Comments on: Usernames with @

Usernames with @

grouse — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 23:36:55 -0800

@mathowie: Why are people starting to put commercial at signs before usernames when they are directly addressing other MeFites? Is this a convention from Digg or something? Am I the only one who finds this annoying, even more annoying than putting other usernames in boldface? Even more annoying than Todd Lokkenning? Can we make it stop?

By: mullingitover

mullingitover — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 23:38:56 -0800

@grouse: nope.

By: grouse

grouse — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 23:42:18 -0800

@mullingitover: I assume that's an answer to the question "Am I the only one who finds this annoying."

—grouse

By: mathowie

mathowie — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 23:49:50 -0800

I think it's really dumb, yeah. People don't talk "at" each other, they talk to each other. People yell at each other.

By: grouse

grouse — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 23:55:35 -0800

@mathowie: Oh, is that what this is supposed to be? "At mathowie?" God, that's even worse than I feared.

By: blacklite

blacklite — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 23:56:18 -0800

Yeah, I agree, it's annoying. At least there are people who understand. Todd Lokken.

By: mullingitover

mullingitover — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 23:59:45 -0800

@grouse: Sadly, I was referring to the 'Can we make it stop?' question. Unless Matt wants to scrub the messages for @ symbols at the beginning of a post.

-mullingitover

By: peacay

peacay — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 00:04:31 -0800

"People don't talk 'at' each other"
People don't use 'favorite' as a verb either, but ther you go.

By: peacay

peacay — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 00:05:03 -0800

or even: ..but there you go.

By: Hat Maui

Hat Maui — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 00:05:17 -0800

@@: you're a mighty defender of Hoth.

By: matthewr

matthewr — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 00:41:34 -0800

Why is putting usernames in bold annoying? If you're replying to a particular user's comment, highlighting their username increases the likelihood of them noticing your reply.

By: scarabic

scarabic — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 00:47:07 -0800

@grouse don't freak over varying conventions

grouse: don't freak over varying conventions

Even more annoying than Todd Lokkenning? Can we make it stop?

don't freak over varying conventions

grouse said: "Am I the only one who finds this annoying"

don't freak over varying conventions

By: scarabic

scarabic — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 00:53:38 -0800

This is another example of the principle that anything recognizable as any kind of pattern becomes detestable instantly (to some on MeFi).

I've never quite gotten that. I think it's related to the all-too-American need to be a special individual snowflake all the time. We see people clustering into clubs and acting the same and we freak out (mostly because we feel left out, but under the guise of hating herd behaviors).

Seriously. MeFites are way oversensitive to this. They see something once, they don't think about it. They see it twice, they fume internally and bring it to MeTa. They see it three times and they consider it a hallmark of congenital stupidity and/or desire to offend the community.

Chil the fuck out, y'all. Patterns ebb and flow. You may be too cool for school, and you may never ever pick up anything that anyone else ever does, but don't expect everyone to play the outcast iconoclast 100% of the time. Vocabulary comes and goes. Slang comes and goes. Terminology, formatting, ect... it's not a plot to make your head explode.

By: furiousthought

furiousthought — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 01:18:07 -0800

But where does it come from? I'm curious.

By: jack_mo

jack_mo — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 02:05:44 -0800

Me too. Never seen it done before. And where did 'OP' for 'original poster' come from? On a website where there is, by definition, only one poster in a thread, it's CFS¹.

1. Completely Fucking Stupid

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 02:10:32 -0800

No. No I think scarabic's wrong. Kill them all.

By: Ryvar

Ryvar — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 02:16:03 -0800

It's from digg. It fucking sucks because:

People don't talk "at" each other, they talk to each other.

It is the first reply convention to come to MeFi that I have immediately and passionately hated. Or hated at all, in fact. It must be destroyed.

By: loquacious

loquacious — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 02:18:18 -0800

Destroy. My lizard hindbrain demands it.

By: Ryvar

Ryvar — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 02:26:13 -0800

My lizard hindbrain demands it.

