double? April 10, 2007 10:02 AM   Subscribe

Today's edition of what irks me: Hijacking threads with unsupported claims of doubleness. Either put up or shut up--don't shit on good threads just because you read boing boing and have a bad memory.
posted by null terminated to Etiquette/Policy at 10:02 AM (63 comments total)

Yup.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:11 AM on April 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


I think this is a double callout.
posted by dios at 10:16 AM on April 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


Also, after looking at the thread, I don't see how you can say that hi-jacked it. I think we use the terms hi-jacking and derailing too loosely. The fact that a thread doesn't have a perfectly defined vector that the poster or a commenter wishes it had is not surprising or preventable. Different people react differently. But one or two comments that are out-of-place doesn't really constitute hi-jacking a thread.

That being said, people should look before calling something a double instead of speculating. I think that is a good policy.
posted by dios at 10:21 AM on April 10, 2007


And stop complaining about the contents of your Iranian giftbags and tuck in your shirt. Man up I say, MAAAAAAAAAAN UP!
posted by Divine_Wino at 10:22 AM on April 10, 2007


the rosie o'donnel effect
posted by clavdivs at 10:22 AM on April 10, 2007


My feeling is if you're going to call something a double, it's useful if you include a link. This helps us out from an admin side and doesn't lead to "yes it is/no it isn't" debates. That said, i agree that this didn't really turn into any sort of derail/hijack.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:24 AM on April 10, 2007


Basically exactly what jessamyn said. Do the footwork and don't be a pain, but this wasn't exactly an abusive instance—I did a pretty thorough double search myself after I saw it because it felt really familiar, and I don't read many other link-aggregator blogs.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:29 AM on April 10, 2007


You know who else made unsupported claims of doubleness? That's right: Tyler Durden
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:34 AM on April 10, 2007 [2 favorites]


Yeah, I wouldn't really call that a de-rail I mean it seems like the thread survived.
posted by delmoi at 10:55 AM on April 10, 2007


It's Raining Florence Henderson writes "You know who else made unsupported claims of doubleness? That's right: Tyler Durden"

AWESOEM. Matt, can we have avatars because if we can have avatars, I want an 80x80 gif of Tyler Durden as my avatar.

Re: the post. I read klang's comment and didn't sense a derail, FWIW.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 10:59 AM on April 10, 2007


I did a brief search, didn't turn it up, but I know that I've seen it before and don't read BoingBoing or Digg. I just did another search and couldn't find it again, since there's way too much chaff in the search terms. Maybe someone with an information sciences degree would have better luck.

Aside from that, well, you're free to taste my response to your outrage by tonguing around behind my balls.
posted by klangklangston at 11:08 AM on April 10, 2007


klangklangston, are you shitting meh?
posted by googly at 11:17 AM on April 10, 2007


No, he taint.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:18 AM on April 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


I don't think that thread was hijacked, which is good, I just think in general it's counter-productive and can hijack threads. The fact that a civil conversation continued says more about the responders than it does about klangklangston.

Also, it's nothing personal--I've seen this happen before and successfully derail threads. Hugs all around!
posted by null terminated at 11:22 AM on April 10, 2007


klang, where did you see it? did you check in the couch? under the bed? behind your balls?
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 11:29 AM on April 10, 2007


Isn't this callout a dupe?
posted by inigo2 at 11:40 AM on April 10, 2007


I didn't taste anything like the thread in the neighborhood of klang's balls, so it's probably somewhere else, though I am recovering from a cold.
posted by Kwine at 11:45 AM on April 10, 2007


Isn't this callout a dupe?

No, but that comment is.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:46 AM on April 10, 2007


Given that the project was completed yesterday or the day before, it's probably not a double.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:01 PM on April 10, 2007


I agree, hijack or no, it's a bit annoying to call something a double if you aren't willing to back it up.
posted by OmieWise at 12:02 PM on April 10, 2007


"I don't think that thread was hijacked, which is good, I just think in general it's counter-productive and can hijack threads. The fact that a civil conversation continued says more about the responders than it does about klangklangston.

Also, it's nothing personal--I've seen this happen before and successfully derail threads. Hugs all around!"

