as such:

note: Help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion by focusing comments on the
issues, topics, and facts at hand -- not at other members of the site.


It seems as if we need an amendment:

note: Help maintain a healthy, respectful discussion by focusing comments on the
issues, topics, and facts at hand -- not at other members of the site, the site at large, the composition of the FPP or your interpretation thereof.

posted by prostyle at 3:03 PM on April 26, 2006


I'm not going to make a MetaTalk post for that. I was commenting on the post as I understood it. Feel free to have another bitch session about me. I'll leave you to it.
posted by dios at 3:05 PM on April 26, 2006


Mild commentary on the post is a derail? Anybody else's name attached to that first comment would have yielded no callout.

dios: one of these days, you'll figure out that we really don't care what you think.

I only pray that, one of these days, the folks hanging on his every word will figure out that the rest of us don't care that they feel so strongly about totally not caring.
posted by cortex at 3:07 PM on April 26, 2006


Maybe dios should have complained here instead of in the thread, but c'mon, the post is awful. A mediocre news article from two weeks ago, and blog post from two months ago, a protest that hasn't happened yet, and a resolution that's been stuck in committee for six weeks, all presented in an URGENT ACTION NEEDED NOW tenor? That's the standard for a good post now?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 3:07 PM on April 26, 2006


Yeah, the flippant attitude is really professional at this moment. It was beneath you to take it to MeTa, but not to unload your conscience in-thread? Ridiculous.
posted by prostyle at 3:07 PM on April 26, 2006


dios specializes in mischaracterizing points and pretending that he's grossly idiotic. His contributions to this thread is a primary example and the tactic is again being used in the Darfur thread.

He is the new Seth. Congrats dios. Police away.
posted by juiceCake at 3:10 PM on April 26, 2006


"X is bad. You can stop X by doing Y."

"Don't you tell me what I can do!"

"What I told you you can do is really important!"

"Just don't tell me to do it."

"I didn't tell you to do it. I told you you can do it."

"Quit telling each other how you interpreted what the other said!"

Hey, now let's take this brilliant conversation to Projects somehow!!
posted by JekPorkins at 3:11 PM on April 26, 2006


Maybe dios should have complained here instead of in the thread, but c'mon, the post is awful.

This is also a reflection of how I feeel about that post. If people disliked it so much, they should have come to MetaTalk about it earlier instead of crapping in the thread.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:13 PM on April 26, 2006


Dios craps in yet another thread. Members of the Dios Defence Force show up in the gray right on time.

Honestly dios, you once said "If you don't like it, skip it." Then, in a Clintonian maneuver, you absolved yourself of this comment. I wish you hadn't.

Here's a suggestion--"If you don't fucking like it, fucking skip it you fucking twat."
posted by bardic at 3:15 PM on April 26, 2006 [1 favorite]


I disagree with almost everything Dios says, but I really, really really dislike reading 'calls to action' on non-activist sites, so I'm with him on that thread.
posted by empath at 3:16 PM on April 26, 2006


oh, how I yearn for the days of respectful discussion.
posted by boo_radley at 3:16 PM on April 26, 2006


To be clear, I don't think it's a stellar post either. But that's not the point. I certainly didn't take away a sense of overbearing urgency raining down upon me as I read the damn thing. I mean honestly, how hard is it to just skip it? We don't need anyone to protect us from any information, let alone something as timid as a series of questions posed in a pathetic fashion.

If people disliked it so much, they should have come to MetaTalk about it earlier instead of crapping in the thread.

So those comments should be removed, or is this already a lost cause? The bacteria has spread too far, too fast.
posted by prostyle at 3:17 PM on April 26, 2006


I'm so tired of this stuff. I love mefi, but it really needs more admins (and I realize that's easier said than done, but still).

A simple tweak of the FPP would have made it better without sacrificing the (significant) intent and content of it.

A faster "comment deleted" decision/process would have prevented dios from ruining yet another thread.

(And I was thinking last night of why mefi has been so intellgient and interesting lately--four days without that major troll does wonders for the site.)
posted by bardic at 3:22 PM on April 26, 2006


Members of the Dios Defence Force show up in the gray right on time.

By joining at the Platinum level, I scored myself a mug and the t-shirt!

Seriously, objecting to the reactions of other users is not a mindless defence of dios. That I don't condemn him in the same fashion as a lot of folks does not make me his bodyguard.
posted by cortex at 3:23 PM on April 26, 2006


*intelligent* Meh. I need a drink. Long day and all.
posted by bardic at 3:24 PM on April 26, 2006


A faster "comment deleted" decision/process would have prevented dios from ruining yet another thread.

Any discretion and self-control on the part of several users would have accomplished the same.
posted by cortex at 3:24 PM on April 26, 2006


cortex, "several users" responded to an inveterate thread-crapper. "Several users" don't set out to derail threads, whatshisname does. Often. And you're being willfully obtuse not to recognize that fact. For the eleventeenth time.
posted by bardic at 3:30 PM on April 26, 2006


Why do I get the feeling that if Dios said "I like puppies" in a thread we'ld see 3 or 4 MetaTalk threads screaming about how he's ruining the site, and how he's anti-kitty; the poster would also explain how Dios is responsible for the state of the economy, 3rd world unrest, rotten cottage cheese, and quite possibly all of the evil that have ever happened in the world since the dawn of time.

The only positive thing that results from these callouts is the inevitable descent into wacky madness after the first couple of hundred comments. And once someone mentions pantsfish, you know that it's all over.
posted by blue_beetle at 3:30 PM on April 26, 2006


dios shouldn't have brought that up in the thread, but I agree with him. Even when I am sympathetic to the content of the post, I am invariably turned off when it is presented with a strident point of view. I just skip those posts for the most part, which was, and still is, the best way of handling posts one doesn't like for whatever reason. Why people feel the need to rise to what they consider the bait every single fucking time is beyond me, and that applies to both dios and the hordes who have shitfits whenever he posts something they don't like.
posted by Falconetti at 3:33 PM on April 26, 2006


I just skip those posts for the most part, which was, and still is, the best way of handling posts one doesn't like for whatever reason.

I couldn't agree more.
posted by bardic at 3:35 PM on April 26, 2006


bardic, dios made a mild criticism of the post, in the context of such posts on the internet. If that's not fair fucking game for every other user on this site, we have a big problem; and if it is, dios should not be leapt upon for it.

Willfully responding like so many bulldogs to any perceived disagreeability in any comment by a specific user, and running with it, is how the derails happen. Anybody who thought dios' comment was beneath replying to could have discussed whatever substance there was in the thread.

You can judge me obtuse for making that distinction instead of declaring dios to be The Problem, but I strongly disagree with you on the matter.
posted by cortex at 3:36 PM on April 26, 2006


Honestly dios, you once said "If you don't like it, skip it." Then, in a Clintonian maneuver, you absolved yourself of this comment. I wish you hadn't.

You apparently missed his point in making that comment in that particular MeTa thread. Nevermind, though, it's easier to just take the comment out of context in a lazy attempt to attack a strawman.

