?
February 14, 2007 5:45 AM   Subscribe

Full disclosure, the main link and story is to LA web site, LAist, which I am the editor...
posted by R. Mutt to Etiquette/Policy at 5:45 AM (239 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

Whenever someone admits to a self-link I always go back to the "New Post" link to see if somehow the wording has changed or is less clear than I remembered.

It hasn't.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 5:55 AM on February 14, 2007


So, yes it's a self-link. If it's not kosher, feel free to flag it.

"Hi, I'm just going to take a shit in your kitchen. I'm not sure if I can do that or not, but if I can't, you've got a mop, right?"
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 5:57 AM on February 14, 2007 [7 favorites]


He's been around long enough that he ought to know better too. It almost makes it worse in a way.
posted by AV at 5:59 AM on February 14, 2007


A full disclosure makes everything better!!!
posted by soundofsuburbia at 6:01 AM on February 14, 2007


Can we kill him and eat him?
posted by Meatbomb at 6:03 AM on February 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY EVERYONE!!

XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX
posted by thirteenkiller at 6:07 AM on February 14, 2007


Weird move, tsarfan.
posted by cortex at 6:08 AM on February 14, 2007


Hi, I'm tired of my metafilter account, and no longer wish to make use of it.
posted by empath at 6:11 AM on February 14, 2007


Weird move, tsarfan.
Second that. It seems out of character.
posted by tellurian at 6:12 AM on February 14, 2007


Here's my question, with all the users of Metafilter, isn't it possible that one day one of them will have the only source for a story. What should that person do if even 2 1/2 hours after the event it's still not in the MSM because it's early in the AM.

Should the user just sit back and do nothing, or actually participate in the community?

Sometimes Mefites might actually be paid editors of websites, and sometimes they may have the story hours before everyone else. If you really think it's best that they not share that with the blue, then fine, it won't happen again.
posted by tsarfan at 6:12 AM on February 14, 2007


It's definitely weird. tsarfan's been here over five years and he thinks because he wrote the first article, he should get a pass on the one hard and fast rule of Metafilter?
posted by MegoSteve at 6:12 AM on February 14, 2007


But you don't understand. NO ONE ELSE WAS COVERING THIS CRITICAL STORY.
posted by textilephile at 6:12 AM on February 14, 2007


I like LA*ist, but yeah, get someone else to post this for you - someone without a financial interest.
posted by ikkyu2 at 6:13 AM on February 14, 2007


What's even better is the repeated attempts to justify posting a self-link. "No other news sites had it... what am I supposed to do, wait??" - um, yes?
posted by antifuse at 6:13 AM on February 14, 2007


Should the user just sit back and do nothing...

Bingo.
posted by flashboy at 6:14 AM on February 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


LAist is an anagram of Alist. Is that irony?
posted by matthewr at 6:16 AM on February 14, 2007


There is just publicity. There is no bad publicity?
posted by tellurian at 6:16 AM on February 14, 2007


tsarfan: Celebrity fluff doesn't really rise to the level of urgency where you'd be entitled to break the self-post rule. You were more concerned with marking your territory as first with the story than you were with Metafilter community standards and that's just wrong. It's not like you found the cure for cancer and, by posting it right away, you'd save lives. It's Howard Stern getting married, for cryin' out loud. It can wait.
posted by MegoSteve at 6:16 AM on February 14, 2007 [2 favorites]


It was of the utmost importance that we were notified of this tiny bit of regurgitated celebrity gossip a few minutes before the other media outlets picked it up. My deepest gratitude.
posted by Burhanistan at 6:19 AM on February 14, 2007


Should the user just sit back and do nothing, or actually participate in the community?

When the story isn't very interesting—to the point that other coverage isn't available? Yes.

Your argument underscores one of the reasons for the rule: you're too close to the paper's coverage to see it objectively, if you believe this was envelope-stretchingly good while everyone else seems to think it's meh.
posted by cortex at 6:19 AM on February 14, 2007 [2 favorites]


Here's my question, with all the users of Metafilter, isn't it possible that one day one of them will have the only source for a story. What should that person do if even 2 1/2 hours after the event it's still not in the MSM because it's early in the AM.

Dude, since when was Metafilter supposed to be about breaking news stories? I understand when noobies think it is but jesus. And for the record, this isn't really news. Strangers get married every fucking minute. This is celebrity gossip and who gives a shit?

Were anyone else to have linked to this item I'd still have flagged it--though as noise instead of breaks the guidelines.

Normally, I have no prob with tsarfan, so I'm sorry to say that I hope this isn't going to be another example of Matt making an exception for a self-linker... though I expect it will be.
posted by dobbs at 6:20 AM on February 14, 2007


Should the user just sit back and do nothing, or actually participate in the community?

There's no reason why they can't find a way to post the story without linking back to their own site.
posted by cillit bang at 6:20 AM on February 14, 2007


Yes, they should sit back, that is.
posted by cortex at 6:20 AM on February 14, 2007


Sometimes Mefites might actually be paid editors of websites, and sometimes they may have the story hours before everyone else.

You don't have a "story". You have a satellite radio "personality" getting engaged to a "model".
posted by Armitage Shanks at 6:20 AM on February 14, 2007


Should the user just sit back and do nothing, or actually participate in the community?

You say this as if these are the only two choices.

Key word = community. This community has a rule - don't self-link.

So yes, you could sit back and do nothing, or you can contribute to the community. I don't believe you can call _any_ posting contributing to the community.

Regardless of the post, I don't understand why you would hide behind the community while flogging the major rule and then be incredulous about it.

Perhaps the clicks generated from the posting can be contributed to the Metafilter kity as penance to the community.
posted by fluffycreature at 6:22 AM on February 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


Plus, The LAist stands to benefit from being first with this "important" scoop.
posted by R. Mutt at 6:22 AM on February 14, 2007


Actually I'd be suprised if this story ever got posted if it hadn't been for you. So you could have waited for more non-self links, and then posted a link to your blog in comments. Oh well.
posted by delmoi at 6:22 AM on February 14, 2007


Unless if you're breaking news story is that someone airlifted the Seattle Spaceneedle and jammed it into the Pentagon, I don't think a self-link is really justified for "breaking news."
posted by drezdn at 6:23 AM on February 14, 2007


Wow, he picked a stupid hill to die on.
posted by konolia at 6:23 AM on February 14, 2007 [22 favorites]


What should that person do if even 2 1/2 hours after the event it's still not in the MSM because it's early in the AM.

If it hits three hours, call the National Guard. Or the National Enquirer. Or something.
posted by dreamsign at 6:24 AM on February 14, 2007


Oh thanks a lot, drezdn. Back to the drawing board.
posted by dreamsign at 6:24 AM on February 14, 2007


flogging the major rule

Is that use, flogging for flouting, common? Huh.

posted by cortex at 6:25 AM on February 14, 2007


you believe this was envelope-stretchingly good while everyone else seems to think it's meh.

I do not think it is meh. I think it is horseshit.
posted by gleuschk at 6:25 AM on February 14, 2007


I just want to mention that I know the difference between you're and your, but I was in a hurry to post my comment lest the MSM would comment first.
posted by drezdn at 6:27 AM on February 14, 2007


Here's my question, with all the users of Metafilter, isn't it possible that one day one of them will have the only source for a story. What should that person do if even 2 1/2 hours after the event it's still not in the MSM because it's early in the AM.

I guess it depends on how massive and unique the story is?

Okay, so let's break this down. 1. Howard Stern is a celebrity. We have a few of those, though. I don't have an exact count of course but I know there are a bunch of them both alive & dead. 2. He's getting married. Seems a lot of people do this marriage thing. Not me, but other people. And it's his second time doing it. So, he's not even a virgin at it. 3. He said he wouldn't get married again. Oh, wait... so did my older sister but she's divorcing hubby #3 now.

Hey... that reminds me... can I post about my sister's divorce? I promise I won't self link. And she's kind of a celebrity. She was SUPER popular in high school. Yeah, that was in the 70s & she was only popular with the boys because she was kinda slutty but hey... Howard Stern would let me. If I included photos of her boobs? Oh, ok nevermind.
posted by miss lynnster at 6:30 AM on February 14, 2007 [2 favorites]


It's a good thing we have this Meta thread, or Matt would have never figured out it was a self-link.
posted by chunking express at 6:30 AM on February 14, 2007


Have we eliminated the possibility that tsarfan has a 14-year old son who thinks his dad's big scoop is so kewl that he jumped onto the still-logged in computer to tell us all about it?
posted by yhbc at 6:30 AM on February 14, 2007 [1 favorite]

isn't it possible that one day one of them will have the only source for a story
How did you find out? (Not snarkin', just askin'.)
posted by No Mutant Enemy at 6:33 AM on February 14, 2007


The whole point of the self-link rule is that you can't judge the worthiness of your own stuff. A notion you seem to have demonstrated in spades.
posted by poxuppit at 6:35 AM on February 14, 2007


I'd like to point out that the content of the post is really irrelevant here. The community rule is no self linking; the post violates the rule.

It's true, tsarfan, that by reporting on topics of this nature you're merely adding a particularly feculent nugget to the torrent of sewage that has replaced actual news reporting in this country. I'm sure you, and the rest of your "media" cronies would be delighted to fracture my jaw, crank my mouth open as wide as it would go, and suture a 4-inch sewage pipe to my lips, the better to ensure delivery of your irrelevant, pointless non-information and the advertisements that support it.

