What the world need now is crap, more crap? September 19, 2007 7:07 PM Subscribe
ok, flag it as crap we know you want to. But do we both need you flagging it as crap and then posting a crap "flagged as crap" message in the allegedly crappy thread? Comment should be flagged as masturbatory noise.
Hmm let's see, what's that [!] do? Ooh it let's you flag as noise!
Also, it's a deleted thread.
posted by ALongDecember at 7:09 PM on September 19, 2007
Also, it's a deleted thread.
posted by ALongDecember at 7:09 PM on September 19, 2007
Yep, it's a deleted thread...I did see that, my point stands though...feel free to flag stuff, but do we really need stuffed flagged and then posts saying that they are flagged?
FWIW, I wholeheartedly agree with the thread deletion.
posted by Kickstart70 at 7:11 PM on September 19, 2007
FWIW, I wholeheartedly agree with the thread deletion.
posted by Kickstart70 at 7:11 PM on September 19, 2007
Actually, yeah. That's annoying. Don't do that.
Snark awayDeconstruct the subject with abandon but if you're going to flag, don't be a prat about it.
posted by loquacious at 7:16 PM on September 19, 2007
posted by loquacious at 7:16 PM on September 19, 2007
The Great Elephant of the Beyond pisseth on thee.
posted by Krrrlson at 7:27 PM on September 19, 2007
posted by Krrrlson at 7:27 PM on September 19, 2007
Flag announcements are normally bad practice, but in doomed threads like that one, pretty much anything goes.
posted by brain_drain at 7:29 PM on September 19, 2007
posted by brain_drain at 7:29 PM on September 19, 2007
Wait, so we should flag flag statements? This is cinfusing.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 7:36 PM on September 19, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 7:36 PM on September 19, 2007 [2 favorites]
Are you talkin' 'bout some kinda flag-burnin', hippie-boy?
posted by wendell at 7:43 PM on September 19, 2007
posted by wendell at 7:43 PM on September 19, 2007
Henceforth, I shall start a MeTa to announce when I flag as crap.
posted by The Deej at 7:45 PM on September 19, 2007
posted by The Deej at 7:45 PM on September 19, 2007
FACT: Preceding a smug "Oh yeah, I so flagged this, nyeh!" comment with a sincere one that indicates you actually take the subject seriously results in a deduction of 183 points from your Cool, Jaded, and Oh-So-Above-It Rating.
Bad form, that.
OTHER FACT: Cinfusion is what makes fun parts of complete breakfasts so fucking good.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:50 PM on September 19, 2007
Bad form, that.
OTHER FACT: Cinfusion is what makes fun parts of complete breakfasts so fucking good.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:50 PM on September 19, 2007
posted by RussHy at 8:05 PM on September 19, 2007 [6 favorites]
Fligged as crip
(That is so close to a Kiwi accent as to be uncinny).
posted by Sk4n at 8:06 PM on September 19, 2007 [1 favorite]
(That is so close to a Kiwi accent as to be uncinny).
posted by Sk4n at 8:06 PM on September 19, 2007 [1 favorite]
Basically, this callout boils down to "Don't be jerk". Not a bad idea.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:06 PM on September 19, 2007
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:06 PM on September 19, 2007
What's strange, and what nobody seems to have picked up on yet, is that there's actually no "crap" flag.
Odd.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 8:10 PM on September 19, 2007
Odd.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 8:10 PM on September 19, 2007
Henceforth, I shall start a MeTa to announce when I flag as crap crap a flag.
Fixed, etc.
posted by rtha at 8:10 PM on September 19, 2007
Fixed, etc.
posted by rtha at 8:10 PM on September 19, 2007
I only post "flagged" when I don't flag the post, just to keep you on your toes.
posted by smackfu at 8:18 PM on September 19, 2007
posted by smackfu at 8:18 PM on September 19, 2007
Who is that troll guy who make celebrity posts like this but pads them out with just enough additional links that they don't get deleted? That guy will resurrect this post any moment now.
