Comments on: Kind of weird

Kind of weird

Burhanistan — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:12:33 -0800

Someone is doing some strange spaming. It only seems on nickyskye's posts. Maybe someone kidnapped spock or hijacked his PC?

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:13:48 -0800

There were several more that I didn't include in the top link, by the way. All in nickyskye's posts.

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:15:54 -0800

In other strange news, I think the recent Firefox update (2.0.0.12) killed the html buttons below the comment entry windo.

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:16:02 -0800

widow also.

By: Kattullus

Kattullus — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:17:09 -0800

I was just about to e-mail the mods. Yeah, this is really weird. There have been ten of them. Also, very out of character for spock. I think he must have left himself logged in somewhere public.

By: Kattullus

Kattullus — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:18:14 -0800

Ten of them = ten repeats of the same comment.

By: puke & cry

puke & cry — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:18:55 -0800

Actually, I just flagged this similar comment by nickyskye. It's a picture of a dead bloody kid, in case you were wondering.

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:20:06 -0800

Ah, that explains part of it, puke & cry.

By: Kattullus

Kattullus — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:21:05 -0800

Okay, spock's weird spree seems like a response to the nickyskye comment you linked to, puke & cry. Here's his inthread response:

World-class derail there nickyskye
posted by spock at 12:46 AM on February 8 [+] [!]

Right then he goes on his comment spree.

By: tellurian

tellurian — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:21:39 -0800

It had its beginnings here I think.

By: puke & cry

puke & cry — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:23:15 -0800

Ah. Mystery solved I guess. That comment by nickyskye was way out of line but that's not exactly a good response to it.

By: tellurian

tellurian — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:23:38 -0800

But I guess you know that already ;-p

By: peep

peep — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:24:49 -0800

puke & cry writes "that's not exactly a good response to it."

He retroactively shit in her threads, as payback? Er, yeah.

By: puke & cry

puke & cry — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:29:20 -0800

I thought spock made all those comments after nickyskye's? Unless I'm stupid, which is a good possibility.

posted by nickyskye at 11:37 PM on February 7

posted by spock at 12:03 AM on February 8

posted by spock at 12:02 AM on February 8

posted by spock at 12:00 AM on February 8

posted by spock at 12:01 AM on February 8

Is that right?

By: rtha

rtha — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:31:46 -0800

Ah. I emailed the mods a while ago, assuming that spock had either gone bonkers, or had hir account hijacked. What a weird way to respond to a link you find derail-y or inappropriate or whatever. I mean, either flag and move on, or MeTa, or mefimail, yeah? But why shit up a bunch of other threads (that are now stinking up the top of my recent activity)?

spock, this action of yours is extremely illogical. WTF?

By: Dave Faris

Dave Faris — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:33:26 -0800

Nick Skye's message was pretty much a complete non sequitur, too. It all seems sort of fishy. WTF is right.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:35:43 -0800

I deleted the dead corpse derail, all the dumb copy/pasted comments by spock, and gave the account a 24hr timeout for the extremely annoying heckling done on all those threads.

By: rtha

rtha — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:36:24 -0800

Thank you, sir.

By: puke & cry

puke & cry — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:38:02 -0800

I love it when a plan comes together.

By: puke & cry

puke & cry — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:41:18 -0800

Also, I'm like to hear nickyskye's rational for posting that link in that thread. That was so out of left field it was nuts. And no NSFW warning to boot.

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:41:31 -0800

I guess our work is done and we can jump in the black van and ride off into the sunset with Mr. T at the wheel then. Bon nuit.

By: puke & cry

puke & cry — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:41:55 -0800

rationale

By: Dave Faris

Dave Faris — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:46:56 -0800

rationale

By: vacapinta

vacapinta — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:50:53 -0800

It might have been a derail but I didn't find the image excessively gory or, as she said, anything more than what you might see in news photos. What was excessive was spock's reaction.

By: localhuman

localhuman — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:50:55 -0800

p&c, when are you going to add deleted comments to your project?

(I was kind of lost in the beginnings of this thread, as the infringing comments have been deleted)

By: puke & cry

puke & cry — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:51:19 -0800

Yeah, I saw that. Seems out of place now.

