Printer-unfriendly July 2, 2009 4:53 PM Subscribe
Could we please have a moratorium on comments to the effect of, "OH NOES I HAVE HAVE TO CLICK ON THE NEXT PAGE LINK! YOU DIRTY BASTARDS ARE TRYING TO GET AD REVENUE!!!"
Every time there's a link to an article that has no Printer-Friendly option, there's always some incredibly insightful fellow who feels the need to spout off about it.
It's kind of like "this post sucks," only worse because it doesn't even attempt to address the content of the link. Furthermore, this statement presupposes that there's something inherently rotten about wanting to collect ad revenue from site content. Finally, it's just an incredibly trite complaint. I mean, really? Clicking on the "next page" link is just that much of a hassle for you? You poor poor thing. Those starving children in the Sudan have nothing on you.
Anyway, it's not an original complaint, you're not adding anything to the discussion, and you probably didn't even read the full article. To wit, complaining about pagination is on par with posting "FIRST!"
On my off days, I suspect people only do it because it's a cheap way to pick up favorites.
Every time there's a link to an article that has no Printer-Friendly option, there's always some incredibly insightful fellow who feels the need to spout off about it.
It's kind of like "this post sucks," only worse because it doesn't even attempt to address the content of the link. Furthermore, this statement presupposes that there's something inherently rotten about wanting to collect ad revenue from site content. Finally, it's just an incredibly trite complaint. I mean, really? Clicking on the "next page" link is just that much of a hassle for you? You poor poor thing. Those starving children in the Sudan have nothing on you.
Anyway, it's not an original complaint, you're not adding anything to the discussion, and you probably didn't even read the full article. To wit, complaining about pagination is on par with posting "FIRST!"
On my off days, I suspect people only do it because it's a cheap way to pick up favorites.
This post was deleted for the following reason: Poster's Request -- goodnewsfortheinsane
Now that ook has that taken care of, can I just bitch about article pagination in general?
I hatehatehate pagination because it tricks me into spending more time on an article than I originally budgeted: I can tell by the scroll bar how long this page is, but there's nothing worse than getting to the bottom and seeing there are TEN MORE PAGES OH MY JESUS GOD NO.
posted by rhapsodie at 4:57 PM on July 2, 2009 [16 favorites]
I hatehatehate pagination because it tricks me into spending more time on an article than I originally budgeted: I can tell by the scroll bar how long this page is, but there's nothing worse than getting to the bottom and seeing there are TEN MORE PAGES OH MY JESUS GOD NO.
posted by rhapsodie at 4:57 PM on July 2, 2009 [16 favorites]
Which is worse: complaining about pagination when no printable version exists, or complaining because a single page/printable version exists and the poster didn't link to it?
posted by Rhomboid at 4:58 PM on July 2, 2009
posted by Rhomboid at 4:58 PM on July 2, 2009
I'd prefer a moratorium on moratoria because we all know how effective they are.
Wait... crap.
posted by ORthey at 5:01 PM on July 2, 2009 [7 favorites]
Wait... crap.
posted by ORthey at 5:01 PM on July 2, 2009 [7 favorites]
My impotent rage is pretty much just impotent on this one.
GGGRRrraaaaaaaahh ah fuck it
posted by GuyZero at 5:04 PM on July 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
GGGRRrraaaaaaaahh ah fuck it
posted by GuyZero at 5:04 PM on July 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
One top ten item per page used to drive me insane too but the autopager extension for FireFox has blissfully removed this irritation.
posted by Mitheral at 5:06 PM on July 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by Mitheral at 5:06 PM on July 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
After we get this one resolved, let's work on 'this post sucks.'
posted by box at 5:09 PM on July 2, 2009
posted by box at 5:09 PM on July 2, 2009
How about a moratorium on plug-ins, greasemonkey scripts, et al, and we all just experience things as they were intended? Or don't use crappy sites?
posted by gjc at 5:11 PM on July 2, 2009
posted by gjc at 5:11 PM on July 2, 2009
This post sucks.
posted by rhapsodie at 5:22 PM on July 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by rhapsodie at 5:22 PM on July 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
If you don't want to install an add-on (although it is available as one), PageZipper also comes in bookmarklet form.
posted by IndigoRain at 5:25 PM on July 2, 2009
posted by IndigoRain at 5:25 PM on July 2, 2009
New York Times requires registration what shall we do?
Well, my answer has been to go elsewhere, which is why I don't think media is going to be making money off online content any time soon. If I can't even be bothered to sign up for a free account, then really have to give me something special to get me to pay.