And bardic, we all know that you don't like dios, but there's no need to call anybody here a "fucking twat".
posted by monju_bosatsu at 3:37 PM on April 26, 2006 [1 favorite]









Come on people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together, try to love one another... RIGHT NOW!







posted by blue_beetle at 3:44 PM on April 26, 2006


oh hay a dios thread in metatalk
posted by keswick at 3:44 PM on April 26, 2006


Hmm, I actually agree with dios on something. Are the skies turning black with hordes of avenging angels where you are too?
posted by doctor_negative at 3:50 PM on April 26, 2006


oh, how I yearn for the days of respectful discussion.
posted by boo_radley at 6:16 PM EST on April 26 [!]


yah? what site were they on?
posted by quonsar at 3:58 PM on April 26, 2006


alt.sex.stories.victorian
posted by cortex at 4:03 PM on April 26, 2006


Oh, for fucks's sake...
posted by SweetJesus at 4:10 PM on April 26, 2006


dios weekly thread
sometimes about, sometimes by.
gets tiring you know?
posted by edgeways at 4:12 PM on April 26, 2006


you know how people in the midwest have this odd thing they do, "Oh, for fun" "Oh, for cute"... I always subsitute "oh, for fuck" or, "oh for christ".
SweetJesus' comment remined me of that.
posted by edgeways at 4:15 PM on April 26, 2006


dios dios bo-bios banana fana fo fios fee fi fo mo me-me-me-me-me-mios dios !
posted by y2karl at 4:44 PM on April 26, 2006


"several users" responded to an inveterate thread-crapper.

Yeah, and why was that, anyway? What is so hard for you folks to simply ignore about dios, especially in this case, which was a *very* mild case of what you're calling "thread-crapping"? Are you that out of control? Look, lots of us feel that dios has long been one of the site's more deliberately obnoxious and hypocritical members, but for fuck's sake, any fool can see that the knee-jerk shrieking in response has also gotten way out of line. Why do you folks feel so compelled to always, immediately leap to the attack against dios' comments? It's a moronic strategy; please stop using it.
posted by mediareport at 5:02 PM on April 26, 2006


If nothing else, you have to admit he's got great timing.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:04 PM on April 26, 2006


Someone make him sit on his hands.
posted by furtive at 5:10 PM on April 26, 2006


If someone other than dios had posted that comment, no one would have given a shit.

Also, like edgeways, I resolve to post more haiku comments.
posted by GuyZero at 5:22 PM on April 26, 2006


alt.sex.stories.victorian

*checks available newsgroup subscriptions, finds group is unavailable, curses ISP*
posted by loquacious at 5:30 PM on April 26, 2006


If you'd like one more chance to rail on about dios, here's your chance. (Me? I don't care. I'm just tired of seeing good posts highjacked.)
posted by 327.ca to etiquette/policy at 5:53 PM EST (40 comments total) [!]


Get a life.
posted by caddis at 5:35 PM on April 26, 2006


yeah, that was a pretty blatant Derail. People pile on him when he complains in the grey, and they pile on him when he complains in the blue. The solution is to quit complaining, because people obviously don't care what he thinks about the quality of various threads.
posted by delmoi at 5:36 PM on April 26, 2006


Yeah, and why was that, anyway? What is so hard for you folks to simply ignore about dios, especially in this case, which was a *very* mild case of what you're calling "thread-crapping"?

Who's easier to control? One person, or tens of thousands who might get offended by that one person and further muck up the thread. Asking "everyone else" to simply ignore Dios is fine, but you can't expect every single person, bar none to follow that advice.
posted by delmoi at 5:41 PM on April 26, 2006


monju, I think you're the one being wilflfully obtuse. Yes, if any other poster had made dios' comment then it wouldn't have been a problem. But do other posters post huge blinking paragraphs in the middle of a post?

dios' horrible behavior in the past affects how people view his every post. Other posters doesn't have dios' reputation. Is this such a mystery to you?

dios knows exactly what he's doing. We've seen this tactic so many times it's reaching bizarro levels. The tactic is the same each time: an off topic comment that either attacks the post, the poster, or the entire site. Every single time the result is the same. The problem in this case is dios. If he didn't persist in trolling then these clusterfuck threads wouldn't happen. It's that simple.
posted by nixerman at 5:44 PM on April 26, 2006


Get a life.

Got one. But thanks for your interest.
posted by 327.ca at 5:45 PM on April 26, 2006


tens of thousands who might get offended

I'd wager that the total number of consistent dios-reactive posters is between three and four orders of magnitude below that number.

Asking a couple dozen people with either grudges or poor impulse control to simply ignore dios is, in fact, reasonable.
posted by cortex at 5:48 PM on April 26, 2006


(Whether or not it's realistic to expect them to be game is another question, of course.)
posted by cortex at 5:48 PM on April 26, 2006


As for derails, PP's comments were much worse. He marches in with some crap about Bolton and the only possible reason is to get a rise out of people. How puerile.
posted by caddis at 5:49 PM on April 26, 2006


But do other posters post huge blinking paragraphs in the middle of a post?

Oh christ on a pogostick. I cannot guarantee you that, had dios not set that precedent, I would not, sometime in the next year or two, have done the same thing on an odd whim.

And it would have been flagged and deleted at most. Because below the blinking bohemoth would appear the words "posted by cortex", which are not a magic string. There would almost certainly be no callout; there would certainly not be endless back-references to it as some sort of Evidence Against Me.

Shit ends up being about dios because people make it about dios. To ignore the discrepancy in the way folks react to the username dios as opposed to almost any other username is as obtuse as anything referred to in this thread.
posted by cortex at 5:53 PM on April 26, 2006


dios' horrible behavior in the past affects how people view his every post. Other posters doesn't have dios' reputation. Is this such a mystery to you?

How am I being obtuse? I never claimed this was a mystery to me. dios has a reputation, and other members tend to respond to their perceptions of dios rather than the comments he actually makes, as evidenced in this case. dios made a rather mild--and perfectly valid--criticism of the post, and got jumped on for it. No other user would have received the same reaction. But how is that a criticism of dios, rather than those that respond, especially in light of the specific admonishment to " focus[] comments on the issues, topics, and facts at hand -- not at other members of the site?"

And what is this "horrible behavior" dios has engaged in? Criticizing subpar posts? Is that off limits for all of us now, or just dios? There wasn't any trolling, and there was no clusterfuck until other users decided to jump all over dios for his mild criticism of the post.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 5:54 PM on April 26, 2006


MetaTalk is like "I Love Lucy", only with Dios. Dios, You Got Some ‘Splaining to Do!
posted by graventy at 5:59 PM on April 26, 2006


and the bread all comes out of the oven and it's all huge and shit

lucille ball died the day I turned 10

posted by cortex at 6:02 PM on April 26, 2006


I need egg
Give me egg

I DEMAND EGG
posted by fire&wings at 6:05 PM on April 26, 2006


I wish every motherfucking one of you was on a plane with motherfucking snakes.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:08 PM on April 26, 2006


On the blue, solid-one-love got it right:

I think it'd be a bti much for yet another predictable "dios is a lying hypocritical troll" callout in the grey.
posted by raedyn at 6:08 PM on April 26, 2006


monju, it's a criticism of dios because he knows exactly what will happen when he makes such a comment. This is no different from his recent escapade with the blink tag. In the simplest terms: dios' off-topic criticism of the post + dios' reputation = clusterfuck. This has happened many, many times before. This is not an isolated incident. dios knows his comments will derail the thread--that's why he posts them. Everybody else with half-a-brain knows his comments will derail the thread--that's why they avoid the thread. I wish people could ignore dios but it's pretty clear that will never happen. People can't even ignore the unsubtle trolls like ParisParamus or bevets.

If dios really cared about improving the site he would (1) bring it to metatalk (2) email the poster (3) flag it and move on. Instead he shits in the thread and deliberately hijacks it. And yes, if anybody else did it it would still be wrong. IIt's particularly bad with dios only because he's allowed to get away with it over and over and over and over. I'm starting to think there's some competition or otherwise secret incentive behind his behavior. Either way, it should be very clear to everybody, especially dios, that he should not criticise the post in-thread because the result will be a total clusterfuck.

