Maybe phrontist needs Thorazine or a lobotomy? April 7, 2007 11:13 PM   Subscribe


But I don't think Effigy2000's answer breaks the guidelines: s/he's not telling the OP there's something wrong with him/her but instead offering intelligent advice. (Do I understand the AskMetafilter rules correctly yet, O admins?)
posted by davy at 11:37 PM on April 7, 2007


I'm not following. What's the problem?
posted by puke & cry at 11:38 PM on April 7, 2007


whoops, nevermind, missed your comment there.
posted by puke & cry at 11:38 PM on April 7, 2007


davy, I think you need a hug.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:38 PM on April 7, 2007


I am so unbelievably confused. I mean, phrontist's answer wasn't perfectly helpful I guess, but why the callout? and what does Effigy's perfectly acceptable answer have to do with phrontist and lobotomies?
posted by shmegegge at 12:07 AM on April 8, 2007


I don't understand the point of this or what rules are being broken and by whom. davy, next time maybe explain the situation and the issues that you're looking for clarification on?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:10 AM on April 8, 2007


Is davy broken?

was davy ever fixed?
posted by dersins at 12:18 AM on April 8, 2007


phrontist's answer was entirely (forgive the choice of words) kosher. Seconding Matt: what?
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:11 AM on April 8, 2007


Post to MeTa first, then smoke crack. The other way around just doesn't work.
posted by Rhomboid at 1:21 AM on April 8, 2007


s/he's

Please don't do that. If you keep doing that I'll be forced to invent a way to stab someone in the face over TCP/IP.
posted by loquacious at 1:21 AM on April 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


s/hee'sh loquacious, bit of an over-reaction.
posted by Abiezer at 1:55 AM on April 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


If more than one person needs to chill.
I recommend Has/hi/sh smoked through a s/he/e/sh/a
posted by isopraxis at 1:59 AM on April 8, 2007


.=,
posted by isopraxis at 2:02 AM on April 8, 2007


If you keep doing that I'll be forced to invent a way to stab someone in the face over TCP/IP.

pid_t fork(face);
posted by pyramid termite at 2:45 AM on April 8, 2007 [3 favorites]


meta callouts of askme comments are the new W.A.S.P.
posted by quonsar at 5:09 AM on April 8, 2007


Whoa, whoa, whoa. Forget phrontist; cortex just performed two puns within 24 hours. Banhammer!!!
posted by Terminal Verbosity at 5:21 AM on April 8, 2007


meta callouts of askme comments fuck like a beast?
posted by The Straightener at 6:14 AM on April 8, 2007


Right, that's it then.

I've just invented a new layer 2 packet type designed from the ground up to encapsulate sharp stabby knives safely in a flexible but well controlled, TCP-like packeted multiplexing system suitable for safely and privately tunneling sharp stabby knives in a server-client or client-client configuration, with room for growth for direct peering, meshing, multiknife backbone and more.

As you can plainly see as indicated in this slide, the order, size and labelling of the header tables that this new datatype is inherently designed for robust encryption and user-definable parameters while maintaining security, speed and simplicity - even while improving routing reliability and speed.

Once implementation begins to take hold we expect to see a vast improvement in the general average speed of the greater internet itself, namely because people be all knifin' each other in the face over the internet and shit.
posted by loquacious at 6:27 AM on April 8, 2007 [4 favorites]


Ohh, Ohhh! Me first!!
Get me in the face!!
Or are you... Sh/cared!
posted by Balisong at 6:36 AM on April 8, 2007


The worst part is when I avoid one of the knives the packet gets re-sent - couldn't you have implemented it as a streaming protocol, maybe a little like UDP? At least then I'd have a chance.
posted by Ritchie at 6:40 AM on April 8, 2007


Hi davy, I know sometimes it must seem like we're following you around the site with a magnifying glass, but truth be told, we're not. That is to say, I have no idea what you are talking about, what "wrong" thing you did previously, or what you are accusing phrontist of (maybe?) doing. My paraphrase of the Q/A you linked to is something like this.

Q. I am a Christian who doesn't believe in the normal Christian things and I'm trying to figure out what to do about it.
A. I'm not sure I understand you, here are some questions for you. Is it possible you're not actually Christian?

It's amazing that thread has gone as well as it has so far. Unless there is something that I can't see going on in it, I'd like to just leave it alone and let it just go be good without excessive scrutiny. If you have a specific question, feel free to email me or put it here in the thread.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:11 AM on April 8, 2007


That whole question sounds like hypothetical chatfilter. I mean, divinity, religion? What? These are made up things.
posted by Eideteker at 7:11 AM on April 8, 2007


And the smug self-righteous atheist brigade chimes in.

Can you people not understand that some of us desire something in our lives that you do not? That the overwhelmingly vast majority of believers have no interest in forcing that belief on anybody else?

Can you not accord us a basic respect, for crying out loud?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 7:24 AM on April 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


Your personal lord and savior sucks.
posted by Dave Faris at 7:32 AM on April 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


Thanks for the callout, otherwise I would have missed that absolutely amazing thread and the very smart and wonderful people posting in it.
posted by By The Grace of God at 7:55 AM on April 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


I told him to wait for grace, BTGOG. Took your time showing up!
posted by Abiezer at 8:00 AM on April 8, 2007


Uh oh!! Abiezer saw me posting mushy non-materialist stuff in the faith thread! *hides, runs away* :)
posted by By The Grace of God at 8:02 AM on April 8, 2007


Is there a particular reason that people post MeTas which are entirely cryptic?
posted by Bugbread at 8:04 AM on April 8, 2007


davy, is your objection to the comment, or to your feeling that if you'd made it it would have been deleted?
posted by OmieWise at 8:04 AM on April 8, 2007


It's amazing that thread has gone as well as it has so far.

I had faith that it would.
posted by psmealey at 8:14 AM on April 8, 2007


AskMe went all Luke 11:9 on you.
BTGOG - I thought it best to spare psmealey my ecstatic visions of the loving heart of Buddha encompassing the myriad beings of all universes past, present and future. Enough to grapple with as it is, poor man.
posted by Abiezer at 8:17 AM on April 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


"And the smug self-righteous atheist brigade chimes in."

Hey, I might be smug, self-righteous, and an atheist, but I'm hardly a brigade. I don't have any problem with religious people; it's people without a sense of humor I can't stand. (unless you're replying to someone else, in which case, go on, give 'em hell!)

And I'm totally going to listen to Born Slippy now, thx!
posted by Eideteker at 8:24 AM on April 8, 2007


psmealey:

Faith is the evidence of unseen horseshit. Try to avoid stepping in it.
posted by The Confessor at 8:35 AM on April 8, 2007


Faith is the evidence of unseen horseshit.

I'm confident that the original thought you were trying to express seemed insightful and clever enough to post. But what you ended up posting: not so much.
posted by psmealey at 8:44 AM on April 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


Or you didn't get it.
posted by The Confessor at 8:49 AM on April 8, 2007


Most people on Metafilter are smart within definite limits. Beyond those limits most people on Metafilter are completely clueless and wantonly ignorant. Learn your limits and be humble.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:56 AM on April 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


Or you didn't get it.
posted by The Confessor at 11:49 AM on April 8 [+]
[!]


Or you're being a disrespectful prick. psmealey isn't trying to force his beliefs on you; what right do you have to force yours on him?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:15 AM on April 8, 2007


Oh! The Confessor is an atheist, and thinks I am not a True Atheist?

I didn't get that at all. (I didn't understand the Joe Lieberman reference -- he's a... Democratic senator, and?) I thought he was a Christian and telling me that I didn't understand Christianity (maybe so) or that I didn't have standing to say what was Christian and what was not (true -- but like anuses...).

Well, The Confessor and some others would be wise to study Game Warden's helpful insight. In the absence of Holy Writ, people get to be whatever kind of atheist they want -- and the kind of atheist I am doesn't think attacking people with my version of the One True Faith is appropriate. I think religion is a great comfort for a lot of people, and it is not kind to try to strip that away. I think AA has the right idea -- let's spread non-theism by attraction, not promotion. I wanted to tell psmealey, inundated as he was by Christians telling him he is not Christian, and atheists telling him he is an atheist, that he may still be a Christian, and is not necessarily an atheist. Whether that was helpful, who knows? I thought it should be said.

Ceiling cat is watching you pontificate.
posted by Methylviolet at 9:25 AM on April 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


I am responding this, soon to be deleted, derail:

Methylviolet

What are you, the atheists' equivalent of Joe Lieberman?

Belief in Jesus' divinity is absolutely integral to Christian faith; it is what differentiated his life and sacrifice from any other in Christian doctrine. It's what made his death resonate in heaven as well as earth. It is the basis upon which the Christian doctrine of redemption rests.

It's certainly not the equivalent of a damned 'transmission problem.' Your analogy was either willfully dishonest or incredibly ill-thought.
posted by The Confessor at 8:32 AM on April 8 [+]
[!]


Or you didn't get it.
posted by Methylviolet at 8:36 AM on April 8 [+]
[!]
posted by Methylviolet at 9:29 AM on April 8, 2007


Why would davy post this, cryptically, and then not follow up? I question his attention-whoring motives.
posted by Rumple at 9:30 AM on April 8, 2007


On this holiest of holy days all I can say is "Dude unto others as thou would have Dude unto you."
posted by furtive at 9:32 AM on April 8, 2007


The Confessor: Faith is the evidence of unseen horseshit. Try to avoid stepping in it.

psmealey: I'm confident that the original thought you were trying to express seemed insightful and clever enough to post. But what you ended up posting: not so much.

The Confessor: Or you didn't get it.

I got it. And I agree with psmealey: it's not particularly insightful or clever.

It's like the reasoning we have for forbidding self-links: if you're the creator of a link, or strongly associated with it, you lose the objectivity to evaluate it fairly. Same goes for insightful/clever comments.
posted by Bugbread at 9:36 AM on April 8, 2007


Or you didn't get it.

i got it ... can i give it back?
posted by pyramid termite at 9:37 AM on April 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


I usually try to avoid making personal attacks, but since you called me a disrespectful prick, I feel comfortable calling you an an incredibly stupid little fuck.

(Admins are welcome to delete my ad hominem attack along with dnab's)

What sort of skewed-as-hell definition of force are you using? This is Internet discourse on a moderated forum; a two-way street. Psmealey made an observation about faith, and I countered with direct evidence of its insufficiency and unreliability. Neither force nor coercion played any role in the conversation.
posted by The Confessor at 9:40 AM on April 8, 2007 [2 favorites]


Forgive me for rolling my eyes at collective denseness, but it goes like this:

psmealey asked a question.

phrontist snarked at him or her or it.

