chatfilter?

May 5, 2008 5:51 AM

Isn't How is the downturn in the US economy affecting you chatfilter?

Or what am I missing that it's still there?

posted by krautland to MetaFilter-related at 5:51 AM (67 comments total)

A good question should have a purpose, goal, or problem to be solved.

In this case, the purpose is apparently to comfort Americans that the rest of us actually care what they're paying for petrol.
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:10 AM on May 5 [4 favorites]

Yup, chatfilter.

I'm not going to start a new MeTa thread for it, but this worries me a little: is it OK to use AskMe for doctor recommendations? If there turns out to be a problem, is Matt in any way liable? Probably not, but I thought I'd mention it.
posted by languagehat at 6:19 AM on May 5

I think it could fall under chat filter guidelines as "survey" questions have been deleted, on the other hand it's not all that different from this What's it like to give birth question which everyone loved and didn't get deleted.

So it seems like an edge case to me, I don't have a problem with it, but I don't really get the whole anti-chatfilter jihad that people are so gung-ho about.
posted by delmoi at 6:25 AM on May 5 [1 favorite]

Nope, not chatfilter.

A good question should have a purpose, goal, or problem to be solved

If that language is intended to prohibit that question (or any question) Matt should be posting AskMe looking for an prelaw major recommendation, for a rewrite. Any question can be said to have a purpose (satisfy my curiosity, settle a bet, etc.)

That said, if I were outside the US, I think that would be an interesting question, on a par with "If you lived under Communist rule, how did that compare with your life today" or "If you live in Iraq, do you believe the surge is working," and so forth.

I like the "I'll go first" test and this fails it.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 6:30 AM on May 5

For one thing, you posted this before any of us is usually awake, so that's one reason. Looking at it, I'm on the fence; it's a bit chatty and surveyish by its form, but in this case it's more asking for practical anecdotal framing for a national news cycle than it is asking people whether they like cake or how rising gas prices make them feel inside or whatever.

I'm going to just leave it for now and see if Matt or Jess thinks it should go, because I can see either call on this one.
posted by cortex at 6:35 AM on May 5

you posted this before any of us is usually awake, so that's one reason.

If we had a mod somewhere in Europe that wouldn't have been a problem.
posted by sveskemus at 6:50 AM on May 5

What problem is it going to solve?

Someone's boring monday with the internet problem?

Also, how may more posts are there going to be about dslr lenses before someone does a search on the other "what dslr lenses should I get?"

and don't start me on tall boats from the Baltic to Berlin.....
posted by mattoxic at 6:50 AM on May 5 [1 favorite]

Wow, I totally mis-read that one, I thought it said,

How is the downturn in the US Economy affecting you personally I mean, like, at all? Or no? I don't have an actual fact-like question but I kind of just wanna, you know discuss the whole economy thing - oh wait, there's the toaster.

Thanks for the clarification. I should check my glasses' perscription.
posted by From Bklyn at 6:52 AM on May 5

If we had a mod somewhere in Europe that wouldn't have been a problem.
I was going to suggest something similar but then remembered how much work this can be. who'd want that?
posted by krautland at 6:56 AM on May 5

I'm going to just leave it for now and see if Matt or Jess thinks it should go, because I can see either call on this one.

Yessss, play them against each other, my young apprentice.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:05 AM on May 5 [1 favorite]

I thought it was okay, not great, but okay and if I'm feeling wavery and the flag queue is also sort of non-decisive we'll usually leave it.
posted by jessamyn at 7:11 AM on May 5

Mod apathy is just one more effect of the US economic downtown. Next up: Doritos and Coke.
posted by blue_beetle at 7:14 AM on May 5 [1 favorite]

What problem is it going to solve?

Someone's boring monday with the internet problem?

Isn't that what this callout is for?
posted by kittens for breakfast at 7:26 AM on May 5

I thought it was okay, not great, but okay and if I'm feeling wavery and the flag queue is also sort of non-decisive we'll usually leave it.

Just because it's monday, the Iron-fisted moderating self-defenestrates, eh? Showing weakness just encourages the proles.
posted by jeffamaphone at 7:34 AM on May 5

If by "encourages" you mean "lulls into a false sense of security, and then comes the WHAMMY!", yes.

*steeples fingers, chuckles darkly*
posted by cortex at 7:43 AM on May 5

My personal metric for chatfilter is this: if no answers to a question can be demonstrated to be incorrect, either now or in the future, it's chatfilter.