And yes, dios exploits a more general problem where off-topic post criticism is now generally accepted. Of course, he knows full well what he's doing but, yes, as long as he's not too blatant about it (e.g. the blink tag) he can always point to others and insist they're just as bad--as if this is ok.
posted by nixerman at 6:08 PM on April 26, 2006


I'm beginning to think we're not here for the pasta.

         Once again we sit
         on the fuselli Dios.
         So satisfying!
 
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 6:09 PM on April 26, 2006


Dios is clearly the ultimate evil in the whole wide world. I'm so happy the brave Internet Justice League is here to defeat his punk ass.

I can't imagine what any of you would do to pass the time if dios and PP weren't here.
posted by Krrrlson at 6:17 PM on April 26, 2006


This is also a reflection of how I feeel about that post. If people disliked it so much, they should have come to MetaTalk about it earlier instead of crapping in the thread.
posted by jessamyn


If the thread wouldn't have been a "call to arms" I doubt dios would have crapped in it. Honestly, I don't understand how an admin can look at that post and think "this is what metafilter is all about". It's flat out awful. The fact that an admin can look at the post and blame the entire wreck on dios is scary.
posted by justgary at 6:21 PM on April 26, 2006


Why would you post this about something you don't care about? That's just stirring the shit.
posted by smackfu at 6:26 PM on April 26, 2006


nixerman, I think you give dios too much credit by suggesting that his comments are some sort of master plan to derail threads to which he is politically opposed. For one thing, I know dios doesn't have any political objection to the content of the post in question; indeed, he said as much in the thread. Instead, the post was typical of a genre of political hobby-horse axe-grinding action which is designed not to highlight "something cool on the web," as the post page suggests, but to call a particular constituency to action in response to a favorite issue. Why shouldn't dios complain about that? I know I would have if I had seen it before dios had.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:28 PM on April 26, 2006


dois is a cancer and should be banned for the good of the site.
posted by y6y6y6 at 6:29 PM on April 26, 2006


Instead, the post was typical of a genre of political hobby-horse axe-grinding action which is designed not to highlight "something cool on the web," as the post page suggests, but to call a particular constituency to action in response to a favorite issue.

And the several posts a day pointing out BushCo's failings aren't? Come on. Much of what we post on MeFi is a "call to action" of one kind or another.
posted by 327.ca at 6:32 PM on April 26, 2006


"nixerman, I think you give dios too much credit by suggesting that his comments are some sort of master plan to derail threads to which he is politically opposed."

Didn't I recently post something in meta to this effect? I find it humorous, and a bit creepy, that people believe that dios is some evil mastermind.

Personally, I think there should be a ban of meta posts about dios. People can flag comments and matt and jess can decide what to do about him. At this point, these meta posts are far more annoying than dios is and they are self-reinforcing...they encourage dios-haters to fan their flames.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:32 PM on April 26, 2006


monju, perhaps dios doesn't mean to derail these threads with his in-thread criticism. Whether dios means it or not is ultimately not that important. What is important is that every single time dios does post in a thread where he attacks the post/poster the result is a derail. The obvious solution is for dios to stop posting in-thread criticism. Regardless of his intentions, the result hurts the entire site and a negative image of dios as a malicious thread-hijacker is reinforced. Nobody would complain if dios took his complaints to meta, or, better, flagged it and moved on. There is nothing to be gained from hijacking the thread. The quality and frequency of the posts will not be changed by such behavior. For this reason alone he should stop.
posted by nixerman at 6:34 PM on April 26, 2006


The fact that an admin can look at the post and blame the entire wreck on dios is scary.

I didn't blame the wreck on dios. I thought it started out as a bad post, dios called it out, people called dios out, dios got huffy, other people got huffy and it wound up here. There were many missed opportunities to improve that thread that were not taken, by dios or other people.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:34 PM on April 26, 2006


At this point, these meta posts are far more annoying than dios is [...]

And when a meta post starts out with "If you'd like one more chance to rail on about dios, here's your chance," why do you bother reading it?
posted by 327.ca at 6:35 PM on April 26, 2006


Whether dios means it or not is ultimately not that important. What is important is that every single time dios does post in a thread where he attacks the post/poster the result is a derail.

nixerman wins.
posted by 327.ca at 6:36 PM on April 26, 2006


EB, from my perspective, dios repeatedly derails threads using the same formula. Either he is derailing these threads on purpose or he has a very bad memory. It should be very obvious to dios, just as its obvious to everybody else, that when he shits on a thread, because of his reputation, the result is a clusterfuck. The fact that others regularly shit on threads is beside the fact because other posters are not dios. Again, there's a very clear pattern of behavior here. The easiest way to break the pattern is for dios to simply not make these sorts of comments. If this were to happen everybody would win.
posted by nixerman at 6:39 PM on April 26, 2006


Hi Dios!!

(Can't you all see how starved he gets for attention? Just smile and wave. That's what he really wants. He doesn't care about what's important to the rest of us, he just wants everybody to face him directly, and maybe give him a cupcake.)
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 6:39 PM on April 26, 2006


I thought it started out as a bad post

My mistake then. It just seems like a post that is doomed the way it is worded. I flagged it and moved on like a good little mefite.

And the several posts a day pointing out BushCo's failings aren't? Come on. Much of what we post on MeFi is a "call to action" of one kind or another.

Oh please. There's a difference between bush sucks and "bush sucks so here's where you can sign up to get rid of the idiot" on the front page.

This was a post by a member who has never participated at metafilter but knew where to get a lot of eyeballs for his cause. Just because the majority of members agree with him/her it doesn't mean it belongs on metafilter.
posted by justgary at 6:45 PM on April 26, 2006


Just because the majority of members agree with him/her it doesn't mean it belongs on metafilter.

Right. I'm about ready to call it a night.
posted by 327.ca at 6:46 PM on April 26, 2006


Dios was absolutely correct in his comment, and this is a lame call out.
posted by LarryC at 6:48 PM on April 26, 2006


It doesn't even matter if dios was right or wrong. The reality of the situation is:

Trolls generate traffic.
Traffic gets Matt money.
Matt likes money.
Therefore, Matt allows trolling.

As such, it's irrelevant. This is the only logical reason why the threadshitters of the world are so thoroughly tolerated here.

If the trolls stopped generating traffic, Matt's reason for keeping them would disappear. As it stands, he's got to put food on his family, and well-reasoned and interesting threads apparently don't do that.
posted by I Love Tacos at 7:17 PM on April 26, 2006


All you people supporting dios?

You can fucking choke on a cock.

And all you people who are arguing against dios?

You can also fucking choke on a cock.

You notice - absolutely nowhere - does it say should.
posted by Bugbread at 7:34 PM on April 26, 2006


It's OK.. Paris is on the case.

I'm sure he will enlighten us all!
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 7:42 PM on April 26, 2006


Whether dios means it or not is ultimately not that important. What is important is that every single time dios does post in a thread where he attacks the post/poster the result is a derail.

What a piece of amoral, neoconservative, Machiavellian reasoning. Who are you, President Bush? How about the little cabal of people who act as if they are being personally oppressed everytime dios posts something grow up and stop derailing threads when he appears. An objective reasonable person looking at this site would not understand why dios' comment would cause such a shitstorm.

As for the blink tag thing, you have got to be kidding me. The noxious comments in this and many other threads are far more detrimental to the site than one blinking paragraph.
posted by Falconetti at 7:43 PM on April 26, 2006


For all you defending Dios, or agreeing with him, you are derailing the thread.