It wasn't my intent to hijack the thread, and I think the extreme familiarity which led to me wondering if it was a double was because the same building's been done before as a mario bros. post-it project. I still can't find the goddamned post-it animation of Mario hitting a question brick, which I swear is out there.
But hell, I can't even seem to find the thread that the previous post-it art was from (though the pictures are linked in that same thread).
posted by klangklangston at 12:21 PM on April 10, 2007


Aside from that, well, you're free to taste my response to your outrage by tonguing around behind my balls.

What a friendly way of admitting you were talking out of your ass.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 12:53 PM on April 10, 2007


I didn't taste anything like the thread in the neighborhood of klang's balls

it's a really small neighborhood
posted by pyramid termite at 12:58 PM on April 10, 2007


Even if you're still convinced it's a double, klangklangston, did you think the admins were just going to delete it without any evidence? Did you think they would conduct a more exhaustive search than you did and manage to find it, even though you had failed to do so?

Seriously, what was going through your head?
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 5:00 PM on April 10, 2007


what was going through his head was probably something along the lines of "I'm pretty sure this is a double, but I can't find it. Well, I'm sure someone will find it if I mention it. No biggie."
posted by shmegegge at 5:54 PM on April 10, 2007 [1 favorite]


If you call that thread-shitting, what I often see folks doing (and do myself every now and again) must be more along the lines of a thread-prolapse. We let it ALL hang out!

Sorry.
posted by breezeway at 7:19 PM on April 10, 2007


In the second time in as many days, shmegegge has read my mind.
posted by klangklangston at 7:38 PM on April 10, 2007


Don't be like the people on the network television shows.
posted by Burhanistan at 7:41 PM on April 10, 2007


...hijack or no, it's a bit annoying to call something a double if you aren't willing to back it up.

But isn't klangklangston often synonymous with "a bit annoying"? I think he takes pride in that, actually.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:41 AM on April 11, 2007


One notes that klanger's girlfriend is living in another city at the moment. This may explain some of the fevered dick-yanking and requests for taint-licking that characterise his recent output.

Oh, and did you know he was moving to LA? I haven't been informed of this fascinating fact more than 4 times in the last 2 weeks or so.
posted by Wolof at 6:01 AM on April 11, 2007


Wow, this callout is a serious overreaction. Klang just said "I think we've seen this before" - it's not like he started shitting up the thread with ascii pictures of elephants pissing.
posted by antifuse at 6:05 AM on April 11, 2007


Wolof— Hey, did you know I'm moving to LA? My girlfriend's already there!

And pyramid, that crack about my balls not being very big was hurtful. Is it because I rightly called you a retard? Because you kept telling me how much you liked my big balls when I was teabagging you, and I'd hate to think that you'd lie to me at such an intimate moment. I thought I could trust you for an accurate appraisal of my ball size! Now I may have to take those pills that are advertised in my email all the time.
posted by klangklangston at 8:28 AM on April 11, 2007


I'd just like to point out that, in the phrase, "I was teabagging you," the teabagger is not the one dipping the bag, but the one receiving it.
posted by breezeway at 8:38 AM on April 11, 2007


klang, impres ur girl w/ huge loads
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:38 AM on April 11, 2007


That's one of those questions I would ask if AskMe didn't have the limit— ARe there really any girls who are considering leaving their man due to small volume of ejaculate? Even better are the ones that promise to improve distance, which always makes me imagine a shooting gallery, with the little targets going ding ding ding.

"I'd just like to point out that, in the phrase, "I was teabagging you," the teabagger is not the one dipping the bag, but the one receiving it."

Really? I bow to your superior teabagging knowledge, but I always thought that being teabagged referred to the recipient, in sort of a teabagger/teabaggee dichotomy.
posted by klangklangston at 8:43 AM on April 11, 2007


We've actually had a couple of non-spam questions about boosting spurt volume/distance. Two from the same user, in fact. So apparently there's a market, at least on the spurter side of the fence.

Hrm. It is an interesting question.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:47 AM on April 11, 2007


It may be one of those where common usage dictates the meaning, I've heard it more one way than the other, but ambiguity in such arenas is best avoided, don't you think? It may all be context: "She was teabagging me" vs. "I teabagged a stripper" is fairly clear, while "I was teabagging you" is not. Perhaps "You gave me a hummer" or "you cupped my balls gently in your mouth as I squirted all over your throat or forehead" would leave less uncertainty in the minds of your readers.