The universe of possible chatfilter questions is larger than that, but this is a clear definition of one subset: if a question can't be answered wrong, it's always chatfilter.
posted by Malor at 7:44 AM on May 5

*steeples fingers, chuckles darkly*

Now that is the kind of moderatin' what keeps me coming back!
posted by jeffamaphone at 7:50 AM on May 5

Next up: Doritos and Coke.
I bet doritos is still hating the gods for not having been in mentos place when it comes to coke.
posted by krautland at 8:10 AM on May 5

the rest of us actually care what they're paying for petrol

That's mainly because they're paying so much less than we are.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:38 AM on May 5

I usually flag chatfilter. Then I join in the fun.

This is not chatfilter IMO, but it does seem a bit homeworkfiltery.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:46 AM on May 5

How do you deal with the weather where you live?
posted by stirfry at 8:55 AM on May 5

My personal metric for chatfilter is this: if no answers to a question can be demonstrated to be incorrect, either now or in the future, it's chatfilter.

Of course, that also eliminates all of relationshipfilter, which while not necessarily a terrible thing, would eliminate approximately a quarter of AskMe. It also eliminates pretty much anything that requires subjective judgment (e.g., what are some good books, movies, etc., about _____?), which is another chunk amputated....
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:04 AM on May 5

It also eliminates pretty much anything that requires subjective judgment (e.g., what are some good books....)

I've seen some of those answered wrong, where someone read the front page text and leapt to a recommendation without reading any of the inside (e.g. "not looking for this / with the aspect of this / dealing with this topic from this point of view" etc.).
posted by johnofjack at 9:26 AM on May 5

how will the eventual upturn in the u.s. economy affect everyone?
posted by quonsar at 9:41 AM on May 5 [2 favorites]

How do you deal with the weather where you live?

I think a more fair comparison would be to a question like:

"I live in the tropics, and keep reading about the brutal winter weather in the northeast of the US, Scandanavia, Canada, and other cold places. How are you dealing with what is being called the coldest winter of the decade? Is it really that bad?"

The answers are going to be mostly anecdotal, but much more focused than just "how's the weather, dude?" Add a bunch of those answers together, and you begin to have something of a qualitative picture of how it works, at least for a demographically- and geographically-unrepresentative sample of MeFites.

Depending on the question, that unrepresentativeness could be a real issue, but that's not so much the case for the question asked, or the refinement I made to your weather question.
posted by Forktine at 9:42 AM on May 5

>It also eliminates pretty much anything that requires subjective judgment (e.g., what are some good books....)

I've seen some of those answered wrong, where someone read the front page text and leapt to a recommendation without reading any of the inside (e.g. "not looking for this / with the aspect of this / dealing with this topic from this point of view" etc.).

Huh. But if a "wrong answer" is just an unhelpful one, or one that ignores the poster's wishes, then any question can have wrong answers.

Watch me go into that recession thread and talk about my love of nachos for a few pages. That'll be unhelpful, yes?

Note to mods: idle threat for rhetorical purposes. Actually, I hate nachos.
posted by nebulawindphone at 10:24 AM on May 5

how will the eventual upturn in the u.s. economy affect everyone?

I plan to fill my bathtub with gold coins and have a soak, Ron Paul-style.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:31 AM on May 5

I'm not really sure if the "no chatfilter" rule was always in effect or not... but, you know that life-altering experiences thread from a few years back that everyone in the entire universe loves? I'm not quite sure how that one's not chatfilter, but it's certainly worth having around.

I think there are some questions that are useful and important that can only be answered with anecdotes, and those are where the chatfilter line gets a little blurry. I'm glad AskMe doesn't get inundated with obviously chatty questions like "HAY WHOSE THE HOTTEST VS ANGEL???" or "Abercrombie or Hollister?" but for the borderline questions I'd rather err on the side of keeping them around - they can be some of the most interesting ones.
posted by Metroid Baby at 10:32 AM on May 5

Oh, and while we're dickering about tests for chatfilter, there's always the "I'll start" test, which that thread passes with flying colors. The poster can't say anything about the American economy from his own experience, so he's looking for people who can.

(More generally, I just want to say that this sort of thing is one of the best parts of the internet in my book. A guy's getting the official news from the other side of the planet, but he smells BS and wants some human context. Thanks to all these tubes, he can get it. Fuck yeah.)
posted by nebulawindphone at 10:38 AM on May 5

What's your bank balance currently? Aren't you totally fucked? How does it feel?
posted by hackly_fracture at 10:41 AM on May 5

how will the eventual upturn in the u.s. economy affect everyone?