Re-read the MeTa post and if you don't like it, skip it.

(am I being facecious? Is Dios?)
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 7:49 PM on April 26, 2006


You can fucking choke on a cock.

I find your suggestion hard to swallow, sir.
posted by Gamblor at 7:58 PM on April 26, 2006


>Whether dios means it or not is ultimately not that important. What is important is that every single time dios does post in a thread where he attacks the post/poster the result is a derail.

nixerman wins.


No, actually, metafilter loses.
posted by cortex at 8:05 PM on April 26, 2006


Amen. nixerman (and others) routinely ignore the option of refusing to take dios' bait. They feed the troll like newbies, and they're not newbies. What's up with that?
posted by mediareport at 8:22 PM on April 26, 2006


Meh, I could see anyone saying "GYOFB" in response to that FPP, and it probably wouldn't raise too many eyebrows.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:45 PM on April 26, 2006


Get Your Own Floating Bouy.
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 9:05 PM on April 26, 2006


Are the people in Darfur happy yet?
posted by peacay at 9:20 PM on April 26, 2006


Matt's [...] got to put food on his family - I Love Tacos

*dutifully smears chocolate on Matt's family*

Is that better?
posted by raedyn at 9:24 PM on April 26, 2006


Can I start making MeTa callouts every time someone trots out the old Matt's Only In It For The Money bullshit?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:51 PM on April 26, 2006


If matt were only in it for the money, he would have banned Dios a long time ago.

Look at this MeTa page. Do you see any ads? Meta flames do not bring in any revenue because there are no advertisements on the page.
posted by delmoi at 10:00 PM on April 26, 2006


Do you see any ads? Meta flames do not bring in any revenue...

"B-but I've been hitting F5 like crazy! Somebody's gotta be making mad money offa that, right?
Oh, well.
Guess I'll go check my AdSense revenues... sweet, half a cent! We're eatin' tonight, kids!"
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:10 PM on April 26, 2006


Stupid. Entirely.
posted by Carbolic at 10:34 PM on April 26, 2006


Is it a dios plan
to kerfuffle the masses -
or all innocence?

(Ok, I cheated and used kerfuffle as a verb. But dammit, I need to use the word kerfuffle every now and then and this is a thread that begs for it!)
posted by batgrlHG at 10:40 PM on April 26, 2006


You're all crazy.
posted by seanyboy at 12:27 AM on April 27, 2006


Crazy like a fox!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:48 AM on April 27, 2006


Weeeee callout threads! And I thought it was going to be a boring day today.

Opinion: lame callout. If we're going to do a callout every time dios says a post is bad, we have to do one for EVERYONE, which means a whooooole lotta callouts.
posted by antifuse at 2:13 AM on April 27, 2006


Lame post, lame callout, people are dying horribly all over the world and we're bitching on MetaTalk. I sincerely hope that someday there will be an accounting and the lot of us will be lined up and shot.
posted by Ryvar at 2:29 AM on April 27, 2006


Dios can't derail a thread by himself. No one can, really.

He needs enablers. And those who do so are so consistent and obvious that their screeds are starting to seem like performance art.

Also, sincerest apologies for completely PUI and flipping out on Hat Maui in the last dios Meta post we had.
posted by Cyrano at 2:34 AM on April 27, 2006


oh.
posted by Mijo Bijo at 3:49 AM on April 27, 2006


"Fair's fair, Henry. If I punch Hawkeye and nail Hotlips can I go home too?"

What a mild comment by dios, what a lame callout here.
posted by OmieWise at 6:25 AM on April 27, 2006


What a mild comment by dios, what a lame callout here.

Yes.

I sincerely hope that someday there will be an accounting and the lot of us will be lined up and shot.

*summons accountant*
posted by languagehat at 6:39 AM on April 27, 2006


"Me? I don't care. I'm just tired of seeing good posts highjacked."
Except that was a shitty post.

"And the several posts a day pointing out BushCo's failings aren't? Come on. Much of what we post on MeFi is a "call to action" of one kind or another."

"Dude, why'd you just hit me in the arm?"
"I coulda kneed you in balls."
"Wait... What? Ow..."

While being kneed in the balls is worse than being hit in the arm, neither are good.
posted by klangklangston at 7:39 AM on April 27, 2006


*shuffles over to dios, gives him a firm handshake and an ice-cold martini, sits down next to him on the warm sidewalk to watch the unstately cavorting of the rampant mob; sharing a bowl of big, juicy, fat, equally chilled, bright green Manzanilla olives and exchanging quaint notions on Ortega y Gasset and the utter incorrigibility of the masses, whilst sporting the smuggest, most condescending "Oh, the poor, poor bastards - when will they ever learn but on the other hand who gives a shit?" expressions they can possibly muster*
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:14 AM on April 27, 2006


That about ends this little fracas, I should think.
posted by OmieWise at 8:19 AM on April 27, 2006


*walks by, spots the olives, takes several and pops them in his shirt pocket before continuing on his way to the apothecary*
posted by antifreez_ at 8:30 AM on April 27, 2006


Once every other month is not enough, Miguel. We need you.
posted by cortex at 8:31 AM on April 27, 2006


I summoned the killer accountant and got... Miguel! Life is good!

Hang around, amigo. Things are better with martinis, and nobody else around here really knows how to make them.
posted by languagehat at 8:36 AM on April 27, 2006


languagehat, what...what the hell? You...I...you said that you liked the appletini I made you.

You swore. You swore it was really good. You said you just had to...had to sneeze is all...

Oh god, I'm such a fool.

posted by cortex at 8:43 AM on April 27, 2006


*rushes into the kitchen, with much banging, whirring, whooshing and dropping of ice cubes; stalks back out; creeps up behind the cortex and the languagehat and nonchalantly springs the pitcher of just-made icy martinis from behind his back, so cold and alcoholic the first two sips visit a pleasing yet worrying paralysis all the way down the left sides of our handsome faces*
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:01 AM on April 27, 2006


It's almost noon and god, could I use a drink...
posted by klangklangston at 9:03 AM on April 27, 2006


antifreez_ has a pocket full of linty olives.
posted by sonofsamiam at 9:05 AM on April 27, 2006


Plenty of vermouth in those martinis, right? Excellent.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:11 AM on April 27, 2006


Miguel! Oh, how lovely to see you.
posted by tizzie at 10:01 AM on April 27, 2006


No. Vermouth is for Manhattans.

(By the way, anyone know a way to get bitters in the North? My travel companions wouldn't put up with my searching for them while I was in New Orleans, but I can't find 'em at all up here...)
posted by klangklangston at 10:06 AM on April 27, 2006


Dear god, klang, no vermouth? Please tell me you aren't making martinis with vodka, too.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:28 AM on April 27, 2006


Oh, great. Yet another metatalk thread about vermouth.
posted by cortex at 10:34 AM on April 27, 2006


I prefer my martinis with no vermouth, on the rocks, with Crown or Scotch instead of gin/vodka.

Hopefully that innocuous statement won't cause the usual jackasses anyone to go into conniption fits and start spewing logorrhea about how I am just trolling with such a comment and trying to derail the martini talk.
posted by dios at 10:43 AM on April 27, 2006


Alright, dios, now I KNOW you're a troll.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:44 AM on April 27, 2006


I prefer my martinis cooked with baking soda, left to cool on the stovetop, gently broken apart with a small silver ball peen hammer and served in a lightbulb with a shiny new chef's torch on the side.
posted by kosem at 10:55 AM on April 27, 2006


Like dios, I prefer my martinis without any of the ingredients of a martini and also not in a martini glass. Also the martini is made of lasagna.