I don't need that; I am a fair enough surgeon that, should I wish to do so, I could fashion some crude eyelid-props out of paperclips, catheterize my stomach, penis and anus for efficient alimentation, and crucify myself to a rack in front of a wide-screen HDTV tuned to the Mind Poisoning Channel 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. But I don't, because I truly couldn't give a rat's ass about the things you and yours think are newsworthy.

But that's not relevant here, tsarfan. What's relevant is that your post broke the community guidelines.

Of course, there's an argument to be made that, as a tool of the mainstream media, you (or LA*ist - because you've clearly subjugated your personal identity to its corporate one) can't help but believe deep in the marrow of your wizened soul that you are the opinion maker, you are the taste police, you are the decider of what information I am going to consume. Parenthetically, one questions: when are you, and assholes like you, going to get the point? We don't want to see the crap you're trying to force-feed us, and we're not going to look at it.

But that's a parenthetical argument that doesn't need making here. What's important is that you broke the community's rule, and you shouldn't have.
posted by ikkyu2 at 6:38 AM on February 14, 2007 [70 favorites]


Clearly this guy simply didn't take the rules seriously. I think he thought everyone would appreciate the post, and got carried away.
posted by xammerboy at 6:38 AM on February 14, 2007


:O
posted by thirteenkiller at 6:39 AM on February 14, 2007


So this isn't the Howard Stern who was married to Anna-Nicole Smith? If only there were some website where I could keep abreast of US celebrity news...
posted by Abiezer at 6:39 AM on February 14, 2007


How did you find out?

It was the first item they talked about on Howard's show this morning, so it's not like there was a ton of research involved in this hot "scoop." Any of the six million Sirius subscribers who listened to the show would have known.
posted by MegoSteve at 6:39 AM on February 14, 2007


Ikkyu2 shoots and scores!
posted by drezdn at 6:40 AM on February 14, 2007


How did you find out? (Not snarkin', just askin'.) - No Mutant Enemy

i heard it on Sirius.

and for the rest of you, thank you, i believe you've answered my questions completely.
posted by tsarfan at 6:44 AM on February 14, 2007


Best of the web? It's not even fucking news. Some bloke who's on american radio gets engaged to some model. Vacuous block meets vacuous bint, they shag, they get engaged. Shock horror. Even if I'd have heard of the participants, I probably wouldn't give a fuck. Celebrity gossip is bad enough when the celebrities in question are famous for a reason - these guys? Well... Meh.

I don't care. On Preview: It looks as though ikkuyu2 doesn't care either.
posted by handee at 6:44 AM on February 14, 2007


But you don't get it, handee. HE SAID HE WOULDN'T DO IT!
posted by dreamsign at 6:47 AM on February 14, 2007


Dude must be one of them rule-breaking Italians.

(Pronounced with an "eye".)
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 6:48 AM on February 14, 2007


dreamsign: Yeah, but that just takes him from being a bloke I couldn't give a shit about to an indecisive bloke I couldn't give a shit about.
posted by handee at 6:49 AM on February 14, 2007


What.

The.

Fuck.

tsarfan?


Why do you think you get a free pass on breaking The Rule? There's only one real rule here, and you broke it. And you broke it for the lamest story of all time.

(and it took you an hour and a half to put that together? You need to work on your posting skills. Maybe when you get your next account.)

Matt should ban your ass. With prejudice.
posted by bshort at 6:53 AM on February 14, 2007


We're all going to look pretty foolish tomorrow when the NYT has this above the fold in second-coming size type

STERN MARRIES GIRLFRIEND
Had Sworn Off Marriage
United Nations Issues Congratulatory Resolution

posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 6:54 AM on February 14, 2007


::cackles as he sharpens his pitchfork and lights the fire for the boiling tar::
posted by briank at 6:54 AM on February 14, 2007


It's weird to me that anyone would think this is interesting -- even someone who is into celebrity gossip or Stern. But that's just a matter of personal taste.

I've certainly made my share of bad decisions here, and I know some people hate it when I split hairs about the rules (so please tell me if I get irritating), but I thought the self-link rules was iron-clad. It's the one simple rule here that has always made total sense to me. I didn't think there were ANY exceptions. Yet some people here seem to think that, if a post is "unique" enough, it's okay to self-link. Is it?

Let's take a really extreme example. Say I discovered where Bin Laden was hiding and wrote about it on my blog. Or, if that doesn't float your boat, say I discovered the cure to cancer.

My assumption -- even under these extreme circumstances -- is that if I self-linked, I would RIGHTLY be flagged, banned or whatever.

Not that I should keep quiet about these things. But there are dozens of places to publish information. And, unless I'm totally confused, MeFi isn't a place specifically built to break news. So it's okay for news -- even big news -- not to be broken there.
posted by grumblebee at 6:56 AM on February 14, 2007


Can we cut the crap? The banhammer tickles. It's just $5 to come back. Simple economics. His page views will more than more than make up for the punishment. The page and link stay up when deleted so he probably also gets some mefi Google juice. The only thing that surprises me is that people are not more clever about breaking this rule. An intermediary is all it takes.
posted by srboisvert at 6:58 AM on February 14, 2007


Bin Laden is hiding in your boat AND he has cured cancer?
posted by soundofsuburbia at 6:59 AM on February 14, 2007


What I don't get is that you're already an editor on LAist.

You already "broke" the story there.

So why did you feel it was necessary to post it to MeFi as well? If you wanted to "share the love" here, then why not just post it here?

You wouldn't be banned and you wouldn't be ridiculed as a link-grubbing idiot.
posted by bshort at 7:01 AM on February 14, 2007


I removed the post. The self-link rules are, in fact iron-clad.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:03 AM on February 14, 2007


The self-link rules are, in fact iron-clad.

Huh? I'm pretty sure Matt's made exceptions to both 1) leaving a self link up and 2) not banning at least 1 (but I think 2) self linker(s).
posted by dobbs at 7:07 AM on February 14, 2007


Nevertheless, I vote tsarfan gets a pass on banination, but rather just gets some time off to think about how stupid that post was. He has been a member for a long time, has never done anything like this before (that I can remember) and it was more stupid than self promotion.
posted by caddis at 7:08 AM on February 14, 2007


I second the no ban here. Whether or not you like Stern (I don't), the self-link was not because he was trying to hype his site over all others. Tony just loves his Howard and he thought it was a big deal and wanted to link to a story on it as quickly as possible. Timeout is more appropriate.

Plus he just cracks me up.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:13 AM on February 14, 2007


There's only the one rule. He broke it. It should cost him $5 and his current username.
posted by bshort at 7:17 AM on February 14, 2007


If you really think it's best that they not share that with the blue, then fine, it won't happen again.

Damn right it won't, because you're gonna get banninated.

Nevertheless, I vote tsarfan gets a pass on banination
I second the no ban


WTF? Because tsarfan's been around for years and knows better and was completely flagrant and unrepentant about it, he should get a pass? Are you serious? Gee, now that I know us old-timers can get away with it, I guess I've got some self-linkin' to do...
posted by languagehat at 7:19 AM on February 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


So let me get this straight, tsarfan broke the rules?

I know it's been reiterated 2 dozen times, at least, in the comments above, but I'm still not clear about it.
posted by Dave Faris at 7:22 AM on February 14, 2007


This is celebrity gossip and who gives a shit?

I do, but that's why I read celebrity gossip blogs, many of which posted this story this morning.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:22 AM on February 14, 2007 [3 favorites]


WTF? Because tsarfan's been around for years and knows better and was completely flagrant and unrepentant about it, he should get a pass? Are you serious? Gee, now that I know us old-timers can get away with it, I guess I've got some self-linkin' to do...

languagehat: Well if you did it people could point out this comment to prove you knew the rules and it was "premeditated"

I wouldn't ban him if I was matt, but it would help if tsarfan would appologize.
posted by delmoi at 7:28 AM on February 14, 2007


Are we taking votes here?
Will the votes mean anything?
Will I have to show I.D.?
posted by Floydd at 7:28 AM on February 14, 2007


Well, I propose that whatever gets done with tsarfan, the admins create misslynsta'ssista.metafilter.com. Her coverage sounded promising.
posted by micayetoca at 7:28 AM on February 14, 2007


Ya ever wonder if the self-link MeTas are less about policy and more about a two-minute hate?
posted by klangklangston at 7:30 AM on February 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


Well if you did it people could point out this comment to prove you knew the rules and it was "premeditated"

No, I'd just bat my eyes and say "someone must have hacked my account" and you'd all believe me because of my innocent look.

Seriously, you can't possibly believe tsarfan didn't know the rules. Give me a break.
posted by languagehat at 7:30 AM on February 14, 2007


"Here's my question, with all the users of Metafilter, isn't it possible that one day one of them will have the only source for a story. What should that person do if even 2 1/2 hours after the event it's still not in the MSM because it's early in the AM.

Should the user just sit back and do nothing, or actually participate in the community?

Sometimes Mefites might actually be paid editors of websites, and sometimes they may have the story hours before everyone else. If you really think it's best that they not share that with the blue, then fine, it won't happen again."