By: juv3nal

juv3nal — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 02:29:56 -0800

And where did 'OP' for 'original poster' come from? On a website where there is, by definition, only one poster in a thread, it's CFS

the button under the comment text field says "post comment" so if I were to push that button, that would make me a...what exactly?

By: NinjaTadpole

NinjaTadpole — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 02:47:04 -0800

sarcastic.

By: NinjaTadpole

NinjaTadpole — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 02:48:32 -0800

Yes, yes. "A sarcastic", that's what I meant to say. It's the way I do things. It's from digg.

By: loquacious

loquacious — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 02:55:30 -0800

What the fuck is this "digg" abomination, and would I need nuclear warfare to understand it or what?

By: Ryvar

Ryvar — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 04:13:01 -0800

loquacious: digg.com is like Fark for the Boing-boing set. It's pretty good for links, but the comments border on Fark-level retarded.

By: peacay

peacay — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 04:17:47 -0800

"The @ sign may have evolved from the Norman French "à"

@ appears to be the cursive form of ā, an abbreviation of an unknown word beginning with a. In medieval European manuscripts, abbreviations were generally indicated by drawing a line over or through the letters, as in the common IX for Jesus Christ (see Christogram), or # from lb for libra 'pound'. In the typeface of the Gutenberg Bible, ā stands for either an or am within words. However, it is not known which particular word gave rise to modern @.

A commonly accepted theory is that the symbol is derived from the Latin preposition ad, which means about with numerals. However, no document showing this usage has been presented.

A similar idea is that @ is the abbreviation of the Greek preposition ana (ανά), which means 'at the rate of' when used with numerals, exactly its modern commercial usage.

A more recent idea has been proposed by Giorgio Stabile, a professor of history in Rome. He claims to have traced the symbol back to the Italian Renaissance in a Venetian mercantile document signed by Francesco Lapi on May 4, 1536. The document talks about commerces with Pizarro and in particular the price of an @ of wine in Peru, where < @> stood for amphora (Italian anfora; Spanish and Portuguese arroba). The word arroba still means both the @ symbol and a unit of weight (see below). Under this view, the symbol was used to represent one amphora, which was a unit of weight or volume based upon the capacity of the standard terracotta jar, and came into use with the modern meaning "at the rate of" in northern Europe.

However, @ could be the abbreviation of any word beginning in a, and more than one such symbol was likely in use, but there is no continuous record between any of the possibilities and the modern symbol."

By: caddis

caddis — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 04:20:36 -0800

Actually, when used as described by grouse, I think "@" translates directly to "I am an idiot."

By: loquacious

loquacious — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 04:39:20 -0800

Ryvar: That was the sheer, unadultrated essence of sarcasm zooming right over your head. Savor it!

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 04:59:22 -0800

Well...

There we were.

We were working like th@

And then who should come up

But the C@ IN THE H@!

By: loquacious

loquacious — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 05:06:19 -0800

For fuck's sake. Don't make me hurt you, you mutant gimpfucker.

By: Kirth Gerson

Kirth Gerson — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 05:08:36 -0800

I certainly hope you have sh@ in this thread for the last time.

By: Joseph Gurl

Joseph Gurl — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 05:13:49 -0800

dunno

probably

no

no

no

By: danb

danb — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 05:22:53 -0800

I've seen it before.

As far as I can tell, it comes from discussion boards where there's no quote feature, or the moderator has disabled it. Like this one. It specifies who you're talking to. Not really that big of a deal.

By: loquacious

loquacious — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 05:49:45 -0800

No quote feature? What the fuck, did Matt disable blockquote or italics?

Test. One, two, three, four. Fuck. Tranquility? Are you believing this shit? The fucking Moon. The Moon, for fuck's sake.

Nope. Seems to be working.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 05:57:26 -0800

I think it's really dumb, yeah. People don't talk "at" each other, they talk to each other. People yell at each other.

Perfectly said. That's exactly what annoys me about it, too. I've been wondering where it got its start.

By: grouse

grouse — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 06:20:33 -0800

2stavrosthewonderchicken: Maybe we should use 2 then instead because we are talking 2 people instead of @ them.