And I will flag it as crap.
posted by LarryC at 8:37 PM on September 19, 2007
And I will flag it as crap.
posted by LarryC at 8:37 PM on September 19, 2007
False flag operation.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:43 PM on September 19, 2007
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:43 PM on September 19, 2007
Only a tenth as infantile and annoying as "fixed that for you".
posted by docpops at 8:43 PM on September 19, 2007 [5 favorites]
posted by docpops at 8:43 PM on September 19, 2007 [5 favorites]
Kickstart70, I don't get your point. When a comment is flagged as whatever, the commenter doesn't have an indicator saying "Hey, you just got flagged as whatever!"
So, comments such as, "flagged for X" are really good indicators in real time in the thread.
In fact, "flagged as noise" is probably better than, "Hey fuckwad, shut the fuck up!" Ergo, it's a more polite way of going about business. Savvy? Eh? What? BTW, yarrrrr!!!1!!!!!
posted by snsranch at 8:48 PM on September 19, 2007
So, comments such as, "flagged for X" are really good indicators in real time in the thread.
In fact, "flagged as noise" is probably better than, "Hey fuckwad, shut the fuck up!" Ergo, it's a more polite way of going about business. Savvy? Eh? What? BTW, yarrrrr!!!1!!!!!
posted by snsranch at 8:48 PM on September 19, 2007
Flagged as 'flag it and move on'.
*mounts hobby horse* The flagging system is broken because it's silent (for the 1000th time). You can expect people to continue to do these kinds of things, because the poorly-thought-out design of the system makes them feel a need to do so.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:57 PM on September 19, 2007 [1 favorite]
*mounts hobby horse* The flagging system is broken because it's silent (for the 1000th time). You can expect people to continue to do these kinds of things, because the poorly-thought-out design of the system makes them feel a need to do so.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:57 PM on September 19, 2007 [1 favorite]
Who is that troll guy who make celebrity posts like this but pads them out with just enough additional links that they don't get deleted? That guy will resurrect this post any moment now.
You're thinking of this guy. And his stunt posts never get deleted so I wouldn't bother flagging them.
posted by puke & cry at 8:58 PM on September 19, 2007
You're thinking of this guy. And his stunt posts never get deleted so I wouldn't bother flagging them.
posted by puke & cry at 8:58 PM on September 19, 2007
Hmm let's see, what's that [!] do? Ooh it let's you flag as noise!
Is that what it does? I thought it marked it as a Verb -- that's what's happening.
posted by davejay at 9:40 PM on September 19, 2007
Is that what it does? I thought it marked it as a Verb -- that's what's happening.
posted by davejay at 9:40 PM on September 19, 2007
You're thinking of this guy. And his stunt posts never get deleted so I wouldn't bother flagging them.
Au contraire.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:46 PM on September 19, 2007
Au contraire.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:46 PM on September 19, 2007
I just realized I misused "lets." Damn.
posted by ALongDecember at 9:56 PM on September 19, 2007
posted by ALongDecember at 9:56 PM on September 19, 2007
So, comments such as, "flagged for X" are really good indicators in real time in the thread.
Actually, they're really only a way to let pissed-off people feel better about themselves. The original poster either doesn't care, is amused, or will get defensive and not listen, 99% of the time. Such feedback is useful only as catharsis, which is to say, almost totally useless. The whole point of flagging is to alert the admins and let them make the call, in the (apparently vain) hope that users will then refrain from dazzling us all with original comments about how they hate the post/comment/whatever.
You can expect people to continue to do these kinds of things, because the poorly-thought-out design of the system makes them feel a need to do so.
Here I'm going to say the fault is not with the design. I'm sure the ground has been trod before, but you're talking about at least doubling admin headaches ("my post was flagged 15 times and deleted, but dios's was flagged 17 times and is still up!") when users could just grow up and realize that it's not their personal website and they don't need instant gratification when their pissitivity sensors are tripped. In short, the design of the flagging system doesn't make them feel the need, their sense of moral or aesthetic superiority, perhaps coupled with an overpowering sense of entitlement, does.
posted by middleclasstool at 10:25 PM on September 19, 2007 [3 favorites]
Actually, they're really only a way to let pissed-off people feel better about themselves. The original poster either doesn't care, is amused, or will get defensive and not listen, 99% of the time. Such feedback is useful only as catharsis, which is to say, almost totally useless. The whole point of flagging is to alert the admins and let them make the call, in the (apparently vain) hope that users will then refrain from dazzling us all with original comments about how they hate the post/comment/whatever.