Jessamyn has said time and time again, if you can't wait to publish a story, then it's newsfilter, probably not the best of the web, and doesn't belong here. And shit, this wasn't even good/important/relevant newsfilter. This was "OMG I HAVE A STORY FIRST" newsfilter, which was motivated by the second half of the no-self-linking policy. You're not divorced enough from the link to be objective about its importance.

I vote for a long timeout off a short pier.
posted by Eideteker at 7:31 AM on February 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


Just so lh doesn't have to: sightsaw.
posted by caddis at 7:31 AM on February 14, 2007


There's only the one rule. He broke it. It should cost him $5 and his current username.

Yea, I agree. If anyone should know this rule, he should have. And he did, he admitted to breaking it in the post it self.
posted by octothorpe at 7:31 AM on February 14, 2007


It seemed pretty considered and unrepentant, and precisely about "trying to hype his site above all others." How else do you explain claiming breaking news that was in fact broken on the man's own radio show?
posted by OmieWise at 7:34 AM on February 14, 2007


Huh? I'm pretty sure Matt's made exceptions to both 1) leaving a self link up and 2) not banning at least 1 (but I think 2) self linker(s).

I think you're right too dobbs. The past is the past, though. Perhaps jessamyn is making a statement going forward. tsarfan proved that users lose all sense of judgement when it comes to their own stuff so, in essence, there's a lockdown in effect.

If grumblebee wins the Nobel prize and wants to tell Mefi right after he gets the call from Sweden, well, tough luck. He should ask a friend to post it.
posted by vacapinta at 7:39 AM on February 14, 2007


Tres bien ikkyu2, I think I'll be referencing that little rant for years to come. A fucking plus
posted by edgeways at 7:40 AM on February 14, 2007


Whether or not you like Stern (I don't), the self-link was not because he was trying to hype his site over all others.

The fuck it wasn't.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 7:41 AM on February 14, 2007


Well if you did it people could point out this comment to prove you knew the rules and it was "premeditated"

How could the same possibly not be claimed about tsarfan? He knew the rules, he even acknowledged he was breaking them in the very post.
posted by grouse at 7:42 AM on February 14, 2007


WTF? Because tsarfan's been around for years and knows better and was completely flagrant and unrepentant about it, he should get a pass? Are you serious? Gee, now that I know us old-timers can get away with it, I guess I've got some self-linkin' to do...

I think it goes both ways, honestly; what do we gain by banning tsarfan, if he's regarded as a pretty good mefite who did something out-of-line? Kill his post, an email from the admin to say "so, really, don't ever do that again" if this thread isn't clear enough, and deal.

It's not that tsarfan should get a pass because he's been around longer than Joe Newb; it's that banning tsarfan for this self-link would be harsh without any clear gain. We all know he fucked up, he knows it now too. Correction made.

We blinked at the self-link because he's been here a while; insofar as mefi has a problem with self-links, it's generally fly-by-night recent accounts that we never hear from again. Banning long-time users won't act as a deterrent to that.

It wasn't a flagrant, abusive attack on the community. It wasn't malicious, it was just stupid. I believe we've had a lot of self-links from both old and new deleted without a summary banning. Delete-and-discourage seems like a pretty solid moderate policy to use; this thread is clear proof that among those who have a position on self-linking, the position is overwhelmingly that it is bad.
posted by cortex at 7:43 AM on February 14, 2007 [3 favorites]


Ya ever wonder if the self-link MeTas are less about policy and more about a two-minute hate?

Yes I do wonder that very thing.

It was lame, but I also think people who have been members for a while and positive contributers should probably get a bit of a break, especially if they are willing to apologize and admit they broke the rule. It's hard to keep the community part going with so many members after so many years and the sword cuts in both directions.
posted by Divine_Wino at 7:48 AM on February 14, 2007


I agree with everything cortex just posted. And for me, the public dressing-down would be much worse than the banning.

I do wish tsarfan had the character to apologize, but these days, most people would rather have their fingernails plucked out one-by-one than say "I'm sorry."
posted by grumblebee at 7:49 AM on February 14, 2007


ZOMGLOL 10Kers
posted by amyms at 7:51 AM on February 14, 2007


This isn't like the old days when banning someone meant they couldn't play our reindeer games any more. Signups aren't locked down. They're open to anyone with $5, a PayPal account, and a burning love for snark.

Banning tsarfan means he just looses the ability to participate with that username. He can still create a new identity. Maybe "tsarfan2" is open...

If he had slipped up and accidentally posted a link to his own site, or if there were a horde of marauding hackers who cracked his password and posted using his moniker, or if he showed even the least regret, that might mitigate the situation, but he knew what he was doing, he knew he was breaking the one rule, and he showed remarkably poor judgment by doing it for the lamest Newsfilter post ever.
posted by bshort at 7:51 AM on February 14, 2007


I also think people who have been members for a while and positive contributers should probably get a bit of a break

And to clarify what Divine_Wino said, and better push back a languagehattian rebuttal to that and my own defense:

Giving them a break does not mean not deleting their post, and deleting the post is the punishment. Banning the account is triage. The two should have very different metrics for application, rightfully threatening text on the posting page notwithstanding.
posted by cortex at 7:52 AM on February 14, 2007


Yeah, I think the idea of banning a self-linker is because most of the self-linkers are newbs who sign on specifically for the purpose of self-linking and self-promotion.
posted by Dave Faris at 7:54 AM on February 14, 2007


Well, I propose that whatever gets done with tsarfan, the admins create misslynsta'ssista.metafilter.com. Her coverage sounded promising.

And hey, if it's ok with the Mods, could we also make it a pay site so sis can fuel her Indian casino habit? You guys are the BOMB!
posted by miss lynnster at 7:55 AM on February 14, 2007


This isn't like the old days when banning someone meant they couldn't play our reindeer games any more. Signups aren't locked down. They're open to anyone with $5, a PayPal account, and a burning love for snark.

This is the SomethingAwful model. It works okay for them, I guess, but this isn't SA. Yanking a username is more than a slap on the wrist for someone with a heavily established posting history.

It'd be good if he threw out a sincere mea culpa in here, but failure to do so isn't the same as posting "fuck you metafilter pussies" in a huff. The two-minute-hate comment is apt, I think.
posted by cortex at 7:55 AM on February 14, 2007


But cortex, he's already benefitted from having his site FPP'd. Whether you think it deliberate or not, that's the end result. It's not much of a punishment to have his link removed.

In addition, anyone who signs up here is promising to not self link (I don't know if it's mentioned on the signup page but it should be). Anyone who breaks that rule should not be given the opportunity to do so again, regardless of how long they've been a member. People who've been around for ages should be setting examples by making excellent FPPs instead of making shitass FPPs that are also self links.

I'm totally for banning.

Further, is it not possible for Matt to truly BAN people anymore? As in, it doesn't matter if they've got $5 or not? I thought whatshisface (thirteenkiller's beau) was permabanned. How'd that happen if he can just sign up again?
posted by dobbs at 7:57 AM on February 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


Wow major error in judgment. Maybe he should be gimped rather than banned.
posted by Mister_A at 7:58 AM on February 14, 2007


Look, let's all stop dancing around it here. What we all obviously want is to flay tsarfan from groin to sternum, and methodically rip out his organs while drilling into his ears. Why is that so hard to articulate? Let's get it on!

whirrrrrrr
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 7:59 AM on February 14, 2007


Perhaps jessamyn is making a statement going forward.

I can't recall any blatant cases in the past, but defintely some where there was a five-link post and one link was a self-link and we either removed that link or let it go. Since the site is run by humans there is always wiggle room even with the severest of rules, but I guess a more accurate statement would be "This is the rule with the least wiggle room at all" possibly second after "don't hotlink goatse" (now deprecated). More to the point, tsarfan knew the rule and indicated he knew the rule, and all for a weird puff piece link about Howard Stern? Honestly it seems more prankish thank anything else.

In any case, tsarfan is on a timeout and only the man with the master passkey can decide what he wants to do about it in the long run, it's like a Presidential Veto or something. We've seen it happen before and mathowie is a notorious softie.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:59 AM on February 14, 2007


Walter Sobchak: [shouting] Has the whole world gone crazy? Am I the only one around here who gives a shit about the rules? Mark it zero!
posted by cavalier at 8:00 AM on February 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


Further, is it not possible for Matt to truly BAN people anymore? As in, it doesn't matter if they've got $5 or not? I thought whatshisface (thirteenkiller's beau) was permabanned. How'd that happen if he can just sign up again?

It's impossible to truly ban a motivated user. As long as they can break any informational ties with the previous accounts (IP, email, username similarity), how would Matt know?

Peeg hasn't tried to come back recently, as far as I know, but if he did and we didn't know it was him, how would we, well, know it was him?
posted by cortex at 8:00 AM on February 14, 2007


durr, posted that before seeing jessamyn's comment, so please don't take my quote as an affront against that!!
posted by cavalier at 8:01 AM on February 14, 2007


and mathowie is a notorious softie.

It is Valentine's Day, after all.
posted by Dave Faris at 8:02 AM on February 14, 2007


Yanking a username is more than a slap on the wrist for someone with a heavily established posting history.

Yanking a username also harms the community. If he comes back as, say, Bob and starts posting, I'm not going to find his old, pre-ban posts when I click Bob. I think a strength here is being able to find old posts by a particular user. In that light, let's keep banning to a minimum and not cut of our nose to spite our face.
posted by grumblebee at 8:06 AM on February 14, 2007


Metafilter: mathowie is a notorious softie
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:06 AM on February 14, 2007


BURN HIM.