What's not to understand?
posted by davy at 9:46 AM on April 8, 2007


Wow, I know it's a tough day to be an atheist with all the happy Christians having meals with their families and wearing their new bonnets to church and all, but what crawled up everyone's collective asses?

MeFi has religious and non-religious people here and it's a poor location for hobby-horsing either of those topics beyond a relevant mention in an appropriate thread. Every mention of religion doesn't have to be followed up with some "lol big ghost in the sky" snark and every soul seeking question about how to find meaning in life doesn't have to have a "YOU NEED JESUS" response. If you guys want to piss and moan here instead of the AskMe thread, you're certainly welcome to, but maybe you're better off just taking a walk instead.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:50 AM on April 8, 2007 [3 favorites]


davy, can you explain why it was snark? We haven't really seen what you seem to think is clear; labeling that 'collective denseness' instead of elaborating isn't very helpful.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:55 AM on April 8, 2007


I usually try to avoid making personal attacks, but since you called me a disrespectful prick, I feel comfortable calling you an an incredibly stupid little fuck.

if we can't get along, can we at least come up with better insults? ... such as "you're a fading shitstain on the underwear of my life" or "can't you find a retarded rock to match wits with" or something?
posted by pyramid termite at 10:00 AM on April 8, 2007


pyramid termite

*Confessor nods*

I was too upset about the ad hominem to give much thought to the nature of my insult. In retrospect, I should have gone with something completely ridiculous, like from a Monkey Island game.

You're as repulsive as a monkey in a negligee!
posted by The Confessor at 10:05 AM on April 8, 2007


jessamyn, the reason I posted the question to AskMe, instead of say, one of the boards on Beliefnet, is precisely because I wanted the full range of responses that would come from the intelligent hardcore christians and atheists alike that hang out here. I found some of the "you might actually be an atheist and not know it" comments to be somewhat thought-provoking and not at all out of bounds, even if I ultimately disagreed with their conclusions.

As for the pissing and moaning and snarking, it's been pretty mild. I kind of braced for the lolxtians thing that crops up several times per day on the Blue, but was pleased to see little of it on the green on this particular question -- unless you've been lightning fast in deleting some of the more inflammatory comments, which would surprise me not at all.
posted by psmealey at 10:11 AM on April 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


What sort of skewed-as-hell definition of force are you using? This is Internet discourse on a moderated forum; a two-way street. Psmealey made an observation about faith, and I countered with direct evidence of its insufficiency and unreliability. Neither force nor coercion played any role in the conversation.
posted by The Confessor at 12:40 PM on April 8 [+]
[!]


Semantics. You're still being incredibly disrespectful.

If someone asks a question about, say, Star Wars, is it reasonable to say "HAY LOL IT'S FICTION GET OVER IT LULZ"?

Of course not. Those of us who happen to believe something you don't absolutely recognize that you don't. We absolutely understand that you do not believe the same thing.

Engage a question on its merits, and within its context. Don't be a dick.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:13 AM on April 8, 2007


Hey burhanistan, there's no email address in your profile so I can't ask you this privately: Do you have a personal "thing" concerning me or what? Am I your new hobby? I hesitate to impute any particular interpretation to your motive, as back in 8th grade it turned out Helen B. chased me around several classrooms with scissors threatening to cut off my ponytail for months not because she hated me but because she *hearted* me real bad, but still I can't help noticing you noticing me. If you really want to hug me, how far are you from Louisville, KY, U.S.A.? Want to meet for coffee first or do we start out flying toward each other arms outstretched like in an old sweet movie?

And Jessamyn just (I think without knowing it) illustrated my point: psmealey asked "What is a devout Christian to do that doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ?", and phrontist opined psmealey's definition of "religious" didn't rate. See, psmealey didn't ask if his beliefs were Good Enough, he asked where he could better express them. It's like (e.g.) cortex asking where he can get a decent non-fast-food burger in Louisville and somebody chirping "Meat is murder!" at him: did he asked if there was something wrong with his food choices to begin with?

As for my "cryptic" point, see here.
posted by davy at 10:14 AM on April 8, 2007 [2 favorites]


Hey burhanistan, there's no email address in your profile so I can't ask you this privately:

See the wisdom in that.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:19 AM on April 8, 2007 [2 favorites]


psmealy's question (which was a totally reasonable one to have asked, I didnt mean to imply otherwise) was complex and had several ways to approach it, many of which were tried in-thread including phrontist's.

Unless you know something I don't about phronrtist's state of mind when he was replying, it seemed like a decent answer to the question, especially the last part which was, paraphrased, "should I give this religion thing up?"

In a more general not-about-this-question direction, there are respectful and disrespectful ways to indicate to the OP that their way of conceptualizing the question may be missing points that are integral to solving their problem. People who can make these points while leaving out the "you're a douchebag for even thinking this way" attitude generally do not see their comments removed.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:23 AM on April 8, 2007


That's actually a pretty good analogy, dnab.
posted by BeerFilter at 10:25 AM on April 8, 2007


And by the way, in case it matters, I've gone on record several times over thepast few years as being scornful and dismissive of ALL religion and religiosity: this is an "etiquette and policy" issue concerning AskMetafilter specifically, which on Tue, 27 Mar 2007 I read an admin sum up in email as "If you can't answer the question without snarking at the OP, please don't answer the question." Any clearer now?

On preview, then Jessamyn, maybe my definition of "snark" is now too stringent for AskMe. Whatever: the chance of me accepting Power To Delete on this site is even slimmer than that of being offered such ability in the first place, so eh. Y'all paraphrase things however you want.

And burhanistan, you still haven't answered my question. It's okay if you *heart* me and it's okay if you don't; I just want to know which way you're leaning here so I'll be more clueful about how to respond to your continual attention. Either way I finally got rid of my own ponytail a couple years ago, and Helen B. took care of my virginity herself back in 1977 when we were both 14. (Are you over Legal Age, anyway? I might get accused of "defending pedophiles," but I'm really not one myself.)

[But languagehat can put his Jiffypop away, I'm grinding to a halt now.]
posted by davy at 10:38 AM on April 8, 2007


psmealey asked "What is a devout Christian to do that doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ?", and phrontist opined psmealey's definition of "religious" didn't rate.

No, phrontist replied that the guy doesn't seem to be very interested in the religious aspect of being a Christian, and suggested a way round that.

In fact, the comment is no different to Justinian's just above.
posted by cillit bang at 10:39 AM on April 8, 2007


If someone asks a question about, say, Star Wars, is it reasonable to say "HAY LOL IT'S FICTION GET OVER IT LULZ"?

Of course not. Those of us who happen to believe something you don't absolutely recognize that you don't. We absolutely understand that you do not believe the same thing.


however, tell dnab you think homosex is a sin, and watch as he screams BIGOTRY!
posted by quonsar at 10:40 AM on April 8, 2007 [2 favorites]


Ugh. When will you give it up? You're not funny anymore.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:41 AM on April 8, 2007


see, that was not an attempt to be funny.
posted by quonsar at 10:49 AM on April 8, 2007 [3 favorites]


Homophobia is bigotry. If you really must be a homophobe, fine, but the problem is almost no homophobes stop there. They insist on enacting laws that fuck with my life.

Get over yourself.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 10:53 AM on April 8, 2007 [2 favorites]


dirtynumbangelboy, unlike musicians, writers who go Clean & Sober usually lose their touch. Please don't be too hard on Quonsar, he just picked the wrong Art Form.
posted by davy at 10:55 AM on April 8, 2007


dnab

Baloney. 2

Questions asked in this forum are routinely analyzed for context, underlying assumptions, and (if not posted anonymously) anything else about the user that can be dredged up from the MeFi profile or a Google search.

To be sure, one could easily go too far in challenging these contextual assumptions, but that does not mean they should always go completely unchallenged.

Maintaining a Christian faith without believing in the divinity of Jesus is problematic at best, as I outlined in my response to the original question. At the very least, it puts the possibility of eternal life through belief in Jesus in limbo.

And honestly, certainty of eternal life would be the only motivator potent enough to convince me to abide by Jesus' mandates of poverty, love for your neighbor, and pure living. Not to mention boring church sermons.

It sort of reminds me of a question I read several years ago in a Dr. Laura advice column (mind you, this is not an endorsement of that bigoted old witch) from a homosexual practicing Jew who was seeking to introduce his life partner to his faith.

She answered his question, but not without confronting the flawed assumption underlying it: that a practicing Jew could simultaneously practice a lifestyle so reviled in their most authoritative scripture that it was punished by painful execution.
posted by The Confessor at 11:11 AM on April 8, 2007


The Confessor, perhaps your definition of "Christianity" is too narrow. (To be self-referential AGAIN,) you might take a clue from this.
posted by davy at 11:16 AM on April 8, 2007


davy : "Forgive me for rolling my eyes at collective denseness, but it goes like this:"

I'll forgive you, on the condition that next time you just keep in mind that we're all far more dense than you, so you should probably say what you mean instead of just saying random things and hoping that we're clever enough to guess what you aren't saying.
posted by Bugbread at 11:26 AM on April 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


Homophobia is bigotry.

no, homophobia is fear of homosexuals.
posted by quonsar at 11:28 AM on April 8, 2007


you know what? this whole thread is like a cowpat in a field of lillies.
posted by shmegegge at 11:30 AM on April 8, 2007


all we need is someone to post something about suvs and fat people and we'll have metapocolypse right NOW!!
posted by pyramid termite at 11:35 AM on April 8, 2007


davy: except then you're not quite talking about Christianity. I mean, there's a reason we have a different name for Jehovah's Witnesses, who don't quite follow Christianity on many subjects.


This thread is confusing. And on preview: fat people in SUVs are confusing, too.
posted by niles at 11:36 AM on April 8, 2007


I declawed ceiling cat and fed him to an unsuspecting vegetarian, and now he keeps hitting on me when all I really want are donations and l33t warez.
posted by Methylviolet at 11:39 AM on April 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


The Confessor: Belief in Jesus' divinity is absolutely integral to Christian faith

And yet many people who have regarded themselves as Christians have believed otherwise, among them most of the Founding Fathers. You can disagree but you don't get to just write them out of the fold.
posted by LarryC at 11:39 AM on April 8, 2007


But bugbread, I thought I was being perfectly clear. Maybe I'm not totally non-dense myself then?

Again, many people's definitions of "Christianity" may be unnecessarily restrictive. The Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Cathars and (original) Unitarians all believe in God and Jesus as the Christ and Son of God, they just don't see Jesus as God himself or as part of a Holy Trinity. See this for example.
posted by davy at 11:45 AM on April 8, 2007


Methylviolet, you're funny too. Wanna meet for coffee? If you're sweet maybe I'll let you buy me a crumpet too!
posted by davy at 11:50 AM on April 8, 2007


LOLFATFOLXINSUVS! These fat people in SUVs, they vibrate? I for one welcome our....
posted by davy at 11:51 AM on April 8, 2007


davy, you seem like you need to go relax somewhere.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:54 AM on April 8, 2007


"you know what? this whole thread is like a cowpat in a field of lillies."