THAT'S NOT A MARTINI LOL!!!
posted by jenovus at 11:31 AM on April 27, 2006


Dear god, klang, no vermouth? Please tell me you aren't making martinis with vodka, too.

The reduction of vermouth to a minimum is a hallmark of the classic martini. From the Wikipedia article:
One might prepare a martini by waving the cap of a vermouth bottle over the glass, or observing that "there was vermouth in the house once." Winston Churchill chose to forgo vermouth completely, and instead simply bowed in the direction of France, while General Patton suggested pointing the gin bottle in the general direction of Italy. Ernest Hemingway liked to order a "Montgomery", which was a martini mixed at a gin:vermouth ratio of 15:1 (these supposedly being the odds Field Marshall Montgomery wanted to have before going into battle). In a classic bit of stage business in the 1955 play Auntie Mame sophisticated pre-adolescent Patrick Dennis offers a martini, which he prepares by swirling a drop of vermouth in the glass, then tossing it out before filling the glass with gin. Similarly, in the 1958 movie Teacher's Pet, Clark Gable mixes a martini by turning the bottle of vermouth upside-down before running the moistened cork around the rim of the glass and filling it with gin. Surrealist director Luis Buñuel was another supporter of the drink, including his personal recipe into his Oscar-winning 1972 film Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie and in his memoires, which consists basically of "coating the cubes", a method of adding the flavor of vermouth by pouring the vermouth in separately then pouring it out before pouring in the gin. Also, atomizers similar to those used for perfume were sometimes used to dispense a token amount of vermouth.
I myself prefer to murmur the word "vermouth" at the gin bottle in a seductive fashion.
posted by languagehat at 11:34 AM on April 27, 2006


I'm more of a scotch-on-the-rocks-hold-the-scotch man, myself.
posted by cortex at 11:35 AM on April 27, 2006


Sadly, languagehat, the 15:1 or greater ration of gin to vermouth signals the decline of a once great cocktail. Despite fashionable protestations otherwise, the proper ratio is somewhere around 4:1. A "martini" with so little vermouth in it is nothing more than gin, neat, and should not grace a martini glass. The decline of vermouth in the martini is also, of course, what led to the use of vodka as a replacement; gin by itself is unbalanced, too harsh and herbal. Without the vermouth to balance the gin, a vodka martini is more palatable. Next time, try a healthy part of Carpano’s Punt è Mes with your gin, and tell me that's not a real cocktail.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:57 AM on April 27, 2006


No, I like mine with gin, but my father taught me to make them by whispering the word vermouth over the glass. I might take a touch more than that, but not much more than a touch. When one of our local breweries started distilling (the excellent Leopold Bros. gin), I started taking my gin neat there and earning great consernation from my friends who, to my measure, don't have enough balls to just drink their damn gin and enjoy it. The popular concoction is gin with a tart cherry liquore (also made inhouse) that I find OK, but certainly not worth messing with a perfectly great glass of gin.

Of course...
posted by klangklangston at 12:03 PM on April 27, 2006


Too herbal? For shame! A great gin is one that can be enjoyed neat! No balance is necessary. And vodka is for alcoholics, sorority girls or Russians.
posted by klangklangston at 12:05 PM on April 27, 2006


At least we can agree about vodka.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:08 PM on April 27, 2006


Miguel is dead to me.
posted by ColdChef at 12:29 PM on April 27, 2006


1. there is nothing wrong with politely saying you don't like something about a post.
2. there is nothing wrong with politely disagreeing with somone who says they don't like something about a post.
3. there is something wrong with becoming a snarling shitheel just because you don't like the people who did #1 or #2.
4. there is something wrong with returning the behavior of #3 in kind.

god, we are all so fucking frustrating sometimes.
posted by shmegegge at 12:45 PM on April 27, 2006


Surprise, surprise, The Amazing Jackoff is at it again.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 12:52 PM on April 27, 2006


What kills me is that people still buy that schtick.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:06 PM on April 27, 2006


This is how he operates--if Matt or Jessamyn don't clean up his poop, the DDF (tm) paints anyone who dislikes his trolling as hysterical (Just relax and look at us! We're old enough to drink martinis! Woot!). When Matt and Jessamyn do clean up his poop, no one realizes what a major league detractor he is for the site, and that a majority of his comments are obvious attempts at derailing.

For the umpteenth time, please Matt and Jessamyn, institute a [comment deleted] along with something in the user profiles to indicate how often a given user needs to be potty-trained.
posted by bardic at 1:18 PM on April 27, 2006


For the umpteenth time, please Matt and Jessamyn, institute a [comment deleted] along with something in the user profiles to indicate how often a given user needs to be potty-trained.



MetaFilthy

As you can see it is quite distracting and would only cause more static as a site-wide implementation.

So howbout that persecution complex commiseration martini party? Bring it on home fellas, looks the Good Ol' Boy is down-and-out again! Or did you get him all liquored up and he stumbled in to the wrong room to relieve himself in a belligerent fashion?

In all seriousness, I would like to thank the two over-taxed admins for their swift reply. I think it was under twenty minutes, and they got a cap on it before it could build up too much steam. Apparently they are gluttons for punishment as they like to keep him around. Time will tell, and their patience will run out.
posted by prostyle at 1:31 PM on April 27, 2006


I dunno, I think he was being kind of a pain in the ass in the deleted comment. I may have to resign my DDF commission, I guess.

And if you see the function of [comment deleted] placeholders as punitive, you have missed the point of the King of the Shitpile fable.
posted by cortex at 1:34 PM on April 27, 2006


Punitive indeed, among other things. I see it as a glaring necessity all around.
posted by bardic at 1:36 PM on April 27, 2006


This, this, is what it takes to get Miguel back? Phooey.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:38 PM on April 27, 2006


I see a fundamental dissonance between the idea that someone is a troll unconcerned with the community and the idea that they'll feel punished if their apparent bad behavior is made more visible.
posted by cortex at 1:44 PM on April 27, 2006


Matt and Jess have a high tolerance for trolls and threadcrappers--I'm actually glad they err on the side of tolerance. Said threadcrappers and trolls, IMO, actually really do care what people think about them--or better yet, they care that people think about them at all, even if it's negative. I mean, this is what toddlers do--they scream a lot and play with their sick. If you ignore them, they do it more loudly. So sure, a [comment deleted] counter would become a badge of honor to a few unique weirdos, and their defenders would fall in line. The rest of the community could take them all for what they're worth--not that much, IMO.
posted by bardic at 1:57 PM on April 27, 2006


Fall in line with the weirdo, or fall in line with the anti-weirdo crowd? I don't follow that bit.
posted by cortex at 2:04 PM on April 27, 2006


cortex, do you or don't you think a [comment deleted] feature would help the site? I'll let you have the last word.
posted by bardic at 2:16 PM on April 27, 2006


On the whole, no.

I understand the argument than markers would make it clearer why pruned conversations are disjoint; I don't see much benefit there, as the conversation becomes no less disjoint, smart readers are capable of gathering what has gone on from context as it is, and the markers would be ugly and cluttery and call attention to deletions in a more explicitly distracting manner.

I disagree with the spirit of punitive user's comment deleted more directly. The point of deletions should be to improve the conversation on the site; making jesters and martyrs and shitpile kings of deletees is totally unattractive to me. The last thing we need is a step up in vindictiveness and finger-point around here.