You can expect people to continue to do these kinds of things, because the poorly-thought-out design of the system makes them feel a need to do so.
Here I'm going to say the fault is not with the design. I'm sure the ground has been trod before, but you're talking about at least doubling admin headaches ("my post was flagged 15 times and deleted, but dios's was flagged 17 times and is still up!") when users could just grow up and realize that it's not their personal website and they don't need instant gratification when their pissitivity sensors are tripped. In short, the design of the flagging system doesn't make them feel the need, their sense of moral or aesthetic superiority, perhaps coupled with an overpowering sense of entitlement, does.
posted by middleclasstool at 10:25 PM on September 19, 2007 [3 favorites]
I'm sure the ground has been trod before, but you're talking about at least doubling admin headaches ("my post was flagged 15 times and deleted, but dios's was flagged 17 times and is still up!") when users could just grow up and realize that it's not their personal website and they don't need instant gratification when their pissitivity sensors are tripped.
Yeah, s'truth. And, yeah, the ground is trodden to mush, definitely.
In short, the design of the flagging system doesn't make them feel the need, their sense of moral or aesthetic superiority, perhaps coupled with an overpowering sense of entitlement, does.
That's where I disagree, at least in part. In short summary of my many essay-length comments about it over the years: I object in principle to silent moderation, and reckon that the imbalance between visible positive feedback (the way favorites have, if not exclusively, at least in great measure, come to be used, predictably) and invisible negative feedback causes more problems than it fixes for the community itself, while, admittedly, making the life of the moderators (which, remember, are a relatively new phenomenon, since, amusingly, the 'self-policing since 1999' tagline disappeared) easier.
The two may have been conceived of at the same time though implemented at different times, but I remain unconvinced that they work in harmony.
Should flags and their counts be visible? No, probably not.
Would something like Digg or Slashdot -- downmodding and filters to hide modded-down comments -- be desirable? *shudder* Sweet mother mary's unsucked nipples, no.
But the argument that seemed to have won the day, way back when, Matt's argument in fact, that visible deletions of comments and threads would lead to a 'king of the shitpile' phenomenon, well, that seems weak to me, and I think that kind of gaming could be easily countered, if it even happened in any but quonsarian outlier cases.
I'm not -- although I have in the past -- arguing for stronger moderation in this particular case, but I do still think that the system could be improved, and through more visibility (and no, I'm not offering ideas of how to make that work at the moment), would lead to a higher-quality experience for us, the users of the site, as well as for cortex, jessamyn and mathowie.
Crap, that wasn't a very short summary at all, was it? Ah well.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:12 PM on September 19, 2007
Yeah, s'truth. And, yeah, the ground is trodden to mush, definitely.
In short, the design of the flagging system doesn't make them feel the need, their sense of moral or aesthetic superiority, perhaps coupled with an overpowering sense of entitlement, does.
That's where I disagree, at least in part. In short summary of my many essay-length comments about it over the years: I object in principle to silent moderation, and reckon that the imbalance between visible positive feedback (the way favorites have, if not exclusively, at least in great measure, come to be used, predictably) and invisible negative feedback causes more problems than it fixes for the community itself, while, admittedly, making the life of the moderators (which, remember, are a relatively new phenomenon, since, amusingly, the 'self-policing since 1999' tagline disappeared) easier.
The two may have been conceived of at the same time though implemented at different times, but I remain unconvinced that they work in harmony.
Should flags and their counts be visible? No, probably not.
Would something like Digg or Slashdot -- downmodding and filters to hide modded-down comments -- be desirable? *shudder* Sweet mother mary's unsucked nipples, no.
But the argument that seemed to have won the day, way back when, Matt's argument in fact, that visible deletions of comments and threads would lead to a 'king of the shitpile' phenomenon, well, that seems weak to me, and I think that kind of gaming could be easily countered, if it even happened in any but quonsarian outlier cases.
