Quantum Field Theory? August 29, 2008 1:22 AM Subscribe
QFT.
Curious, I looked it up. Urban Dictionary has the definition as "quoted for truth" but that definition certainly doesn't match the context in which it is used on here. Little help?
That's the only usage I've ever seen.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:30 AM on August 29, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:30 AM on August 29, 2008 [1 favorite]
Although 'Quit Fucking Talking' would also be a reasonable, if non-canonical possibility.
Or
quonsar's frenzied toodles?
quiescent fucktard tropes?
quintessential fornicating towelbiters?
quiver, freakout, tremble?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:33 AM on August 29, 2008 [2 favorites]
Or
quonsar's frenzied toodles?
quiescent fucktard tropes?
quintessential fornicating towelbiters?
quiver, freakout, tremble?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:33 AM on August 29, 2008 [2 favorites]
Metafilter lacks the possibility of smooth emptyquoting like most forums.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:34 AM on August 29, 2008
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:34 AM on August 29, 2008
Are you perchance spurred by this recent comment (which I just read while catching up)? Quoted for truth would seem to be the obvious interpretation.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:36 AM on August 29, 2008
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:36 AM on August 29, 2008
Yea. Quoted for truth just doesn't seem to fit.
Maybe I am just reading it wrong. I guess I have never been a black person hailing a cab in Chigago at 2:00 in the morning.
posted by clearly at 1:59 AM on August 29, 2008
Maybe I am just reading it wrong. I guess I have never been a black person hailing a cab in Chigago at 2:00 in the morning.
posted by clearly at 1:59 AM on August 29, 2008
Looking at it again, I guess it does fit. There was a quote, and then QFT.
It just seemed like a strange quote to pull.
I feel like a dumbass.
posted by clearly at 2:09 AM on August 29, 2008
It just seemed like a strange quote to pull.
I feel like a dumbass.
posted by clearly at 2:09 AM on August 29, 2008
clearly: "Looking at it again, I guess it does fit. There was a quote, and then QFT.
It just seemed like a strange quote to pull.
I feel like a dumbass."
Clearly.
posted by Effigy2000 at 2:22 AM on August 29, 2008
It just seemed like a strange quote to pull.
I feel like a dumbass."
Clearly.
posted by Effigy2000 at 2:22 AM on August 29, 2008
I've also heard it translate to the similarly meaning, but more forthright "Quite Fucking True"...
posted by benzo8 at 2:56 AM on August 29, 2008
posted by benzo8 at 2:56 AM on August 29, 2008
Quite Few Taxis
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 4:23 AM on August 29, 2008
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 4:23 AM on August 29, 2008
I feel like a dumbass.
s'okay. That's just your Metaphorical Metafilter Hymen, tearing. We can only hope that the memory will be a good one, when you look back, years hence.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:44 AM on August 29, 2008
s'okay. That's just your Metaphorical Metafilter Hymen, tearing. We can only hope that the memory will be a good one, when you look back, years hence.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:44 AM on August 29, 2008
I've never seen (or noticed, anyway) "QFT" here or anywhere else. FYI.
posted by DU at 4:45 AM on August 29, 2008
posted by DU at 4:45 AM on August 29, 2008
MMH? WTF, stwc?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 4:48 AM on August 29, 2008
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 4:48 AM on August 29, 2008
QFT ranks right down there with FTFY and IMHO.
posted by Dave Faris at 5:16 AM on August 29, 2008
posted by Dave Faris at 5:16 AM on August 29, 2008
QED.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 5:20 AM on August 29, 2008
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 5:20 AM on August 29, 2008
LOLWTF FFP? FTFY! IANAL! IANAMORON IDT ITT! TIA FFS NM BBL AFK GG KTHXBAI!
Really, though, IIHTT (I Internet Hate These Things), I'm JPAFSAG (Just Playing Along For Shits And Giggles).
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:49 AM on August 29, 2008
Really, though, IIHTT (I Internet Hate These Things), I'm JPAFSAG (Just Playing Along For Shits And Giggles).