BURN HIM.
posted by Stynxno at 8:07 AM on February 14, 2007


I took a cheap shot - a very cheap shot - at tsarfan above. But tsarfan is not really a major violator. He was amiable enough to make a "full disclosure" statement that neatly encapsulated everything we wanted to know about the problem with his post. In other words, he loaded my gun for me and pointed it at his own head, and invited me to do him the courtesy of pulling the trigger, should I choose.

His enthusiasm, however, which I believe is a reflection more of his inherent naiveté than some innate malevolence, has led him to emulate a practice that his besuited, corporate-executive owners would dearly love to institute - namely, the subversion of healthy online communities for their own personal gain. Look at the Gothamist masthead page, for instance; those who bother to disclose their interest are all employees of New York ad firms. The new journalism, to put it frankly, reeks to high heaven of astroturf - and of less wholesome substances.

I wonder how many of the daily FPPs are shill posts, sans disclosure. I don't think it's 0%, and I fear that Jess and Matt simply aren't equipped - can't be equppied - to fend off the multi-billion-dollar juggernaut that is Madison Avenue. And that's too bad.
posted by ikkyu2 at 8:09 AM on February 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


It is St. Valentine's Day Massacre Day, after all.
posted by R. Mutt at 8:11 AM on February 14, 2007


but it would help if tsarfan would appologize

Get over yourself- its a post on a message board not a personal affront to you.
Tsarfan is obviously very interested in celebrity and lifestyle stories. Many of you are not but we that doesn't mean his intentions aren't genuine. He posted what in his world is a big story story - and included links to secondary sources for background information in addition to the "breaking " story. He wasn't trying to scam anyone, just got caught up in the excitement of it. This would have been a great post for defamer or one of those other celebrity blogs, but people here love a chance to ridicule that type of stuff. I say give the guy a break
posted by petsounds at 8:15 AM on February 14, 2007


What we all obviously want is to flay tsarfan from groin to sternum, and methodically rip out his organs while drilling into his ears.

Not all of us. I want to kill him. And eat him.
posted by Meatbomb at 8:16 AM on February 14, 2007


I don't care about Stern and I don't know who the tsfarfan user is, and of course the rules are the rules, but how much traffic did this guy's blog get from MeFi? say a hundred hits? 200? then the thread got killed.

banned or not, it's hardly worth it, it's not like people make money out of self-links here. having said that, the rules are the rules. I just don't share the community's horror for this admittedly bad habit. unless you give traffic to a neoNazi Shoah-negationist site helping them become, say, Google's first result when you search for "Auschwitz" (very possible, given Google's weird policy about this), I don't know, it seems like a minor infraction to me.
posted by matteo at 8:19 AM on February 14, 2007


Not all of us. I want to kill him. And eat him.

And let the scraps lay wheresoever they may westphal?
posted by cortex at 8:22 AM on February 14, 2007


Thanks Cortex, as soon as I posted that the skin on the back of my neck started itching, anticipating a languagehattian rebuttal. That kind of thing keeps me nervous.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:23 AM on February 14, 2007


He's a real hacklerouser, that hat. A genuine spinetangler.
posted by cortex at 8:30 AM on February 14, 2007


I say we drop Raquel Welch on top of 'im! That'll teach him... something.
posted by Mister_A at 8:33 AM on February 14, 2007


but it would help if tsarfan would apologize

Get over yourself- its a post on a message board not a personal affront to you.


I wasn't personally affronted. I just believe that if I offend people, I should apologize. At the very least -- if I truly believed I'd done nothing wrong -- I would say, "I stand by what I did, but I'm sorry if it upset you."

I'm confused by your "get over yourself." Do you think of an apology as something one should only do very grudgingly -- only when shown overwhelming evidence he was wrong? I see it as a common courtesy that you show people who are upset by your actions. It's a message that you care about them.
posted by grumblebee at 8:39 AM on February 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


and mathowie is a notorious softie.

mathowie [pensively chews straw]: It's a hell of a thing banning a man. Take away all he's posted, all he's ever gonna post.

the mefi kid [beseechingly]: Yeah, well, I guess he had it 'comin.

matthowie [coldly]: We all got it comin' kid.

posted by kosem at 8:47 AM on February 14, 2007 [3 favorites]


I'm confused by your "get over yourself."

He's just rude, grumblebee.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:48 AM on February 14, 2007


Aw heck, maybe he deserves a second chance. Its not the worst mistake I've ever seen happen on Valentine's Day.

That would be the guy I knew who used the same florist, and credit card, to send roses to both his wife and his new boyfriend. Of course, his wife received the flowers intended for the boyfriend, and when she called the florist to tell them there was a mistake , well...
posted by R. Mutt at 8:52 AM on February 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


grumblebee, im just skeptical that people are offended and upset by such a harmless thing. were you forced to look at the howard stern post for a couple minutes before it was taken down? oh noes! i can see how that could really ruin your day
posted by petsounds at 8:54 AM on February 14, 2007


(end bitter sarcastic tone)
posted by petsounds at 8:56 AM on February 14, 2007


It was lame, but I also think people who have been members for a while and positive contributers should probably get a bit of a break

I just don't understand this attitude: one rule for fuckin' noobs, another for the cabal old-timers who should know better and therefore deserve a break. But whatever, as you kids say. Don't come running to me when the front page is full of unapologetic self-linkers.

OK, I'm off to rouse some hackles and tangle some spines.
posted by languagehat at 8:56 AM on February 14, 2007


i can see how that could really ruin your day

Yeah, whereas it would totally ruin tsarfan's day to make an apology, which is why you think it's so disproportionate for people to ask for one. Right.
posted by flashboy at 8:58 AM on February 14, 2007


Get over yourself- its a post on a message board not a personal affront to you.

I didn't mean it would help with me, I just meant it would help with everyone else. I couldn't care less.
posted by delmoi at 9:03 AM on February 14, 2007


I am truly, deeply sorry that this thread isn't better reading than it is.

/REDICULOUS
posted by Mister_A at 9:03 AM on February 14, 2007


tsarfan is on a timeout and only the man with the master passkey can decide what he wants to do about it in the long run

"Just wait till your father gets home!"
posted by grouse at 9:03 AM on February 14, 2007


The way I see it if some cheeseball flies by and links his stupid unfunny videoblog that is coated with google ads then that person should be banned because that is the simplest way to deal with someone who is just using mefi for traffic.

On the other hand sometimes people who have been around for a while go off the reservation and do something stupid and because they've been around for a while and generally contributed in a positive way my inclination is to say "Wow man you really shit the bed on that one, can you not do that ever again?"

The thing about "rules" and "communities" is that you need to have one to have the other, but you can also temper rules with judgment.

Maybe I'm just feeling mellow or it's a reaction to all the blood in the water.

PS.

You need to get over yourself with your confusion about a person's rudeness, grumblebee. Rudeness is where it's at. In fact all of you just get over yourselves already and kiss my dammed ass already you bunch of wimpy candydishes, you old lady violet sachet apple spice tea sippers. Apologies are the last sound your soul makes before it dies.

There, much better.
posted by Divine_Wino at 9:08 AM on February 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


I think everyone's just bitter because he announced the self-link, depriving us of the opportunity to figure it out and feel all sleuthy.
posted by staggernation at 9:12 AM on February 14, 2007 [3 favorites]


grumblebee, im just skeptical that people are offended and upset by such a harmless thing.

I understand this point of view. I sometimes feel it, too, when people get all upset about a bit of protocol on a website.

On the other hand, many of us have been reading and posting here for years. Matt created the site, but I'm sure many people here feel like they have helped make it what it is. Caring about the site makes them care about the rules. Maybe they take a website too seriously, but it's this seriousness that leads them to make meaningful contributions.

If t doesn't apologize, it seems like he doesn't care about the rules. And really, why should he? Why should MeFi be THAT important to everyone. Trouble is, it IS that important to some people -- and t knows that -- so he's done the equivalent of walking into a church and giggling during the sermon. (I'm probably overstating here, but I hope you see my point.) I'm an atheist, so to me, church rituals seem as silly as "a silly website and its silly rules," but I also know that other people don't see church this way. And if I offended church goers -- in their own church -- I would say I was sorry.
posted by grumblebee at 9:16 AM on February 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


grumblebee, im just skeptical that people are offended and upset by such a harmless thing.

The intent to violate every single aspect of your life by intrusive media designed to change your behavior and separate you from my money is not harmless, petsounds.

Wake up and smell the coffee. If someone tries to show you something, don't just passively consume it. You should be thinking "Why am I being shown this?"
posted by ikkyu2 at 9:17 AM on February 14, 2007


I just don't understand this attitude: one rule for fuckin' noobs, another for the cabal old-timers who should know better and therefore deserve a break.

Remember the story a while back about that geriatric dude who had a panic attack or whatever and floored it through a farmer's market? The debate about how to respond to that was interesting, and this reminds me of that.

Rules should serve a purpose; they should not exist simply for their own sake. If blindly applying the rule doesn't serve the purpose it's intended to serve, the rule needs interpretation.

And it's not a oldschool thing; Matt has taken a soft approach to brand spanking new users making apparently non-malicious self-links: deletion, possible timeout. It's not a new/old schism, it's a case-by-case response.