Don't be ridiculous. Didn't you read loquacious the other day, quonsar? It's the end of the world as we know it.
posted by Kwine at 12:51 PM on May 5

(I feel fine)
posted by Kwine at 12:51 PM on May 5

I'm glad AskMe doesn't get inundated with obviously chatty questions like "HAY WHOSE THE HOTTEST VS ANGEL???" or "Abercrombie or Hollister?"

The answer to the latter is "arson".
posted by Pastabagel at 1:20 PM on May 5

In this case, the purpose is apparently to comfort Americans that the rest of us actually care what they're paying for petrol.

The last time I bought gasoline was in January.

In a typical month, my commute takes me far enough to get from Melbourne to Cairns.
posted by oaf at 1:30 PM on May 5

I didn't want to start a separate Metatalk thread about this, but while we have an open thread about AskMe, if nobody minds, I'd like to vent here about how judgmental people are being in the budgeting thread.

There is nothing to be gained by insulting the poster. Your family will not receive more money if you write a comment calling someone else lavish and wasteful.

I'm interested in the actual question -- budgeting for future unknown house repairs, budgeting to have kids -- and all the stone throwing is making that thread unpleasant. Yes, you and your family are models of frugal budgeting, but the poster has never had a four-person family before and does not know what things cost and is asking for help. Even if they spend more than you do, others spend more than them, and still others spend less than you.

This is not a question about who is good and who is bad. It is a very clear, factual question, about what a family should budget and how to balance the costs of commuting, daycare, food, and time. I make a fraction of what the OP & partner make. But I accept that some families in this country earn more money than other families. Some parts of this country are very expensive. High earners everywhere feel like they don't have enough. These things are facts, and the people involved are people, and there's no need for or benefit to all the bile.

For example, this comment from mudpuppie.

It seems that your real question isn't "can we afford kids," but "if we have kids will we be able to maintain the lavish lifestyle we currently maintain?"

There's nothing gained by the word lavish. True? Not true? Who cares. It's not helpful. The exact same amount of help is there when you delete the judgment.

On the original question here, I agree it's chatfilter, but since the OP could've tweaked the wording slightly and gotten the exact same responses ("Is it true that the downtown is affecting the average US resident?"), it doesn't bother me personally that much.
posted by salvia at 1:32 PM on May 5 [1 favorite]

It's not helpful.

I'd disagree. The OP may need that kind of (harsh, but correct) reality check before making the serious leap to having children. Mudpuppie's answer is entirely appropriate in that light.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:01 PM on May 5

stirfry: "How do you deal with the weather where you live?"
Well, we have over 300 days of sunshine every year, a year-round average of 23c and more or less no (visible) pollution, so dealing with our weather is not much of a chore. How about you?
posted by dg at 2:03 PM on May 5

As long as this one is OK, I think my next AskMe will be "再三讀此無聊之物，不亦樂乎?"
posted by klue at 2:09 PM on May 5

re: the kids & budget thread. I think the use of the word "lavish" is entirely appropriate given that the OP called his budget "austere". That budget is about $150K above "austere". The OP is out of touch with financial reality, even by Bay Area standards. So it's helpful in so far as it gives him some perspective.
posted by GuyZero at 2:21 PM on May 5

The OP is out of touch with financial reality, even by Bay Area standards. So it's helpful in so far as it gives him some perspective.

He's not out of touch with "reality"- he's out of touch with YOUR reality, and saying so is not helpful.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:34 PM on May 5 [1 favorite]

Reality is the thing we don't all have a different one of.
posted by Wolfdog at 2:43 PM on May 5 [6 favorites]

he's out of touch with YOUR reality

In what sense is having a household income of $200K annually "austere"? Everyone wishes they had more money, sure, but calling his budget "lavish" is no more outlandish than calling "austere".
posted by GuyZero at 2:45 PM on May 5

I like the "I'll go first" test and this fails it.

That might be because the OP is Australian; or at least some sort of expat, posting from Australia.

My personal metric for chatfilter is this: if no answers to a question can be demonstrated to be incorrect, either now or in the future, it's chatfilter.

So, would "Does God exist?" count?
posted by UbuRoivas at 2:45 PM on May 5

Some parts of this country are very expensive.

No parts of this country require spending $20 per person per day on food.
posted by oaf at 3:00 PM on May 5

I hear what you are saying, GuyZero and Blazecock Pileon, and I agree the budget isn't austere.