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:49 AM on August 29, 2008
Yea. Quoted for truth just doesn't seem to fit.
Maybe I am just reading it wrong. I guess I have never been a black person hailing a cab in Chigago at 2:00 in the morning.
It was late, I didn't use it well, but I was thinking of the fact that Obama probably has had trouble getting a cab at 2am, the black men that I know have invariably had trouble getting a cab to stop, and that it is the appearance of brown skin that makes him black in many peoples' eyes, no matter his actual background.
posted by Pax at 5:53 AM on August 29, 2008
Maybe I am just reading it wrong. I guess I have never been a black person hailing a cab in Chigago at 2:00 in the morning.
It was late, I didn't use it well, but I was thinking of the fact that Obama probably has had trouble getting a cab at 2am, the black men that I know have invariably had trouble getting a cab to stop, and that it is the appearance of brown skin that makes him black in many peoples' eyes, no matter his actual background.
posted by Pax at 5:53 AM on August 29, 2008
Heh, I'd never heard it as Quoted For Truth before, only as Quite Fucking True.
Words!
posted by SpiffyRob at 6:56 AM on August 29, 2008
Words!
posted by SpiffyRob at 6:56 AM on August 29, 2008
I always thought it was an onomatopoeia
posted by stubby phillips at 7:45 AM on August 29, 2008
posted by stubby phillips at 7:45 AM on August 29, 2008
Qualudes For Toddlers
posted by SmileyChewtrain at 7:50 AM on August 29, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by SmileyChewtrain at 7:50 AM on August 29, 2008 [1 favorite]
I wish I could say that it meant Quin's Fearsome Tiger, but really, it's just Quin Feeds Tortoises. Which I do. I love the those little shelled guys.
posted by quin at 7:52 AM on August 29, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by quin at 7:52 AM on August 29, 2008 [1 favorite]
Quiet French Trombones.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 8:20 AM on August 29, 2008
posted by grapefruitmoon at 8:20 AM on August 29, 2008
I wish that this "quoted for truth" meme would bugger off back to DailyKos or wherever it came from and never darken metafilter's door again, in either full or abbreviated form.
posted by whir at 9:34 AM on August 29, 2008
posted by whir at 9:34 AM on August 29, 2008
Quite frickin' tedious.
posted by Dave Faris at 10:36 AM on August 29, 2008
posted by Dave Faris at 10:36 AM on August 29, 2008
Huh, I've always thought it was Quite Fucking True, but in a polite way, like WTF.
posted by Paid In Full at 10:41 AM on August 29, 2008
posted by Paid In Full at 10:41 AM on August 29, 2008
I wish that this "quoted for truth" meme would bugger off back to DailyKos or wherever it came from and never darken metafilter's door again, in either full or abbreviated form.
What would you prefer people say?
posted by languagehat at 12:20 PM on August 29, 2008
What would you prefer people say?
posted by languagehat at 12:20 PM on August 29, 2008
me would bugger off
QFLOC.
Quoted for lack of context
posted by SpiffyRob at 12:43 PM on August 29, 2008
QFLOC.
Quoted for lack of context
posted by SpiffyRob at 12:43 PM on August 29, 2008
Quentucky Fried Thicken
posted by Sys Rq at 2:01 PM on August 29, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Sys Rq at 2:01 PM on August 29, 2008 [1 favorite]
Back in February I got curious about this meme and did some digging.
It seems like it was introduced to MeFi by MeFite nightchrome who has the two first instances of it (1, 2) He seems to have brought it over from the IGN boards. It has been a major meme there for years so they started to abbreviate it to QFT, prompting a thread analogous to this one. I know it probably originated somewhere in the deep internet years ago but I'll be damned if I track it down. I don't remember it from my usenet days and a quick Google groups search confirms that it's fairly recent.
posted by Kattullus at 2:17 PM on August 29, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Kattullus at 2:17 PM on August 29, 2008 [1 favorite]
"brought it over from the IGN boards" should have gone here.
posted by Kattullus at 2:19 PM on August 29, 2008
posted by Kattullus at 2:19 PM on August 29, 2008
Fixed, but you "Google groups search" link is blank too.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:25 PM on August 29, 2008
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:25 PM on August 29, 2008
What would you prefer people say?