But whatever, as you kids say. Don't come running to me when the front page is full of unapologetic self-linkers.

See, but that's the point where administrative practices would adjust to the problem that actually would exist at that point. Right now, banning tsarfan would be a really unnecessary (and not very visible, note) shot across the bow of a ship still mere noise on the horizon line.
posted by cortex at 9:20 AM on February 14, 2007


This is what I get for sleeping.
posted by loquacious at 9:40 AM on February 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


I think some of the offense here isn't solely that the link was a self-post. It was a link to a "corporate" blog from one of its professional editors. It's not just some guy trying to drive traffic to his personal site, it's a paid blogger driving traffic to his company's ad-supported site.
posted by MegoSteve at 9:41 AM on February 14, 2007


Don't sleep or Howard Stern will eat you.
posted by Divine_Wino at 9:41 AM on February 14, 2007


like my profile says im more of a big fan of metafilter than a strong contributer or poster or answerer or arguer, etc. i did most of my posting and commenting and all that several years ago, and then took the advice of some and GMOB.

lately i have been coming by the blue and i leaving without contributing very much and i felt a little bad about that. so this morning after i wrote my piece for LAist and saw that because it was 8am ET and no one had really started cranking out stories in the MSM, my post about Howard was the only one on Google News, and it was buried in stories about Anna's Howard K. Stern.

so i figured id post it on the blue too since who really knows when the MSM would get around to writing about it. on one hand Stern's the most successful, popular, and powerful guy on radio (not even oprah could could 5 million people in one year to start paying for radio), but on the other hand its eww howard stern. so, yes, i linked to my own story, as it was the only one at that time.

for some reason i thought that that would be a reasonable exception to that rule. and by the way there are other rules here: no sock puppets, no threats, no super long FPPs, etc.

when it became apparent in the thread that i had done the wrong thing, i asked for clarification of the rule, got it, and thought all would be well and the post would be quickly deleted. but it wasnt and then this thread appeared, in which i asked the question again, it was answered, and i acknowledged that answer and said thank you.

but now people are looking for me to apologize while questioning my character.

like petsounds said, dude it's a message board. i was sending a message. LAist gets plenty of hits, it's a good story that will be linked by other blogs, there was no reason for me to desperately or deceitfully harm my account or good name for a few hits in the middle of the month.

in my mind metafilter is a place for smart people to talk about a variety of current events. when the topics actually get talked about, theres no better place on the web than here. all i was doing was putting a topic on the table.

ive seen some pretty heinous things in here get defended without the propagator having to apologize. including fake-out links to goatsee. it was metafilter who used to preach that if youre on the internet get prepared to be offended, its the gristle on the free steak that is the web.

therefore i would not want to create a precedent, or add to one, where someone might feel like they have to apologize for a hyperlink to an actual news story.

but for those of you who feel like one is necessary to end this lively morning, here you go, i am sorry for breaking one of the rules. and like i said before, it wont happen again.

meanwhile if you still insist on eating me, just make sure everyone gets some.
posted by tsarfan at 9:43 AM on February 14, 2007


I vote for no ban, just to be awkward and try to make the thread a bit more lively.
posted by sgt.serenity at 9:45 AM on February 14, 2007


Now apologize for wearing that shirt.
posted by Divine_Wino at 9:47 AM on February 14, 2007


Once, in a dream or hallucination or alien abduction or maybe just actual current space/time, I was locked in a white, empty room with a group of relative strangers. The only thing in the room was pile of wood shavings on the floor. After we were done with introductions and small talk, we started discussing the pile of wood shavings. After several hours, we started having really heated debates about who put the shavings there, why the shavings where there, what we should do with them. It got very strange, subtle alliances formed around various theories and violence seemed inevitable. Then I realized the door was never locked, just stuck a bit. Everyone filed out into the sunlit morning and went their separate ways and forgot all about the stupid insignificant pile of wood shavings the second they had some fresh stimuli.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:49 AM on February 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


But whatever, as you kids say. Don't come running to me when the front page is full of unapologetic self-linkers.

See, but that's the point where administrative practices would adjust to the problem that actually would exist at that point. Right now, banning tsarfan would be a really unnecessary (and not very visible, note) shot across the bow of a ship still mere noise on the horizon line.


I just got this queasy feeling in the pit of my stomach, and it tells me that this is a futile argument -- at least futile from the point of view of solving anything or changing anyone's mind. It may "work" in a gorillas-waving-their-arms-around sort of way.

We're dealing with a deep, basic, divisive issue. Some people think that if you don't spank kids, they'll never learn to become good citizens and society will crumble; others think that all they learn from spanking is anger and resentment -- and that this leads to more trouble. Ditto such views on capital punishment, etc. "We shouldn't punish for the sake of punishment; we should solve the problem" vs. "Punishment acts as a warning to future transgressors and thus does solve the problem."

I don't want to take the cynical view that people will never agree so we should all just shut up, but, honestly, I've never seen any forward momentum on these issues. People just get more and more deeply entrenched in their views.
posted by grumblebee at 9:50 AM on February 14, 2007


Umh. There really is only one rule.

There can be only one.

But seriously, there's only that one rule.
posted by mzurer at 9:51 AM on February 14, 2007


tsarfan, thanks for being man enough to apologize.

I'm in two minds about saying what I'm about to say, because I'm sure all this hasn't been fun for you -- and I don't actually think it was a capital offense.

But...

If you're going to apologize, then DO so. Don't mute it with all sorts of defenses -- at least not before you apologize. Don't apologize grudgingly. Just show that you're capable of simple human humility and so you're sorry!

ive seen some pretty heinous things in here get defended without the propagator having to apologize.

Having to apologize? Why is it such a hardship? Jesus, I fuck up about ten times a week, and there are always people to whom I owe apologies. And so I apologize.

Why is it so hard? It it an alpha-male thing?
posted by grumblebee at 9:59 AM on February 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


when it became apparent in the thread that i had done the wrong thing, i asked for clarification of the rule, got it, and thought all would be well and the post would be quickly deleted. but it wasnt and then this thread appeared, in which i asked the question again, it was answered, and i acknowledged that answer and said thank you.

The rule is right there on the posting form. How much clearer should the text be?

"Note: You read the guidelines, right? Because linking to your own site or a project you worked on in this space will result in a deletion and your account will be banned, even if your post is about a celebrity engagement. "
posted by bshort at 10:01 AM on February 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


Why is it so hard? It it an alpha-male thing?
posted by grumblebee


Could be those new herbal tabs.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:01 AM on February 14, 2007


"...metafilter is a place for smart people to talk about a variety of current events"

[Grumble, murmur,snort.]

"Speak up", you say? It's not important—I was just grinding my axe. I thought he was on timeout?

Oh, look: it's sharp. I'd like to emphatically but politely express my objection to the notion that MetaFilter's purpose is to be a place for smart people to talk about a variety of current events. And I've got an axe.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:06 AM on February 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


!EXCLUSIVE!
MUST CREDIT TSARFAN!!!
posted by euphorb at 10:07 AM on February 14, 2007


A proposal and a beheading on St. Valentine's Day. How apt.
posted by Elmore at 10:11 AM on February 14, 2007


And yeah, you don't have to apologize, but if you're going to do it, just be a man about it and say you're sorry.

Offering limp excuses is so 2006.
posted by bshort at 10:21 AM on February 14, 2007


Mistakes were made.
posted by R. Mutt at 10:23 AM on February 14, 2007


"Why is it so hard? It it an alpha-male thing?"

I don't think so. I think it's more an "I don't actually believe that I'm [much, if at all] in the wrong" thing. Some people hardly ever think they've been wrong, even when people around them are unanimous in the opinion they were. Of those, some learn to insincerely apologize as a social necessity; others do not.

My father never, ever apologized for anything, or admitted error, when I was growing up. In recent years he's improved in this area but not changed dramatically. The change that has come, though, I sense has been the result of a new ability to actually recognize error. He does have a strong sense of personal integrity and therefore the occasional awareness of his own mistakes has sort of forced him to admit them. Even so, there's still this enormous psychological need to be right and sinless that approaches delusion. Lots of people are like this.

As in so many things, my personality and habit in this regard was a response to my father. It occurred to me that being able to recognize and admit my own mistakes is a virtue and that, were I to embrace it, I could be a better man than he. Not the best motive, but there it is. In the process I discovered that I don't really mind having been wrong, although I am still deeply and intensely motivated by a desire to not be wrong in the first place. So in one sense I'm not afraid of error, in another I very much am. The sense in which I'm still fearful is probably the motivation behind the degree to which I still fail to recognize and admit error. The chief way this manifests with me, and I suspect with many other people around these parts, is the annoying retreat into vigorously defending a minor assertion. I don't do this consciously, but I sure as hell do it. When I recognize this, I'm pretty disgusted by it. But it's so easy to do.

Anyway, my point is that for those of us who find recognizing and admitting error a pretty easy thing to do—sometimes it's even rewarding—it's hard to understand why other kinds of people go to such lengths to avoid it. It's perhaps even more difficult to realize that some of those people almost never actually believe they are ever in error in the first place.

On the other hand, sometimes when I publicly admit error and apologize it feels ostentatious. Sometimes I'll do it anyway—especially if I've been publicly arguing principally against another individual—for their sake. It seems like in conflict, we are rarely validated afterwards for having been right all along. Often the person proven in the wrong just sorts of disappears, which is usually the case here on MeFi. That is, they disappear from the thread. I do this too—I wish I did it less often. I think it's both courteous and generous to be sure to say to the other person, "Hey, you know what? You are right and I've been wrong." At the very least because it's so rare.

