Comments on 12450

I think they're OK in the sense that it might trigger a more useful memory in another answerer. Ya know, everyone working together to get to the right answer and fun stuff like that. Cooperation is cool.
posted by ferociouskitty at 6:35 AM on August 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

Better than no answer, and usually that's when they're posted.
posted by smackfu at 6:36 AM on August 4, 2006

Yeah, go to hell, Kirth. Those answers are very useful when the person asking the question is going totally insane trying to remember or pin down something rattling around incessently in their head.

By way of an example. And I didn't even get the answer I thought I was looking for.
posted by cortex at 6:39 AM on August 4, 2006

I meant "go to hell" in a loving and playful way.
posted by cortex at 6:44 AM on August 4, 2006

To quote Noel Fielding: "I'm gonna cut off all your skin and tuck it up inside meself."

Also said playfully, but with a dash of wistful and hidden longing.

By which I mean I too feel those answers frequently have value.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:47 AM on August 4, 2006

At least they're qualifying the source and letting the OP know that they may not be the best source of information on the subject.

Leave it up to the OP to determine if the answer is worthless.
posted by purephase at 6:54 AM on August 4, 2006

To quote Noel Fielding: "I'm gonna cut off all your skin and tuck it up inside meself."

Wikipedia writes:
According to Cassius Dio (often mistakenly attributed to Plutarch), Antony's wife Fulvia took Cicero's head, pulled out his tongue, and jabbed the tongue repeatedly with her hairpin, taking a final revenge against Cicero's power of speech. However, Cicero was not the only one to meet a violent end. According to reports, the dependant of Clodius was captured by one of Cicero's friends, who ordered his skin cut off, roasted, and fed to him.
posted by Ryvar at 6:59 AM on August 4, 2006

OK, you've all convinced me. From now on, I will answer every question where I have even the most remote inkling of a memory concerning a possible answer. Sorry if my not doing that was so offensive to you; I really thought I was doing the right thing. obviously I was wrong, and a guess is better than no answer. Like this one, for example.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:01 AM on August 4, 2006

I'm sorry we didn't all agree with you.
posted by smackfu at 7:10 AM on August 4, 2006

That's certainly the mature way to handle the disagreement, Kirth. It's MeTa, I wouldn't ask for consensus about what to have for breakfast.

Personally, if you don't think it's bagels with honey-nut cream cheese, you're a god damn Philistine.
posted by absalom at 7:11 AM on August 4, 2006

If it makes you feel better, I kind of agree with you, but not really. Then again I could be thinking of a different question.
posted by blue_beetle at 7:12 AM on August 4, 2006

From now on, I will answer every question where I have even the most remote inkling of a memory concerning a possible answer.

That sounds very reasonable.
posted by scottreynen at 7:13 AM on August 4, 2006

Oh, wait, no, I'm sorry, that sounds like you're pouting about people disagreeing with your extreme (never) position by taking the opposite extreme (always) position, rather than applying common sense.
posted by scottreynen at 7:14 AM on August 4, 2006

I hereby resolve to never wear a white belt after November, park in handicapped spaces, kill and eat a child or fire weapons in my cubicle.

So - who's with me?
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:14 AM on August 4, 2006

Getting yourself banned will certainly show us!

posted by Ryvar at 7:16 AM on August 4, 2006

Better than no answer, may jog memories and trigger a more full response from someone else, and at least provides the basis for a line of reasearch if the asker wants to take it any further. So no, not with you.
posted by fire&wings at 7:19 AM on August 4, 2006

Kirth Gerson writes "From now on, I will answer every question where I have even the most remote inkling of a memory concerning a possible answer."
You stamped your foot didn't you? And there was a huff surrounding your departure.
Twat.
posted by peacay at 7:26 AM on August 4, 2006

I really thought I was doing the right thing. obviously I was wrong, and a guess is better than no answer.

I'll play nice and respond to this part of your response.