I'm not -- although I have in the past -- arguing for stronger moderation in this particular case, but I do still think that the system could be improved, and through more visibility (and no, I'm not offering ideas of how to make that work at the moment), would lead to a higher-quality experience for us, the users of the site, as well as for cortex, jessamyn and mathowie.
Crap, that wasn't a very short summary at all, was it? Ah well.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:12 PM on September 19, 2007
Is the "fantastic post" flag meant to be sarcastic?
posted by Poolio at 11:19 PM on September 19, 2007
posted by Poolio at 11:19 PM on September 19, 2007
This needs more debate. More debate outside, in the sunshine, or the rain.
posted by vapidave at 12:13 AM on September 20, 2007
posted by vapidave at 12:13 AM on September 20, 2007
Only a tenth as infantile and annoying as "fixed that for you".
Well, sure, if by 'infantile' you mean 'sagacious,' and by 'annoying' you mean 'enlightening.'
How about that?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:43 AM on September 20, 2007
Well, sure, if by 'infantile' you mean 'sagacious,' and by 'annoying' you mean 'enlightening.'
How about that?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:43 AM on September 20, 2007
I'm sitting here, trying to think of something, anything, other than sweet mother Mary's unsucked nipples. No dice.
Maybe we can get that in Latin?
posted by breezeway at 7:08 AM on September 20, 2007
Maybe we can get that in Latin?
posted by breezeway at 7:08 AM on September 20, 2007
Comment should be flagged as masturbatory noise.
fwap fwap fwap?
posted by eddydamascene at 7:28 AM on September 20, 2007
fwap fwap fwap?
posted by eddydamascene at 7:28 AM on September 20, 2007
Hey, now. Just fwap it and move on, bucko.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:37 AM on September 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:37 AM on September 20, 2007 [1 favorite]
Fragged as clap.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:44 AM on September 20, 2007
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:44 AM on September 20, 2007
Frapped as clag.
posted by GrammarMoses at 8:06 AM on September 20, 2007
posted by GrammarMoses at 8:06 AM on September 20, 2007
I was going to flag it but had some difficulty in safari, so I downloaded firefox and got all caught up in bookmarking and catching up with a bunch of webcomix I hadn't seen for ages instead.
Still, what an awful post. AND the poster spelled Drew Barrymore's name wrong TWICE!
she's such a sweetie
posted by Sparx at 8:11 AM on September 20, 2007
Still, what an awful post. AND the poster spelled Drew Barrymore's name wrong TWICE!
she's such a sweetie
posted by Sparx at 8:11 AM on September 20, 2007
The first two words of the post make it clear it's about Britney Spears. I skipped right by it on the blue, because I have had enough of her as it is, so I just ignored the post.
I suppose, if I hadn't had my caffeine, I would have clicked on the thread and flagged it as not best of the web, just because.
But going into the thread, flagging the post, and then posting a comment in the thread you flagged just so that your name shows up in the thread sure looks like attention-whoring.
To claim the moral high ground for this, I really should have used a sock puppet so I'm not a whore, too. Sorry I don't have one.
posted by misha at 9:50 AM on September 20, 2007
I suppose, if I hadn't had my caffeine, I would have clicked on the thread and flagged it as not best of the web, just because.
But going into the thread, flagging the post, and then posting a comment in the thread you flagged just so that your name shows up in the thread sure looks like attention-whoring.
To claim the moral high ground for this, I really should have used a sock puppet so I'm not a whore, too. Sorry I don't have one.
posted by misha at 9:50 AM on September 20, 2007
for some reason I'm much less bothered by these comments than I am by crappy front page posts.
posted by shmegegge at 9:54 AM on September 20, 2007
posted by shmegegge at 9:54 AM on September 20, 2007
hurfed as durf.
posted by boo_radley at 10:26 AM on September 20, 2007 [3 favorites]
posted by boo_radley at 10:26 AM on September 20, 2007 [3 favorites]
I literally flagged my crap this morning.
posted by EndsOfInvention at 10:53 AM on September 20, 2007
posted by EndsOfInvention at 10:53 AM on September 20, 2007
“You can expect people to continue to do these kinds of things, because the poorly-thought-out design of the system makes them feel a need to do so.”
I'm kinda torn between your view and middleclasstool's rebutttal, stav.
My problem with the current system is that it's all-or-nothing—either the post is deleted or it isn't—and that few people read MetaTalk. So there's no good way for the community to "push back" on all the posts that are bad, but not bad enough to get deleted. That's why I don't agree with the "don't shit in the thread" rule. I think comments saying "this post sucks" serve a very useful purpose that is not served any other way.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:29 AM on September 20, 2007
I'm kinda torn between your view and middleclasstool's rebutttal, stav.
My problem with the current system is that it's all-or-nothing—either the post is deleted or it isn't—and that few people read MetaTalk. So there's no good way for the community to "push back" on all the posts that are bad, but not bad enough to get deleted. That's why I don't agree with the "don't shit in the thread" rule. I think comments saying "this post sucks" serve a very useful purpose that is not served any other way.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:29 AM on September 20, 2007
And for that reason I agree with your position, stav. But middleclasstool is certainly right that revealing flags would result in flag-comparison complaints in the context of deleted threads.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:30 AM on September 20, 2007
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:30 AM on September 20, 2007
Fapped by a slag.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:49 AM on September 20, 2007
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:49 AM on September 20, 2007
Slapped by a fag.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:51 AM on September 20, 2007
posted by PeterMcDermott at 11:51 AM on September 20, 2007
It's kind of stating the obvious, but while we're dissecting the issue I think it's important to point out that part of the problem with the "this posts sucks" comments is that people will and do shit thusly even in threads that are perfectly fine; that they arguably do so because it's not something that (generally) we delete much of that, and the culture of "this shit sucks" bleeds over from things-that-are-objectively-bad to things-that-user-x-doesn't-like.
Which isn't in any way an answer to the problem—it's a huge social proposition, this whole thing, clearly—but it does explain where some of that "don't shit in the thread" sentiment comes from: people don't always show a hell of a lot of sensibility or restraint about where and why they get to shittin'.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:27 PM on September 20, 2007
Which isn't in any way an answer to the problem—it's a huge social proposition, this whole thing, clearly—but it does explain where some of that "don't shit in the thread" sentiment comes from: people don't always show a hell of a lot of sensibility or restraint about where and why they get to shittin'.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:27 PM on September 20, 2007
Good point, cortex. I, for one, shit my pants quite frequently here at work; if it weren't for a genetic quirk that makes my shit smell like honeysuckle and jojoba, I'd surely have been fired long ago.
posted by breezeway at 12:59 PM on September 20, 2007
posted by breezeway at 12:59 PM on September 20, 2007
Wait a sec. You're the Ted "Honeysuckleshit" Breezeway?
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:33 PM on September 20, 2007
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:33 PM on September 20, 2007
Nah, that's my uncle. I'm Joe "Jojobacaca" Breezeway. The straight honeysuckleshits are all on my dad's side of the family.
posted by breezeway at 2:04 PM on September 20, 2007
posted by breezeway at 2:04 PM on September 20, 2007
Well, per my comment in the other thread, regardless of your weak defense of it, cortex, the Chelsea post sucked and every goddam time a post like that appears on MetaFilter—which is pretty much every day—it increases the level of tolerance for such posts.
Even those of us who are adamant against NewsFilter are examples of this. I regret posting the Rove resignation story. You know how I justified it in my mind when I did? I knew it was a) a big story, and b) it would be posted and the post would not be deleted. So, hey, I see the news in the middle of the night, I can be the first to post it because, well, there's some bizarre satisfaction in being the person who posts something like that.
Am I a hypocrite? Well, yes. This isn't unusual. If you think something isn't acceptable but everyone does it, it weakens even your own resolve not to do it.
But these posts are bad for MetaFilter. They've always been bad. Have they ruined it? Of course not. MetaFilter's imminent demise has always been exaggerated. Even so, as you guys well know, as we go into an election cycle and as the pressures to post NewsFilter as ElectionFilter greatly increase, the long history of the acceptability of NewsFilter posts to all those people, the vast majority, who never have read MeTa, ensure that there will be a barrage of NewsFilter posts that will be a problem, even if NewsFilter isn't an out-of-control problem now.