Sorry for the rambling. I just awoke and it's a lovely snowy day outside. It inspires a lack of discipline.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:33 AM on February 14, 2007 [2 favorites]


Thanks, EB, that was a wonderful post.

I guess my world view is that if I try 10 things, 7 of them are likely to go wrong.

This doesn't make me feel incompetent, because I don't think my success-rate is that bad (compared to other people's). Everyone I know fucks up a lot of the time. And the grownups pick themselves up and try again, clean up their messes and apologize to anyone they bothered.
posted by grumblebee at 10:47 AM on February 14, 2007


tsarfan, as a journalist, who must conform to certain stylistic standards, would it kill you to be so kind as to capitalize the first word of each sentence when you post a comment? I mean, come on.
posted by chlorus at 10:52 AM on February 14, 2007


meanwhile if you still insist on eating me, just make sure everyone gets some.

I CALL DRUMSTICK. Hey, this isn't Foster Farms! *ptew* God, I don't miss LA.
posted by loquacious at 11:02 AM on February 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


I was just coming in here to propose clemency for tsarfan. Then I read his "not-really-an-apology" apology. Now I don't care.
posted by ColdChef at 11:08 AM on February 14, 2007


Is it an LA thing? Gothamist didn't spew this crap in my newsreader, they were too busy cheering on The Steamroller.
posted by Skorgu at 11:10 AM on February 14, 2007


(Cue the people who demanded an apology but who are now peeved at the quality of it.)
posted by Dave Faris at 11:12 AM on February 14, 2007


therefore i would not want to create a precedent, or add to one, where someone might feel like they have to apologize for a hyperlink to an actual news story.

Is it technically an apology if it appears that the poster is not clear on what he's actually apologizing for?
posted by ColdChef at 11:20 AM on February 14, 2007


Give him a pass for self-linking. But crucify him on a stack of Merriam-Websters for this.

(WTF is a "Contriubuter"? Even website editors should know how to spell...)
posted by turducken at 11:22 AM on February 14, 2007


Metafilter: demanding apologies for apologies.
posted by miss lynnster at 11:33 AM on February 14, 2007


in my mind metafilter is a place for smart people to talk about a variety of current events. when the topics actually get talked about, theres no better place on the web than here. all i was doing was putting a topic on the table.

When Howard Stern moved to satellite radio, that was an opportunity to talk about the changing media landscape. If he got fired, that might spark an interesting discussion about censorship. If he died with 37 bottles of a diet pill he shilled for in his fridge, maybe that could even be, umm, "interesting". But I honestly don't understand what smart people would have to talk about on the topic of Howard Stern getting engaged.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:37 AM on February 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


Obviously the correct response to this would have been posting tsarfan's phone number and encouraging everyone to prank call at all hours with exclusive stories such as "Howard Stern just died in Iraq fighting insurgents, I have proof!!"

And then screaming baba booey or whatever the hell it is. Banning is fine and all but we no longer get to have image-vomiting sessions when a self-link shows up on the blue and these angry MeTas are getting a bit old-hat, we need to customize our angry responses to the individual self-linker in order to better entertain ourselves.

Like if someone self-linked to an article about burning man, we would find him, douse him in gasoline and set him ablaze. It would be good for the community as a whole if we did this. Self-policing means nothing if the punishments are not a deterrent and nothing beats crazy vigilantism for keeping people in line.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 11:42 AM on February 14, 2007



so this morning after i wrote my piece for LAist and saw that because it was 8am ET and no one had really started cranking out stories in the MSM, my post about Howard was the only one on Google News, and it was buried in stories about Anna's Howard K. Stern.

translation: no one was paying attention to my story so I had to post it somewhere it would get more views

so i figured id post it on the blue too since who really knows when the MSM would get around to writing about it. on one hand Stern's the most successful, popular, and powerful guy on radio (not even oprah could could 5 million people in one year to start paying for radio), but on the other hand its eww howard stern. so, yes, i linked to my own story, as it was the only one at that time.

translation: Howard Stern is AWESOME

for some reason i thought that that would be a reasonable exception to that rule. and by the way there are other rules here: no sock puppets, no threats, no super long FPPs, etc.

translation: I really don't know what the rules are here, it's all so vague, why are you guys picking on me?

when it became apparent in the thread that i had done the wrong thing, i asked for clarification of the rule, got it, and thought all would be well and the post would be quickly deleted. but it wasnt and then this thread appeared, in which i asked the question again, it was answered, and i acknowledged that answer and said thank you.

translation: it's not my fault my self-link stayed up so long and I said thanks JEEZ

but now people are looking for me to apologize while questioning my character.

translation: I was trying to be helpful by cluing mefites into important news, and you guys are being mean.

like petsounds said, dude it's a message board. i was sending a message. LAist gets plenty of hits, it's a good story that will be linked by other blogs, there was no reason for me to desperately or deceitfully harm my account or good name for a few hits in the middle of the month.

translation: there was truly no good reason to post this here I MEAN WAIT WHAT AM I SAYING
posted by oneirodynia at 11:44 AM on February 14, 2007 [4 favorites]


Im changing my mind and calling for a ban because this end of the thread is starting to get a bit nice.
posted by sgt.serenity at 11:46 AM on February 14, 2007


The second post on Tsarfan's blog (scroll down) seems to add some... um, context.
posted by R. Mutt at 12:01 PM on February 14, 2007


This post, I mean.
posted by R. Mutt at 12:09 PM on February 14, 2007


"...i was able to write not only the first post about Howards engagement

but some might say the best."

Remember back when "Snakes in a Plane" was inexplicably marketing gold? They had an ability to be called by a canned Samuel Jackson message that exhorted you to see the movie, which "JUST MIGHT BE the GREATEST movie of ALL TIME!"

For some reason that memory jumped back into my head just now.
posted by Drastic at 12:11 PM on February 14, 2007


tsarfan, as a journalist, who must conform to certain stylistic standards,

As should be abundantly clear by this point, tsarfan is not a journalist. That title is applied far too freely in general.
posted by odinsdream at 12:16 PM on February 14, 2007


Blogs are stupid.
posted by Mister_A at 12:30 PM on February 14, 2007


He misspelled rediculous.
posted by Floydd at 12:35 PM on February 14, 2007


Well, as to MetaFilter's purpose....

February 14, 2000

Jerry Lewis pulled an Andy Kaufman at a recent comedy awards Q&A session...
Here's a nice survey of geographic location of domain name ownership...
Indiana University Bans use of Napster...
Yahoo! is being sued...
I knew hard drive storage was cheap, but I didn't think it was that cheap...
AOL jumps on the get-rich-quick bandwagon...
An interesting article over at Slashdot on the 9 continents of the Internet...
Forget Fezbot (Feb 13th) - now you can try out Linux with a bootable CDROM...
Well, the word is out, Windows 2000 ships this Thursday and, with it, approximately 63,000 bugs...
Well, that was quick. Last week Clintion & Reno urge the FBI to go into a full investigation of the DoS attacks of Yahoo, eBay, etc., and they're already suspecting it was German crackers...
February 14, 2002

So tonight, boys and girls: if you could only have one weblog to take with you to the desert island, which one would it be?
fun with faces. using applets, ken perlin built an interactive facial-expression thingy...
Windows XP unveiled...
Oh, leave the poor guy alone already. Not the much-harrassed ex-president Clinton this time, but rather Bill Gates and co. ...
Man Marries TV...
The Chinese, it seems, are destroying their trees for thow away chopsticks and there is building concern that they should recycle their eating utensils...
The VA Pledge of Allegiance bill (discussed at MeFi two weeks ago here) is withdrawn, after one last old-school McCarthyesque comment by its sponsor...
Valentine's Day may be a remant of the ancient Roman festival of Lupercalia...
Jef Raskin, creator of the Macintosh project at Apple, says the windows-based interface is passé...
Kansas Evolves...
blog you*3 egos on display...
how to buy the new republican party...
Blogger server down?
Imelda Marcos to open museum for her shoes...
Prime Time. A prime is a whole number divisible only by itself and 1...
Gates, Buffett & Soros unite to fight . . . the estate tax?
As it is a community website, the definition of MetaFilter's purpose is not singular but mainfold and the definitions continue to multiply as the membership grows.

Some people think that there may be a theoretical ideal MetaFilter out there projected on the walls of Plato's cave but, in fact and in practice, the place is what it is, and, as the evidence above well shows, one thing it has always been is a place for smart people to talk about a variety of current events.

From the evidence above, though, one can argue that what makes today's MetaFilter different from MetaFilter in the beginning is the posts, on average, and regardless of topic, are far more interesting and sophisticated, and, as a percentage of each day's postings, those posts concerning news of any sort are a far smaller part of the total.

These are the good old days, in other words.

However, on topic--sort of--that the consensus is that, self link or not, it is not the place for intelligent people to discuss the marriage plans of Howard Stern not a hard argument to make.
posted by y2karl at 12:48 PM on February 14, 2007


in a parallel universe..
posted by petsounds at 12:56 PM on February 14, 2007


yknow what.. changed my mind.. ban this attention whore
posted by petsounds at 1:00 PM on February 14, 2007


Fancy that! In this thread, I learned that the word "click" looks a lot like the word "dick," especially in a sans serif font or if you squint and make your sight all blurry.