The OP may need that kind of (harsh, but correct) reality check

But to me, the word "lavish" is not a reality check. It's an adjective, a subjective one. Since it's a comparative adjective (like "large" as opposed to one like "blue" - I'm sure the grammarians have a term for this), the judgment depends strongly on your frame of reference. Sudanese refugees in Chad spend $10/month on food and would consider even the most (truly) austere US budget lavish. That makes the word itself useless. Some actual facts or well-explained points of comparison could serve as a wakeup call, but not insults or judgments based on some unspoken comparison.
posted by salvia at 3:40 PM on May 5

Some actual facts or well-explained points of comparison could serve as a wakeup call, but not insults or judgments based on some unspoken comparison.

The only thing in the OP's defense, perhaps, is that she and her husband live in Silicon Valley, which does indeed have an average cost of living that is much higher than that in the rest of the country (except perhaps for Manhattan). So some of the figures she notes are accurate and difficult to reconcile with the responsibilities of child-rearing, if she makes no changes in their expenditures.

But if she decides to place unrealistic restrictions on changes to her lifestyle (as noted in her question), then the (harsh, but correct) reality check must necessarily point that out. Raising kids may require some sacrifices, and the answers seem to make that point, in my opinion. The harsh treatment is only subjective insofar as there is some natural exasperation with someone who is well-off, yet seemingly stubborn (by her own response) about making necessary changes.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:51 PM on May 5

"Blue" can be relative, too.
posted by oaf at 3:53 PM on May 5

some actual facts or well-explained points of comparison could serve as a wakeup call

Someone else in the thread quoted average salary stats which the OP was well above. We don't know exactly where the OP lives but we know he owns a $1M home, which, frankly puts him in a merely average part of silicon valley. But let's image, for a second, that he got a great deal on a house in an expensive neighbourhood like Menlo Park. I don't think there are many $1M houses in Menlo Park, but whatever. Even there the median household income is only $105K annually, per the Wikipedia page. Let's say he lives in Palo Alto: even then the median family (not individual, but family) income is $117K. Now that may be old data, (perhaps from 2000?) but the OP is definitely above the median. The OP also saves more in his 401k a month than a lot of people do in a year. So I think he has some wiggle room.
posted by GuyZero at 4:01 PM on May 5

I sent a link to the thread to a coworker. Shortly after, I heard raucous laughter from her cube.

She's an admin, making less than $50k a year, a single parent, and they live in Palo Alto. Many (most?) of my coworkers make less than $200K a year for family income, and most of them live down here in Silicon Valley, and most of them have kids. It may not be as easy as raising a family in a place where the cost of living is lower, but it's still completely doable.

I agree that yelling at the OP isn't very helpful, nor is judging them, but they do need a reality check. And they're getting one.
posted by rtha at 4:28 PM on May 5

Ooh, a call-out!

There's nothing gained by the word lavish. True? Not true? Who cares. It's not helpful. The exact same amount of help is there when you delete the judgment.

Fine. You think it's an extraneous word. Got it.

Apologies if the word "lavish" was offensive. It's never sounded offensive to me. It's not analogous to "wasteful" in my mind, but that seems to be your interpretation of what I meant. I just meant they had plenty of money and a very comfortable life. (I didn't catch at first that the OP described it as "austere." I've literally been paying for food out of my change jar for the past few weeks, so this is both hilarious and maddening to me. But hey, it's not about me, so I'll shut up about it.)

I'm interested in the actual question -- budgeting for future unknown house repairs, budgeting to have kids -- and all the stone throwing is making that thread unpleasant.

Read it again. The question, the "actual question," is "Help us figure out if we can afford to have a family! Can two people on $200k a year have some babies?" That's pretty much a question with a yes/no answer. The other stuff, advice on how to tweak the budget, is gravy.

I wasn't meaning to be judgmental. But seriously, people make do on a lot less, and these folks aren't hurting. It sounds like, more than anything, they're afraid they'll have to make some sacrifices and are looking for ways around it. That's scary to me. (And since we're grey now, not green, I can say that.)

There's also something squicky to me about it being an acknowledged sockpuppet, and that one of the tags is "pwnd." It is, for me, in the realm of "My three penises are entirely too awesome and they scares the wimmins away even though I make $25m a year. Please help my life not suck!"

Anyway, you're obsessing over a single word, salvia. I stand by my answer. Sorry you have a problem with the way I worded it. (But really, it's a single word. Get over it.)
posted by mudpuppie at 4:36 PM on May 5 [1 favorite]

if no answers to a question can be demonstrated to be incorrect, either now or in the future, it's chatfilter.