Does this have more to do with gearing up to bomb Iran, failing to bomb North Korea, or which hurricane victims George Bush DOES like?
posted by davy at 11:54 AM on April 8, 2007


LarryC

And there are also homosexuals who would call themselves practicing Jews, polygamists who would call themselves Mormon, and (as mentioned earlier) Jehovah's Witnesses who would call themselves Christians.

Self-identification is not a reliable indicator.
posted by The Confessor at 11:56 AM on April 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


I'm irresistable!
posted by davy at 11:58 AM on April 8, 2007


(It's unseasonably cold outside, on frigging Easter Sunday to boot, and those donations I've brainwaved Methylviolet to solicit for me ain't accumulated well yet. So shoot me please!)
posted by davy at 12:02 PM on April 8, 2007


Either that, our you're having homoerotic delusions. Maybe go away for awhile and come back when you're feeling less like it's you against the rest of the world.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:02 PM on April 8, 2007


Maybe phrontist needs Thorazine or a lobotomy?

Maybe someone needs to flag and move on? If the admins don't find an overwhelming number of flags, then the community must not think the comments are that big of a deal. Isn't this what the whole flagging system was made for?
posted by philomathoholic at 12:09 PM on April 8, 2007


"Self-identification is not a reliable indicator."

So what do you think about transsexuals?

And Burhanistan, please apply a pickle rectally. YOU might enoy it. The issue is why YOU keep paying attention to ME, in public, from thread to thread to thread. You can prove you don't need an SSRI by fucking right off anytime you please, you cute li'l downlow you.
posted by davy at 12:10 PM on April 8, 2007


Dude, it was the second time. That is not a pattern. You're clearly out of line all over the place here. Have a nice day.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:11 PM on April 8, 2007


And Burhanistan, please apply a pickle rectally. YOU might enoy it.

if i were a pickle, i'd be enoyed if i got up ANYONE'S ass ... to say the least
posted by pyramid termite at 12:14 PM on April 8, 2007


[But languagehat can put his Jiffypop away, I'm grinding to a halt now.]

See, I refrained from commenting at all in this thread because anything I said would elicit the same kind of manic-paranoid bullshit you're currently smearing over Burhanistan. You really need to... well, anything I say will just feed your paranoia, so let me just mention that certain kinds of people find that the more time they spend in a given subway car, the emptier that car gets. Now, it could be that the GOVERNMENT SPACE ALIEN MIND CONTROL RAYS are sending them on secret missions to do the person harm, but there's probably a much simpler explanation that that person doesn't want to think about.

You know, you used to be a funny and interesting guy. It would be nice if you could go back to being that guy, but you seem to enjoy being this guy more, so I won't hold my breath.
posted by languagehat at 12:22 PM on April 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


What is a devout Christian to do that doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ?

Btw, I'll admit that this was a technically inaccurate way to summarize my overall question. The word itself "Christ" means messiah, or redeemer, to employ the moniker Jesus Christ suggests belief in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth.

Having said that, this contradiction only threw a few people off from getting to the real heart of the matter. I am humbled, and very grateful for the responses.
posted by psmealey at 12:24 PM on April 8, 2007


davy

Transsexualism is not problematic in the least; anyone who openly identifies himself with the opposite gender could be diagnosed just as easily from without as from within.

(see Gender Identity Disorder, although I want to make clear that I do not necessarily agree with its classification as a disorder in the DSM-IV)
posted by The Confessor at 12:29 PM on April 8, 2007


Many of the responses in the askme thread as well as a number of the responses in this thread are really, really hurtful and kind of immature and irresponsible.

When I read the original question it seemed like psmeasley was baiting the Xians a little bit, especially when the very first "correct answer" he picked was, "You are an atheist!"

I was also really disappointed to see so many people chime in with the whole, "Christians must confirm the divinity of Christ or they shouldn't call themselves such," nonsense. Anyone who has at least a passing knowledge of the scriptures pertinant to the pascal mysteries knows that on Maundy Thursday we all, all of us, turn our backs on Christ, just as the diciples did. Many people struggle with Christ's divinity, all the time.

This call-out is really, really shitty, and I know the atheists need something to do on Easter, but this is like a huge blemish in an otherwise really great day at metafilter.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna go hide some easter eggs and eat some lamb. Just like Jesus did.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 12:32 PM on April 8, 2007


Questions asked in this forum are routinely analyzed for context, underlying assumptions, and (if not posted anonymously) anything else about the user that can be dredged up from the MeFi profile or a Google search.

Indeed. Which is why I said "Engage a question on its merits, and within its context. "

If I am asking you for information on how Communism works, I do not need--nor am I asking for--a snide little comment on why parliamentary democracy is better. If I am asking you about character relationships within Star Wars, I don't need a snide little comment saying that it's fiction, who cares. What I am asking for, in both cases, is information within a specific context.

Similarly, if I am asking questions about the Christian faith, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to chime in with a remark about faith being the product of unseen horseshit.

There are, undoubtedly, questions on AskMe that require a broader contextualization. This question is not one of them. Perhaps I can illustrate better:

This question could be read as:
"I have beliefs that fit broadly within the Christian worldview. Can you please tell me where I can find a congregation that fits my worldview more exactly?"

The question includes a belief in Christianity. To attack or ridicule that belief is not pertinent to the discussion.

Is that clear enough yet? If not, try this:

"I really love bread. I usually like pretty dense, grainy breads, but I don't know where I can go to get them, or to sample some different kinds. I live in Toronto. Where can I go to taste and buy some really fresh delicious bread?"

Good answer:
"The big deli place on Bloor West, near Runnymede."

Your answer:
"Bread is stupid, don't get sucked in by the bread-eaters."
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:03 PM on April 8, 2007


Thank God for our mods; when we see them suffer, who can not look on with sympathy?

psmealey: I'm in nearly the exact same place as you with regards to faith, and I have the advantage of living with a soon-to-be Anglican pastor who's extremely well-read on matters such as this.
Feel free to email me, as I'm not wading into either of these threads with sincere professions of belief and personal questioning.
posted by klangklangston at 1:05 PM on April 8, 2007


When I read the original question it seemed like psmeasley was baiting the Xians a little bit,

It bums me out that you would think such a thing, Balrog. I have been a loyal member here since 2002, and I never posted to AskMe anything that was less than 100% sincere.

especially when the very first "correct answer" he picked was, "You are an atheist!"

That was but the first of a few "correct" (best) answers I picked. If you actually read through that one, however, you'll see that it was actually quite thoughtful, and very much on point.
posted by psmealey at 1:05 PM on April 8, 2007


I'm still trying to figure out what part I played in this callout.

"especially when the very first "correct answer" he picked was, "You are an atheist!""

If you're referring to my answer, Balrog, I didn't say "You are an atheist!" Instead, my advice was "Become an atheist!" followed by reasons supporting that advice.
posted by Effigy2000 at 1:19 PM on April 8, 2007


The word itself "Christ" means messiah, or redeemer, to employ the moniker Jesus Christ suggests belief in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth.

in the context of the time, second temple jews beleived the "messiah" was the one who would deliver them from under pagan roman rule, a political force who would foment a revolution. as jesus rode the donkey into town they waved palms and shouted "hosanna", a political utterance meaning "deliver us". messiah, to those people at that time, did not neccessarily imply divinity.
posted by quonsar at 1:31 PM on April 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


Metafilter: a cowpat in a field of lillies
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:35 PM on April 8, 2007


dnab

I can see how a Christian would take offense with the vulgarisation of a Bible verse; I could have used a less offensive equivalent to horseshit, such as 'cow patty', but I wanted to preserve the dual-meaning of the response: that not only is faith often misplaced (almost always, really, otherwise there would no need for prenups, life jackets, or insurance policies), it was misplaced in this specific instance as well.

But as I took a second look at my contributions to both threads in context, it hit me: this is MetaTalk, not AskMeFi. I am satisfied with the answer I contributed to the original question (minus the derail which jessamyn rightfully removed). In this stalled call-out thread, I had no such obligation.

Considered on its merits, this is a lame call-out. Get a life.
posted by The Confessor at 1:55 PM on April 8, 2007


After walking my dog for 90-some minutes despite the unseasonable chill I personally don't know what's going on here anymore; maybe, as I said upthread, I was being too stringent in my definition of "unhelpful snark" in Askmetafilter, and maybe burhanistan (who swears s/he's not a net.stalker really) and languagehat (who's had it in for me since 2004) should get a room wherein to bond over what a poopyhead psycho they think I am. Or maybe not, to either or both, as the case may be.

I'm just glad I provided a non-Green forum for some of y'all to argue pointlessly over basic details of theology most of you don't get.

Signed,
Mefi's cutest tarbaby
posted by davy at 1:57 PM on April 8, 2007


Does this have more to do with gearing up to bomb Iran, failing to bomb North Korea, or which hurricane victims George Bush DOES like?
posted by davy at 2:54 PM on April 8 [+] [!]


what the fuck are you on about?! have you considered medication?
posted by shmegegge at 1:59 PM on April 8, 2007


"Transsexualism is not problematic in the least; anyone who openly identifies himself with the opposite gender could be diagnosed just as easily from without as from within."

The clue is your "OPENLY." Does one start being a transsexual after one begins "crossdressing" and taking hormones, or does one manifest open signs after "self-identification" from within? Without self-identification there are no external signs to diagnose.

(shmegegge, I thought that was an OBVIOUS joke. Want to flip a coin to see who's denser? Maybe bugbread will help us figure it out.)
posted by davy at 2:09 PM on April 8, 2007


I can see how a Christian would take offense with the vulgarisation of a Bible verse

I'm not Christian; it was the intent of what you said that was inappropriate.

In this stalled call-out thread, I had no such obligation.

Considered on its merits, this is a lame call-out. Get a life.


Right, okay. You only give people any respect when you are obligated? How do psmealey's beliefs threaten you? Why do you feel the need to shit on them when they have nothing whatsoever to do with you?

Further... this isn't my thread; I didn't make the callout. And I find it amusing that someone who is attempting to justify being deeply disrespectful is telling me to get a life.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 2:14 PM on April 8, 2007


What is with this religions relativism? It is taking tolerance to an extreme view. A large chasm exists from, "Some of your problems are rather fundamental, and if you do not resolve them you exist out of what most scholars and people would consider Christianity," to starting a war with German princes over Protestantism. Granted own comments were rather glib in a reductio ad absurdum way (that is stating Judeo-Christian beliefs without Christian makes you Jewish, to emphasize the extreminity of the action, not that it would make one Jewish in the cultural or religious sense).