Check it out: click, dick, dick, click, click, click, dick, dick, dick!

Too bad there isn't another word that looks like "shitlips."
posted by breezeway at 1:23 PM on February 14, 2007


Content or comment, the words click and dick cover a lot of territory here.
posted by y2karl at 1:34 PM on February 14, 2007


This Stern fellow sounds interesting. Good luck to him, though I fear this "radio" is but a passing fancy, like the velocipede or dentistry.
posted by Mister_A at 1:55 PM on February 14, 2007


by the way there are other rules here: no sock puppets...

Where the heck did you get that idea?
posted by Señor Grumpus at 2:13 PM on February 14, 2007


Everyone I know fucks up a lot of the time. And the grownups pick themselves up and try again, clean up their messes and apologize to anyone they bothered.

Just wanted to see that again, because it's so well said and so true.

And this is an excellent job of explication.
posted by languagehat at 2:16 PM on February 14, 2007


Everyone I know fucks up a lot of the time. And the grownups pick themselves up and try again, clean up their messes and apologize to anyone they bothered.

Yeah, it's the final puzzle piece of adulthood.

For my part, my tendency towards forgiveness is now well tempered by the petulance of our boy's non-apology. Alas.
posted by Divine_Wino at 2:33 PM on February 14, 2007


Señor Grumpus

best valentine evar.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:37 PM on February 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


So, did he get banned?
posted by Burhanistan at 2:46 PM on February 14, 2007


i clicked the post this morning before work. flagged it, got home from work, and had a chance to look over both that thread and this one. i'm just kind of amazed tsarfan posted it here, and amazed he doesn't seem to think its that big a deal, and amazed that its taken him this long to fuck up this big.
posted by nola at 2:48 PM on February 14, 2007


~avuncularly hugs the moderator~
posted by Señor Grumpus at 2:56 PM on February 14, 2007


Wait... so let me get this straight. tsarfan likes to bump uglies with popular hot chicks. And one of them knows Howard's new fiance? And somehow she spilled the beans either before or after they finished celebrating her sexiness, and she pulled her boots back on? So he got to write a blog about it before anybody else?

So was the Howard scoop like her Valentine's Day gift to him or something? I mean, besides the whole celebrating her sexiness thing? Apparently they don't celebrate his sexiness... so hmmm.
posted by miss lynnster at 3:10 PM on February 14, 2007


So many questions.
posted by miss lynnster at 3:11 PM on February 14, 2007


ditoris
posted by Elmore at 3:14 PM on February 14, 2007


Actually miss lynnster, it's more like: tsarfan has always been a delusional self-promoting blogwhore who also happens to have a mefi account. Today just happens to be the day he couldn't keep his whoring off the front page.

Normally I wouldn't say anything, but as a result of my familiarity with his blog and various escapades in a small circle of the internet which I hope to never visit again and wouldn't wish on anyone, I'm not going to hesitate calling a douche a douche.
posted by kyleg at 3:55 PM on February 14, 2007 [2 favorites]


poxuppit writes "The whole point of the self-link rule is that you can't judge the worthiness of your own stuff. A notion you seem to have demonstrated in spades."

Too bad talk doesn't support tags, this thread needs the metafilter history tag as a conical example of why we ban self linking.
posted by Mitheral at 4:17 PM on February 14, 2007


Conical examples are the best kinds to dick on. [NOT EUCLIDEAN]
posted by cgc373 at 4:22 PM on February 14, 2007 [2 favorites]


glad to see that kyleg took me up on my offer to eat me.
posted by tsarfan at 4:22 PM on February 14, 2007


Nothing worse than having trying to celebrate someone's sexiness and they keep saying "Howard Stern!"
posted by R. Mutt at 4:26 PM on February 14, 2007


So, was it an apology or a middle finger?
posted by Burhanistan at 4:29 PM on February 14, 2007


It's weird, I always got the impression that the [wherever]ist group generally hired fairly clueful people. Gothamist seems good, the Londonist guys are great... if I didn't know better, I'd think that LA must be some kind of horrifying psychic black hole that sucks otherwise decent souls in and turns them into hollow vampire creatures, greedily sucking the last remaining drops from the dessicated carcasses of the counterfeit-flesh'd false idols, before regurgitating the fetid lumps of rotting viscera into the eyes of innocent bystanders and telling them as the mucus and membranes dribble down their face that it's what they clearly wanted all along, because that's what a focus group interpreter told them once while busily shoving cocaine up a hooker's asshole.

Or something.
posted by flashboy at 4:33 PM on February 14, 2007 [1 favorite]


Making an FPP about Howard Stern's engagement with a link to your own poorly-written tabloid is like farting in a crowded elevator and then loudly congratulating yourself.
posted by fandango_matt at 4:39 PM on February 14, 2007


middle finger, I would say. Basically, he posted a self-link and doesn't know what the hell everyone is upset about. Pretty sorry, really.
posted by bob sarabia at 4:45 PM on February 14, 2007


Ok, now don't be insulting LA. I lived there for 18 years & was even a paid tourguide & stuff. It ain't all bad, people. Has many good points too.

tsarfan didn't answer my questions though. Sniffle. :(
posted by miss lynnster at 4:48 PM on February 14, 2007


:: Leaves this thread to go & celebrate her sexiness ::
posted by miss lynnster at 4:49 PM on February 14, 2007


Any time, tony. And right back at ya.
posted by kyleg at 5:03 PM on February 14, 2007


That was an apology? That apology was as bogus as his "timeout" was.

What is the point of having rules and then not enforcing them? Oh, and then complaining later when people don't follow the rules....
posted by garypratt at 5:05 PM on February 14, 2007


*clicks miss lynnster's profile*

*listens to miss lynnster's posted songs*

*celebrates miss lynnster's sexiness, too!*

DAAAMN. That stuff is great, miss lynnster. Never mind all this foofooraw Stern BS, and listen to miss lynnster's songs, people!
posted by cgc373 at 5:07 PM on February 14, 2007


miss lynnster, pardon me for not answering your questions... as i wrote earlier in this thread, i heard the news live on the radio at 3:15am PT.

and bob sarabia, and others, no my apology was not a middle finger. i said i was sorry for breaking the rule and that i wouldn't do it again.

id say im sorry that you weren't happy with my apology after some of you demanded it, but something tells me you probably wouldn't accept that either.

some days you should just write off.

but miss lynnster, i didn't mean to avoid your question, now that i know it was a serious one.
posted by tsarfan at 5:09 PM on February 14, 2007


In gossip circles, where tsarfan runs, I can see how this might be big news.
I can see how one might be excited about pre-scooping all other online news/gossip sites.
I can see how one might get post one's triumphant glory on Metafilter.
I can see how one might get banned.

Look, the whole "I'm the editor of LAist" MI comment is a total red herring apology. We all know that he's at LAist. It would not have taken five minutes for someone to post that. That very news was posted here, in Metatalk, I think. Or on awholelottanothing.

Pre-apologizing means he knows it was wrong, but he thought the story was just too important.

It wasn't.
posted by graventy at 5:09 PM on February 14, 2007


Oh, I'm sorry... was someone talking to me? I'm just awfully busy celebrating how freaking sexy I am.
posted by miss lynnster at 5:14 PM on February 14, 2007


Oh and thanks for the compliments on the songs. Glad ya like my chanteusey ways. ;)
posted by miss lynnster at 5:19 PM on February 14, 2007


posted by graventy Pre-apologizing means he knows it was wrong, but he thought the story was just too important.

Tsarfan Tsranslation: "I know the rules, but they don't apply to me."
posted by fandango_matt at 5:22 PM on February 14, 2007


it is doubly painful that tony's self-link was to a post about howard stern on a site that claims to be about los angeles. the site now seems to be more about tony's interests and politics than los angeles.

but thanks to the site, i now know the lineup for bonnaroo. if only it were in los angeles, and not tennessee.
posted by jimw at 5:28 PM on February 14, 2007


I'm not sure Tsarfan understand that millions and millions of people just don't care who Howard Stern marries.

Many of those that do actually care were listening to Howards radio show at 6:15 in the morning ET when he announced this "bombshell"
posted by Megafly at 5:53 PM on February 14, 2007


What I don't understand is how tsarfan got a timeout and yet keeps posting.
posted by languagehat at 6:01 PM on February 14, 2007


I'm fuzzy on that, too, languagehat. Never been timed out or banned or whatnot m'self, but I thought not posting was the result of those actions.
posted by cgc373 at 6:04 PM on February 14, 2007


presidential veto.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:06 PM on February 14, 2007


Howard who?
posted by pompomtom at 6:09 PM on February 14, 2007


"Some guys have all the luck
Some guys have all the pain
Some guys get all the breaks
Some guys do nothing but complain"

</Rod Stewart>
posted by cgc373 at 6:09 PM on February 14, 2007


jimw,

howard was #1 in LA for several years in a row when he was here and when he left and was replaced by adam corolla the station went to dead last and stayed there for a while. so needless to say theres a lot of interest in him here.

as for the post on bonnaroo, LA is also the entertainment capital of the world. bonnaroo is a huge festival put on by Live Nation, an LA company. its the festival most often compared to our own coachella. we didn't have to cover the lineup announcement, but im in the more information camp than less information camp.
posted by tsarfan at 6:11 PM on February 14, 2007


So where's matt to explain why tsarfan gets away scott with a selflink?
posted by bob sarabia at 6:16 PM on February 14, 2007


presidential veto.