I know I'm being contentious, but I'm not trying to have the last word—I'm just interested in talking about it, and I genuinely misunderstood that part of your comment.
posted by cortex at 2:23 PM on April 27, 2006


The point of deletions should be to improve the conversation on the site; making jesters and martyrs and shitpile kings of deletees is totally unattractive to me.

I think the former benefit far outweighs the latter (potential) distraction. Why shouldn't Matt and Jess be punitive? They're the ones who have to clean up the messes. We can agree to disagree, but if Matt and Jess are going to tread lightly with regards to bans and perma-bans, I'm convinced [comment deleted] along with some sort of tally in the profile would enhance community self-policing.
posted by bardic at 2:33 PM on April 27, 2006


Assume for argument that I agree that a tally in the profile would be a good thing. That doesn't excuse the litter and distraction of [comment deleted] markers; the tallies are there for the looking, tags or no.

You might argue that the markers would prompt folks to look into profiles to see deletion tallies. How would that be a good thing? Folks could then let out-of-context scorecard judgements inform their incivility in their comments, which, presumably, won't address the deleted comment anyway? I don't see it.

If Matt and Jess want to be more punitive about bad contributions, let them be more free with timeouts and bans as they see fit—again, a way to address the problem without adding more public vindictiveness to the site.
posted by cortex at 2:41 PM on April 27, 2006


This may clarify my feelings somewhat: I'm not fundamentally against the mefi tradition of public shaming. I think a measure of negative feedback within the community does serve to help the site conversation keep its form.

However, where I see it as succussful it has generally been short-lived, moderately light-hearted, and spontaneous—the community reacting, through conversation, to the conversation.

I see systematic automation of public shaming as a very poor fit for Metafilter. It seems ugly and cold in a way that exceeds even the uglier instances of public feedback that have come from our current social dynamic.
posted by cortex at 2:50 PM on April 27, 2006


I agree with some of what you're saying cortex--having been told to eat a few bags of cocks was off-putting at first, but I've come to see it as part of the mefi culture. (Tater-cocks. Love 'em.) But as of now, comments are deleted, and this is mod intervention that has nothing to do with community policing. And that's fine with me--what I want, however, is more transparency when deletions occur, i.e., let the community know who's incapable of acting like an adult on a regular basis. Primarily, it would lend to thread readability--no more "Who's talking to whom here?" moments. (I find threads where this has occurred to be far more opaque and therefore damned to incoherence than you do.)

Further though, it would indicate that a given user either hasn't or won't abide by the fuzzy but generally edifying standards we try to uphold. I'd also like to see the tally in place on user pages, but even without it there'd be an improvement, IMO. Stupid people and/or perfectly nice people having a stupid day have their stupid comments deleted, and everyone knows it. 99% of human beings will attempt to self-correct, the rest will remain the trolls they are and always will be. I see nothing "cold and ugly" about that--it's an extension of a general philosophy of discourse that you'll be treated as you deserve, based on past evidence.
posted by bardic at 3:14 PM on April 27, 2006


I think that's the primary area of our disagreement&mdashthe degree to which bad behavior should be made public versus quietly dealt with. As much as I may disagree with you on some of the points, I feel I have a better understanding of where you stand and why. I appreciate you hashing it out with me.

Stupid/nice/etc users can, yes, make mistakes or have a bad day. But vindicitive users, or nice users having a bad day, can suddenly look at these markers and fail to account for that—and so we have a new tool for providing snap judgements and condemnations of users. That's what I don't like; I see much more harm than benefit.
posted by cortex at 3:29 PM on April 27, 2006


o &mdash, &mdash,
so attractive as markup
but hard to encode

posted by cortex at 3:30 PM on April 27, 2006


The insistence of tolerating assholes is what will eventually sink the site. Good people come and go; psychos accumulate. The overall standard of behavior steadily drops over time. The way you fix that is by pruning the assholes.

Being conservative does not automatically make you a jerk; I have had long and fairly impassioned arguments with people who disagreed, without ever thinking that they needed to be removed.

Encouraging diverse viewpoints is one thing, but tolerating bad BEHAVIOR is quite different.

It amazes me that dios can come in, crap in a thread, and then get a free pass. Over and over and over. He did it again today, totally derailed a thread ON PURPOSE, and they STILL didn't boot him. They just cleaned up after him. Again.

It's tolerance to the point of stupidity. How many Metatalk threads does it take to demonstrate that someone doesn't belong here anymore? If we'd had this many Meta threads over any so-called "liberal" poster, he or she would have been gone long since.

It's time to stop defending this guy, and just cut him loose. NOBODY'S opinion is worth this much drama.

There are constant complaints about the nasty atmosphere and shit-flinging. I can guarantee you, from watching other online communities, that axing about five people will fix 90% of the problem.
posted by Malor at 3:50 PM on April 27, 2006


I can't believe it! I actually agree with Dios about something!!

*Pours Dios a Crown on the rocks*
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 4:06 PM on April 27, 2006


But that's not a martini...

A martini is Stoli Vanil with a coffee bean or two in it.
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 4:07 PM on April 27, 2006


Martini season is over. Bring on the G & T's por favor.
posted by bardic at 4:30 PM on April 27, 2006


How many Metatalk threads does it take to demonstrate that someone doesn't belong here anymore?

It's time to stop defending this guy, and just cut him loose. NOBODY'S opinion is worth this much drama.
posted by Malor at 5:50 PM CST on April 27


Yeah. Let's ban someone because the same group of a dozen or so people can't tolerate someone.

If people weren't ideological fascists, then they wouldn't get so upset when someone says something other than . If people weren't ideological fascists, a person who shows frequent disagreement with leftist partisanship wouldn't so difficult to accept. Too many people here want an echo chamber. They will clear their throats that there are conservatives who they can tolerate, and by that they mean conservatives who are quiet, painfully polite, and don't post much. But I'm not even a conservative, but I get labelled as nothing more than a conservative troll by the same group of people over and over and over because they can't tolerate people who disagree and argue against their antics.

Do I cause a disruption? Obviously. But my comments shouldn't be that disruptive if people would tolerate differing viewpoints. Because, whether your are fair-minded enough to admit or not, my comments are not objectively any more off-topic, aggressive, confrontational, etc than any other comment on this board. But nevertheless you want to ban me for one reason and one reason only: I am the easiest and loudest target on the site if you are looking for someone who is anti-leftist partisanship.

You can take any comment I make that you find so objectionable, and I can find a hundred instances of similar tone, topicality, etc. that aren't castigated.

You want to ban me because some people can't tolerate me and my viewpoint? Go ahead. But don't bother ever bitching ever again about George Bush, his insularity, his refusal to hear dissent, etc.

I find it repugnant that you would suggest such a thing while absolving the same people who follow me around to troll me, insult me, and looking for a flame war with me.
posted by dios at 4:45 PM on April 27, 2006


dios, given the frequency with which your comments are deleted, it must suck to have two hard-working admins that, in your words, don't "tolerate" you.

And very few people have called for your perma-bannination. I certainly haven't.
posted by bardic at 4:47 PM on April 27, 2006


I am the easiest and loudest target on the site if you are looking for someone who is anti-leftist partisanship.

You are the easiest and loudest target on the site if you are looking for someone who is constantly trying to impose his own "standards" on everyone else by shitting in one thread after another that he doesn't like, over and over and over again. Your utter obnoxiousness transcends political partisanship. It's more about endless complaining, whining, derailing and general attention whoring than who you might or might not vote for. Take your meds and get a fucking grip.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 5:05 PM on April 27, 2006


Yeah, you're not as bad as P.P. And, you are right, you are not a conservative, or at least you do not argue from a conservative standpoint. You are a 'Contrarian', right? Kind of a "Your favorite (band, politician, pet cause, color, game, car, drink) SUCKS!" type of guy.