Anyway, I am somewhat disappointed in the lack of historical context that I believe stems from the lack of education in religion, which is due to a number of factors, and the dangerous knowing-just-enough-to-throw-in-my-view.

If anyone is interested, I would highly recommend:

Groundwork of Christian History by Diarmaid MacCullough and its companion A History of Christian Thought (From the Protestant Reformation to the Twentieth Century by Justo L. Gonzalez.

As unbiased as any work can get, both I think should be required reading for anyone interested in a survey of Christianity. More importantly it highlights all the "great men" and their thoughts so you can study (err, Wikipedia) them further if you are so inclined.

Anecdotally: While I was taking several history courses dealing with Christianity (and studying Koine Greek, it was available) I had a Orthodox Jewish friend whom I lent the above books to and praised them both as giving a good overview of Christian development. I had to work next to an evangelical who would talk about how religious she was and had very deep-stead beliefs of the no-evolution variety. She returned them after one day after stating that her Pastor of some Baptist-derived congregation had told her such was heretical and that the summation of all theologians before him were wrong and his pick-and-choose literal interpretation were right. This strange anti-intellectualism seems to be most pervasive in the most recent surge American religiosity. A most apt metaphor that this recent surge of evangelicalism, borne from the States, should have such hubris to ignore all that came before them as irrelevant and that problems of the theological variety are best solved by not over thinking what might be known from simple common sense.
posted by geoff. at 2:50 PM on April 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


You see, if God really existed, He would have struck davy with a bolt of lightning quite a few comments ago. MeFi's cutest tarbaby is enjoying his status way too much. May I recommend that all future MeTa posts from this user be responded to by everyone else with the mantra "It's only davy"?

It's good to see that the q has disengaged THE CAPS LOCK. And, while "homophobia" is by definition a fear, we don't seem to have a better word currently available for anti-gay bias and/or bigotry. Reminds me of way back when some PC feminists came up with the word "sexist" to equate gender bias to racism and the reaction from the pre-Beavis-Buttheads was "heh, heh, heh, I'm sexist!"

And geoff., one of the more important foundations of my personal philosophy is this:
"Common Sense" is an Oxymoron.
posted by wendell at 3:01 PM on April 8, 2007


heh heh heh. he said "sexist".
posted by quonsar at 3:06 PM on April 8, 2007


dnab

It was the intent of what you said...

Well, then that's terribly silly.

Are you saying that certain opinions should be censored based on their controversial nature, rather than evaluated on their merits?

It just strikes me as kind of ironic coming from a member of a class that has benefited so much from open discourse on controversial subjects; subjects which, until very recently, a majority of Americans would have considered downright obscene.

Attack my phrasing if you wish; I agree that there is something to attack there. Compose a paean to the value of faith in peoples' lives.

Just don't fabricate a list of supposed facts which are too controversial to be stated, and assume that everyone else possesses that same list.

this isn't my thread...

Immaterial. You quoted my post and called me a disrespectful prick, you stupid little fuck.

You called me out.

I find it amusing...

Fine, then. Laugh, then get a life.
posted by The Confessor at 3:09 PM on April 8, 2007


Boy have you missed the point.

There was no assumption that everybody else feels the same way. None. The assumption was that people would be grownups, and answer the question within the context of that question--not pop over here to MeTa to snark about the fact that he happens to believe. Got it yet? It's disrespectful and rude.

But then, you probably take pride in being rude, and somehow think it's a good personality trait.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 3:17 PM on April 8, 2007


And on preview: fat people in SUVs are confusing, too.

Not really -- they don't fit in compact cars.
posted by Deathalicious at 3:28 PM on April 8, 2007


Heh, I had a feeling this would wendell.
posted by davy at 3:35 PM on April 8, 2007


Hey wendell, I scored 16 on that Highly Sensitive Person test. Maybe if you're really nice I'll let you hug me too!
posted by davy at 3:40 PM on April 8, 2007


languagehat (who's had it in for me since 2004)

Don't be an idiot. I've probably said more nice things about you than anybody else in this thread. But when you behave like a dick, I mention it. How come you value brutal honesty on any subject but yourself?
posted by languagehat at 3:55 PM on April 8, 2007


Sorry, davy, I only scored 12. Die in a fire.

Actually, I envy you. languagehat has only had it in for me since a week ago.

heh heh heh. quonsar said heh heh heh.

I need to follow loquacious' instructions more closely.
posted by wendell at 4:04 PM on April 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


davy wrote: maybe, as I said upthread, I was being too stringent in my definition of "unhelpful snark"

It looks like you're being too liberal with your definition, not too stringent. [NOT POLITICAL]
Maybe this is an indication of why people are not getting what you're telling them - it's because you aren't telling them what you think you are. Several of your comments here left me wondering what you meant, and I'm not alone.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:40 PM on April 8, 2007


Okay, to quote myself from another Metatalk thread:

(Someone said:)

"Strange, when somebody asked how much it costs to have their cat Declawed, everybody and his brother told them not to and their comments didn't get deleted."


(I responded:)

Everybody including mathowie himself. But somehow that's not quite what is meant by "snarking," "shitting in the thread" or "being a dick." I'd argue however that for the sake of clear-cut consistency, maybe "Please don't declaw your cat!" should be verboten too, in the way that telling somebody who's asking how much major "cosmetic" surgery costs that "But some people LIKE big round butts!" clearly was when I did it. E.g., if someone asks "Should I cut my leg off with a nail file or a jackhammer?" then recommending one or the other would be "answering appropriately," suggesting a chain saw instead would be borderline, "Why do you think your leg should come off?" would be deletable, "Please don't chop off your leg!" should get one a week-long timeout and "See a psychotherapist!" should qualify one for an immediate permaban. But then I gather I'm "weird," and that if I want a community blog where the Guidelines are enforced with what I'd consider consistency I might as well start my own. (Where I'd probably eventually point out that it's MY fucking "community blog" and I'll define "consistency" however I damn please, which'd be likelier if my community blog took paid ads.) I.e. whaddaya want, democracy?
posted by davy at 10:38 PM on April 6 [+]
[!]


Is that clearer? I should have said something like that first, if I had to say anything at all, right? So we all understand now?
posted by davy at 5:06 PM on April 8, 2007


I already answered the question in its own context. My participation in this MetaTalk thread was predicated solely by psmealey's statement that he had faith... and faith is not a good thing to have.

Faith is ultimately blind. Regardless of the efforts of religious apologists, all supernatural belief systems require an element of blind faith to bridge the chasm between observable and doctrinal reality.

Faith also lacks any discernment. The same entity which allows a Christian to believe that Christ died for his sins also allows a Muslim extremist to believe that murder committed in an imagined jihad is the surest route to paradise. Faith is the primary fuel for every cult and religion crafted by humanity... even those which are antithetical to each other!

So you can't trust Faith to lead you to Truth; it will effectively lead you where you already want to go, whether to an established doctrine or one that you create yourself.

Those who claim to have 'faith' only demonstrate their ignorance of what faith ultimately is. This is my honest belief; I have not observed anything in my life thus far to contradict it.

If somebody announced their intention to initiate a search for ultimate Truth aided by the olfactory senses of a trusty old bloodhound, wouldn't people here be quick to point out that a bloodhound isn't the most reliable spiritual compass?

I consider faith to be no more reliable a spiritual compass than that imaginary bloodhound... and I won't hesitate to mention it whenever I feel it's appropriate.

You may see it as rude or disrespectful; I see it as a complementary service I provide to the communities I inhabit (or as some would argue, infest).

---

Whew!

Now that I've gotten the exhaustive apologia out of the way, feel free to challenge my context and the validity of my assumptions.
posted by The Confessor at 5:06 PM on April 8, 2007


(And wendell, thanks for pointing out loquacious' advice. I did need a laugh.)
posted by davy at 5:08 PM on April 8, 2007


Oh, and as for where I stand on the issue of "faith" itself, I agree with The Confessor (and Sam Harris). But that's not what psmealey's Askmetafilter question was about, which makes me wonder why so many undeleted turds are still floating around over there. If I had my druthers you'd all be enjoying week-long timeouts!
posted by davy at 5:12 PM on April 8, 2007


Wow, this shit is still going on?

My participation in this MetaTalk thread was predicated solely by psmealey's statement that he had faith.

That specific comment was actually intended to be cute/humorous/topical. You took it far more seriously than I had ever intended.
posted by psmealey at 5:13 PM on April 8, 2007


psmealey

And my response was intended to be a cute/humorous/topical reply.

I think you hit your mark better than I hit mine.
posted by The Confessor at 5:20 PM on April 8, 2007


I think, under different circumstances, we might have been friends, confessor.
posted by psmealey at 5:22 PM on April 8, 2007


Way late to this thread. I think everyone here would benefit from a shot (or, two) of Jagermeister and a chocolate bunny! Who's with me?
posted by ericb at 5:26 PM on April 8, 2007


languagehat (who's had it in for me since 2004)

Don't be an idiot...


It sure does seem like that sometimes to this disinterested bystander, though, and it's not hard to see how he himself might get that perception. You are among those who get on his case consistently.

That said, you are coming across as especially manic today, davy. And that is manic manic.

Just sayin'.
posted by y2karl at 5:43 PM on April 8, 2007


psmealey

That's my own damned fault, you see; my mental shorthand dooms my initial points to obscurity, and my combative attitude ensures that they only become clear after the dust settles and everything is in ruins.
posted by The Confessor at 5:50 PM on April 8, 2007


well, fat people in SUVs are ironic then.

*eats chocolate bunny*
posted by niles at 5:52 PM on April 8, 2007


When I first saw the question, I knew the thread would end up here. I think that's supposed to be deep, somehow, but I forgot how. Oh well
//steals some Jager from ericb.
posted by jmd82 at 5:57 PM on April 8, 2007


//I also steals some Jager from ericb.

To all my friends!
posted by psmealey at 6:43 PM on April 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


It puts the lotion on.
posted by blue_beetle at 6:51 PM on April 8, 2007


not to harp on too fine a point, davy, but I'm still not following the train of thought from what I said to your follow up re: iraq, iran and bush etc... yes, I got it was a joke, but what it has to do with what I said is still completely blowing past me. maybe I AM the densest person in the thread. I have been having difficulty following the majority of what you've said here, and though quoting yourself from another thread certainly cleared up the nature of your complaint, it didn't (for me at least) clear up why phrontist might need a lobotomy.
posted by shmegegge at 7:08 PM on April 8, 2007


woah, and i thought i was passive agressive and annoying. this davy really takes the cake
posted by petsounds at 7:19 PM on April 8, 2007


But that's not what psmealey's Askmetafilter question was about, which makes me wonder why so many undeleted turds are still floating around over there.

You say that, davy, but psmealey doesn't seem to agree, at all:

jessamyn, the reason I posted the question to AskMe, instead of say, one of the boards on Beliefnet, is precisely because I wanted the full range of responses that would come from the intelligent hardcore christians and atheists alike that hang out here. I found some of the "you might actually be an atheist and not know it" comments to be somewhat thought-provoking and not at all out of bounds, even if I ultimately disagreed with their conclusions.

So maybe that helps explain why I'm still finding your insistence that the thread is full of abusive and unhelpful turds, with phrontist's comment as a thematic centerpiece, kind of baffling.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:32 PM on April 8, 2007


From the bottom up:

1) petsounds, I'm hardly PASSIVE-aggressive. As languagehat what that term means, he's a genius after all.

2) shmegegge, it had nothing to do with what you said, it was just things us Mefites have gotten all unpassively aggressive about for 200+ comments. As for the lobotomy and Thorazine, well, uh, never mind.

3) That Jagermeister stuff tastes like Wal-Mart brand cough syrup to me; may I have Kentucky bourbon instead? And chocolate bunnies are very fattening; I don't know how I know this, really.

5) The Confessor, hey, you're being clearer than I was, apparently.

6) And y2karl, my SO came in at one point to tell me I was being a bit more manic than usual too. Oh well. Such things can happen when one is a fruitcake Highly Thenthitive.

And on preview, cortex, whatever; may we close this thread? I've quit holding my breath over smuggling a hug out of sweet Burhanistan.
posted by davy at 7:51 PM on April 8, 2007


psmeasley, I apologize - I've probably been reading too many snarky atheist comments and it's started to echo around in my brain. I'm jumping at shadows, I guess. I read it and for some reason the first thing that popped into my head was the cacophany of the metafilter adolescent atheist boy's choir that relishes any opportunity to bait believers into being more mean-spirited than they sometimes already are... especially, one would presume, on the holiest holiday of the year.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 8:28 PM on April 8, 2007


Years ago I read some comment about a guy who left an aging slab of leftover pizza lying around his dorm room. When someone took it upon himself to throw it away, he'd say, "leave it alone, it bunches the flies."

I'd suggest leaving this thread open for the same reason.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:04 PM on April 8, 2007


That Jagermeister stuff tastes like Wal-Mart brand cough syrup to me

That's the whole point. It doubles as a hangover cure.
posted by jmd82 at 9:07 PM on April 8, 2007


In the other flame thread, they're fucking dogs and sheep.
Here, you've got Jagermeister.
posted by Methylviolet at 10:16 PM on April 8, 2007


Just in case it's somehow a useful data item, I'm gonna dittohead y2k's "manic" tag. Indeed, was going to post such myself.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:33 PM on April 8, 2007


So O admins, this is okay, right?

And hey, the next time the Feds want to reinvestigate whether I still deserve SSI I can just give 'em a list of my Intarweb lusernames, huh?
posted by davy at 11:06 PM on April 8, 2007


So O admins, this is okay, right?

No, it's not okay; it's a little creepy.

Deleted comment: "Pardon me anonymous, but you sound rather young. Should us old guys be discussing XXX matters with you?"

Davy, you have a choice to make. You can either dial it down a notch, take a few deep breaths and stop your frantic posting and not-quite-sensemaking jag, or we can dial it down for you. Feel free to drop me an email and we can talk about it, but this is getting just a hair shy of out of hand here.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:10 PM on April 8, 2007


Mockery questions nothing and answers even less. Those with all the questions mock those with all the answers, those with all the answers mock those with all the questions, and the rest are left holding ropes which stretch to where they are anchored by those who neither answer questions or question answers, but simply pull for everyone.
posted by breezeway at 11:25 PM on April 8, 2007 [1 favorite]


Confessor: I fully agree with you that faith is a hindrance to truth-seeking. It works very well, though, for finding beauty. So, would you rather be right, or happy?

Consider the lilies of the field: they toil not, neither do they spin - but if they thrive on horseshit, who are you to deny them that simple pleasure?

People who value keeping their mental maps as consistent with observable reality as possible end up being skeptics (and often atheists). People who don't generally end up with some kind of faith (strenuous denials of disconnection from reality are only to be expected from the faithful - after all, a sense of certainty feels identical to genuine insight). There's no general correlation between intelligence and skepticism, as far as I can tell: it's purely a values thing. However, in my experience, folks with faith are generally more susceptible to being scammed than folks without.

The point of my own answer to psmealy is really that actual faith is not a necessary precondition for fitting in and feeling like a community member, though keeping up the appearance of it may well be. It's perfectly possible to enjoy and value the company of others you might privately consider to be barking mad.

I know I do.

I even like Davy.

Davy, get some sleep.
posted by flabdablet at 11:54 PM on April 8, 2007


Feel free to drop me an email and we can talk about it, but this is getting just a hair shy of out of hand here.

That is such bullshit.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:03 AM on April 9, 2007


Goddamn, but that is annoying me all to hell. I re-read the thread. At no time whatsoever does davy go outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour, save a brief flurry of manic short posts.

"Out of hand?" No, not at all. But davy is the scapegoat, so he's gonna get bitchslapped for doing the same thing others have done.

Both sides seem to be carrying grudges agaisnt one another. For the sake of the rest of us, couldja all please just let bygones be bygones?
posted by five fresh fish at 12:14 AM on April 9, 2007


"It's perfectly possible to enjoy and value the company of others you might privately consider to be barking mad."

It's too bad that's too long and complex for a T-shirt.

(ARF!)
posted by davy at 12:50 AM on April 9, 2007


"It's perfectly possible to enjoy and value the company of others you might privately consider to be barking mad."

Why do you think I hang out at MetaFilter?
posted by wendell at 2:02 AM on April 9, 2007


faith is a hindrance to truth-seeking
A number of Zen teachers speak of a need for great faith, great doubt and great effort, which strikes me as correct insight. Of course, you could get in to definitions of truth and seeking and their interaction too.
posted by Abiezer at 2:44 AM on April 9, 2007


At no time whatsoever does davy go outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour, save a brief flurry of manic short posts.

Posting fatuous comments in AskMe threads and then "checking them out" with the admins seems disruptive, at the least. davy did the same thing last week, posting several times in a thread comments which he clearly knew to be poor responses to the question in an effort to, well, I don't know, to test the limits of AskMe? (After the first iteration was deleted he posted something inflammatory again.)

So, while I agree that in this thread davy hasn't done anything egregious, he does seem to have a bee in his bonnet which is helping him to purposely have it out with the admins across several threads and (at least) a couple of weeks. That's got to be annoying as hell.
posted by OmieWise at 4:47 AM on April 9, 2007


I re-read the thread.

If davy's entire history of behavior on the site was contained within this thread, that would be a reasonable way to vet the situation.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:37 AM on April 9, 2007


Predictable.

And unfortunate.
posted by dios at 7:35 AM on April 9, 2007


sorry -- I should have taken the whole thing to email but it's a fine line between wanting to be transparent [i.e. not leave questions to admins hanging in the air] and working some of this stuff out privately. I'm more referring to a sitewide issue along the lines of what OmieWise is talking about.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:56 AM on April 9, 2007


This was a real bellringer huh?

I was at a waspy seafood place for a mostly secular Easter dinner yesterday and people were getting DRUNK, wow. Also it seemed like every table with a child at it had a huge meltdown at some point and the child had to be taken into the little entranceway of the place and be soothed/threatened into stopping their crying. At one point there was a steady stream of children being pulled by their upper arms out the door, it was pretty funny. I mean I guess easter candy crash and all? Holiday family tension? I think we might be falling apart here my friends, try to keep it together, it's important.
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:12 AM on April 9, 2007


This was predictable? I still haven't figured out what it is. Some sorta multi-tentacled flying spaghetti thread.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 8:29 AM on April 9, 2007


Oh dear. What a misreading to wake up to. OmieWise, isn't it possible that I simply can be really dense sometimes?

And Jessamyn, I still haven't heard back from the email I sent you at your invitation last night, but if you're "more referring to a sitewide issue along the lines of what OmieWise is talking about" then you too are reading too much into it. For instance, the issue I wrote you about last night, about which you "bitchslapped" me in this thread a few posts ago, was simply about what this thread was about from the beginning: questions of "etiquette and policy" in Askmetafilter.

To wit, since you're discussing it here, what's the qualitative difference between phrontist's Askme comment "You're faith doesn't sound particularly religious to me" and my "Pardon me anonymous, but you sound rather young. Should us old guys be discussing XXX matters with you?" Is it that I should have phrased it differently, something like "Excuse me, but in the tone and manner of your question you don't sound old enough for adults to be discussing sexual matters with you on Askmetafilter"? (Given the hysteria in the U.S.A. around 'pedophile predators on the Internet' and 'contributing to the delinquency of a minor'" I mean.) As I asked you in email, what's so "creepy" about it? Is it "creepy" when somebody asks if the library you work in uses Net Nanny?

As for "etiquette and policy," I reminded you of several instances where Mefites have become upset and argued over things that get posted of here that are of allegedly dubious legality, everything from a currently-runnng thread about "cracking l33t wares" to unmentionable celebrities to things that might get mathowie visited by the Secret Service. What I said was that, after years of back-and-forth carping on the issue by several Mefites, I'm now moving away from insisting that Metafilter be a Free Speech Zone. I'll agree that THAT affects the whole site simply because posts and comment of allegedly dubious legality appear on all three "colors" -- the one where (IIRC) somebody expressed concern that somebody's wistful comment might get mathowie sent to Gitmo was in the Blue.

I also observed, in the email to you that you haven't yet answered, that the tone of anonymous' remarks struck me as salacious or even parodically so: "I am a person who likes sex. I like it a lot. He likes it too, but not as much as I do, not as kinky as I do, and not as often as I do." As I'd paraphrase it: "Dear Penthouse Letters, I am a REALLY H4Wt young chick, instatiable, experienced and KINKY. I need it BAD and I need it OFTEN, any way I can get it! And I need MORE!!" If it weren't anonymous I'd wonder if it's "pepsiblue" from an Escort Service or a phone sex biz. While I'm not objecting as a matter of "etiquette and policy" I do find it odd and hard to take seriously.