I usually go with "Word."
"Word to yo'mama" would also suffice.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 3:20 PM on August 29, 2008
I usually go with "Word."
"Word to yo'mama" would also suffice.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 3:20 PM on August 29, 2008
Quietgal fixes tea
Quietgal flames tactfully
Quietgal flaunts tattoo
Quietgal flings thumbtacks
I'm sure one of these will work for you.
posted by Quietgal at 3:22 PM on August 29, 2008 [1 favorite]
Quietgal flames tactfully
Quietgal flaunts tattoo
Quietgal flings thumbtacks
I'm sure one of these will work for you.
posted by Quietgal at 3:22 PM on August 29, 2008 [1 favorite]
What would you prefer people say?
I've also seen "THIS." (as a single word comment) used quite often, usually in threaded discussions where they can tag onto one comment. QFT is no less annoying, but at least somewhat more sophisticated sounding.
(Though really, I love random acronyms. Makes me feel all in-the-know 'n such.)
posted by Phire at 4:29 PM on August 29, 2008
I've also seen "THIS." (as a single word comment) used quite often, usually in threaded discussions where they can tag onto one comment. QFT is no less annoying, but at least somewhat more sophisticated sounding.
(Though really, I love random acronyms. Makes me feel all in-the-know 'n such.)
posted by Phire at 4:29 PM on August 29, 2008
Yeah, there are some acronyms that seem pointless and/or obnoxious, but for some reason I have no problem with QFT.
YMMV.
posted by languagehat at 5:35 PM on August 29, 2008
YMMV.
posted by languagehat at 5:35 PM on August 29, 2008
FWIW, I first encountered QFT on the forums for my WoW guild, back when I played WoW. This would have been the second half of 2006 through maybe April of '07. I'm sure it originated earlier than that.
posted by Caduceus at 11:08 AM on August 30, 2008
posted by Caduceus at 11:08 AM on August 30, 2008
What would you prefer people say?
Favoriting the original comment seems to work fine for most uses. (Admittedly, it doesn't work when you only want to emphasize part of one comment, not the whole thing.) If people must do this sort of thing, I find "quoted for emphasis" much less obnoxious.
Quoting something does not make it one iota more or less true than it was before. (Except Hofstadterian stuff such as "This sentence has been quoted once.") And it's insulting to the intelligence of MeFites to suggest that it would be.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:35 AM on September 2, 2008
Favoriting the original comment seems to work fine for most uses. (Admittedly, it doesn't work when you only want to emphasize part of one comment, not the whole thing.) If people must do this sort of thing, I find "quoted for emphasis" much less obnoxious.
Quoting something does not make it one iota more or less true than it was before. (Except Hofstadterian stuff such as "This sentence has been quoted once.") And it's insulting to the intelligence of MeFites to suggest that it would be.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:35 AM on September 2, 2008
Yeah, that's pretty much my beef with it, although now that I've started to pay more attention to the way it's actually used on the site I guess I don't dislike it as much as I thought. What I don't like is something that basically repeats an earlier statement and says "I agree," full stop. If somebody says "I agree because of XYZ" or otherwise goes on to elaborate on the quoted bit, that doesn't seem so bad. But still, it's usually quite obvious that one is quoting something, and calling attention to it just seems redundant.
HI I'M ON METAFILTER AND I CAN OVERTHINK A PILE OF QUOTES
posted by whir at 7:46 AM on September 2, 2008
HI I'M ON METAFILTER AND I CAN OVERTHINK A PILE OF QUOTES
posted by whir at 7:46 AM on September 2, 2008
Quoting something does not make it one iota more or less true than it was before.