Always full of advice, but won't follow it yourself. (if you don't like it...)
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 5:06 PM on April 27, 2006


Well, I posted this "lame callout" yesterday and it seems to have struck a nerve. I was surprised by the amount of hostility all round, particularly by those who seemed to think I was being unreasonable by trying to nudge the pissing match out of the FP thread and into a place better suited for it.

Today, dios is crapping all over another FP thread--one that I posted (and am therefore perhaps feeling more sensitive about than I should.) It's a topic I care about deeply and dios' constant interjections about my use of the term "neocon" are distracting and irrelevant. I've flagged them several times as 'derails'. Apparently the admins don't agree.

As I said at the top of this meta post, I'm tired of this behaviour and I'll probably be visiting MeFi less as a result. I've been here for years, lurking and occasionally posting, but I've had enough for a while.
posted by 327.ca at 5:07 PM on April 27, 2006


wow all this for a "i'm leaving" post? don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
posted by keswick at 6:18 PM on April 27, 2006


Dude, you tagged that post with four words. One of them is "neocon". How can talking about one of the four things that you said the post was about be a derail?
posted by flashboy at 6:29 PM on April 27, 2006


The only one I see crapping in that threat, 327, is you - intentionally trying to bait dios with comments like

"Feeling a bit twitchy today, dios? [Sorry, I just don't feel like playing your game any more.]"

in response to a question about why you happened to associate neocons with a post about CANADIAN health care.

Or does "neocon" have a special meaning in Canadian politics, of which I'm unaware?

As to your last paragraph above, I'm with keswick (and you) - I hope you feel better enough one day to once again grace us with your presence.
posted by aberrant at 6:29 PM on April 27, 2006


klangklangston said: When one of our local breweries started distilling (the excellent Leopold Bros. gin), I started taking my gin neat there...

I would kill for a bottle of Leopold Brothers gin right now. And a bottle of the only sweet liquor I like---their beautiful 70 proof chocolate liqueur, also perfect neat. I've gotta get back to Ann Arbor. Also: less bullshitting about dios. More cocktail threads.
posted by kosem at 6:45 PM on April 27, 2006


327-

Don't tag your posts with things you don't want people to talk about. I don't think dios' behavior in that thread was sterling, but yours wasn't any better. Poster, heal thyself.
posted by Falconetti at 6:55 PM on April 27, 2006


But my comments shouldn't be that disruptive if people would tolerate differing viewpoints.

No one has a problem with tolerating different viewpoints. People do have a problem with dishonest propositions, underhanded dismissals, and the act of grossly mischaracterizing arguments all the while pretending you're completely clueless.

Again, I point to this thread. You're twisting posters' points into complete absurdity, and insisting that is actually what their point is. It's dishonest and disrespectful. Either you truly are monumentally idiotic and you actually believe that opinioning that things may have been better equals hurricanes wouldn't have happened or you're playing a game. If it's the first, perhaps we could recommend some educational programs you might attend. If it's the latter. Hope you're having fun. I have to say, bravo! You're performance is tops and I can truly only congratulate you on your success.

Playing the village idiot and distinguishing yourself amongst the others who play the same role is quite an accomplishment.
posted by juiceCake at 7:05 PM on April 27, 2006


dios, it's not your viewpoint. You can tell yourself it is all you want.

It's the fucking full-page flashing text. It's the constant whining when other people post in your threads, but then crapping in everyone else's.

It's your BEHAVIOR we object to. You are incredibly self-centered, and a total attention whore. I don't understand why you haven't been booted. They should have kicked you so hard you bounced.
You occasionally have interesting things to say, but never, never enough to be worth cleaning up after your constant messes.

Good people come and go. They leave because of behavior like yours. Psychos accumulate. They stay because it's the best place they can find that will tolerate them.
posted by Malor at 7:12 PM on April 27, 2006 [1 favorite]


Falconetti says: "Don't tag your posts with things you don't want people to talk about."

Thanks for the advice, F. I'm sure it will make me a better contributor some day.

abberant says: "[...] in response to a question about why you happened to associate neocons with a post about CANADIAN health care. Or does "neocon" have a special meaning in Canadian politics, of which I'm unaware?"

Gosh, I don't know. How much do you know about CANADIAN healthcare or politics?

flashboy says: "Dude, you tagged that post with four words. One of them is "neocon". How can talking about one of the four things that you said the post was about be a derail?"

Dude, if I deleted the term "neocon" and substituted "FuckwitRightwingAsswipe", would this make you happier?

keswick says: "wow all this for a 'i'm leaving' post? don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."

I'm sorry to hear you say that. You've made a lot of good comments over the years, things that I've enjoyed reading.
posted by 327.ca at 7:12 PM on April 27, 2006


It's your BEHAVIOR we object to.

Speak for yourself. It's your behaviour (and that of the rest of the people who seem to so despise dios) that I object to.

But not enough to do anything other than chuckle and give my head a shake.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:28 PM on April 27, 2006


no, YOU!
posted by shnoz-gobblin at 7:46 PM on April 27, 2006


327.ca: Actually, I know a fair amount about Canadian health care and politics, and it leads me to peg people like you who fret about Teh Encroaching Canadian NeoCon Threat!11!! as being fools who on some level wish that they had a real rightist boogeyman to fight, as though it would validate Canada's political system to be as polarized and spiteful and petty as that of the United States.
Come sit at the grown-up table when you're ready to stop talking with your mouth full.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:49 PM on April 27, 2006


[comment deleted]
posted by bardic at 8:09 PM on April 27, 2006


Come sit at the grown-up table when you're ready to stop talking with your mouth full.

Sticks and stones. Vita brevis.
posted by 327.ca at 8:12 PM on April 27, 2006


Arse conga.
posted by jenovus at 8:17 PM on April 27, 2006


Arse longer.
posted by flashboy at 8:17 PM on April 27, 2006


bollocks
posted by flashboy at 8:18 PM on April 27, 2006


stavros, I'm not sure you even saw what we (and by 'we', I mean 'the people who object', not YOU, ok?) get pissed off about. Today, for instance, the admins deleted a massive, purposeful derail by dios... the same guy who was whining about people just not posting in threads they don't like. Started his very own meta thread about that, in fact.

I mean, he started out by posting about how the original author had derailed his own post, and got ever more lunatic from there.

Of course, maybe you DID see that whole trainwreck... and if you did, and you still want him here, then you're part of the problem.
posted by Malor at 8:18 PM on April 27, 2006


Of course, maybe you DID see that whole trainwreck... and if you did, and you still want him here, then you're part of the problem.

You are either with us or against us. Spoken like a true neocon.
posted by Falconetti at 8:42 PM on April 27, 2006



Some one is willfully obtuse, does not act in good faith ? Ignore, ignore, ignore. The derail comes more from the multiple responses. Life is too short. It's a loser's game to react.
posted by y2karl at 8:46 PM on April 27, 2006


Let me put my money where my mouth is, so to speak. Admins, if you ban dios and PP(plus the later, inevitable sockpuppets), ban me too.

I'm dead serious about this; I think it needs doing badly enough that I'm willing to give up my own participation here. I won't come back, other than to figure out that that's indeed what happened. For a growing tree to stay healthy, it needs pruning, and MeFi is definitely showing signs of disease.