Or maybe we shouldn't because that would be fucking stupid and unnecessary.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 06:24:44 -0800

Stupid and unnecessary is OK, if it's fun. But it wouldn't be much fun.

Although, that said, '2@' might be pronounced 'twat', which would be mildly amusing for about 5 minutes.

By: grouse

grouse — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 06:27:17 -0800

i think that's what we should call people who talk @ people instead of 2 them

Don't be a 2@.

By: scottreynen

scottreynen — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 06:33:17 -0800

I've been wondering where it got its start.

I blame Ray Tomlinson.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 06:35:21 -0800

I blame Ray Tomlinson.

I'm totally hunting that fucker down and pooping in his vest pocket.

By: Captaintripps

Captaintripps — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 06:43:08 -0800

Jeez. Soon people are going to be posting replies above quotes!

By: loquacious

loquacious — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 06:46:25 -0800

Why the vest pocket? The watch pocket is unarguably much more offensive.

By: JanetLand

JanetLand — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 06:48:35 -0800

I think it's really dumb, yeah. People don't talk "at" each other, they talk to each other. People yell at each other.

Heh. I think that explains where it comes from, then. Quite a lot of "@-ing" on MeFi.

By: melissa may

melissa may — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 06:57:52 -0800

There's the grammatical awfulness, but let's not forget the esthetics of the thing. When aimed at another person's face, @ resembles an orifice just begging for a mutant gimpfucking.

By: loquacious

loquacious — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 07:02:47 -0800

Damn your hide, that one's mine! Get your own!

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 07:03:27 -0800

♣stavrosthewonderchicken

By: cortex

cortex — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 07:03:44 -0800

This convention drives me crazy. I hate it. I hate, hate, hate it.

The problem is simple: it's loud and unnecessary. Note:

1. "grouse"
2. "grouse:"
3. "grouse,"
4. "@grouse"

Which of these is (1) kicking off a line with punctuation and (2) using a great big conspicuous unconventional conversational marker?

I mean, I can understand. Really. It's novelty. It's right up there with 1337 sp34k as a clever thing you've discovered you can do. I imagine it goes over like gangbusters with precocious middle school kids.

But it is stupid. It is typographically loud. This is the person who begins their every reply by pointing to themself and shouting, "OH! BUT SIR!" It is an obnoxious and chafing habit, and it is clearly at odds with the existing conventions of the site.

Do not sully the handsome amphora in this way. Do not tread peripherally upon my fondness for nethack. Use a comma or a colon or simply the name of your referent: we can tell that you're talking to them because you used their goddam name.

By: grouse

grouse — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 07:08:53 -0800

Very well said, cortex.

By: cortex

cortex — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 07:30:36 -0800

Which of these is (1) kicking off a line with punctuation

And anyone who says "lol they all do they start with quotation marks" can go right @ hell.

By: Afroblanco

Afroblanco — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 07:34:38 -0800

I think it's even more annoying when people address each others' comments without linking to or quoting the actual comment, making you scroll up and actually look through the usernames and ponder, "is this the comment that he's refering to?"

Other things I find annoying :

- stubbing my toe
- cheap umbrellas that turn inside-out at the first sign of wind
- when I buy some field greens, and they go bad after, like, one day in the fridge
- when people let their dogs poop on the sidewalk and don't pick it up
- when I go to the bakery and they're out of scones
- reggaeton
- when I get to the subway station, and I see that a train has just pulled up, but as it turns out my card has run out of credits and I have to buy a new card and wait for the next train
- dialog boxes that have a button that says "cancel" when they really should say "go back," (i.e. you're not actually "cancelling" anything)
- people who talk on earpiece cell phones in public places
- celebrity worship
- conspiracy theorists
- guys with feauhawks
- Internet memes that aren't funny, were never, funny, will never be funny (Ceiling Cat, FSM, Chuck Norris, et al)
- people who over-use the word "basically"
- the song, "I Saw the Sign"
- crowded bars
- when people refer to their computer as their "puter" or their "pooter." ooh this one really gets me.
- people who bring their small children on the subway and let them yell, scream, cry, jabber, run around, etc, and don't make any attempt to restrain them or get them to shut up

Whew. I feel much better now. Carry on.