I also suggested that the admins might formulate an Askmetafilter policy something like this: "Questions or concerns about the Asker's age, sincerity, lawfulness or ultimate intention belong in the Gray instead of the Green." I think this would ultimately lead to shorter, less contentious Askmetafilter threads and possibly more frequent and more active Metatalk ones, but since what I think we're talking mainly about in this thread is "etiquette and policy on Askmetafilter" it makes sense to me; instead of seeing comment/questions in the Green like my just-deleted one we'd see one of those "MeTa" linkies (if we see anything at all, as one could just as easily start the Metafilter thread from the Gray without intruding on the Green, as I did above over phrontist's comment).

Anyway. I do hope this provides enough clear detail so that fewer people will tell me that they don't know what I'm talking about and/or make wild assumptions about what they think I'm saying or doing.
posted by davy at 11:29 AM on April 9, 2007


davy at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I think many are objecting less to what you're saying as how you're saying it. I think had you posted your last post instead of all the others, this thread might have been a constructive conversation instead of whatever it is now.

Put another way (and exaggerate for humorous value), the crazy guy on the subway might just be right about the end of the world being nigh, but I'm still not going to listen very hard until he starts using complete sentences.
posted by Skorgu at 11:56 AM on April 9, 2007


To wit, since you're discussing it here, what's the qualitative difference between phrontist's Askme comment "You're faith doesn't sound particularly religious to me" and my "Pardon me anonymous, but you sound rather young. Should us old guys be discussing XXX matters with you?"

The differences that I see are that:
1. phrontist's query was directly addressing psmealey's question, and in a manner that seemingly everyone but you, including psmealey, seems to have found unobjectionable, and
2. he wasn't doing it as what appears to be a point-making stunt.

Your reading of anonymous' question is bizarre to my ears; that you read it (and here paraphrase it) as a dirty Penthouse letter seems like either extreme tin-earedness or willful bullshitting, and as attention-getting as you've been about all this it's hard to tell the difference. The idea that your reading somehow justifies an in-thread assertion that anonymous isn't old enough to discuss sex is just added weird.

Beyond that, writing a lengthy email to Jess to take it off channel (a reasonable thing to do) and then recapitulating point-by-point when she hasn't responded to it within whatever narrow timeframe you've internally established is also goddamned weird.

Do you just have absolutely zero notion of what a provocative pain in the ass you're being? It's hard not to see either intentional shit-stirring or willful self-delusion in the way this whole thing has played out.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:59 AM on April 9, 2007


Someone who delights in being seen as a gadfly rarely has their concerns taken seriously. Perhaps if the vast mountain of your contributions didn't immediately smack of disingenuity or attention-whoring, and perhaps if you didn't have a history of attempting to push the envelope rather than using good sense, it would be a little easier to cut you a break.
But I have a hard time thinking of when you have acted graciously, when you have acted with tact, when you have acted with circumspection or when you have acted with any level of social intelligence.
And that is why when I see you making yet another stink about a bad-faith reading of someone elses comment, and the deletion over your response, I think "The mods have the patience of Christ." Instead of realizing your mistakes when they're pointed out, instead of saying "My bad" and modifying your behavior, we get yet another treatise on just how you're a little Socratically confused, and how you really were justified in whatever your comment was.

I'm not saying that this explains the general attitude of the mods toward you, but it does explain why I tend to roll my eyes any time I see you complain.
posted by klangklangston at 11:59 AM on April 9, 2007


I held hands with an old lady I didn't know a few weeks ago while I was helping her cross the street. She didn't ask for help; as a matter of fact, we didn't speak at all, but she was having trouble with the curb, and I wasn't, so I took her groceries in my right hand and her little brown hand in my left and we took the plunge together.

Her hand was dry and cold, and felt like a plastic claw. It was not at all a pleasant thing to hold as she gripped my hand tight and clasped her shrunken fingers between mine. But about halfway across the street I looked at her, and saw such concentrated pleasure that I realized she felt the opposite: my strong young hand was a joy for her to hold, that of a tall stranger with enough time on his hands to lend one. She gave it a last squeeze after I helped her up the curb on the other side, as her grandson bounded up, apologized to his lita for being late, releived me of her groceries, and thanked me. The old lady stood quietly and nodded; her smile of thanks brought tears to my eyes.
posted by breezeway at 1:34 PM on April 9, 2007 [4 favorites]


Uh, cortex, not long ago Jessamyn immediately "bitchslapped" me with a publicly-delivered week-long no-appeals time-out without even an emailed "WTF" first. What's this about "narrow time frames" and public/private dichotomies?

Besides which, cortex, have you really no idea that anybody might really read things like "I am a person who likes sex. I like it a lot. He likes it too, but not as much as I do, not as kinky as I do, and not as often as I do" as intentionally sexually provocative? Maybe we haven't been reading the same Usenet newsgroups (in my case for a decade), but swear I'm hardly the only person in the Internet who would have a sceptical reaction to such things. Have you been that sheltered or what?

And since in this thread you and Jessamyn (as well as non-admins) have brought up my behavior in other threads and "colors," would it be "off-base" of me to suggest in turn that he real lesson here is "Do not make cracks about an admin's jewelry"?

I mean, since some people insist on questioning my motives, can you see that that invites the same?

/*
Jessamyn, when I was a teenager my grandpa used to pick on me about my long hair, things like "I thought Betty had one of each!"; while I had no idea your grandmother said anything, I should have understood that cracking on someone's "self-expression" might upset them badly, so again I apologize. And if it turns out that I've just (re-?) insulted you by my reading of things here, I apologize for that too. And yes, it's just that since you're still not answering my email but clearly have been reading this thread I figure I might as well stick this in here where I can reasonably expect you'll see it.
*/

In general, as far as cortex's complaint about my reading of anonymous' question (or rather that excerpt from it) "as a dirty Penthouse letter" sounding "either extreme tin-earedness or willful bullshitting," that closely resembles my view of recent interpretations of my behavior hereabouts. I'm tempted to ask if you're deliberately misrepresenting my output because you don't like me, or if you really are saying things I feel should be obvious are viciously insulting purely by stupid accident. Might you, cortex, be tin-eared too? (I admit I am, this isn't the first time I've had to have discussions like this; I'm just glad I get to do it this time in text mode with a computer, sometimes the ability to edit on the fly and move blocks of text around is very helpful.)

So anyway, back to the topic of this thread, sometimes I too get a feeling that somebody's not providing enough detail for me to understand correctly and then getting upset that I don't get it; to quote Bugbread's reply to me upthread:

davy : "Forgive me for rolling my eyes at collective denseness, but it goes like this:"

I'll forgive you, on the condition that next time you just keep in mind that we're all far more dense than you, so you should probably say what you mean instead of just saying random things and hoping that we're clever enough to guess what you aren't saying.

posted by bugbread at 2:26 PM on April 8 [1 favorite +]
[!]

Yes, sometimes even alleged attention whores who've been unwise enough to admit having a psychiatric diagnosis really don't know what the admins are objecting to when the policy is not clearly spelled out and consistently applied. This is why I suggst that something like following should be prominently displayed and consistently applied: "Questions or concerns about the Asker's age, sincerity, lawfulness or ultimate intention belong in the Gray instead of the Green." Is there something wrong with this idea? (One good thing, hey, even I can understand that policy easily!)
posted by davy at 1:40 PM on April 9, 2007


Thanks breezeway, that's a nice thing.

I don't want to pile on.
davy, when you want to post a MeTa thread, perhaps you could save yourself some heartache by sending it to a couple of other people first - random or friends - to get their take, before posting it here. That's just meant as a friendly suggestion.
posted by peacay at 1:45 PM on April 9, 2007


"when you want to post a MeTa thread, perhaps you could save yourself some heartache by sending it to a couple of other people first"

Yeah, now that sounds like good advice. Gracias.

Sometimes this thread reminds me of a Star Trek episode (was it ST:Voyager?) where they picked up a busted shipload of people whose language was not yet known to the computer's Universal Translator. (Is it mutually painful?)

So who wants to volunteer to be my Interplanetary Translation Assistant?
posted by davy at 1:52 PM on April 9, 2007


This is why I suggst that something like following should be prominently displayed and consistently applied: "Questions or concerns about the Asker's age, sincerity, lawfulness or ultimate intention belong in the Gray instead of the Green." Is there something wrong with this idea?

nothing at all

in fact, it's such a good idea that you can immediately begin following it instead of waiting for someone to tell you to ... just as you can decide not to over prolong discussions and arguments, or not to over analyze "rules", or not to over exasperate admins with requests for explanations, or let last week's crap be last week's crap, or just chill out all together

see, it's really all up to you ... you don't have to wait until someone tells you to do it

unless, of course, you enjoy adolescent conflicts with authority figures ... and yeah, that IS passive agressive behavior
posted by pyramid termite at 1:54 PM on April 9, 2007


Oldie but goodie.
posted by Burhanistan at 2:00 PM on April 9, 2007


Besides which, cortex, have you really no idea that anybody might really read things like "I am a person who likes sex. I like it a lot. He likes it too, but not as much as I do, not as kinky as I do, and not as often as I do" as intentionally sexually provocative? Maybe we haven't been reading the same Usenet newsgroups (in my case for a decade), but swear I'm hardly the only person in the Internet who would have a sceptical reaction to such things. Have you been that sheltered or what?

Ye gods. I'm sheltered for not reading that as 'sexually provocative'?

You are reacting—overly, badly, and at length—to negative reactions to your own self-absorbed statements about inconsistent moderation on the site. You seem to be both taking it and making it far more personal than a normal MeTa/admin discussion, you're engaging in provocative behavior, and you have made yourself a fairly high-profile figure on mefi through varying degrees of hijinks so it's hard to dismiss it as a one-off.

It's not personal, for me; I haven't even had much history with you at all, and I've read plenty of comments by you that I've liked. But you can be a pain in the ass, and right now it seems like you're willing to do just about anything other than chill out and take a walk. If you are imagining that you are going to be seen at the moment administratively through the exact same lens as someone being cool and reasonable and not shit-stirry, you need to understand that you are imagining wrongly. Call that horrid injustice if you need to; I'd call it triage.

There are good conversations to be had about administration and policy and community norms, and you've got every right to be interested in promoting those conversations, but you're doing it very badly right now. You've pretty much shot your goodwill for the time being. Do you understand that?

As for this:

I'm tempted to ask if you're deliberately misrepresenting my output because you don't like me, or if you really are saying things I feel should be obvious are viciously insulting purely by stupid accident. Might you, cortex, be tin-eared too?

See above. I don't dislike you, and if you've paid attention to my position in a lot of metatalk dustups you'd know that I'm anti-grudge and don't much like the idea of promoting negative cult-of-personality bullshit around here.

And I haven't used the phrase "viciously insulting" or anything synonymous in this whole back-and-forth, I don't believe. Give me a link if I'm wrong. I think your comments, in context, have been out of line, off the wall, and a few other things, but for all the bafflement I'm experiencing in this I haven't presumed once that you're intent is nasty or malicious, just way, way bizarre.