With real trees, you take some healthy tissue to be sure you got all of it... in this case, since I'm obviously part of the problem, being one of the people objecting... ban me too. I'll be sad to leave, but in all honesty, I'd do more good that way than in all the posts I'd ever write here.

I know this will seem a little weird, but I can't think of any better way to express how seriously I think it needs doing.
posted by Malor at 8:52 PM on April 27, 2006


Falconetti, did you see the trainwreck in progress?
posted by Malor at 8:53 PM on April 27, 2006


Matt already has your money, Malor.
posted by Balisong at 9:00 PM on April 27, 2006


stavros, I'm not sure you even saw what we (and by 'we', I mean 'the people who object', not YOU, ok?) get pissed off about.

No, perhaps not, and this is why I fucking hate comment deletions without a marker of some kind like 'comment by userX deleted'. I was going to start a thread about that today, in fact.

if you ban dios and PP

That whole paragraph makes little to no sense to me, but whatever: I repeat myself when I say that ParisParamus and dios are metabirds of entirely different feathers. You weaken your own argument by putting the two into the same basket, making it seem very much like it is the ideas that you object to, rather than the behaviour.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:14 PM on April 27, 2006


Let me clarify : I don't even know what you're talking about when you talk about the 'trainwreck', but I feel relatively confident in guessing, based on past instances of operatic and infantile whines about big bad trolling dios like the one that 327.ca emitted here about the healthcare thread, that dios was no worse- and quite possibly better-behaved than his detractors.

So I'm part of the problem, then, maybe. What are you gonna do about it -- start hounding me, too?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:19 PM on April 27, 2006


I should have put scare quotes around the word 'ideas', because in PP's case at least, evidence of rational thought is almost entirely absent.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:20 PM on April 27, 2006


I only saw part of the "trainwreck" and disliked everyone involved and stopped looking at the thread, so I don't know how badly it devolved. But from what I remember, dios was not alone in ruining the thread, and frankly, if another poster had made similar comments in another context, it never would have derailed.

But I do appreciate your overwrought sacrifice to Metafilter.

"For Matt so loved Metafilter, He gave one of his many begotten sons, Malor, that whosoever believeth in him should not be permabanned, but have everlasting posting rights. For Matt sent not Malor into Metatalk to condemn Metafilter; but that Metafilter through him might be saved. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved derails rather than thoughtful commentary, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth Metafilter, neither cometh to Metatalk, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in dios."
posted by Falconetti at 9:40 PM on April 27, 2006


^^ Awesome..
posted by Balisong at 9:42 PM on April 27, 2006


Sometimes dios writes some shitty stuff, in disagreement with folks.

When that happens, I find people's railing on him entirely justified.

Sometimes he writes some non-shitty stuff, in disagreement with folks.

When that happens, I find people's railing on him entirely unjustified.

I haven't seen the trainwreck which is mentioned above. Considering that the mods deleted posts by dios, I'm guessing it was of the former stripe.

However, of the topics I see here that haven't been axed, we have dios arguing against an advocacy post, and dios arguing against mistagging of a post. They seem to me of the latter stripe.

I'm sure not going to say dios is a sterling and blameless poster. He just behaves like everyone else does here, and sticks out more because he's in disagreement with more people. In my MetaUtopia, dios would probably get about half his comments axed, but so would most of the people who are arguing against him.
posted by Bugbread at 9:48 PM on April 27, 2006


If Malor goes, I want his shoes.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:50 PM on April 27, 2006 [1 favorite]


The insistence of tolerating assholes is what will eventually sink the site. Good people come and go; psychos accumulate. The overall standard of behavior steadily drops over time. The way you fix that is by pruning the assholes.

Needs sayin' again.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:54 PM on April 27, 2006


This thread is never gonna hit 200!
posted by keswick at 10:05 PM on April 27, 2006


The insistence of tolerating assholes is what will eventually sink the site.

Needs sayin' again.
posted by five fresh fish


Again? It's been said for the past 5 years chicken little.
posted by justgary at 10:10 PM on April 27, 2006


keswick : "This thread is never gonna hit 200!"

Needs sayin' again.
posted by Bugbread at 11:41 PM on April 27, 2006


More angstful haiku!!!

...anyone? ...anyone?
posted by batgrlHG at 11:53 PM on April 27, 2006


Psychos do accumulate
Yup all two of them
It's subjective anyway
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:57 PM on April 27, 2006


*runs in , makes everyone beans on toast*
posted by sgt.serenity at 12:02 AM on April 28, 2006


"Gosh, I don't know. How much do you know about CANADIAN healthcare or politics?"

Now right there is an example of a tactic that dios has been repeatedly accused of in this thread.

Widen the frame: you use a word incorrectly in tagging your post, dios objects to it, you claim that his objection is an attempt to derail the thread, over here in metatalk someone points out that an objection to one of the tags cannot be a "derailment" of the thread, and your reponse is to challenge the person's knowledge of Canadian politics and healthcare as a diversion. I'm seeing someone argue in bad-faith, and it's not dios. It's you. I'd be more inclined to believe that your challenge was less a ruse and more that you sincerely believe that neocon is a term which correctly applies to Canadian politics if you had answered dios's initial challenge in the thread instead of claiming it was a "derail". You're displaying all the characteristics of someone who's made a fool of themselves and is trying to brazen it out.

Anyone interested in learning about neoconservatism is welcome to read my comment in that thread.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:38 AM on April 28, 2006


*tastes beans on toast, makes 'yuck' face*
posted by zaelic at 1:44 AM on April 28, 2006


I agree (as so often) with bugbread. And y2karl. And stavros (passim). And I second EB's recommendation to read his neocon comment, which I flagged as fantastic; when the man's on his game, he can provide the equivalent of a college seminar right here on MeFi.
posted by languagehat at 6:00 AM on April 28, 2006


Now right there is an example of a tactic that dios has been repeatedly accused of in this thread.

I cannot tell to whom your comment is addressed, but I was the one who made that comment to dios, so I'll respond.

It was, absolutely, a cheap shot. I was splitting hairs and trying to hang dios on a technicality. Old debating habits die hard I suppose. Full credit to dios for admiting that he possibly could be wrong. I, for the record, could not tell a neocon from a Chrysler Neon and have no idea what I'm talking about, other than to invoke the names of historic Canadian right-of-centre political parties.

But I resolved for more haiku:

cherry blossoms show
EB defines neocons
spring comes as always
posted by GuyZero at 6:06 AM on April 28, 2006


*blushes*
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:12 AM on April 28, 2006


Isn't the Neon a Dodge model?
posted by cortex at 6:31 AM on April 28, 2006


They were badged under Chrysler Plymouth when they first came out.
posted by Roger Dodger at 7:22 AM on April 28, 2006


Oh.
posted by cortex at 7:54 AM on April 28, 2006


Hey guys, what did I miss?
posted by dflemingdotorg at 8:28 AM on April 28, 2006


I dunno, I'm really starting to like dios.
posted by nanojath at 9:51 AM on April 28, 2006


Something about shitting in threads, martinis and whether a Neon is a Dodge or a Chrysler. Oh yeah, and then Miguel showed up and there are some people who don't like dios. Miguel and the parts about alcohol were pretty cool.
posted by Carbolic at 9:53 AM on April 28, 2006


This thread is never gonna reach...oh wait.
posted by supercrayon at 1:50 PM on April 28, 2006


The more things change, the more things stay the same...
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 11:22 PM on April 30, 2006


« Older So, London meetup? Eh? Eh?...  |  OMG BOOBS!!! LETS LOOK AT A LA... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments