A self-link waiting to happen? April 3, 2007 8:38 PM   Subscribe

A self-link waiting to happen?
posted by cerebus19 to Etiquette/Policy at 8:38 PM (105 comments total)

What I find particularly interesting is that the articles that appear to have been written by this man are in perfectly good English, whereas his profile page and comments...not so much.
posted by cerebus19 at 8:39 PM on April 3, 2007


Just because he'd never seen White Lion before?
posted by klangklangston at 8:45 PM on April 3, 2007


wgat
posted by boo_radley at 8:55 PM on April 3, 2007


Wow, Minority Report meets Metafilter.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:03 PM on April 3, 2007 [5 favorites]


Also, HYIPers should be shot for not making the world a better place.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:04 PM on April 3, 2007


I gotta go with Cerebus on this one: it's only a matter of time (like minutes). IMHO even his user page is over the line, in part because it risks getting Metafilter blacklisted by the googlebot.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 9:07 PM on April 3, 2007


Hell, let's ban all users- if they haven't done something to deserve it yet, they will soon!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:13 PM on April 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


I was all set to bitch and say "Well it hasn't happened yet, Nostradamus!" but his profile is pretty damn lame, so I dunno.
posted by delmoi at 9:18 PM on April 3, 2007


I saw this person sign up today and their paypal email was honestly something like GETRICHWORKFROMHOME@yahoo and I said to myself "I bet $100 this person is a spammer".

I guess I'll wait for the inevitable, but maybe a refund and instaban is in order.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:18 PM on April 3, 2007


Jesus fucksticks on Venus, leave the guy alone until he actually does something wrong.

I mean, you might well be right, and it'll be gloriously schadenfreuderiffic if he does post something dubious, but let's wait until the bell goes ding before we start with the pitchforks and knives, huh?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:18 PM on April 3, 2007


That was aimed at cerebus19, but it works with what mathowie said, too. Although I might have toned it down a notch. Heh.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:19 PM on April 3, 2007


IMHO even his user page is over the line, in part because it risks getting Metafilter blacklisted by the googlebot.

Steven, metafilter profiles are restricted by from being spidered by robots.txt and all of the links on the user page have rel="nofollow" attributes.

So how could his profile affect metafilter's page rank (Which is 8, by the way)
posted by delmoi at 9:21 PM on April 3, 2007


The email, the user profile, the name that doesn't line up to their username or paypal name, their spammy stuff all over the web, the completely pointless comments... I'm siding with cerebus19 on this one. I closed the account and gave them a refund.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:22 PM on April 3, 2007


Give me Keith Richards or give me death.

More importantly, how did you pick up on this guy after two comments?
posted by phaedon at 9:22 PM on April 3, 2007


heh.

.
posted by phaedon at 9:25 PM on April 3, 2007


cerebus19 writes "What I find particularly interesting is that the articles that appear to have been written by this man are in perfectly good English, whereas his profile page and comments...not so much."

The blog posts are, but the header copy is not. And each post -- every one of them essentially an ad -- has a different style, leading me to believe he copied them from whatever products/services he's linking to in the blog post.
posted by orthogonality at 9:25 PM on April 3, 2007


More importantly, how did you pick up on this guy after two comments?
posted by phaedon


He works here.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:27 PM on April 3, 2007


Yeah, I visited his website. If that's the kind of stuff that interests him, he ought to be banned for bad taste anyway. I mean, he talks about "HYIP Investment" On the site, which is basically pyramid schemes like the old stockgeneration scam. He's not just a spammer, he's a scammer.

And anyway, it appears he has been banned. My only gripe is that he got a refund. The $5 ought to go to a "victims of online scamming" fund or something.
posted by delmoi at 9:28 PM on April 3, 2007


"We'll have no trouble in here, this is a local shop for local people. There is nothing for you here"
posted by tellurian at 9:29 PM on April 3, 2007 [6 favorites]


I closed the account and gave them a refund.

Your prerogative. I don't like it though, no sir I don't. Not that that should matter to you, of course. Just using my god-given right to air my opinions about every damn thing under the sun, no matter how worthless, on the internets.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:30 PM on April 3, 2007


I picked up on him because I noticed his comment on my FPP, and I didn't recognize his username, so I clicked through to his profile.
posted by cerebus19 at 9:32 PM on April 3, 2007


toss him out the airlock.
posted by phaedon at 9:34 PM on April 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


Mmmm, prior restraint.
posted by nanojath at 9:38 PM on April 3, 2007


I agree with tellurian. We must protect the precious things of the web site.
posted by boo_radley at 9:40 PM on April 3, 2007


I just want to say I clicked on the "white lion" link above and found this
posted by drjimmy11 at 9:57 PM on April 3, 2007


Raaawwwr! Metafilter scratch MLM fuckbag! Hisssss!
posted by Rhomboid at 10:34 PM on April 3, 2007


This is entirely less interesting and not nearly as enjoyable when you don't wait for them to actually self-link and make total idiots of themselves. Half of the fun is observing how pasty, weak and otherwise inconsequential their defensive arguments actually are when exposed to the nuclear glare of Metafilter's combined intellectual outrage.

You have no sense of tension or drama, and a remarkable lack of self control and patience. I bet you just eat all the cookie dough right out of the bowl before it even makes it to the baking sheet.
posted by loquacious at 10:35 PM on April 3, 2007 [5 favorites]


Heck, I bet you don't even bother to preheat the oven.
posted by loquacious at 10:37 PM on April 3, 2007


Thank goodness he was caught, or he might have done something.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:37 PM on April 3, 2007


Woah, terminated with extreme prejudice.
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:38 PM on April 3, 2007


cerebus19, do you recognize me? Hmm? :)
posted by anthill at 10:39 PM on April 3, 2007


that said, i'd have done the same. net mlmers don't deserve accounts.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:40 PM on April 3, 2007


our minority report squad should go net-roving and come up with users that can be pre-banned!
posted by five fresh fish at 10:41 PM on April 3, 2007


Why would you ever put cookie dough on a baking sheet?
Slit open plastic wrap. Shove into mouth. Repeat.
posted by Dizzy at 10:45 PM on April 3, 2007


Benito would be proud.
posted by phaedon at 10:49 PM on April 3, 2007


let's wait until the bell goes ding

Even I heard it go ding. The piles of coins on his site went ding.
posted by Listener at 10:59 PM on April 3, 2007


I see this less like Benito and more like Little Bill meeting English Bob at the border of Big Whiskey in Unforgiven. Little Bill didn't wait for English Bob to shoot those men before he kicked him out of town.

"I'll have that pistol now, Bob."
posted by Bookhouse at 11:05 PM on April 3, 2007 [1 favorite]


Even I heard it go ding.

Maybe you should see a doctor about that.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:07 PM on April 3, 2007


Half of the fun is observing how pasty, weak and otherwise inconsequential their defensive arguments actually are when exposed to the nuclear glare of Metafilter's combined intellectual outrage.

Exhibit A
Exhibit B

Sadly, the children of Metafilter will probably never get to experience the glory of threads like that due to quicker reaction times on account of the increased staffing in the Department of Deletions and Banhammerings, not to mention the loss of our pal <IMG>.
posted by Rhomboid at 11:26 PM on April 3, 2007


"I see this less like Benito and more like Little Bill meeting English Bob at the border of Big Whiskey in Unforgiven."

Yes, and Little Bill was the true villain of the film, believing that, as Sheriff, acting in the interests of the greater good, and building a house, his depraved violent cruelty wasn't the essence of human evil. He was wrong.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:26 PM on April 3, 2007


Well, yeah, but that doesn't make him wrong about old Bob.
posted by Bookhouse at 11:33 PM on April 3, 2007


:( Maybe he could have given us a tell-all inside story.