So, would "Does God exist?" count?

Under that metric, no, it doesn't count as chatfilter. A "no" answer could theoretically be demonstrated to be incorrect in the future.

You know, when we're Left Behind.
posted by dersins at 4:51 PM on May 5

I sent a link to the thread to a coworker. Shortly after, I heard raucous laughter from her cube.

I thought the question was trolling/ a joke when I first read it, and there's been little in the OP's responses to move me from that opinion. The pwned tag is certainly fishy, at the least.
posted by goo at 4:56 PM on May 5 [2 favorites]

(actually, in my pre-caffeinated state, i think i read that original point exactly the wrong way around)
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:58 PM on May 5

I've seen some of those answered wrong, where someone read the front page text and leapt to a recommendation without reading any of the inside (e.g. "not looking for this / with the aspect of this / dealing with this topic from this point of view" etc.).

Huh. But if a "wrong answer" is just an unhelpful one, or one that ignores the poster's wishes, then any question can have wrong answers.

Well, I'm not sure I want to debate that, but I think the distinction is that the kind of inattentive response on AskMe that I'm referring to above takes something which is arguably not chatfilter ("I like gritty movies about gangsters which don't over-romanticize mafia life and are based on a true story, such as Goodfellas and Donnie Brasco; can you help me find some other good gritty gangster movies?" and threatens to turn it into something which is chatfilter ("The Godfather is a particularly good gangster film." [and never mind that it's neither based on a true story nor particularly concerned with much of the quotidian reality of gangster life....])
posted by johnofjack at 5:11 PM on May 5

mudpuppie, while I'm not "obsessing," I did have a problem with that word, as well as the entire phrase "and honestly, if that's your concern, your priorities are a little skewed." Did that help them find an answer? Any more than it would have if phrased politely? It seems to me to be the same exact point Justinian and wife of 445supermag were making, but they made it by describing their perspective, rather than by criticizing the OP's perspective.

I didn't mean this to be a callout of you individually, so I should probably have found another example or two. Your comment was just what finally sent me into Metatalk. The compiled effect of comment after comment with that same attitude made me think, okay, enough already. (Although I hear you saying that I read an attitude where none existed. "lavish" and "skewed" are words that sound judgmental to me. But I'll take your word about what you meant.)

It's not the point I have a problem with, it's the tone. I don't disagree the budget has wiggle room in it. People have kids all over the Bay Area on lower budgets. GuyZero's statistics do a good job of proving it, as does rtha's example.

The OP could live on less, and I can see why mudpuppie would find this maddening. I myself could focus on the maddening aspect of it if I wanted to. I live in the region on a fraction of what they make, and about seven years ago, I had to recycle bottles & cans to pay the bridge toll between me and work until my first paycheck came.

But I can't judge them, because as someone in the Bay Area who'd like to start a family in the next five years, I can definitely see where they're coming from. Of my friends in the Bay Area, the ones who feel ready to start families got that way via a large inheritance or ongoing financial help from their families. Most of my friends are also in the "can we or can't we" phase, but gradually they're either saying "numbers be damned, we'll find a way to make it work" or "bye, everyone, come visit us in the midwest!" Almost nobody I know (even those with the inheritances, actually) is saying, "ah yes, this financial plan seems quite reasonable."

I suspect nobody feels ready to start a family, and everyone gets extra-nervous around finances when they start planning for a family. They want to make sure they can do everything right before they add a defenseless child to the picture. (The OP was probably over-allocating for the kids in that budget.) They get around to a compromise position, but I bet many people start somewhere near where the OP started (whatever their financial station) by taking their current expenses and adding overstated expenses for a house and children and life insurance, and then saying "wow." Being over-cautious and trying to financially plan for some perfect life where you max out your retirement might be naive, but it's not the worst place to start.

I recently tried a similar exercise. I ran a budget for a family of 4 a few months ago, for some town in Ohio, just to see. (I doubt I'll ever be able to buy a home in the Bay Area.) I had no idea what kids cost, or what furnace repairs would cost, or any of that. I definitely assumed I'd never go out to eat, and I was more aware of how the kids become your entertainment. But I'm sure I made some mistakes that parents would find obvious. I ended up not having enough money in the budget either. I thought about posting that budget to figure out how to modify it, which is probably why I wanted that thread to go well. It seemed like a productive way to have the discussion. Now, I'm sure glad I didn't post mine. Would every point of disagreement ("two cars??"), every mistake, have gotten moral weight attributed to it?