And I hate the crappy was these companies paginate. Some pages have 600 words, then the next will have 1500, then the last 40. It is annoying.
posted by cjorgensen at 5:27 PM on July 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Well, my answer has been to go elsewhere, which is why I don't think media is going to be making money off online content any time soon. If I can't even be bothered to sign up for a free account, then really have to give me something special to get me to pay.
And I hate the crappy was these companies paginate. Some pages have 600 words, then the next will have 1500, then the last 40. It is annoying.
posted by cjorgensen at 5:27 PM on July 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Needs the moratorium tag.
posted by gubo at 5:28 PM on July 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by gubo at 5:28 PM on July 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Sic Transit Gloria Click Transit Moratoria
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:34 PM on July 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 5:34 PM on July 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
Also, OMG NYTIMES REQUIRES REGISTRATION WHATEVER SHALL I DO
To obviate such be sure to use the New York Times Link Generator to create the hyperlink for your FPP or comment.
posted by ericb at 5:40 PM on July 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
To obviate such be sure to use the New York Times Link Generator to create the hyperlink for your FPP or comment.
posted by ericb at 5:40 PM on July 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
Yep, I use the NY Times link generator for their links. Works perfectly.
(Oh, and I no longer complain about Hulu and other sites that block Canadians. I use Hotspot Shield, which is not the best solution in the world -- all your traffic goes through the VPN, not just Hulu or whatever -- but it's good enough as a quick solution.)
posted by maudlin at 5:54 PM on July 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
(Oh, and I no longer complain about Hulu and other sites that block Canadians. I use Hotspot Shield, which is not the best solution in the world -- all your traffic goes through the VPN, not just Hulu or whatever -- but it's good enough as a quick solution.)
posted by maudlin at 5:54 PM on July 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Mo-ra-to-ria!
Some people ask for moratoria!
Now, Afroblanco, I adore-ee-ya...
But we don't need no mo-ra-to-ria!
Don't mean to bore-ee-ya!
I fixed that for-ee-ya!
No mo-ra-to-ria!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:03 PM on July 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
Some people ask for moratoria!
Now, Afroblanco, I adore-ee-ya...
But we don't need no mo-ra-to-ria!
Don't mean to bore-ee-ya!
I fixed that for-ee-ya!
No mo-ra-to-ria!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:03 PM on July 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
I've gotten around the whole thorny issue by paying Sudanese children to click the next page links for me, so it's win win. I get to read the article and it doesn't cost very much.
posted by mattoxic at 6:07 PM on July 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by mattoxic at 6:07 PM on July 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Those starving children in the Sudan have nothing on you.
Now that's you've trotted them out to get on your moral high horse, what are you going to do to actually help the starving children of the Sudan?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:23 PM on July 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Now that's you've trotted them out to get on your moral high horse, what are you going to do to actually help the starving children of the Sudan?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:23 PM on July 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
To obviate such be sure to use the New York Times Link Generator to create the hyperlink for your FPP or comment.
No, please don't.
posted by Jaltcoh at 6:32 PM on July 2, 2009
No, please don't.
posted by Jaltcoh at 6:32 PM on July 2, 2009
And yet you make us click on the "more inside" link...
posted by clearly at 6:42 PM on July 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by clearly at 6:42 PM on July 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
OH MY GOD MORE INSIDE COULDN'T YOU JUST SAY EVERYTHING ON THE MAIN PAGE YOU MADE ME CLICK
posted by klangklangston at 6:44 PM on July 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by klangklangston at 6:44 PM on July 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Honestly I'm grateful for those complaints because often they keep me from even bothering to click the offending link in the first place.
posted by hermitosis at 7:01 PM on July 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
posted by hermitosis at 7:01 PM on July 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
Afroblanco, I get what you're saying. I also agree with you. But your post comes off kind of loud and ranty. It's a shame, because its probably not the best approach to achieving the kind of response you're hoping for. Just saying, in case you're wondering why this thread is already starting to turn into a CAPSfest.
posted by iamkimiam at 7:12 PM on July 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by iamkimiam at 7:12 PM on July 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I agree with this, especially for sites that claim to present a "slideshow" when in fact it just loads an entirely new page with the next picture. That is a real bite in the shorts, y'know?
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 7:14 PM on July 2, 2009
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 7:14 PM on July 2, 2009
Afroblanco...your...loud and ranty.
Yes!!!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:30 PM on July 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Yes!!!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:30 PM on July 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
I don't say this very often, but good callout.