Or we could have given him his own personalized MeFi to post self-links to and a little fishbowl for everyone else to see into.

The possibilities were endless. Sigh.
posted by spiderwire at 11:45 PM on April 3, 2007


Exhibit A

Ah, that "Pretty Flowers" band-spam thread was a blast from the past. Well, from almost a year ago anyway. The ones that fight are always the most entertaining.

Hmm, it looks like ol' Rusty's band is on "indefinite hiatus." Awwwww. It's funny, this is the second group I've looked up in a couple weeks that described their status in that way. Indefinite hiatus? Whatever happened to good old fashioned "broke the fuck up?" Kids these days.
posted by nanojath at 11:45 PM on April 3, 2007


On second thought, putting all the banned users into their own bizarro-MeFi sandbox would be pretty awesome. Like an ant farm. Can we please do that? Pleaaase?
posted by spiderwire at 11:47 PM on April 3, 2007 [3 favorites]


Man, I really miss the image tag. I used to laugh so much more.
posted by loquacious at 11:50 PM on April 3, 2007


wow. that pretty flowers thread was so fucking juicy. mmmm... fucking xss vulnerability!!!
posted by phaedon at 12:14 AM on April 4, 2007


"Well, yeah, but that doesn't make him wrong about old Bob."

But that's the point. Being right didn't make him righteous. His beating of English Bob was written and filmed as shocking and excessive, as a revelation of his character. Little Bill is an evil man who placed himself in a situation where he could gratify his desire for violence under the facade of defending the best interests of the community. His beating of English Bob and his display of Ned Logan's corpse are both self-evidently inherently wrong and cannot be justified by his supposed utilitarian aim.

In contrast, William Munny isn't evil, he's amoral, he's a force of nature. He's a sympathetic character partly because the film seems to argue that he hardly has free-will, that's he not a moral actor. This is the irony of it, that the most murderous character of them all isn't an evil man while Little Bill is. Why? Because Little Bill's actions are evil and they seem to be the product of a man with moral capacity—we know he has that capacity because only a guilty man feels the need to justify evil acts. Munny's character, in contrast, does not. Little Bill knows the difference between right and wrong, chooses wrong, and then compounds his error by denying the reality of his choices. Thus he embodies the evil of the will to violence along with the evil of the will to self-delusion. He is the very worst of Men.

The message of the film is a challenge to this sort of self-righteousness which has often been mythologized in the superficial and Manichean genre western. It is a deliberate challenge to the Little Bills among us, especially those who use the tropes of popular culture to propagate and validate these sorts of lies. It is a message that is extremely apposite to a critique of the current political leadership of the US. The US military machine is analogous to William Munny and the Administration analogous to Little Bill. Note that even though Little Bill was building a house, it was a crooked house.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:18 AM on April 4, 2007 [7 favorites]


Hey! What's the matter with you guys? This is a thread about a would-be self-linker! I want his mom insulted! I want his IP address and a picture of his house! I want blood, dammit!
posted by Methylviolet at 12:42 AM on April 4, 2007


spiderwire said: On second thought, putting all the banned users into their own bizarro-MeFi sandbox would be pretty awesome. Like an ant farm. Can we please do that? Pleaaase?

I remember ages ago reading about a Something Awful forum practice called the 'Hellban'. The idea was that a hellbanned person would still be able to post but that their posts would only be visible to them. And they were never told, so they would keep yelling into the void until finally they just gave up or became psychotic, depending on how invested they were in Something Awful. So hilariously cruel.

This has been discussed and rejected before, as 'inappropriate' for Metafilter's 'community' (lame lame lame). But I like spiderwire's idea a lot - like hellbanning but all metahellbanned people would be able to read each others' comments. That is genius!

Then every now and then the rest of us could click on a special link and look down on them like the saved looking down from heaven and taking guilty pleasure in the torments of the damned.

I quote Thomas Aquinas in support:

In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned. So that they may be urged the more to praise God. The saints in heaven know distinctly all that happens to the damned.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 3:01 AM on April 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned.