By: absalom

absalom — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 07:58:03 -0800

grouse: Appropriate name. You should take over for Andy Rooney when he dies.

By: Samuel Farrow

Samuel Farrow — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:02:45 -0800

One of the more meaningful threads we have had here.

/sarcasm

By: iconomy

iconomy — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:05:17 -0800

It doesn't bother me.

By: grouse

grouse — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:16:03 -0800

absalom: Hahaha, you're so original. That joke has certainly never been made before.

By: CunningLinguist

CunningLinguist — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:33:41 -0800

One of the more meaningful threads we have had here.

Yeah, but it gave us grouse's "Don't be a 2@."

By: Count Ziggurat

Count Ziggurat — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:33:41 -0800

Threaded comments (like those at LiveJournal) would eliminate this problem.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:47:11 -0800

Yeah, but it gave us grouse's "Don't be a 2@."

grouse's? Whuh?

Threaded comments (like those at LiveJournal) would eliminate this problem.

I will eat your soul.

By: grouse

grouse — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:50:28 -0800

~~grouse's~~ stavrosthewonderchicken's "Don't be a 2@."

By: CunningLinguist

CunningLinguist — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:54:53 -0800

Sorry, stav, missed your coinage and saw his use. Am hungover from meetup.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:55:41 -0800

Don't matter. It wasn't all that clever, anyway.

By: CunningLinguist

CunningLinguist — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 08:59:22 -0800

It was really funny if you didn't read your comment - then it came out of the blue.

Oh never mind. Who has the @vil?

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 09:11:33 -0800

♥blue_beetle: I only read my own comments anyways. Most of you sound like raving loonies. Ha ha, hee hee!

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 09:46:00 -0800

i wonder wh@ m@ thinks about all this

By: reflecked

reflecked — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 09:50:26 -0800

lol@/\!

By: QIbHom

QIbHom — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 09:54:21 -0800

Gah. It is the wrong symbol. For this, one should use a redirect or a pipe; >matthowie or |matthowie.

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:01:39 -0800

| down

By: mischief

mischief — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:05:24 -0800

Hmm, @ annoys people? Cool! ;-P

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:07:24 -0800

Waltzing Ma~, Waltzing Ma~
Who'll come a-Waltzing Ma~, with me ...

By: cortex

cortex — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:10:31 -0800

waltzing m@~, surely.

By: sciurus

sciurus — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:12:06 -0800

By: pyramid termite

pyramid termite — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:15:05 -0800

that picture reminds me ... i have to take my kid to the zoo today ... i think she wants to feed some ^s to the rabbits

By: zarah

zarah — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:25:54 -0800

But where does it come from? I'm curious.

They do it on flickr a lot, which is the only place I've ever seen it done.

By: O9scar

O9scar — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 11:04:56 -0800

ch@filter.

By: absalom

absalom — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 11:10:25 -0800

grouse: Well, I guess if you *know* you have a problem, there's no use in an intervention, then.

By: graventy

graventy — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 11:32:36 -0800

Your mom like a good |

By: edgeways

edgeways — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 11:37:53 -0800

Get off my damn lawn!!!!

By: Kwantsar

Kwantsar — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 11:44:22 -0800

I agree with grouse that bolding other usernames is bad.

By: Civil_Disobedient

Civil_Disobedient — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 11:59:17 -0800

As matthewr said, bolding is so that the person you are referencing may draw notice that you are referencing them. Far less rude than talking @ someone.

By: furiousthought

furiousthought — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 12:46:53 -0800

I say, use SMALL CAPS! It's CLASSY.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 13:10:55 -0800

"It is ironic that @ has become a trendy mark of Internet
awareness since it is a very old symbol, derived from the
latin preposition "ad" (at).

Giorgio Stabile, a professor of history in Rome, has traced
the symbol back to the Italian Renaissance in a Roman
mercantile document signed by Francesco Lapi on 1536-05-04.

In Dutch it is called "apestaartje" (little ape-tail), in
German "affenschwanz" (ape tail)... Italians call it "chiocciola" (snail)."