Ah, you misunderstand the idiom. It is not "Quoted in order to make it true," but rather, "Quoted because it is true and well-put and deserves special emphasis," or more concisely, "Quoted for its truth."
That said, I agree that QFT and all of its substitutes (Here here, Amen to that, What s/he said) are mostly annoying and unnecessary and add nothing to the thread other than a) the assumption that other people aren't reading it, and b) telling the herd which side they're supposed to be cheering for.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:12 AM on September 2, 2008
Ah, you misunderstand the idiom. It is not "Quoted in order to make it true," but rather, "Quoted because it is true and well-put and deserves special emphasis," or more concisely, "Quoted for its truth."
That said, I agree that QFT and all of its substitutes (Here here, Amen to that, What s/he said) are mostly annoying and unnecessary and add nothing to the thread other than a) the assumption that other people aren't reading it, and b) telling the herd which side they're supposed to be cheering for.
posted by Sys Rq at 8:12 AM on September 2, 2008
Also annoying: pointing out that it's "hear, hear". I have become pedant, correcter of eggcorns.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:17 AM on September 2, 2008
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:17 AM on September 2, 2008
Ah, you misunderstand the idiom. It is not "Quoted in order to make it true," but rather, "Quoted because it is true and well-put and deserves special emphasis," or more concisely, "Quoted for its truth."
No, I did not misunderstand it. Sorry if I was unclear: I did not mean to suggest anyone using the phrase consciously believes that quoting it would make it more true. Rather, I meant that, even though the poster might not intentionally be quoting the statement to make it more true, a moment's thought reveals that, given that the repitition cannot make the statement more true, it's rather pointless to quote something "for truth."
If it was, in fact, true and well-put, it does not need repetition, save perhaps for emphasis: thus my preference for "quoted for emphasis" over "quoted for truth." (And I would argue that "quoted for emphasis" is a more accurate concise version of your extended version than "quoted for truth" is.) More often though, it means not "quoted because it is true..." but "quoted because I believe it is true, and I want you to believe it too." And I find the implication insulting--and the implication is there, whether it was consciously intended or not--that if its being said the first time didn't convince me, its repitition in the exact same words would.
Let's try something:
Carthage must be destroyed.
Have I now convinced you that Carthage must be destroyed? No? Consider this, then:
Carthage must be destroyed.
Carthage must be destroyed.
Carthage must be destroyed.
Now have I convinced you that Carthage must be destroyed? And isn't it rather insulting that I would think the latter would convince you if the first had not?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:50 AM on September 2, 2008
No, I did not misunderstand it. Sorry if I was unclear: I did not mean to suggest anyone using the phrase consciously believes that quoting it would make it more true. Rather, I meant that, even though the poster might not intentionally be quoting the statement to make it more true, a moment's thought reveals that, given that the repitition cannot make the statement more true, it's rather pointless to quote something "for truth."
If it was, in fact, true and well-put, it does not need repetition, save perhaps for emphasis: thus my preference for "quoted for emphasis" over "quoted for truth." (And I would argue that "quoted for emphasis" is a more accurate concise version of your extended version than "quoted for truth" is.) More often though, it means not "quoted because it is true..." but "quoted because I believe it is true, and I want you to believe it too." And I find the implication insulting--and the implication is there, whether it was consciously intended or not--that if its being said the first time didn't convince me, its repitition in the exact same words would.
Let's try something:
Carthage must be destroyed.
Have I now convinced you that Carthage must be destroyed? No? Consider this, then:
Carthage must be destroyed.
Carthage must be destroyed.
Carthage must be destroyed.
Now have I convinced you that Carthage must be destroyed? And isn't it rather insulting that I would think the latter would convince you if the first had not?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:50 AM on September 2, 2008
Thinking about it a bit more, let me offer this example: no one "quotes for truth" something that is indisputably true. If someone posts to AskMe, "What company manufactures the Mustang car model?" And the first poster replies "Ford," no one replies "Ford. QFT." They might repeat the answer with additional evidence, e.g., a link to Ford's website showing the Mustang as one of their models, or an independent analysis of Ford listing the Mustang as one of Ford's models, which is perfectly fine. But no one simply quotes the indisputable answer and adds "quoted for truth," because there is no need to do so.
Thus the only things that are in practice "quoted for truth" are those which are at least disputable by a reasonable person. The person doing the quoting realizes, at least on some level, that people may need to be convinced on the point, or they wouldn't be quoting in the first place. But simply repeating words which already appeared in the thread, without adding any additional supporting evidence or arguments, will not convince the reader that they are true, unless the reader missed the words the first time--perhaps they were buried deep in the middle of a tl;dr comment, or the reader did see them but did not give them the full attention that they deserved. If the quoter fears that this may be the case, simply repeating the words may be legitimate, but this is properly labeled "quoted for emphasis," not "quoted for truth."
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:17 AM on September 2, 2008
Thus the only things that are in practice "quoted for truth" are those which are at least disputable by a reasonable person. The person doing the quoting realizes, at least on some level, that people may need to be convinced on the point, or they wouldn't be quoting in the first place. But simply repeating words which already appeared in the thread, without adding any additional supporting evidence or arguments, will not convince the reader that they are true, unless the reader missed the words the first time--perhaps they were buried deep in the middle of a tl;dr comment, or the reader did see them but did not give them the full attention that they deserved. If the quoter fears that this may be the case, simply repeating the words may be legitimate, but this is properly labeled "quoted for emphasis," not "quoted for truth."
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 11:17 AM on September 2, 2008
Your analysis is reasonable, and I think the points you're making are good, but idioms are rarely swayed by reasoned analysis.
gonna have to take this sucker into an autobodythage shop when i'm done with it
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:39 AM on September 2, 2008
gonna have to take this sucker into an autobodythage shop when i'm done with it
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:39 AM on September 2, 2008
True dat.
posted by Dave Faris at 11:49 AM on September 2, 2008
posted by Dave Faris at 11:49 AM on September 2, 2008
but idioms are rarely swayed by reasoned analysis
This is reasonable, but excessive aggravation at inaccurate-but-understood-anyway idioms is rarely swayed by reasoned analysis.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:02 PM on September 2, 2008
This is reasonable, but excessive aggravation at inaccurate-but-understood-anyway idioms is rarely swayed by reasoned analysis.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:02 PM on September 2, 2008
Which is a good point, but amiable dismissals of metatalkian expressions of peeve-borne aggravation are rarely stymied by deep recursion.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:09 PM on September 2, 2008
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:09 PM on September 2, 2008
amiable dismissals of metatalkian expressions of peeve-borne aggravation are rarely stymied by deep recursion.
QFT.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:47 PM on September 2, 2008
QFT.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:47 PM on September 2, 2008
Oops! The "Google groups search" link from my comment upthread should have gone here.
posted by Kattullus at 7:29 AM on September 3, 2008
posted by Kattullus at 7:29 AM on September 3, 2008
Now have I convinced you that Carthage must be destroyed?
i've just discovered that carthage is full of carthinogens - now i'm convinced
posted by pyramid termite at 8:22 AM on September 7, 2008 [2 favorites]
i've just discovered that carthage is full of carthinogens - now i'm convinced
posted by pyramid termite at 8:22 AM on September 7, 2008 [2 favorites]
cortex,
Unless you're just sad about this thread, I think you mean waling on Carthage. Or maybe you mean whaling on Carthage. The first time my teacher said that Wales was part of the United Kingdom, I didn't know what the hell he was talking about.
posted by lukemeister at 8:43 AM on September 7, 2008
Unless you're just sad about this thread, I think you mean waling on Carthage. Or maybe you mean whaling on Carthage. The first time my teacher said that Wales was part of the United Kingdom, I didn't know what the hell he was talking about.
posted by lukemeister at 8:43 AM on September 7, 2008
Have I now convinced you that Carthage must be destroyed? No?