It seems strange that schadenfraude is not only not a sin, but actually encouraged by God. Either way I like the idea!
posted by TwoWordReview at 3:33 AM on April 4, 2007


I'm a self-link waiting to happen too. Better err on the side of caution.
posted by Mr.Encyclopedia at 4:03 AM on April 4, 2007


Pretty Flowers RAWK!
posted by OmieWise at 4:36 AM on April 4, 2007


HOW DO I SURF NET
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:41 AM on April 4, 2007


and then it dawned on me.

$20 extra for the right to use the img tag

[chorus of angels] aaaaaahhhhh! [/chorus of angels]
posted by phaedon at 4:44 AM on April 4, 2007


Of all the examples one could hold up as being of problematic moderation, I'm impressed to see anyone hold up this one.

Let's do this: we'll line up a bunch of folks who run shittingONtables.com and have 'em come over to your house. We'll let them get up on your table, drop trou...and then, if they shit on your table? Man, we'll yell at 'em!
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:10 AM on April 4, 2007


Can I just say that I never actually suggested that the guy get banned? I clicked through to his profile because I was curious about him, and then, upon reading his profile, I did some more investigation due to its clearly unusual nature.

I thought it was worth pointing out to the MeFi community, because the guy was so obviously a spammer, and it seemed clear to me what was likely to happen (you will note the question mark, indicating that I was not sure it was going to happen). It was mathowie who made the decision to get rid of the guy.
posted by cerebus19 at 6:21 AM on April 4, 2007


Then every now and then the rest of us could click on a special link and look down on them like the saved looking down from heaven and taking guilty pleasure in the torments of the damned.

That would be intresting, however, the banned people could never see that link, and thus know they were banned. Also they would see diffrent content when they logged off.
posted by delmoi at 6:35 AM on April 4, 2007




Exhibit A
Exhibit B


Wow, those pile-on threads were glorious. Fave new insult gained:

"Your viewpoint has all the complexity and nuance of an unfired brick." - So using that one.

Any more? P'raps we need a pile-on tag...
posted by Happy Dave at 6:45 AM on April 4, 2007




Also they would see diffrent content when they logged off.

Yes, reality, and their perception of reality would begin to diverge ... until they would be unfit for trial. Heh.
posted by R. Mutt at 6:57 AM on April 4, 2007


Don't forget the Pretty Flowers Amazon page.

From a 5 star review: My 5 year old adores the song Slut.
posted by Burhanistan at 7:03 AM on April 4, 2007


That's an interesting critique of the movie, Etheral Bligh. But I still likes my metaphor. Quit trying to take my pretty metaphor away.
posted by Bookhouse at 7:15 AM on April 4, 2007


This is pretty much the same as kicking the Muslims out of the country before they do something terroristical.

Metafilter: We don't like your kind here.
posted by rocket88 at 8:02 AM on April 4, 2007


I haven't seen Unforgiven, but I really want to now.
posted by teleskiving at 8:06 AM on April 4, 2007


I'm all for hating spammers, but now we're banning someone before they do anything?

really?
posted by PugAchev at 8:21 AM on April 4, 2007


OK, late to the party like usual, but count me in as being against prior restraint. We tend to catch (and have lots of fun mocking) the self-linkers in pretty short order, and I for one believe in innocent until proven guilty. Was the guy going to self-link? Almost assuredly! But is that by itself enough justification?
posted by the dief at 8:37 AM on April 4, 2007


I'm with stav: I don't like this. Not that that should matter to you, of course, as stav also said.

But Unforgiven is a great movie.
posted by languagehat at 8:40 AM on April 4, 2007


I'm all for hating spammers, but now we're banning someone before they do anything?

Did you look at any of the supporting links? Read the guy's profile. Read his blog. Vet the contentless comments he dropped into threads with his brand new account. Check out the searches cerebus19 linked.