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 14:42:47 -0800

Isn't "Affenschwanz" "ape dick"?

By: languagehat

languagehat — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 14:42:54 -0800

Let's get imaginative, shall we?

»quonsar, I see you use capitals when you quote.

¬edgeways, you don't have to yell.

۝۝۩furiousthought, love the SMALL CAPS!

By: languagehat

languagehat — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 14:44:45 -0800

◘Hey, how come they came out all caps?

By: Ryvar

Ryvar — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 15:05:45 -0800

Ryvar: That was the sheer, unadultrated essence of sarcasm zooming right over your head. Savor it!

*lifts diseased, flu-ridden head up off the keyboard*

Whuuuu . . . ? Unh. 'kay.

*thunk*

By: The Bellman

The Bellman — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 16:07:48 -0800

Is it time for Fred Bremmer's poem yet?

<> ! * ' ' #
^ @ ` $ $ -
! * ' $ _
% * <> # 4
& ) . . /
| { ~ ~ SYSTEM HALTED

Waka-waka bang splat tick tick hash,
Caret at back-tick dollar dollar dash,
Bang splat tick dollar underscore,
Percent splat waka-waka number four,
Ampersand right-paren dot dot slash,
Verticle-bar curly-bracket tilde tilde CRASH.

By: Rhomboid

Rhomboid — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 17:02:27 -0800

 ※※※
※    ※
※ ※ ※
※ ※ ※
※ ※※
※
 ※※※

By: Hat Maui

Hat Maui — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 17:10:22 -0800

i really thought my At-At joke would go over better in this crowd.

i can see now that a star wars reference simply wasn't nerdy enough.

By: graventy

graventy — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 18:32:47 -0800

Sorry Hat. I thought it was pretty damned funny.

By: lord_wolf

lord_wolf — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 19:13:45 -0800

this thread is aw∑

By: yhbc

yhbc — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 20:05:47 -0800

Great thread, time for a singalong - how about Waltzing Ma~?

Okay, that was lame.

By: If I Had An Anus

If I Had An Anus — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 21:10:02 -0800

-(_*)-

By: knave

knave — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 22:42:44 -0800

Eponysterical.

By: StrasbourgSecaucus

StrasbourgSecaucus — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 00:22:56 -0800

oh man somebody activated the firefox input box bug

jerks

By: Mikey-San

Mikey-San — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 13:43:13 -0800

MetaFilter: Mutant Gimpfuckings.

Or would th@ be:

@MetaFilter Mutant GimpFuckings

By: jack_mo

jack_mo — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 16:59:23 -0800

@juv3nal said 'the button under the comment text field says "post comment" so if I were to push that button, that would make me a...what exactly?'

A commenter.

By: Godbert

Godbert — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 21:39:35 -0800

@Hat Maui : i really thought my At-At joke would go over better in this crowd.

Well, technically, the AT-ATs were attacking the Rebel base on Hoth, not defending anything on the planet. That, of course, is why I didn't respond. Really, it's not because I didn't get it until after you had to explain it.

By: cortex

cortex — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 06:21:05 -0800

I actually didn't respond for that reason. I was all, "hey, AT-AT, that's cute—wait, defenders? They were the aggressors! But maybe he's suggesting that, post-raid, the remaining walkers were used as effective defense units in holding against a retaliatory strike. Is he dipping into some back-story canon from books or something? And how do I respond to that? Ah, fuck it..."

Cognitive dissonance, motherfucker.

By: Hat Maui

Hat Maui — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:42:18 -0800

clearly, the two prior posters took my nerdbait.

it was in no way a joke-ruining mistake on my part. just part of my plan to create an attractive nuisance that causes nerds to self-out. boy, did it ever work!

By: cortex

cortex — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 13:44:46 -0800

Cries of nerdbait ring hollow, H@ Maui—you knew enough to worm the hook, and are hence implicated!

By: Hat Maui

Hat Maui — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 18:10:31 -0800

cortex, touche'!

By: Songdog

Songdog — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 16:34:44 -0800

Bellman, that's a beautiful thing.