Yes, a guess can be helpful when taken collectively with other responses. Are you of the belief that only qualified medical/legal/mechanical/trade experts can partake in AskMe? Is that really in the spirit of AskMe? Aside from the hard-fast rules, I just don't get why some people seem to treat AskMe as their one-stop source for information/help. Put simply, it's cool to post a question and get opinions and real-world experiences regardless of if they're guesses or hard data. I can live with that.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:33 AM on August 4, 2006

Use common sense you fucking baby. Sometimes it is helpful when the OP only has an inchoate idea of what they are looking for. Some intuitional guesses may trigger a clearer memory in the OP. Other times it is useless to throw in those types of answers, like when someone is asking for a translation. In that case, your half-remembered guess has no place being posted.
posted by Falconetti at 7:38 AM on August 4, 2006

I've been cutting down. Particularly on askme, bullshitting an answer just poisons the site. We've lost several valuable commenters because so many people are willing to spout off some anecdote they've heard about from their mother's best-friend's gardener's nephew. It gets tiring refuting the same myths over and over (Aluminum causes Alzheimer's! Steel makes compliant bike frames!).

Curing yourself of Male Answer Syndrome is hard, but all it takes is one click to close the window.
posted by bonehead at 7:39 AM on August 4, 2006

Who said I departed?

What I do not understand is why my saying that I am not going to do something that seems to me unhelpful triggers responses like "go to hell" and "Twat." And no, I was not asking for consensus. If you think that kind of answer is helpful, don't be "with me". A bunch of comments disagreed with me without personal remarks.

Apparently, some people think a Meta post is an invitation to hurl feces. Good thing for me their aim is so poor.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:45 AM on August 4, 2006

I like to think that my musings in this unanswered question were helpful. It's still bugging me. I even mailed a school friend to get the email of the other school friend I borrowed the book off - but no answer yet.
posted by handee at 7:52 AM on August 4, 2006

I vaguely remember thinking this post sucks.
posted by pardonyou? at 7:57 AM on August 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

What I do not understand is why my saying that I am not going to do something that seems to me unhelpful triggers responses like "go to hell" and "Twat."

Well, for one, "go to hell" was a joke.

For two, posting to MeTa to simply declare that you're modifying your behavior, without your post having any other bearing on the site? Hubristic faux pas.

But that's not even what you did. You swaggered in and threw out a "who's with me", drawing a line in the sand upon which, implicitly, those on your side had rightfully elected to take to the high ground after comprehending the rightness, the trueness, the excellentness of your vision. So, still a hubristic faux pas, but more irritating to boot.

And, as has been said, neither your stated position in the post nor your petulant anti-position later on serves the site as well as a moderate, common-sense approach that eschew a binary choice in favor of context-based answers. So that's why a lot of people aren't with you.
posted by cortex at 8:00 AM on August 4, 2006

Well I didn't respond to your initial petition regarding not doing something Kirth Gerson .

I responded to the petulant outburst when the consensus didn't go your way : "From now on, I will answer every question where I have even the most remote inkling of a memory concerning a possible answer."

But you knew that.

And I generally regret using the word twat. How about: 'petulant doink' or 'reactionary child' - you're in MeTa and you just basically thumbed your nose at the community. You want platitudes? Understanding? Empathy? Unlikely.
posted by peacay at 8:00 AM on August 4, 2006

'petulant doink'

Jinx! You owe me a coke.
posted by cortex at 8:01 AM on August 4, 2006

I will admit that most of my responses aren't worth the electrons they're printed on, but I will continue to proclaim my constitutional rights to be a jerk.
posted by blue_beetle at 8:02 AM on August 4, 2006

"I vaguely remember x, maybe" is still better than "I don't know the first damn thing about the topic at hand, but my opinion is y." The former at least has the potential to be helpful; the latter is narcissistic noise.
posted by Zozo at 8:11 AM on August 4, 2006

"I vaguely remember x, maybe" is still better than "I don't know the first damn thing about the topic at hand, but my opinion is y."

Yup.
posted by iconomy at 8:16 AM on August 4, 2006

But that's not even what you did. You swaggered in and threw out a "who's with me", drawing a line in the sand upon which, implicitly, those on your side had rightfully elected to take to the high ground after comprehending the rightness, the trueness, the excellentness of your vision. So, still a hubristic faux pas, but more irritating to boot.

tex, you sure do read a lot into three little words. My joking use of them seems to have touched a nerve of some kind. Are you sure that you're not the one swaggering in with a chip on his shoulder?

Oh, and the more feces you throw, the more you look like a monkey.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:33 AM on August 4, 2006

Rubber. Glue.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 8:40 AM on August 4, 2006

So you express confusion over why what you said was taken in a different light than you intended, and then you characterize an attempt to address that as feces-hurling?