The guy has a wide net of shallow get-rich-quick, make-money-online crap posts on seemingly every website with open enrollment. He self-identifies as a relentless internet marketer. He is by all appearances the stereotype against which disinterested, self-linking spammers are measured.

Is he really a harmless, misunderstood self-earner enthusiast? Does he care, in fact, about mefi, being a lurker just now springing for an account? Let's see the impassioned email, the explanation of why this is a terrible misunderstanding.

At best, the guy could be said to not have done anything here. Yet.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:49 AM on April 4, 2007


In other words, this seems like a Hail Mary outlier of a situation. Prior restraint for a slightly questionable sniff test would be one thing. This is basic goddam common sense.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:51 AM on April 4, 2007


Will Munny: It's a hell of a thing, killing banning a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have.
The Schofield Kid: Yeah, well, I guess he had it coming.
Will Munny: We all got it coming, kid.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:54 AM on April 4, 2007


The $5 ought to go to a "victims of online scamming" fund or something.

They would just spend it all on Viagra.
posted by CRM114 at 8:55 AM on April 4, 2007 [2 favorites]


I wish the guy no harm (if anything, I find his honesty refreshing), but I can't say I'm sorry to see his money returned and his account banned. He'll just move on to the next website, having lost nothing but the ability to advertise on Metafilter, which is not allowed here anyway and was clearly the only reason he got an account.
posted by teleskiving at 8:55 AM on April 4, 2007


I'm another one who's not comfortable with the preemptive banning, but obviously it's not up to me.
posted by vytae at 9:33 AM on April 4, 2007


Perhaps mathowie can post the banned person's email response, if any.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:53 AM on April 4, 2007


Shouldn't a person actually do something to get banned? All this guy did was sign up and post a couple innocuous comments.

At least his sign-up fee was refunded.
posted by deborah at 10:04 AM on April 4, 2007


He should have armed himself.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:05 AM on April 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


But he was teaching me the secrets of making money fast! I hope my real estate ventures work out like he said. Now that he’s banned I’ll never find out how to Actualize my Market Gains… not to mention he never did get around to telling me how I was going to move these 42,000 William Hung Collectable Bobble Heads he sold me at cost…

/hopes the credit cards he borrowed from cortex aren't maxed out...
posted by French Fry at 10:12 AM on April 4, 2007


"Doctor, it hurts when I do this."
"Well, for god's sake, don't stop doing that."

I'm big on the benefit of the doubt, but come on: there's credulous belief here that the guy was up to anything other than spam? Really?
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:18 AM on April 4, 2007


I'm with cortex (at least on this one, the f*cker). What do folks think was going on here? It would be one thing were he a physical conman wanting to participate in an online community, but his stock in trade, which he revealed on his user page, is shitting all over internet communities in order to make money.

I'm not a big fan of profiling but I do think a little bit of common sense says that this was a righteous shoot.
posted by OmieWise at 10:24 AM on April 4, 2007


I thought I was dead too...turns out I was just posting at Slashdot.
posted by LionIndex at 10:39 AM on April 4, 2007


Is this a would you go back in time and kill the Hitler baby scenario. Because yes. Yes I would.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:00 AM on April 4, 2007


This was a righteous shoot, sure, but it woulda been way more righteous as a pile-on.
posted by Greg Nog at 11:11 AM on April 4, 2007


jeez, wtf? i worked hard to deliberately create a sock puppet account, and everyone ignores me. yet someone else comes on board, does nothing, and gets their very own callout.
posted by lester's sock puppet at 11:25 AM on April 4, 2007


I'm big on the benefit of the doubt, but come on: there's credulous belief here that the guy was up to anything other than spam? Really?

No, the "credulous belief" here (at least in this corner of here) is that people should actually do something wrong before suffering consequences. Sure, it looks like he was a-fixin' to spam us up good, but in this man's town you wait till a man draws his gun afore ya blow him straight to hell.