That would be a good AskMe question, indeed.
posted by breezeway at 8:52 AM on April 11, 2007


If you are teabagged someone has put their nuts on your head. If you teabag someone, you have put your nuts on their head. The appeal of this particular practice is mysterious to me, but at least I understand it lexically.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:55 AM on April 11, 2007


See, there's the trouble: I guess the jury's out on what teabagging is. I've always understood it to be a mouthful, like a hummer without the humming. But if it is just a "balls to the head" thing, then sure, I could see how the one putting the nuts on the head would be the "doer."

With the possible complicit action of ball-sucking going on, though, the bagger vs. baggee dichotomy gets ambiguous.
posted by breezeway at 9:14 AM on April 11, 2007


I guess the jury's out on what teabagging is.

No, the jury is not out. One's nuts ARE THE TEABAG. It's a visual metaphor. Don't believe me, ask Urban Dictionary. (as mentioned in this weeks' podcast)
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:27 AM on April 11, 2007


let's not forget that teabagging was originally created as a concept by John Waters in his movie Pecker. Anyone wanting an official "As OED as it's gonna be" definition can watch that movie. I forget the specific lines, myself.
posted by shmegegge at 9:29 AM on April 11, 2007


oh, and "as OED as it's gonna be" is my new catch phrase.
posted by shmegegge at 9:29 AM on April 11, 2007


I've heard a couple different definitions of teabagging. The first time I heard about it, it was as a "first dude to pass out at the party gets teabagged" ie he gets a picture taken of himself with somebody's nuts on his forehead/face. But I think this was a derivative definition of the nuts in the mouth thing. The Urban Dictionary seems to say that "to teabag" is the process of putting one's nuts into another's mouth. Is this term in the OED yet?
posted by antifuse at 9:30 AM on April 11, 2007


Blast, beaten out by Jessamyn AND schmegegge.
posted by antifuse at 9:33 AM on April 11, 2007


I'm on the fucking jury, sandbagging the process. When I said the jury's out, I meant on what teabagging entails: you think it's a frat prank involving putting nuts on heads, others think it's a sex act involving mouths and sucking. I've heard both, and I've heard it used both ways, including "she teabagged me." Now, my interlocutors on those occasions may have gotten it wrong, but if your Urban Dictionary is, as I suspect, a dictionary of current colloquialisms, then when a large enough number of speakers get something wrong, the language changes. Anyway, I'm simply proposing that the ambiguity of the term (since I've heard it used both ways) makes it an ineffective insult in an "I... You" context. I'm not saying one's right and one's wrong, I'm saying it's not clear. Some place the emphasis on being sucked, some on the sucking. What does that say about me?

And in any case, clarity won't be achieved by consulting a dictionary of hearsay, or by shouting at me.
posted by breezeway at 9:49 AM on April 11, 2007


Ah, the wonders of the Urban Dictionary, where every word is defined in a myriad of contradictory ways. Me personal favorite for "teabaging" is "5. to insert the ballsack into a fine ass girls mouth". So men and ugly women can't be teabagged. Who knew?
posted by Bugbread at 9:51 AM on April 11, 2007


I invented teabagging, so let me explain. "Teabag" refers to the purty scrotum. "Teabagging" refers to placing the scrotum on anything. "Teabagging" in the sexual context means placing the scrotum in various orifices, primarily the mouth. But in general usage, anything can be teabagged. I can teabag my desk right now. I can teabag you if you pass out. The person to whom the scrotum belongs is the teabagger and does the teabagging. The person, animal or mineral that has the scrotum placed on it is the teabaggee and has been teabagged.

Hope that clears things up.
posted by dios at 10:21 AM on April 11, 2007 [1 favorite]


Loose tea is superior. Please do not steep your tea for longer than 3 minutes.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:31 AM on April 11, 2007


I can teabag my desk right now.

Goddammit I am laughing so hard suddenly.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:32 AM on April 11, 2007


Okay, I'll submit that I've trucked with fools, who have by their misusage created ambiguity in my mind and mine alone. I don't see anything here or elsewhere to support their usage, and I'll be sure to tell them the error of their ways when next we meet.