IMPEACH!
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 6:17 PM on February 14, 2007


It's speculation, bob sarabia, but mathowie's reasoning probably lines up with cortex's, above.
posted by cgc373 at 6:19 PM on February 14, 2007


jessamyn: "presidential veto."

Well that sucks. Really.
posted by octothorpe at 6:45 PM on February 14, 2007


So self-links are ok if we're glib and clueless?

What.

The.

Hell.

Matt?
posted by bshort at 6:59 PM on February 14, 2007


I am of no fixed opinion in regards to this matter.

Upon reflection, however, the ghost at the banquet aspect is unsettling. Not to mention unseemly, not mention annoying.

Perhaps a timeout is called for after all. Just on esthetic grounds.
posted by y2karl at 7:13 PM on February 14, 2007


consider it done, y2karl
posted by tsarfan at 7:22 PM on February 14, 2007


Pardon.
posted by breezeway at 7:26 PM on February 14, 2007


as for the post on bonnaroo, LA is also the entertainment capital of the world. bonnaroo is a huge festival put on by Live Nation, an LA company.

Huh? Not that I really care, but Bonnaroo is put on by Superfly, a NY company. (I used to work in the office next to theirs.)
posted by equalpants at 7:28 PM on February 14, 2007


so needless to say theres a lot of interest in him here.

Right now there's a lot of interest in my computer room amongst my cats Biggles, Buffy and Winston in the recently by-me consumed Stouffer's Salisbury Steak "meal" tray that I just put on the ground for them to lick clean. Winston likes to lick the macaroni and cheese part of the tray, while Biggles and Buffy prefer the sauce on the meat side (gotta make sure you get all the onions out, though. Don't give cats onions.)

Wow. All I have to do is remember that I've been paying Typepad $5 a month for ages for a dead blog, take a few grainy cell phone pics and I've got me a FPP!

And yes, for the record, I do really think I could make a blog of my cats eating leftovers more interesting than a blog post about who Howard Stern has decided to fuck when he's not getting pornstars to straddle a Sybian.

And a Google search for "Sybian" is NSFW, by the way.

posted by Cyrano at 7:53 PM on February 14, 2007


Cyrano, what happens when you give cats onions?
posted by Burhanistan at 8:34 PM on February 14, 2007


Also, does this mean metafilter is going to see a populist revolt where self linkers post posts by the dozen in flagrant contempt for the lack of bannination?
posted by Burhanistan at 8:38 PM on February 14, 2007


presidential veto.

I was wondering why Matt was being quiet in the thread--guess I don't blame him though as there's no real explanation that would fly.

Totally lame, Matt.
posted by dobbs at 10:04 PM on February 14, 2007


I haven't read this whole thread, but I gave tony a pass because he was a early member and contributed a ton of great stuff to the site for many years. Seeing his post this morning, it felt like a huge misjudgment from someone that previously had a great track record here. I chalked it up to being akin to jonmc posting some lame cheaptrick video as a stunt to condemn youtube links or something. I'm not made of stone -- I've always given longtime members a free pass before being banned.

Anyway, I don't think Tony has taken it very gracefully here and could have been much more direct and upfront and simply apologized and a lot of people are pissed about it so I'm going to have to set his account to banned. We normally ban people instantly for doing this but I was giving him the benefit of the doubt and I don't think too many people agreed with the decision. I'm sorry everyone for unbanning him and not sticking to the rule.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:32 PM on February 14, 2007


Also, I forgot I already gave him a second chance before.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:34 PM on February 14, 2007


His blog. Living and dying by the blogosphere indeed. There seems to be a real crisis of humanity occurring with him and hopefully he will find some real substance someday.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:00 PM on February 14, 2007


Huh. That blog entry hurt my head.

To be honest, I do wish he would stop throwing it into each blog entry how hot he is with the ladies. I mean, good for him & all, but whatever. When someone talks about it that often it seems a little like... ummm... overkill. Kinda icky. (But I'm not big on kissing & telling, myself. I like having a private life.)
Although all of that said, my friends & I have now officially latched onto the phrase "celebrating her sexiness" in all of its cheeseball glory, I have to admit. So I'm giddy that he donated that one to our cause. It's a beautiful thing.
posted by miss lynnster at 11:51 PM on February 14, 2007


I haven't read this whole thread, but I gave tony a pass because he was a early member and contributed a ton of great stuff to the site for many years.

I think your first instincts were right. Positives over negatives. A time out is in order. I'm not so crazy about a ban.
posted by y2karl at 12:19 AM on February 15, 2007


.
posted by Wolof at 2:53 AM on February 15, 2007


Wow. He's only on his second second chance?

Slacker.
posted by Dave Faris at 5:21 AM on February 15, 2007


I've been a member of Fight Club for six years. I think that gives me the right to talk about it once in a while.
posted by staggernation at 6:08 AM on February 15, 2007 [8 favorites]


While I understand how y2karl feels and might, if it weren't February and I didn't have to go out and shovel the damn sidewalk again, be tempted to agree with him, I think Matt did the right thing. The absolute ban on self-linking is the dike that keeps the sea of marketfilth from flooding this territory. Also, if tsarfan had been forgiven again, I might have started thinking there was a cabal after all.
posted by languagehat at 6:54 AM on February 15, 2007


What is the law? Not to self-link; that is the law. Are we not men?
posted by octobersurprise at 6:57 AM on February 15, 2007


languagehat, who you calling a dike?
posted by staggernation at 6:58 AM on February 15, 2007


I somehow think that in reality timeouts are basically the same as a ban. My understanding is that in either case the offender is required to contact number 1 and obsequiously request a pass back into the game.

And as I'm sure you're still reading this tsarfan, go back and read ikkyu2's comment. Print it out. Reread it from time to time.
posted by peacay at 7:13 AM on February 15, 2007


Also, I forgot I already gave him a second chance before.

Good grief, that's some serious cross-site attention whoring. In lieu of memorializing tsfarfan with dots, I suggest favoriting this comment.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 7:57 AM on February 15, 2007


Jesus, my agenda of moderation and forgiveness always fails. I'm going back to a platform of slightly hostile neutrality, like a hungover Switzerland.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:10 AM on February 15, 2007


Switzerland only gets away with that because they're holding all the money.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:38 AM on February 15, 2007


Sure, the Swiss have the money. But they also have badass ski troops, airbases in manmade caverns cut into the sides of mountains, long uphill climbs for any invader's supply lines (plus demolition teams at hand to cause tactical avalanches), and the world's oldest mercenary contract guarding Papa Ratzi in the Vatican.
posted by breezeway at 9:13 AM on February 15, 2007 [1 favorite]


Plus they get to guard the pope.
posted by miss lynnster at 9:35 AM on February 15, 2007


Damn, didn't read the end of breezeway's comment. Beaten to it! Arrrgh.
posted by miss lynnster at 9:36 AM on February 15, 2007


From wikipedia: During World War II, it defended Swiss airspace against incursions by both Allied and Axis aircraft, shooting down aircraft from both sides of the conflict.

Interesting! If not for this awful thread I might never would've known that...so, um...yeah.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:39 AM on February 15, 2007


cortex: Do not misunderstand, kosem, for we are aligned in our desire for the realization of that terrible purpose, but it is sheathed that the banhammer gains potential; and lo, so long as it waits, restless and unweilded, it festers and charges and builds ever greater reserves of energy; and on that fateful day that even attempts at reason and understanding and kind mitigation of some grey offense are not sufficient to settle a misguided and obstinant soul, then the hammer will erupt, unbound at last, in an orgy of such violent retribution that the gods themselves will lol.

Patience. Patience.


And yet this has been strangely unsatisfying. A quiet, dutiful, melancholy bannination.

::pictures mathowie shedding a single tear::
::sheds a single tear::
posted by kosem at 10:37 AM on February 15, 2007 [1 favorite]


Guess when modern Switzerland was recognized as an independent neutral state?

Article LXIII of the Treaty of Westphalia:

And as His Imperial Majesty, upon Complaints made in the name of the City of Basle, and of all Switzerland, in the presence of their Plenipotentiarys deputed to the present Assembly, touching some Procedures and Executions proceeding from the Imperial Chamber against the said City, and the other united Cantons of the Swiss Country, and their Citizens and Subjects having demanded the Advice of the States of the Empire and their Council; these have, by a Decree of the 14th of May of the last Year, declared the said City of Basle, and the other Swiss-Cantons, to be as it were in possession of their full Liberty and Exemption of the Empire; so that they are no ways subject to the Judicatures, or Judgments of the Empire, and it was thought convenient to insert the same in this Treaty of Peace, and confirm it, and thereby to make void and annul all such Procedures and Arrests given on this Account in what form soever.
posted by Meatbomb at 11:25 AM on February 15, 2007 [1 favorite]


Let the motherfucking circle be unbroken.
posted by Divine_Wino at 11:28 AM on February 15, 2007


I say we remove his vowels!
posted by Freen at 7:11 PM on February 18, 2007


« Older It's REDICULOUS, I tell you, R...  |  A thread in which someone who ... Newer »

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