I mean, what exactly is the terrible harm that had to be prevented? A comment suggesting a visit to www.hahaispamyou.com isn't exactly a mushroom cloud.
posted by languagehat at 12:07 PM on April 4, 2007 [2 favorites]


In other words, this seems like a Hail Mary outlier of a situation. Prior restraint for a slightly questionable sniff test would be one thing. This is basic goddam common sense.

lol im in hr courts suspendin yr habeas corpus
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:14 PM on April 4, 2007


Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, in order to be convicted of the sole charge on the indictment, "attempt to spam Metafilter", we must find that the Defendant fulfilled each of the elements of the charge:

First, that he had the specific intent to spam the community. Second, that he committed an overt act towards the fulfillment of that objective. Lastly, that he did not succeed in the attempt.

The last element is legal surplusage, really. Had he actually committed a spamming, then he would be subject to the full penalties of that crime*. The real meat of the issue lies in elements one and two.

That the Defendant had the specific intent to spam the community is clear from the pattern of behavior evidence you heard during the trial. You saw the evidence from Google, the past communities that he had insinuated himself into prior to spamming them. Is there really any reasonable doubt of what he wanted to do, given the evidence you have seen?

Element two is also not in doubt. Two acts can be seen as overt acts in furtherance of his scheme: first, merely signing up for the account, and second, the profile in question. Leaving aside the question of whether signing up for Metafilter is enough to be an overt act, the fact that links and the all-too-familiar vernacular of a spammer were employed by the Defendant's profile obviously is a step towards his ultimate aim: the spammification of our fair site.

True, we did not charge the Defendant with the crime of spamming us. Nor did we indict on the charge of "being a devious weasel to sneak spam into Metafilter": indeed, to his credit, he wore his intent on his sleeve.

Regardless, there can be no reasonable doubt as to the verdict you should return: guilty.

*See §1 of the "Metafilter Punishment Code", and I quote: "There's no justice like angry mob justice."
posted by norm at 12:24 PM on April 4, 2007


Perhaps this one case was a little fucked up, but I, perhaps naively, trust that mathowie will treat this as an exception not a new policy. It's not like he deleted this user whose intentions are made clear by his/her username.
posted by frecklefaerie at 12:35 PM on April 4, 2007


I mean, what exactly is the terrible harm that had to be prevented? A comment suggesting a visit to www.hahaispamyou.com isn't exactly a mushroom cloud.

No, but it's also zero substance, and worse yet zero substance that we can see approaching five miles away. I appreciate the principle of judging by acts done and not by acts presumed, but I don't see why in this case metafilter is a closed system isolated from the rest of the Internet. And if you're willing to look past mefi itself for the case of an exceptional situation, the assertion that he hasn't pulled his guns yet is hollow. Guy looks to be a goddam arms dealer.

As a long-haired freaky person, I really do get it; I just disagree with a one-hundred-percent rule (rather than ninety-nine-point-nine) when it comes to opt-in community griefing. If the bar can be set anywhere other than on the floor itself, it sits above this instance. I don't recall Matt mentioning a blanket ban on Anybody Who Looks Funny anywhere in all this.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:40 PM on April 4, 2007


Well... all righty, then.

*looks away, whistles, draws gun with blinding speed and shoots dot off i in MetaFılter"
posted by languagehat at 1:34 PM on April 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


*tries to replace close quote with asterisk, fails, shoots self in foot*
posted by languagehat at 1:34 PM on April 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


This reminds me of those threads where someone will say "O.J./Scooter/Whoever did it" and someone else will respond with "you can't say that, it's for the courts to decide." Innocent until proven guilty is an important legal concept, but it is in no way an absolute prinicple outside of a courtroom.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 1:52 PM on April 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


I must strongly argue that in the future bannings should never, ever be pre-emptive. I feel very, very strongly about this.

Mainly because you've outright spoiled one of the finer joys in my life, damnit.