I can totally understand a complaint about sites that have like one paragraph or a very small bit on each page and you've got to click through a dozen times to get through something that could easily fit on a single page. But if you're someone who just complains about normal, run-of-the-mill pagination that you find with articles that are just kind of long, you're an entitled, bratty piece of shit who typifies all that is wrong with the internet (and who probably wet the bed into early adolescence).
posted by dhammond at 7:35 PM on July 2, 2009
I can totally understand a complaint about sites that have like one paragraph or a very small bit on each page and you've got to click through a dozen times to get through something that could easily fit on a single page. But if you're someone who just complains about normal, run-of-the-mill pagination that you find with articles that are just kind of long, you're an entitled, bratty piece of shit who typifies all that is wrong with the internet (and who probably wet the bed into early adolescence).
posted by dhammond at 7:35 PM on July 2, 2009
Honestly I'm grateful for those complaints because often they keep me from even bothering to click the offending link in the first place.
This.
posted by grouse at 8:15 PM on July 2, 2009
This.
posted by grouse at 8:15 PM on July 2, 2009
Some Native American tribes believed that clicking through to the next item in a Cracked list stole your soul.
posted by klangklangston at 8:17 PM on July 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by klangklangston at 8:17 PM on July 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
I'm going drinking tonight, who's with me?
posted by turgid dahlia at 8:39 PM on July 2, 2009
posted by turgid dahlia at 8:39 PM on July 2, 2009
Do I have to click through each drink individually, or is there some sort of trough and funnel setup?
posted by klangklangston at 8:43 PM on July 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by klangklangston at 8:43 PM on July 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm going drinking tonight, who's with me?
What's with this "going"?
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:44 PM on July 2, 2009
What's with this "going"?
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:44 PM on July 2, 2009
Honestly I'm grateful for those complaints because often they keep me from even bothering to click the offending link in the first place.
Me too. When I read Metafilter on my phone, I always read the comments on an FPP before I click through to the links. My smartphone doesn't render most web pages well, and comments usually give a decent idea of what to expect from a link.
Afroblanco, I must admit that I find this entire post rather interesting. After all, you complained about my linking to 3 Twits in an FPP yesterday. My mentioning it here isn't intended as a callout. At the time, I thought the comment you made was snarky and pointless. Snark not withstanding, after thinking about what you said I came to the conclusion that you're probably right. Under normal circumstances it would be better to link and quote a twit so people don't have to be bothered clicking through to read 140 characters or less. I explained my reasoning in the post, and I stand by that -- but in the future, I'll most likely take your advice.
What I'm getting at is I learned something from your complaint. Similarly, perhaps the "OH NOES AD REVENUE" comments you're complaining about here will teach someone something in the future.
So no, I don't think we need a moratorium. Such comments may serve a valuable purpose. However, it would probably be better to encourage people to make them with a minimum of outrage and snark. They turn people off and make it less likely that they'll listen.
posted by zarq at 8:47 PM on July 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Me too. When I read Metafilter on my phone, I always read the comments on an FPP before I click through to the links. My smartphone doesn't render most web pages well, and comments usually give a decent idea of what to expect from a link.
Afroblanco, I must admit that I find this entire post rather interesting. After all, you complained about my linking to 3 Twits in an FPP yesterday. My mentioning it here isn't intended as a callout. At the time, I thought the comment you made was snarky and pointless. Snark not withstanding, after thinking about what you said I came to the conclusion that you're probably right. Under normal circumstances it would be better to link and quote a twit so people don't have to be bothered clicking through to read 140 characters or less. I explained my reasoning in the post, and I stand by that -- but in the future, I'll most likely take your advice.
What I'm getting at is I learned something from your complaint. Similarly, perhaps the "OH NOES AD REVENUE" comments you're complaining about here will teach someone something in the future.
So no, I don't think we need a moratorium. Such comments may serve a valuable purpose. However, it would probably be better to encourage people to make them with a minimum of outrage and snark. They turn people off and make it less likely that they'll listen.
posted by zarq at 8:47 PM on July 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Can we have a moratorium on using the word "moratorium"?
posted by secret about box at 9:07 PM on July 2, 2009
posted by secret about box at 9:07 PM on July 2, 2009
Need the exercise.
I imagine your sack needs a bit of an airing, too.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:09 PM on July 2, 2009
I imagine your sack needs a bit of an airing, too.
posted by UbuRoivas at 9:09 PM on July 2, 2009
I'm curious about comments that say "This". Is it a regional thing that people actually say?
posted by auntbunny at 9:11 PM on July 2, 2009
posted by auntbunny at 9:11 PM on July 2, 2009
What's with this "going"?