If everyone read MeTa and was exposed to the ongoing controversy about what makes a good post, then we could be confident that the community was self-policing and teaching itself what are good posts and what are not. But the truth is that MeTa only functions at the extreme end of the scale for the egregious users who get tarred and feathered here. It's also setting standards for the hard-core users, but we'd be doing that somehow, anyway. That's what hard-core users do.
But nothing is telling user #62100 what is a good post and what isn't except what is posted. And also any meta-discussion that occurs in the thread, which is ostensibly verboten but actually occurs often enough that there's a certain minimal amount of guidance there.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:09 PM on September 20, 2007
Even those of us who are adamant against NewsFilter are examples of this. I regret posting the Rove resignation story. You know how I justified it in my mind when I did? I knew it was a) a big story, and b) it would be posted and the post would not be deleted. So, hey, I see the news in the middle of the night, I can be the first to post it because, well, there's some bizarre satisfaction in being the person who posts something like that.
Am I a hypocrite? Well, yes. This isn't unusual. If you think something isn't acceptable but everyone does it, it weakens even your own resolve not to do it.
But these posts are bad for MetaFilter. They've always been bad. Have they ruined it? Of course not. MetaFilter's imminent demise has always been exaggerated. Even so, as you guys well know, as we go into an election cycle and as the pressures to post NewsFilter as ElectionFilter greatly increase, the long history of the acceptability of NewsFilter posts to all those people, the vast majority, who never have read MeTa, ensure that there will be a barrage of NewsFilter posts that will be a problem, even if NewsFilter isn't an out-of-control problem now.
If everyone read MeTa and was exposed to the ongoing controversy about what makes a good post, then we could be confident that the community was self-policing and teaching itself what are good posts and what are not. But the truth is that MeTa only functions at the extreme end of the scale for the egregious users who get tarred and feathered here. It's also setting standards for the hard-core users, but we'd be doing that somehow, anyway. That's what hard-core users do.
But nothing is telling user #62100 what is a good post and what isn't except what is posted. And also any meta-discussion that occurs in the thread, which is ostensibly verboten but actually occurs often enough that there's a certain minimal amount of guidance there.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:09 PM on September 20, 2007
So there's no good way for the community to "push back" on all the posts that are bad, but not bad enough to get deleted.
Yeah, I suppose I hadn't considered that point exactly, and it's certainly a valid one, as is stavros's point about visible positive reinforcement vs. invisible negative reinforcement being inconsistent. In fact, those two points dovetail together quite nicely.
On the point of favorites, I suppose on the whole having them visible is good because if I like a user, I might be interested in what s/he likes on this site, so I might check his/her favorites and discover old posts I'd missed. But on the other hand, so many users seem to view it as yet another popularity contest, which is the counterpart to the cathartic I FLAG YOU wankery as well.
I don't know. I suppose there's no easy answer to the problem.
posted by middleclasstool at 9:10 PM on September 20, 2007
Yeah, I suppose I hadn't considered that point exactly, and it's certainly a valid one, as is stavros's point about visible positive reinforcement vs. invisible negative reinforcement being inconsistent. In fact, those two points dovetail together quite nicely.
On the point of favorites, I suppose on the whole having them visible is good because if I like a user, I might be interested in what s/he likes on this site, so I might check his/her favorites and discover old posts I'd missed. But on the other hand, so many users seem to view it as yet another popularity contest, which is the counterpart to the cathartic I FLAG YOU wankery as well.
I don't know. I suppose there's no easy answer to the problem.
posted by middleclasstool at 9:10 PM on September 20, 2007
I'm sure this has been suggested already, but might it work for people to see flags only on their own posts? It would allow for immediate but private negative feedback, which seems preferable in most cases to publicly ridiculing posters and causing arguments which might otherwise have not happened.
posted by concrete at 12:48 AM on September 21, 2007
posted by concrete at 12:48 AM on September 21, 2007
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by desjardins at 7:08 PM on September 19, 2007 [6 favorites]