I just don't see why people couldn't discuss the budget matter-of-factly and with a little less judgment. It's their life. Food's too high? Okay, what do you think is realistic? Okay, they insist they want to spend that amount on food? Noted as a point of disagreement for their consideration. Next. High amount lost as "misc" each month? Okay, how to find out where it's going? Practical advice provided. Next. And some commenters did this really well.

the (harsh, but correct) reality check must necessarily point that out

Maybe so, but why must it be harsh? Why can't people make that point politely? I understand the natural exasperation, just like the natural exasperation I feel with the bajillion people who want to know if they should break up. But then, (ideally), you bypass the question or you take a deep breath and say to yourself, "they're 19, they're 19" or whatever it takes to give you patience, and then try to meet them where they're at. In my couple years reading AskMe, I've seen time after time that the OP flagged a best answer that said the same thing everyone else was saying, but nicely. That's the one they heard. (Not that I don't lapse into outrage or annoyance myself, I admit. I'm just talking in the abstract here, about what we would ideally do.)

Okay, thanks for the space to vent. Thank God for MetaTalk.
posted by salvia at 6:48 PM on May 5 [4 favorites]

P.S. After that, I'm over it. Peace, mudpuppie? And GuyZero had a really nice comment at the end of that thread.
posted by salvia at 6:58 PM on May 5 [1 favorite]

I understand your point, salvia. I think we're reading and interpreting the responses differently. Unless there were a lot of overtly rude comments that were deleted and I that didn't see, I just don't see what you're seeing. (And I certainly didn't intend to come off the way I apparently did to you.)

Anyhow, peace is cool by me.
posted by mudpuppie at 7:06 PM on May 5 [2 favorites]

Yeah, I agree. I definitely brought my own personal issues to the interpretation of people's words, yours included, so it's quite possible we just were coming from two different places and ended up with two different perspectives.
posted by salvia at 7:24 PM on May 5

I wanted to suggest that Mr CheckOutMyPhatPaycheckzAndBTWDidIMentionMyAwesomeFertilitySpewingPenisYouPeasantsLOL should just move the fuck up the road, commute by train, and stop waving his fucking wallet in my face.

But I refrained.
posted by genghis at 9:02 PM on May 5 [6 favorites]

Very gracious of you, mudpuppie, considering someone was upset about your use of the word "lavish" to describe a lifestyle that $200k can buy. I think that is actually one of the dictionary descriptions of the word.
posted by dg at 1:32 AM on May 6

Oaf: No parts of this country require spending $20 per person per day on food.

I live on the East Coast, and food seems pretty expensive here compared to the Midwest. I'm talking at a regular grocery store, not a discount grocery.

So I decided to calculate what I ate yesterday, and by golly, even with some extras like wine and chocolate, you're right.

There are, however, probably days where it comes out to more than that if the meat we buy costs more, but there are tons of low cost meat products at our grocery.
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 2:30 AM on May 6

Also, I made a mistake in the butter portion, as I only had a pat on my steak per the recipe, not 1/2 a stick, so my spreadsheet reflects too high of an cost for that. Probably made a few more errors too, but that's my best guesstimate. We don't drink wine and eat chocolate every day, either, so those were luxury items.
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 2:43 AM on May 6

(yes, Krautland, it's chatfilter, and while I posted an answer, I'd have no problem if the question got deleted, as there's no real way to measure a few stories against actual statistics - also, I think really poor people aren't gonna be on AskMe, they will be too busy working and worrying about how to pay their rent/mortgage)
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 3:30 AM on May 6

I'd have no problem if the question got deleted, as there's no real way to measure a few stories against actual statistics

yeah, I am still in the "this qualifies for deletion" camp but since it has stayed there for so long and gotten so many answers, what's the point...

I suppose the takeaway is that next time krautland intends to post a question some might consider chatfilter, he should do so on a monday morning.
posted by krautland at 5:56 AM on May 6

Yeah, but then what if you catch us on a bad morning?
posted by cortex at 6:22 AM on May 6

is that next time krautland intends to post a question some might consider chatfilter, he should do so on a monday morning.

Make sure you dedicate it to one of us too because nothing gets our attention like that.
posted by jessamyn at 6:53 AM on May 6

Make sure you dedicate it to one of us too because nothing gets our attention like that.

daaaaahling, I would never dedicate a post to anyone but you...
posted by krautland at 9:49 AM on May 6