Sorry, but no. This guy got to me first, and he has Raquel Welch pictures.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:14 AM on September 7, 2008
Sorry, but no. This guy got to me first, and he has Raquel Welch pictures.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:14 AM on September 7, 2008
Oops! I was actually talking about Wei Ling.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:16 AM on September 7, 2008
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:16 AM on September 7, 2008
Yeah, Wei Ling on Carthage. It's a PBS special on selected stations this fall.
posted by lukemeister at 9:24 AM on September 7, 2008
posted by lukemeister at 9:24 AM on September 7, 2008
Werd.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:35 AM on September 7, 2008
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:35 AM on September 7, 2008
Man, my first MetaTalk callout and Jess closes the thread!
Lame.
As far as favorting goes. I fave posts all the time, mainly as an lazy way of bookmarking stuff I like and might want to come back to later. Comments? They can easily become a fairly circle-jerky exercise where you always see the same people favoriting the same people's comments. That I decided to quote wholesale from another person's comment because they said exactly what I would have said either before me or better than me, I consider doing them a higher compliment than a single-click, even if in this one instance I used at bit of interweb slang because it was late and, really, if you have to explain why Metallica went off the rails after Justice to someone you're either dealing with a child or an idiot.
Also, you're confusing emphasis with popularity.
posted by Cyrano at 1:26 PM on September 7, 2008
Lame.
As far as favorting goes. I fave posts all the time, mainly as an lazy way of bookmarking stuff I like and might want to come back to later. Comments? They can easily become a fairly circle-jerky exercise where you always see the same people favoriting the same people's comments. That I decided to quote wholesale from another person's comment because they said exactly what I would have said either before me or better than me, I consider doing them a higher compliment than a single-click, even if in this one instance I used at bit of interweb slang because it was late and, really, if you have to explain why Metallica went off the rails after Justice to someone you're either dealing with a child or an idiot.
Also, you're confusing emphasis with popularity.
posted by Cyrano at 1:26 PM on September 7, 2008
Personally, Quantum Field Theory is the only use of the abbreviation I had seen before this recent crop on MeFi. But I'm one of those crazy ivory-tower types, so maybe not so surprising.
posted by kaibutsu at 3:40 PM on September 7, 2008
posted by kaibutsu at 3:40 PM on September 7, 2008
MI→?
posted by kittyprecious at 7:12 PM on September 7, 2008
posted by kittyprecious at 7:12 PM on September 7, 2008
stavrosthewonderchicken writes "KTHXBAI!"
Usually I don't "hear" written words, interally they are just symbols. For example I don't see most of the usernames that involve aural play (EG: Hat Maui) as anything special unless they are pointed out. However the string KTHXBYE is one that breaks thru for some reason and has a strong 80s Valley feel to it. And strangely KTHXBAI is in the same category except now it's the VG's cat saying it.
So thanks jessamyn for closing the other thread.
posted by Mitheral at 1:10 AM on September 8, 2008
Usually I don't "hear" written words, interally they are just symbols. For example I don't see most of the usernames that involve aural play (EG: Hat Maui) as anything special unless they are pointed out. However the string KTHXBYE is one that breaks thru for some reason and has a strong 80s Valley feel to it. And strangely KTHXBAI is in the same category except now it's the VG's cat saying it.
So thanks jessamyn for closing the other thread.
posted by Mitheral at 1:10 AM on September 8, 2008
I would like to point out that repeating something for emphasis is actually an artistic device used pretty frequently. Some notable practitioners: Kurt Vonnegut, Yeats, and The Mountain Goats.
I find the acronym sort of annoying though. Why not just "Exactly."
posted by mzurer at 7:59 AM on September 8, 2008
I find the acronym sort of annoying though. Why not just "Exactly."
posted by mzurer at 7:59 AM on September 8, 2008
This whole thread seems to be disagreeing with my context for using QFT. I also first saw its use on a WoW guild board, and there (and on similar board systems where comments can actually be edited later), text that was humorous and/or potentially damaging later to the author later would be pasted and "QFT." An example would be:
Gutstomper the Orc: Dude, I am so going to level this new character to 70 tonight!