I might have a tin ear. I've been wrong before, and been told so. But there's not a hell of a lot of agreement with you in this thread, which suggests that's not the case this time around.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:02 PM on April 9, 2007


Davy, that comment was less a little more than 12 hours ago -- many of which I was asleep -- and you are not my only concern or priority. I will email you back. I don't think your motives are insincere, but you can have sincere motives and still be inappropriate in whatever forum you're in. In this case, your AskMe response was not only way off the mark, it broke a few basic rules such as

1. answer the question (stated, obvious)
2. don't make people asking sex questions uncomfortable, or create an uncomfortable setting (unstated, still pretty obvious)

I forgot the jewelery crack, honestly, but this hyperattention to the minutia of MeFi is not, I think, going to wind up with more clarity on either of our parts. The big difference between your comment and phrontist's was that you are quoting only part of what he was saying and you are quoting your comment in full. That is, your comment didn't answer the question in any part of it.

Short of that, there may not be a way for you to get the 100% consistent guidelines that you want. We don't have them. We won't be implementing them. Most people don't have problems with them most of the time. While it's important for us to be understood, there are times when the communcation process breaks down -- and I am feeling this is one of those times -- where an individual has a specific problem that isn't shared by anyone else in the (large, diverse) community. There is a certain amount we can do to iron these things out, but if that doesn't work there may be some recalibration on your end that needs to happen.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:13 PM on April 9, 2007


davy, when I read this thread I see a lot of people (not everyone, but a lot) trying really really hard to understand what you're getting at and being met with a difficult attitude, defensiveness and at times outright derision. Now, sometimes the attitude and derision and all that is returned back to you, true. But since you have no problem whatsoever recognizing when you've been wronged it might be time to focus on when you haven't been and when you've done wrong to others. We all understand that you feel there's some inconsistency in the moderation and that you've been unfairly deleted. But I don't think I've ever seen accusing admins of bias or implying something about their level of sophistication or intelligence ever end well, except when the person doing so has backed off and let it drop.
posted by shmegegge at 2:14 PM on April 9, 2007


shit-stirry: my new favorite adjective.
posted by otherwordlyglow at 2:25 PM on April 9, 2007


You are among those who get on his case consistently.

If by that you mean "get on his case when he's acting like a whiny, aggressive toddler," yeah, I've been doing that, because I thought he was a valuable enough contributor in general that he might benefit from having it pointed out that he was not being the best davy he could be. (Don't laugh: I recently got an e-mail from someone else thanking me for saying he was being an asshole.) But I'm pretty much giving up on davy, which means I won't be getting on his case, I'll be ignoring him, as I do just about everyone I've decided is hopeless. So davy, you can breathe a sigh of relief. You've successfully lowered expectations to the vanishing point.
posted by languagehat at 2:58 PM on April 9, 2007


2. don't make people asking sex questions uncomfortable, or create an uncomfortable setting (unstated, still pretty obvious)

OH. Okay! NOW I get it: it was NOT pretty obvious TO ME. In fact I had no idea there was such a guideline about any such thing, because it was unstated.

Now that it has now been explicitly stated I can begin to figure out how to apply it; that shouldn't look too difficult to you because (if you haven't noticed) I tend not to comment in sex-based Askme threads anyway (indeed I seldom read them). You should not expect to have a problem with me in those threads. (I only noticed that one, which showed up on the front Green page as "How do I help relieve my boyfriend's sexual performance anxieties?", because, uh, I myself, uh, never mind....)

There ARE some "obvious" no-nos I do get, such as "don't bring up the Palestinian issue in Askmetafilter threads concerning Yom Kippur observance." (No particular meaning there besides that even I recognize that that would be "way, way weird", something I learned by reading the Usenet group soc.culture.jewish where some people really do do that.)

And cortex, I understand your point that what I've been trying to say has not achieved its intended purpose, for whatever reason (and at whoever's fault), but I know nobody else who can speak for me better than I can for myself (nor could afford a "translator" that gifted). That said, and because I'm really bloody tired of this (I do type very slowly with one finger, and believe it or not sometimes it takes me an hour to organize a block of mishmash into something I think resembles a coherent sentence), I'd just as soon let this go.
posted by davy at 3:08 PM on April 9, 2007


Oh, and fuck you too, languagehat. For as long as I've been here you've been acting beneath the dignity of anyone over 30, trying so hard to be accepted by K3wl Kidz half my age (let alone yours) that it's been painful to watch; were you some kind of pederast it might be understandable, one fawns and flatters when one can't afford trips and trinkets, but as you clearly lack that motive (or even perhaps the capabilty) I can find no charitable excuse for you. Ergo, if in recent memory (say a year or so) you've had any noticeable expectations of me they've been unreciprocated, so you understand why I'm unimpressed. Do please keep your public promise to ignore me, for your sake.
posted by davy at 3:19 PM on April 9, 2007


Once, at a meetup of some sort at the Bohemian beer garden in Queens, there were these two guys who just hated one another for mostly outward reasons: appearance, hair, musical tastes, political stance, stuff like that. Everyone was having a great time, shoutouts were flying, beer after beer washed down sausage after sausage, and a good time was being had by almost all. But these two guys were so bent on goading one another that the scene turned ugly. Hats were down, handbags were out, and a war of words started. Everyone tried as hard as they could to calm these guys down, to no avail.

Eventually half the revelers left in disgust, and the ones who left were very pretty so it was a great loss to all of us, but these guys were so far gone in their petty quarrel that they couldn't see what they were doing to everyone else. I remember getting between them, holding each one with an arm across their shoulders, putting all my weight onto them so that they were face-to-face but immobile, and letting them know that they were putting even more weight on everyone else there. The other big guy there, whose name I don't want to drag in here but who is sorely missed in NYC since he moved southwest, stepped like me into the unpleasant role of heavy, but there wasn't much we could do to salvage the festive atmosphere these guys wrecked with their inability to let things go.

You're a champ, davy, and a barrel of laughs to boot, but the weight of your words rests more on the shoulders of the people here who aren't fighting with you than they do on those of the people who are. Please don't make the pretty girls leave. It's a nice night, and there are pitchers full of fun to drink from, and the next table over is breaking into song. Let's see if we can't join them.
posted by breezeway at 4:01 PM on April 9, 2007


davy, I think jessamyn has pretty much nailed it in her last comment (assuming there isn't a new one between when I start writing this and hit post). There are a few clear guidelines, and there are many, many wavy gray ones, which most people get, but are hard to put into words. People may disagree on the fringe ends, but for the most part people understand the unstated wavy rules. They're not going to be codified, because they're hazy and wavy, and, honestly, unending (don't bait posters. Don't write AskMe answers in languages other than English unless the askme question deals with foreign languages. Don't write your answers backwards. Don't write your answers in binary, or in code, unless the questions ask for that kind of answer. Don't alternate every other LeTtEr In CaPiTaL aNd LoWeR cAsE lEtTeRs. Don't write a 50,000 word answer. Don't write the same answer 100 times in the same question. Etc.).

Most people get the unstated rules. Some don't. That doesn't make the people who don't imbeciles, or evil, or whathaveyou, but if you find that you're one of the people who don't understand the unstated rules, don't be surprised if some of your stuff gets deleted, try to learn by observation more than argument, and if you really can't grok a decision, ask about it in a non-confrontative style, preferably directly to the admins, to avoid train wrecks. Be explicit in your question; if you have a hard time understanding an apparent contradiction that everyone else seems fine with, then just pointing out the Case A and Case B isn't going to be clear as a question, because other people aren't seeing a contradiction, and to them you'll be pointing out two non-contradictory things, and they won't know what you're asking. If you want to know, say "Case A was handled this way. From what I can tell, Case B is the same case, but it was handled differently. Why?" People will understand that, because even if they see Case A and Case B as different, you're telling them that you see them as the same, and hence they understand what you're asking.
posted by Bugbread at 4:07 PM on April 9, 2007


Metatalk Protip:

If bugbread, Omiewise, languagehat, peacay, jessamyn and cortex are all explaining to you that you are acting like a prat without a leg to stand on, and yet you argue with all of them, then there is about a 100% certainty that you are an incorrigible jackass.

After all, that's pretty much one of the best collections of fair and open-minded observers you are going to find here.
posted by dios at 4:25 PM on April 9, 2007


Someone helpfully emailed me a link to this thread. I've never really read Metachat before, and I must say, I'm suprised this callout thing is an accepted practice here. I'm really suprised that there are actually feuds going on through a bloody link-trading site. It blows my mind you can keep people straight here... I've been around three or four years and I didn't know who the mods were until two years ago. You actually know individual users here? Their "personas"? More power to you, I suppose - that's just so far removed from my personal experience. I can hardly keep people I've met in real life straight, and you can divine the personalities of people from disjointed comments about eclectic internet flotsom? You see a screename and think, oh, there is purplecloud42, she likes knitting... I wonder if she ever resolved that love triangle she AskMeFi-ed... The mind reels.

matthowie: The massive popularity and widely lauded quality of the blue and green are a testament to your ability to mitigate the inevitable social ills "online community" (That phrase is so malapropos, but I'll leave that to another exegis). On the matter at hand, some advice from one of your lowly subjects: I can't help but think this whole callout thing only breeds more ill will when things could be as simple as flag and move on. Other than mass textual catharsis, what's the point really? End the practice outright.

psmealy: I was not snarking in that post. I honestly know some people who, upon questioning the divinity of christ, began to explore judaisim. Usually though, they would find all their reasoning appled in doubting christ to apply equally well to moses, and quickly stopped thinking about their faith in a religious manner. To elaborate a bit further, I mean that they stopped defining their worldview in terms of a set of dogmatic principles held by a particular religious community. What else is a religion, exactly, if not a group of people with a mutually agreed upon set of philosophical beliefs? I wasn't suggesting anything other than what seemed to be your poor fit to judeo-christian faiths as I understand them (and I think I'm fairly well educated in that regard). I followed up with the reccomendation that you seek out the unitarians because they provide (in my personal experience) an environment geared toward those with a more exploratory attitude towards faith or the lack thereof.

davy: I'm sure you're a very nice person in real life, and most people, myself included, don't take the content of internet forums very seriously. Recognize though, that some people clearly do, and the missive you fire off before jumping back to the real world could cause significant distress.

I'd like to believe you're being careless instead of sadistic - tearing in to a complete stranger unprovoked is unconscienable, but I've done it as well. I happen to have a cognitive disability, thankfully not schizophrenia. Imagine if I had, and was somewhat less stable individual. Why take the chance, however minute it is in your estimation, of getting somebody down? What do you stand to gain?