Look, it sounds like you thought you were coming across very differently than you did, by all evidence above, come across. If you don't like that, I'm sorry—there's nothing for it but to explain to each other what we saw.

That's not feces hurling. That's answering your query. I'm sorry I didn't use rose-petals, but I wasn't exactly pulling your grandmother's sexlife into it.
posted by cortex at 8:40 AM on August 4, 2006

anyone got a picture of an elephant taking a piss?
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 8:57 AM on August 4, 2006

Look, it sounds like you thought you were coming across very differently than you did, by all evidence above, come across.

Highly ironic, from someone who claims that "you go to hell" is a joke.

And my last reference to feces-hurling would have been for peacay, not you, except that you endorsed his "petulant doink." Why can't you just state your opinion of the idea without all the personal remarks and ascribing of motives? Seriously - do you really think it makes you look more correct or something?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:01 AM on August 4, 2006

I think the post was sensible at heart but put too broadly and expressed too confrontationally. I agree with Zozo's excellent clarification:

"I vaguely remember x, maybe" is still better than "I don't know the first damn thing about the topic at hand, but my opinion is y." The former at least has the potential to be helpful; the latter is narcissistic noise.

There's a difference between "I think maybe that book you're trying to remember was X" and "I think maybe Jupiter is the outermost planet" or "I think maybe that funny-looking alphabet is Greek." In the latter cases, you're just babbling for the sake of babbling. Wait till somebody who actually knows comes along.
posted by languagehat at 9:05 AM on August 4, 2006

Holy crap! Are we supposed to know the answer to the question before we answer it on AskMe? I thought we were just all kind of pulling shit out of our asses. Uh... everybody that I have ever answered a question for, if you relied on it at all, I would go back and rethink things. Whatever I write in AskMe, it doesn't mean anything. It is just words I write.
posted by ND¢ at 9:22 AM on August 4, 2006

Highly ironic, from someone who claims that "you go to hell" is a joke.

It's not ironic, it's actually pretty to-the-point. I clarified my "go to hell" thing in the very next comment because I figured it might come off the wrong way. Now that you say that your "who's with me" was intended a joke, rather than an inducement, I'm re-evaluating my assumptions about your motives. See?

And my last reference to feces-hurling would have been for peacay, not you, except that you endorsed his "petulant doink."

Well, I wasn't meaning to endorse the "doink" part, I just thought it was funny that we both thought of the word "petulant" to describe your sarcastic position-reversal comment.

And if we both thought of the exact same word, that might be a good sign that you were in fact coming off as such, regardless of your intent.

Why can't you just state your opinion of the idea without all the personal remarks and ascribing of motives? Seriously - do you really think it makes you look more correct or something?

I can. I didn't—I was being catty—and I regret that a little. But turn it around: why can't you frame your question/commentary about vague-y answers on AskMe in clear points, instead of presenting it as an poorly elaborated, untenable black-and-white proposition?

Your heart seems to be in the right place. Some people in the thread have provided useful counterpoints to your proposition: the issue is not as black-and-white as you've presented it, and common sense seems a better approach than declaring some sort of policy. All this other crap going around—from both sides—is just window dressing. I'm sorry for being catty, but I don't think you're anywhere near innocent in the matter either.
posted by cortex at 9:24 AM on August 4, 2006

Since we're clarifying: I don't really want to skin Kirth and insert the resulting pelt anally. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

Also, I've just been informed that the exact Fielding quote is: "I'm gonna chop off your skin and tuck it up meself." I apologize for the earlier imperfect wording. Fun Fact: This line was deemed unsuitable for broadcast as part of the Mighty Boosh radio series by Fielding himself.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:39 AM on August 4, 2006

tex,

Please don't call anybody by that name ever again.

you sure do read a lot

Which is fun-damental.

into three little words.

Words like "go fuck yourself."

My joking

If you backpedal any harder, you might get a chance to live out your lifelong dream of becoming your own father.

use of them

Sometimes traumatic personal experiences can make it difficult to connect with the opposite(?) gender.

seems to have touched a nerve

Indeed. That might have something to do with Metatalk being constantly deluged with an incessant torrent of idiotic requests like your own.

of some kind.

Great. Just what Metafilter needed - yet another German pedophile.