I'm sorry to have wasted your time, folks, or to have annoyed anyone enough to shout and whack me with a dictionary, but my real purpose here met with resounding success. Now that I've been humbled for my lack of knowledge, klangklangston, pyramid termite, don't let me distract you; have back at it! I think K. was calling P.T. a retard for saying his balls were small. Teabag that!

But just for clarity's sake (and to slake my thirst for knowledge), dios:

"Teabagging" in the sexual context means placing the scrotum in various orifices, primarily the mouth.

Could you enumerate some other possible orifices? Everything I can think of seems a little tight.
posted by breezeway at 10:48 AM on April 11, 2007


let's not forget that teabagging was originally created as a concept by John Waters in his movie Pecker.

Nonsense. I heard that term used many, many times long before that movie came out. Do I have a specific cite, other than my memory? No. But still.
posted by dersins at 11:18 AM on April 11, 2007


dersins, that was my first thought, too, when I first heard the man claim responsibility for the term. Then I thought, well, that movie came out 9 years ago. Am I positive I'd actually heard it before 9 years ago? Not really. YMMV.
posted by shmegegge at 11:35 AM on April 11, 2007


This OED citation has nothing to do with the discussion, but it strikes my fancy and I plan to quote it when maximum confusion is needed:

1936 K. CONIBEAR Northland Footprints p. xii, Give him a large piece of bannock from your tea-bag.
posted by languagehat at 12:18 PM on April 11, 2007


strikes my fancy

Actually, if you're doing it right, teabagging should elicit the phrase "tickles me pink". Your method sounds too BDSM for my, umm, tastes.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 12:35 PM on April 11, 2007


oh, yeah ... teabagging (sfw)
posted by pyramid termite at 12:45 PM on April 11, 2007


still at it (sfw)
posted by pyramid termite at 12:49 PM on April 11, 2007


"Tickles me pink" sounds like pirate talk:

"Arr, so we're jist off the Barbary Coast plunderin' slavers and chasin' the odd royal, when we heave-to alongside this grand Turk under moonlight. Our salty knaves make quick work o' the guard, and the lateen is ours for the pillage. And what a haul she is: a hoard of Venetian gold, silks and sateen beyond your ken, and fourteen hostage daughters o' the Commander o' the Faithful himself. So our men are makin' a sweep below deck when the youngest o' the daughters, a dusky lass wearing not a stitch, only a jeweled net on her black hair, walks right up to me, brazen as the mermaid on yon sloop, and says, 'Ye can ransom the rest, but I'm yours forever,' and reaches out with both hands and tickles me pink, which was already stretchin' me breeches somethin' painful.

"Well, we did ransom those beauties, except for the dark one who tickled me pink. That one, me son, well, that's how I met yer ma."
posted by breezeway at 1:34 PM on April 11, 2007 [1 favorite]


a large piece of bannock from your tea-bag.

This is what I am calling the banhammer from now on.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:29 PM on April 11, 2007 [2 favorites]


""Teabagging" in the sexual context means placing the scrotum in various orifices, primarily the mouth.

Could you enumerate some other possible orifices? Everything I can think of seems a little tight."

Well, it's not the anus, because getting the scrotum into the anus is called giving a "dog in the bathtub," primarily due to the difficulty of said act (or so I've been told— every woman I've proposed it to has shot me down in no uncertain terms).
posted by klangklangston at 3:16 PM on April 11, 2007


Okay, so you teabag someone else when your nuts > their face, and someone else teabags you when their nuts > your face.

But what about when your nuts > your face? Autobagging?
posted by scrump at 3:53 PM on April 11, 2007

This is what I am calling the banhammer from now on.
I think you mean the baghammer.
posted by scrump at 3:55 PM on April 11, 2007


"But what about when your nuts > your face? Autobagging?"

I call it "Tuesday."
posted by klangklangston at 4:13 PM on April 11, 2007


Give him a large piece of bannock from your tea-bag.

+3.5 and a sausage.
posted by Wolof at 4:25 AM on April 12, 2007


« Older Metafilter City Pages?   |   Functional, clear design & intuitive systems... Newer »

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