Need the exercise.
I took the question to mean: Why haven't you started yet?
posted by clearly at 9:13 PM on July 2, 2009
Need the exercise.
I took the question to mean: Why haven't you started yet?
posted by clearly at 9:13 PM on July 2, 2009
I'm curious about comments that say "This". Is it a regional thing that people actually say?
This.
posted by grouse at 9:16 PM on July 2, 2009
This.
posted by grouse at 9:16 PM on July 2, 2009
I'm curious about comments that say "This". Is it a regional thing that people actually say?
I thought it was a Fark thing.
posted by the littlest brussels sprout at 9:20 PM on July 2, 2009
I thought it was a Fark thing.
posted by the littlest brussels sprout at 9:20 PM on July 2, 2009
I only have so many clicks in this life and I'm not going to waste them. Won't someone think of all the entropy created by all of these extra clicks?
posted by double block and bleed at 9:20 PM on July 2, 2009
posted by double block and bleed at 9:20 PM on July 2, 2009
I've heard "yeah, that" once in a while but not "this".
posted by auntbunny at 9:26 PM on July 2, 2009
posted by auntbunny at 9:26 PM on July 2, 2009
Look, if there's like a fifty-item list and each entry on the list is a separate page, and especially if each entry is like a paragraph that takes forever to load because it's on some bullshit site with like all kinds of flash ads and related crap that wants to fuck your browser like an animal, everyone hates you and your post sucks and the solution is to not suck anymore and so: the shaming. I thought we were all in agreement on this and some might say, ha ha, that we were all on the same page? But I guess not
Bah. More drinking!
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:27 PM on July 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
Bah. More drinking!
posted by kittens for breakfast at 9:27 PM on July 2, 2009 [6 favorites]
sites that claim to present a "slideshow"
I'm still kind of surprised that no one's come up with a better term than "slideshow" for a series of still images. It's as if nostalgia has clouded everyone's memories of how eye-gougingly painful it was to go round to Aunt Loretta's place for "some nibbles and a slideshow of our holiday".
posted by bunglin jones at 9:29 PM on July 2, 2009
I'm still kind of surprised that no one's come up with a better term than "slideshow" for a series of still images. It's as if nostalgia has clouded everyone's memories of how eye-gougingly painful it was to go round to Aunt Loretta's place for "some nibbles and a slideshow of our holiday".
posted by bunglin jones at 9:29 PM on July 2, 2009
Since we're airing pet peeves, what about this latest meme in which someone responds to an outrageous statement with "what", always omitting the question mark, and sometimes hilariously misspelling "what?"
posted by evilcolonel at 9:46 PM on July 2, 2009
posted by evilcolonel at 9:46 PM on July 2, 2009
Above is NSFW. Don't blame me, I didn't do it! #catchphrase
posted by evilcolonel at 10:06 PM on July 2, 2009
posted by evilcolonel at 10:06 PM on July 2, 2009
Oops, sorry about the lack of warning. This thread is adjacent to the tumblelog one (which is heavily peppered with NSFWery) in my Recent Activity page and I guess I thought it therefore didn't need the disclaimer.
posted by Rhomboid at 10:12 PM on July 2, 2009
posted by Rhomboid at 10:12 PM on July 2, 2009
Is the "don't want to be that guy" thing something that people actually say? I've only ever encountered it on the internet.
posted by onya at 10:30 PM on July 2, 2009
posted by onya at 10:30 PM on July 2, 2009
And while we're on the subject, where did this new thing come from? By new thing I mean quoting someone using italics and then, before adding one's own two cents, new thing adopter inserts, to indicate agreement, and for dramatic effect (?), the one, simple word...
This.
People just started doing it one day, around the time 'what' made its appearance. Its style or purpose, if any, puzzles me. Mainly I just want to know where it came from.
posted by vincele at 10:42 PM on July 2, 2009
This.
People just started doing it one day, around the time 'what' made its appearance. Its style or purpose, if any, puzzles me. Mainly I just want to know where it came from.
posted by vincele at 10:42 PM on July 2, 2009
We need to be able to paginate threads.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:42 PM on July 2, 2009
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:42 PM on July 2, 2009
I recently made a comment somewhere ( I don't even remember) where I went into a rant about some like or dislike of mine, and Afroblanco killed the resulting fire by explaining that if you knew me (as he does) you'd understand that any inflammatory language was actually fairly innocuous there. I'd like to return the favor by saying that I read this post with Afroblanco's voice in my head, and that while this is certainly irritating to him (and it is to me as well) this is how he talks to a group full of people he respects, and with a smile on his face. This isn't OMG outrage, and please don't take it that way.