Are you sure

*raises hand*

that you're not the one

You . . . you bastard! I thought you loved me!

swaggering in

and swaggering right back out.

with a chip on his shoulder?

and nothing in his head.

Oh, and

Today's word of the day is "garrulous"

the more feces you throw, the more

You grow.

you look like a monkey.

And you look like the monkey's colon.
posted by Ryvar at 9:50 AM on August 4, 2006

I agree that the "other crap" has nothing to do with the original topic. As window dressing, it's not much of an enhancement.

I did declare a policy - for me. I did not say everyone else should sign on, I just invited others to do so. Picture Bluto Blutarsky saying "Who's with me?" I would have preferred the reaction he initially got. (Now I'm trying to picture cortex saying, "You go to hell! - Just kidding, Bluto!") Anyway, I did not advocate and am not advocating any kind of official AskMe policy. Reacting as though I did is what introduced that noise to this, and it happens here a lot.

I still wonder why some here feel it's worthwhile to (seemingly) reflexively dump on anyone whose viewpoint is different. You don't know me. I don't know you. Us making statements about each others' characters and motives is just like making up answers to a question on a subject we know next to nothing about.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:53 AM on August 4, 2006

I did declare a policy - for me. I did not say everyone else should sign on, I just invited others to do so.

But why is Metatalk the place to publicly declare a policy for yourself? Why not just silently pursue said policy, unless your goal is to call attention to that policy? In that context, how can a public delcaration and invitation be taken as wholly distinct from an inducement, when you don't present it explictly as such?

Framing is important, and shock at the wild-and-wooly nature of Metatalk threads does not become you—you've been around. Had you explained your reasoning and asked a straightforward question ("what do people think? What are the pros and cons of such an idea?"), you would likely have gotten a much different reaction.

Us making statements about each others' characters and motives is just like making up answers to a question on a subject we know next to nothing about.

Idly questioning someone's character as a non sequitur is lousy. Speculating about someone's motives in posting to a highly public place for unclear reasons...eh. Comes with the territory.

If you're explicit about your motives from the get go, of course, you sidestep that whole issue.
posted by cortex at 10:07 AM on August 4, 2006

. . . and shock at the wild-and-wooly nature of Metatalk threads does not become you—you've been around.

"Shock" is not an accurate characterization. I fully expected that some people would jump on me for suggesting something they don't believe in doing. It always happens. That doesn't mean I accept it as inevitable, or desirable, or their right. Maybe "you go to hell" was some kind of attempt to humorously acknowledge that there's always over-the-top reaction in MeTa. A parody, if you will. Sorry, it didn't land that way for me.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:48 AM on August 4, 2006

Ryvar: is that supposed to be poetry?

I'm inspired, so here is a play in one act.

Setting: WWI entrenchment somewhere in France.

LT: I'm going over the top! Who's with me?
PVT #1: Not me.
PVT #2: That's ok.
PVT #3: Don't feel like getting shot today, thanks.
PVT #4: Kill yourself if you want, arsehole, but leave me out.
LT: Well, fine, I can see you clearly do not want to run these kraut bastards out of France! I guess we ought to just clear out this line and let the bastard huns take Paris!
PVT #3: Well, sir, we really just think that going over the top into dozens of dug in machine gun nests is possibly not the most rational course of action.
LT: I didn't say we should run into a machine gun nest, I just offered that I was going over the top, and was giving honest invitations for you men to take that trip with me! It's not like I was saying you *have* to dash across no man's land or anything. I don't understand why you're giving me such grief just for suggesting it!
PVT #1: Sir, I think you're taking this a little personally?
LT: Well, you're all being so sarcastic and snarky. Why can't you just all politely decline my invitation? I mean, "arsehole?" There's no call for that kind of language!
[Artillery shell explodes, killing everyone.]
[Curtain]
posted by absalom at 10:51 AM on August 4, 2006

Well, that attitude didn't land in any other way than as basically: "well fuck you guys". Do you not even register that possibility?

Then let this thread be a reminder to be more careful about the words you choose. (and I actually thought Bluto at the top)
posted by peacay at 10:55 AM on August 4, 2006

"Shock" is not an accurate characterization. I fully expected that some people would jump on me for suggesting something they don't believe in doing. It always happens. That doesn't mean I accept it as inevitable...