I'm not going fishing with any of you, either. You'd be all stomping around and noisy and complaining about how long it was taking and "how long are we just going to sit here doing nothing but stare at the water" and you'd scare off all the fucking fish.

Oh, and cortex?
Let's do this: we'll line up a bunch of folks who run ReallyExtraStupidClownFools.com and have 'em come over to your house. We'll let them get all dressed up in their extra stupid clown-fool garb... and then, if they so stupid, stupid shit, light themselves on fire, fall into punji traps or otherwise cause themselves incredibly hilarious grevious bodily injuries? Man, we'll laugh at 'em!
There, fixed that for you.

posted by loquacious at 2:25 PM on April 4, 2007


so=say. So they say.
posted by loquacious at 2:26 PM on April 4, 2007


loq, baby, you know how much it hurts me to be rational about this sort of thing. What can I say? Really extra stupid clown fools will still manage to sneak on to the site and make gigantor pile-on messes now and then. They just have to have the basic stealthy sensibility to not wear the RESCF.com t-shirt when they show up for the interview.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:38 PM on April 4, 2007


Is this a would you go back in time and kill the Hitler baby scenario. Because yes. Yes I would.
posted by Astro Zombie


Zombie Hitler... wait what?
posted by Rhomboid at 3:01 PM on April 4, 2007


now, I normally agree with people about things like pre-emptive bannings being bad and all that.

But then I remember that this isn't a park or anything. It's not public space. It's more like a restaurant. Now it's not illegal to hold a butcher's knife in one's hand. It's also not illegal to hold a butcher's knife in one's hand in a restaurant. But if somebody walks into a restaurant holding a butcher's knife and he doesn't work there, I hardly think it's totally unreasonable for the prorprietor of said establishment to go over to the guy and say "Sorry sir, but we don't let people come in here with knives." Sure, maybe the guy just really liked to cut his steak with THAT knife and had no intention of stabbing anybody, but you can't blame the owner for not taking the chance.

Now, this is obviously not that grave a situation, but welcome to the internet. Everything you like sucks and everything you think is trivial is important to somebody, and everything you think is important is trivial to somebody. Matt's site, Matt's discretion. Life moves on, and the dude is free to re-register with the same $5 but without the butcher's knife so openly displayed.
posted by shmegegge at 3:32 PM on April 4, 2007 [1 favorite]


Astro Zombie wrote "Is this a would you go back in time and kill the Hitler baby scenario. Because yes. Yes I would."

Hitler had a baby?!
posted by EndsOfInvention at 4:06 PM on April 4, 2007


I would go forward in time and kill zombie hitler.
posted by Kwine at 4:07 PM on April 4, 2007


Hitler had a baby scenario.
posted by moira at 4:43 PM on April 4, 2007


I never knew Hitler's baby was named "Scenario".
Is that Italian?
Astro Zombie, why would you wanna kill an itty-bitty baby?
posted by Dizzy at 7:24 PM on April 4, 2007


If you held Baby Hitler in your arms and watched him make cute faces and baby noises, would you be able to kill Baby Hitler?
posted by Burhanistan at 7:42 PM on April 4, 2007


I dunno, but some guy at the Dollar Store Plus told me he knew a guy named Astro Zombie who hates little Italian kids.
Just saying.
posted by Dizzy at 7:50 PM on April 4, 2007


yeh, great.

so now he'll just have to sign up again, using the refunded five bucks, and spam us from a username that is totally unlinked to any of his other spammy behaviour, whereby we will have a hard time proving that he's posting self-links.

risk
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:43 PM on April 4, 2007


That would be intresting, however, the banned people could never see that link, and thus know they were banned.

Only show the link to people who are currently signed up. The self-linker terrarium would be a fringe benefit for old members. We should get wiki privileges too, so we can really fuck with 'em.

Also they would see diffrent content when they logged off.

Like people actually do that.
posted by spiderwire at 3:07 PM on April 5, 2007


« Older Price fixing guidelines?   |   Grow a skin, people. Newer »

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