I see you're in Louisville! I'm in Lexington at UK. Maybe KY needs a meetup... I'm not really sure what's big around here except Machine Guns and the Derby. Just a thought. Namaste.
posted by phrontist at 4:48 PM on April 9, 2007 [1 favorite]


Errr... Just to be clear, I am not challenging you to a machine gun duel or horse race. I meant a MeFi meetup at one of those events.
posted by phrontist at 4:49 PM on April 9, 2007


Seriously people, everbody sit on your hands for a while. Death* out.
posted by Deathalicious at 5:09 PM on April 9, 2007


Thanks. Now my hands smell like ass.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 5:16 PM on April 9, 2007


I've never really read Metachat before

Confidential to phrontist: this is Metatalk; MetaChat is a friendly cousin site.

And thanks for dropping in with some feedback.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:19 PM on April 9, 2007


So hotmail changed your settings?
posted by maxwelton at 5:24 PM on April 9, 2007


This is a website?
posted by Divine_Wino at 6:14 PM on April 9, 2007


The mind reels ... End the practice [of callouts in metatalk] outright.

And thanks for dropping in with some feedback.

Or, "thanks, but no thanks" as the case may be.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 6:24 PM on April 9, 2007


Davy, no sycophantry is necessary to say this, but in the long run, you're really doing yourself few if any favors. Just trust me when I tell you that it's Chinatown, and that you're the better man for walking away.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 7:06 PM on April 9, 2007


A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of tired little minds. Off to sleepy bo-boes, wavy davy. I still like you, even if you are manic.
posted by flabdablet at 8:56 PM on April 9, 2007


Did somebody mention beer and sausage?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:11 AM on April 10, 2007


One of my favourite things about my working trip to Berlin was finding the little man in the little caravan at a random crossroads in the middle of the Grunewald selling bratwurst (mit zempf!) und Schultheiss.
posted by flabdablet at 2:33 AM on April 10, 2007


I'm going to score some chorizo, haricots verts, and potatoes tomorrow, for a big garlicy feast.

++ bière
posted by Wolof at 4:34 AM on April 10, 2007


Man, I'm sad I missed this thread while it was rocking out. Looks like it was great fun! Damn you, long easter weekend!
posted by antifuse at 4:51 AM on April 10, 2007


Looks like it was great fun!

Huh? Did you read the thread?
posted by Burhanistan at 7:14 AM on April 10, 2007


Huh? Did you read the thread?

Indeed I did. I love these "People going nuts due to some imagined persecution" threads. Why couldn't Davy have waited until today to do it though? Would have helped fill the day at work.

Yes, I'm just trying to fill the hours in my last 9 days of work before a 6 week vacation, followed by looking for NEW work
posted by antifuse at 8:01 AM on April 10, 2007


One man's anal plantar wart cleaning is another man's fun...
posted by Burhanistan at 9:00 AM on April 10, 2007


One man's anal plantar wart cleaning is another man's fun...

Hey, maybe I should find a way to sell tickets. (But I don't have plantar warts; would pimples do in a pinch?)

For all concerned, yesterday my "SO" called my headshrinker on me and made me an appointment for tomorrow, thinking maybe a medication adjustment is in order. ("That or a butterfly net," she said.) I think I already fixed it by dropping the Lexapro dose by 1/3 -- "triggering mania" is a listed SSRI side effect -- and getting several hours of sleep in a row, but we'll see. Note that I don't intend this as a self-exculpation or a cringing apology ("Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke!"); note too that I'm through defending dios when Mefites persecute him even when I agree on principle that persecuting dios IS unjust. So to everybody but dios, who couldn't refrain from tossing a bucket of flammable prospit on a dimishining embers, and that sykophant languagehat I previously addressed, peace.
posted by davy at 11:08 AM on April 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


Just goes to show, most of the controversy on Metafilter is probably due to some kind of chemical imbalance.
posted by Dave Faris at 11:34 AM on April 10, 2007


Note that I don't intend this as a self-exculpation or a cringing apology

So what then, "love me, love my mania"? Fuck that noise.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 11:47 AM on April 10, 2007


I'm glad you're feeling better, davy.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:56 AM on April 10, 2007


I love these "People going nuts...

Enjoy it now, if you like. But know that the law of Universal Schadenfreude Reciprocity means that if you delight in others' sufferings, soon enough someone will delight in yours.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:14 PM on April 10, 2007


True enough, Burhanistan.

And to go with something Dave Faris said, what I don't understand is why quonsar is "controversial." How far back in time would I have to go before he says anything noticeably eccentric and/or funny? I pick on him every so often because of that Q thing, but otherwise he strikes me as within the normal Mefite range like dios or stavrosthewonderchicken (to pick two usenames at kaleidoscopic random). Did Agent 986 ever flame out in Metatalk, or did he wear a lampshade on his head at a Meetup once, or what?
posted by davy at 12:54 PM on April 10, 2007


Lentrohamsanin writes "So what then, 'love me, love my mania'? Fuck that noise."

How about "this is why I did what I did". Why does every explanation have to translate to "love me" or "hate me"?
posted by Bugbread at 1:59 PM on April 10, 2007


davy writes "otherwise he strikes me as within the normal Mefite range like dios or stavrosthewonderchicken (to pick two usenames at kaleidoscopic random)"

Honestly, I doubt few people here, including they themselves, would consider dios or quonsar to be in the "normal MeFite range". Stavros, though, definitely is.
posted by Bugbread at 2:00 PM on April 10, 2007


Sorry, shoulda compressed all my answers into one comment. Damn night shift sleepyheadedness.

davy writes "Did Agent 986 ever flame out in Metatalk, or did he wear a lampshade on his head at a Meetup once, or what?"

Back in the day, quonsar got banned more than once here. Can't remember why or how many times, but I think he is the most frequently banned person on MeFi.
posted by Bugbread at 2:02 PM on April 10, 2007


quonsar got banned a lot, if I remember correctly, more for being consistently on mathowie's ass than anything else.

there might have been some manner of discipline for unnecessary snark, but really most people thought of him as a ripe old satirist puncturing the hot air balloons of a lot of people's over-inflated egos. there were exceptions, of course, but they seemed to me to be in the minority.

there was also that time that quonsar asked to be banned because he couldn't keep himself off the site no matter how hard he tried.
posted by shmegegge at 2:42 PM on April 10, 2007


Honestly, I doubt few people here, including they themselves, would consider dios or quonsar to be in the "normal MeFite range". Stavros, though, definitely is.
posted by bugbread at 4:00 PM on April 10


Well, I don't know what that phrase means, I guess.

I don't think I am outside the normal range of posting behavior. I would like to hear your reasoning for that, bugbread.

I would readily concede (and bemoan) the fact that the reaction my contributions cause tends to be well outside the normal range. But my actual contributions? I don't see it.
posted by dios at 2:50 PM on April 10, 2007


Point taken. Sorry.
posted by Bugbread at 3:43 PM on April 10, 2007


No apologies necessary, my good man. I was just sincerely curious to see your thought process on that because you always bring a unique and nuances understanding to issues.
posted by dios at 3:46 PM on April 10, 2007


This song was written back in 1892. There was a terrible flood that year. People lost all their crops and everything. They lost their homes and everything they had. And the only man they know that could help them was a guy by the name of Quonsar. And Quonsar was a man who's known to help all poor people -- the white and the black. And they would start cryin' and singin' this song:

Tell me Quonsar been here and gone
Lord, they tell me Quonsar been here and gone
They tell me Quonsar been here and gone


Then they would go out hunting rabbits, 'coons, 'possums -- anything they could catch to eat. Sometimes they would catch something. Then, most of the time they didn't. And when they would come home, they would find flour, meat and molasses, and everything in their house to eat, and they would know that Quonsar had been there and left food for them. And they would start cryin' and singin' this song:

They tell me Quonsar been here and gone
Lord, they tell me Quonsar been here and gone
They tell me Quonsar been here and gone


Then they would go out looking for things. Then, they would come home and they would find wood, clothes, everything in their homes when they would come back. Then they would get happy, 'cause they had food, clothes, wood to make their fires and everything. And they would get happy and start a-doing a little dance. Then they would do a little boogie-woogie too.

(Plays a little boogie guitar)
posted by breezeway at 3:56 PM on April 10, 2007


Honestly, I doubt few people here, including they themselves, would consider dios or quonsar to be in the "normal MeFite range". Stavros, though, definitely is.

I'm not sure what to think about that. I am the enemy of normal, but I try not to be too much of a freak (not to cast aspersions on either dios or q in any way, though -- I'd be well-pleased to sit down with them and shoot the shit over a few beverages).

I fly my freak-flag at half-mast, I guess.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:09 PM on April 10, 2007


In the strictest one-mefite-one-vote sense, only a handful of people commenting in this thread are normal mefites; most of us talk way more than average.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:36 PM on April 10, 2007


stavrosthewonderchicken writes "I am the enemy of normal, but I try not to be too much of a freak"

Well, keep in mind, I was talking "normal for MeFi people", not "normal for folks in general".
posted by Bugbread at 5:59 PM on April 10, 2007


I suspect that nowadays the "normal mefites" are the ones who use the green exclusively. the rest of us are old fuckers sitting on a stoop.
posted by shmegegge at 5:59 PM on April 10, 2007


I, for one, talk way more shit than average. Does this wig make my ass look chatty?
posted by breezeway at 6:00 PM on April 10, 2007


Enjoy it now, if you like. But know that the law of Universal Schadenfreude Reciprocity means that if you delight in others' sufferings, soon enough someone will delight in yours.

While I don't particularly believe in that sort of karmic retribution, I wasn't aware that anyone in here was particularly suffering. It felt more like I was delighting in the *madness* of others as opposed to the suffering of others. And people can delight in my madness all they want, though I personally find myself a bit boring. :)
posted by antifuse at 5:24 AM on April 11, 2007


psmealey, would you mind if we passed on the site-wide Metafeud? I'm too tired now to give my full attention to your grand idea. TIA!

And antifuse, sometimes I find myself incredibly fascinasting. But then, well...

And to those (I hereby thank) who've expressed concerned (and those who felt it quietly): my "SO" and I saw my shrink, described my life in the past few days (including this thread here, including the objective feedback and public expressions of concern), and he gave me a scrip for Risperdal that I'm supposed to take for 4 or 5 days should something like that ever happen again. If she walks in with a pill one hand and a butterfly net in the other I think I'll know which to pick.

So will somebody close this annoying and embarrassing thread?
posted by davy at 1:48 PM on April 11, 2007


Yeah, can do.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:01 PM on April 11, 2007


« Older Accusing anonymous posters of lying and being on...   |   Please hold my hand Newer »

This thread is closed to new comments.