What's your working definition of inevitable, then, if not something that you fully expect and that always happens? And why not consider why you expect it to happen, analyze your current draft for those identifying characteristics that support that expectations, and redraft your post to work around those landmines? People have successfully made non-snarkbait MeTa posts before, so we know it's doable.

Maybe "you go to hell" was some kind of attempt to humorously acknowledge that there's always over-the-top reaction in MeTa. A parody, if you will. Sorry, it didn't land that way for me.

That's pretty much exactly what it was, yeah. I'm also sorry it didn't land that way for you.

Also, it was "yeah, go to hell"—maybe this seems like a strange thing to stick on, but I honestly read "you go to hell" as more aggressive and vituperative. Something in the address, the "you"; as I wrote it, it could be taken as responding more generally to the concept than to you personally. But that's a pretty fine distinction, and there's nothing strange about taking even "go to hell" sans the address as a personal response.
posted by cortex at 10:58 AM on August 4, 2006

Right, you didn't say "you go to hell," you said "Yeah, go to hell, Kirth." So the - as I wrote it, it could be taken as responding more generally to the concept than to you personally - doesn't really wash. If we keep posting smaller and smaller, eventually this thing will flatline. Who's with me?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:45 AM on August 4, 2006

Oh, man, I forgot that I'd tagged "Kirth" onto that. Yeah, that kinda kills the ambiguity argument. Oh well. No caffeine yet.

and anything you can <small> I can <small> <smaller>
posted by cortex at 11:56 AM on August 4, 2006 [1 favorite]

""Shock" is not an accurate characterization. I fully expected that some people would jump on me for suggesting something they don't believe in doing. It always happens. That doesn't mean I accept it as inevitable, or desirable, or their right."

I fully expected pain when I slammed my dick in the oven. That doesn't mean I accept it as inevitable, or desirable, or right.
posted by klangklangston at 12:04 PM on August 4, 2006

I am actually pretty hurt you didn't whine about me calling you a "fucking baby," you fucking baby.
posted by Falconetti at 12:51 PM on August 4, 2006

Main Entry: MetaTalk
Pronunciation: 'mA-tä-'tok
Function: verb and/or noun
1 : to deliver or express in speech : UTTER
2 : to slam one's weenis in an oven door
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 1:02 PM on August 4, 2006

I don't think that's what Julia Child meant when she said 'baste the turkey,' Klang.
posted by jamjam at 1:58 PM on August 4, 2006

I agree that the "other crap" has nothing to do with the original topic. As window dressing, it's not much of an enhancement.

I, for one, read MeTa entirely for the "other crap" window dressing. If there's one thing you can't easily find online, it's quality windows dressed in crap.
posted by scottreynen at 3:15 PM on August 4, 2006

Yeah, go to hell, Kirth, ferocious, smack, cort, Pink, pure, Ry, ab, blue, scott, Kevin, fire, pea, Falcon, bone, han, pardon, Zo, icon, It's, Strasbourg, language, N, klang, and jam.
posted by brain_drain at 3:36 PM on August 4, 2006

You forgot about Poland.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:08 PM on August 4, 2006

Yeah, you go to Poland.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 5:11 PM on August 4, 2006

Quit shouting, will ya, Pink?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:41 PM on August 4, 2006

keep it down you miserable little bastards
i'm tryin' to watch my stories
posted by cortex at 5:54 PM on August 4, 2006

What?
posted by peacay at 7:50 PM on August 4, 2006

You talkin' to me?
posted by Ryvar at 7:56 PM on August 4, 2006

christ this isn't a rock concert you fuckers
posted by cortex at 8:20 PM on August 4, 2006

Yeah, he's talkin' to you.

Who're you calling a fucker? Umlaut.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:03 AM on August 5, 2006

Viewing pagesource this time will give you doodle rot.
posted by peacay at 9:29 AM on August 5, 2006

posted by blue_beetle at 4:56 PM on August 5, 2006

Viewing pagesource this time will give you doodle rot.
Hah! Good thing I used Ctrl-scroll in Firefox, and avoided your rot.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:13 PM on August 5, 2006

« Older Pittsburgh MeFi meetup today! ... | It would seem to me that a del... Newer »

August 4, 2006 6:26 AM Subscribe

August 4, 2006
6:26 AM Subscribe