By: puke & cry

puke & cry — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:53:31 -0800

Deleted comments don't leave the same trail as deleted posts, so never I guess. Although I still have a tab open with the deleted comments.

Sometimes simple gets the biggest impact, Last Touch.
posted by nickyskye at 11:37 PM on February 7 [+] [Flagged]

Thanks nickyskye for making everything I'm doing and worrying about at the moment seem completely insignificant.
posted by Jimbob at 11:42 PM on February 7 [+] [!]

Sigma makes a 300-800mm f/5.6 for $7,000 for all major mounts. On a 4/3 camera, that's 600-1600mm EFL, giving longer reach for 1/14th the price and 1/3 the weight.

Even ignoring the difference in the quality of the glass (and thus the resulting images) between this Canon lens and a Sigma you are comparing apples to oranges. You can't say on a 4/3 camera you get a longer reach than the lens in question because you would also get the longer reach with a 4/3 camera if used on on the 1500mm too. The math on the B&H Photo page above is wrong, I believe. The Canon XTi has a multiplier effect of 1.6 making a 1500mm lens on the XTi the equivalent of a 2400mm lens on a 35mm camera. This page explains the commonly misunderstood multiplier effect very well.
posted by spock at 11:44 PM on February 7 [+] [!]

World-class derail there nickyskye
posted by spock at 11:46 PM on February 7 [+] [!]

nickyskye: You should probably warn people if you're going to link to a picture of a bloody corpse.
posted by puke & cry at 12:13 AM on February 8 [+] [!]

But what if the photo in nickyskye's link was taken with the versatile Canon 1200mm? I'm sure there's a connection.

Then again, if you don't like corpses, I don't see why you're not complaining about tellurian's link above, which features videos of people being shot with high-power sniper rifles (spoiler: they asplode!).
posted by Admiral Haddock at 12:20 AM on February 8 [+] [!]

Because he gave a warning, duh.
posted by puke & cry at 12:20 AM on February 8 [+] [!]

By: mathowie

mathowie — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:57:28 -0800

It might have been a derail but I didn't find the image excessively gory or, as she said, anything more than what you might see in news photos.

It's still pretty weird to see in a discussion of a large lens for a camera.

What was excessive was spock's reaction.

Yeah, he essentially went off on a heckling spree, grabbing the first "gross out" image he could find and them plastered it over every nearby thread. That's kind of an over-the-top reaction. He could have emailed me about nickseye's comment instead and I would have done something about it.

By: Admiral Haddock

Admiral Haddock — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:02:30 -0800

You left out my comment about the sexy snipers!

By: Admiral Haddock

Admiral Haddock — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:04:15 -0800

Although on re-view, I take it is because you grabbed the text off of the already open tab, which, if refreshed, would have lost all of the comments.

By: puke & cry

puke & cry — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:08:04 -0800

Yup, sorry about missing your sexy snipers comment, Admiral Haddock. I can only refresh so often.

By: localhuman

localhuman — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:08:22 -0800

If a person/computer were to have a feed of a post, would they recieve the conversation that follows it un-edited? If this feed were to be updated rather constantly, might it provide a way to track deleted comments?

If so, would mods not like such an endeavor?

By: tkolar

tkolar — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:09:31 -0800

I'm afraid I'm going to have to call you out on this callout, Burhanistan.

"Spamming" definitely has two Ms.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:31:38 -0800

Sniperlicious.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:32:21 -0800

From spock, over email:

Apologies for my recent 4-year-old behavior. No excuses. Proverbial
straw on a bad day.
It's a fair cop, but society's to blame.
I shall do my pennance and send Nickyskye a personal email apology.
If you would be so kind as to post this in the MetaTalk thread,
perhaps everyone could go on with their regularly scheduled lives.
Thanks and sorry to cause you the bother.

Live long and prosper

I'm gonna close this up, since it's all wrapped up.

By: puke & cry

puke & cry — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 23:32:33 -0800

I also flagged nickyskye's rationale in that thread because it only makes sense to people that saw the now deleted comments. I'm hoping that comment will be nixed and reposted here.