SexyVixen the Blood Elf: Dude, I am so going to level this new character to 70 in 2 weeks! QFT.
(Marak fails miserably obtaining his goal, and his shame is forever permanently displayed because SexyVixen QFT his comment, unchangeable by Marak.)
Of course, it's not always used so explicitly like that, but it does seem humorous on a board where comments are essentially already quoted for truth.
posted by artifarce at 5:10 AM on September 9, 2008
Gutstomper the Orc: Dude, I am so going to level this new character to 70 tonight!
SexyVixen the Blood Elf: Dude, I am so going to level this new character to 70 in 2 weeks! QFT.
(Marak fails miserably obtaining his goal, and his shame is forever permanently displayed because SexyVixen QFT his comment, unchangeable by Marak.)
Of course, it's not always used so explicitly like that, but it does seem humorous on a board where comments are essentially already quoted for truth.
posted by artifarce at 5:10 AM on September 9, 2008
The "QFT" thing is completely unnecessary on message-boards like MeFi, that don't allow editing of comments after they are made.
It's common on PHPBB-style boards, where users can edit posts after they're made. If a user makes a controversial post, people might quote it so that the person can't go back and retract it later. Hence 'quoted for truth'.
As I've seen it used, QFT is often not a friendly "right on," it's a "you just put your foot in your mouth, and I'm going to make sure you can't deny it later [you weaselly little bastard]"
It's a little strange to see that "QFT" has apparently evolved into "great post!" since at least as I encountered it at first, it definitely had some edge to it. Maybe I just hung around particularly snarky forums.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:13 AM on September 9, 2008 [3 favorites]
It's common on PHPBB-style boards, where users can edit posts after they're made. If a user makes a controversial post, people might quote it so that the person can't go back and retract it later. Hence 'quoted for truth'.
As I've seen it used, QFT is often not a friendly "right on," it's a "you just put your foot in your mouth, and I'm going to make sure you can't deny it later [you weaselly little bastard]"
It's a little strange to see that "QFT" has apparently evolved into "great post!" since at least as I encountered it at first, it definitely had some edge to it. Maybe I just hung around particularly snarky forums.
posted by Kadin2048 at 9:13 AM on September 9, 2008 [3 favorites]
It's common on PHPBB-style boards, where users can edit posts after they're made. If a user makes a controversial post, people might quote it so that the person can't go back and retract it later. Hence 'quoted for truth'.
YOU JUST BLEW MY MIND.
In all the years I've seen it, I've never once thought of it as anything but the equivalent of 'Yes, I strongly agree, you knocked that one outta the park, buddy!'
My brain hurts now.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:17 PM on September 9, 2008
YOU JUST BLEW MY MIND.
In all the years I've seen it, I've never once thought of it as anything but the equivalent of 'Yes, I strongly agree, you knocked that one outta the park, buddy!'
My brain hurts now.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:17 PM on September 9, 2008
MetaFilter: 100% quoted for truth.
posted by Michael Roberts at 5:29 PM on September 9, 2008
posted by Michael Roberts at 5:29 PM on September 9, 2008
Is this the thread where we're destroying Carthage?
posted by GuyZero at 5:29 PM on September 9, 2008
posted by GuyZero at 5:29 PM on September 9, 2008
I would like to point out that repeating something for emphasis is actually an artistic device used pretty frequently. Some notable practitioners: Kurt Vonnegut, Yeats, and The Mountain Goats.
in expressing anything there can be no repetition because the essence of that expression is insistence, and if you insist you must each time use emphasis and if you use emphasis it is not possible while anybody is alive that they should use exactly the same emphasis.
posted by juv3nal at 10:30 PM on September 9, 2008
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by juv3nal at 1:28 AM on August 29, 2008