That said, I might be one of the only people who actually likes pagination (within reason.) I keep an eye on my scrollbar, ad if I get to the end of a page of something I'm enjoying, seeing the "next" button just means that there's another whole page I'll enjoy. I'm ninja-trained to ignore the ads, so what do I care?
This complaint clogs the blue, is unoriginal, adds absolutely nothing to the conversation except for unneeded bile, and is as petty as it gets when you think about it: "Oh god I had to click why did you make me click things I had to move my finger to the button and it hurt so BAAD!" Seriously?
The only reason it gets any play at all is because it kicks at a very easy target. While I hate ads as much as the next person, they are, again, ignorable. Moreover, they're the business model which keeps things free of charge to the reader. Are we seriously so reactionary that we can't accept getting something for nothing anymore, but have to get pissed that the content generator might be getting money from someone else to make up for it? I just don't get it.
posted by Navelgazer at 10:53 PM on July 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
That said, I might be one of the only people who actually likes pagination (within reason.) I keep an eye on my scrollbar, ad if I get to the end of a page of something I'm enjoying, seeing the "next" button just means that there's another whole page I'll enjoy. I'm ninja-trained to ignore the ads, so what do I care?
This complaint clogs the blue, is unoriginal, adds absolutely nothing to the conversation except for unneeded bile, and is as petty as it gets when you think about it: "Oh god I had to click why did you make me click things I had to move my finger to the button and it hurt so BAAD!" Seriously?
The only reason it gets any play at all is because it kicks at a very easy target. While I hate ads as much as the next person, they are, again, ignorable. Moreover, they're the business model which keeps things free of charge to the reader. Are we seriously so reactionary that we can't accept getting something for nothing anymore, but have to get pissed that the content generator might be getting money from someone else to make up for it? I just don't get it.
posted by Navelgazer at 10:53 PM on July 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
klangklangston: OH MY GOD MORE INSIDE COULDN'T YOU JUST SAY EVERYTHING ON THE MAIN PAGE YOU MADE ME CLICK
Y'know, in my worst moments I completely agree with this sentiment.
posted by Kattullus at 10:56 PM on July 2, 2009
Y'know, in my worst moments I completely agree with this sentiment.
posted by Kattullus at 10:56 PM on July 2, 2009
Well hell, if we're having a War on Bilious, Unoriginal, and Easy Target Cloggery, the bar for posting MeTas is going to have to be raised waaay up.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:03 PM on July 2, 2009
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:03 PM on July 2, 2009
Y'know, in my worst moments I completely agree with this sentiment.
And then it's all longboats filled with Viking raiding parties.
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:10 PM on July 2, 2009
And then it's all longboats filled with Viking raiding parties.
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:10 PM on July 2, 2009
And then it's all longboats filled with Viking raiding parties.
i, for one, welcome our overlords.
posted by the aloha at 11:20 PM on July 2, 2009
i, for one, welcome our overlords.
posted by the aloha at 11:20 PM on July 2, 2009
I also want moratoria on things I don't like.
But Brezhnev and Carter never discussed them.
posted by jouke at 11:55 PM on July 2, 2009
But Brezhnev and Carter never discussed them.
posted by jouke at 11:55 PM on July 2, 2009
oh, is it already beer o'clock over your way?
Since just after 8
posted by mattoxic at 11:58 PM on July 2, 2009
Since just after 8
posted by mattoxic at 11:58 PM on July 2, 2009
How about a moratorium on "winning the thread". They don't even do that shit on Something Awful anymore. Just favourite the damn comment.
posted by ODiV at 12:43 AM on July 3, 2009
posted by ODiV at 12:43 AM on July 3, 2009
And then it's all longboats filled with Viking raiding parties.
In your dreams!
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:47 AM on July 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
In your dreams!
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:47 AM on July 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Pretty sure quoting a post and only adding "This." predates Fark posters doing it by a long stretch of time. It might've started on SA--it doesn't seem like a 4chan-type thing to do.
posted by secret about box at 12:54 AM on July 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by secret about box at 12:54 AM on July 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
But your post comes off kind of loud and ranty. It's a shame, because its probably not the best approach to achieving the kind of response you're hoping for.
This.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:12 AM on July 3, 2009
This.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:12 AM on July 3, 2009
Ubu is from Sydney where rugby league is king, in Melbourne where Skivvy-wearing chardonnay-drinking book readers like me prance from bar to bar- we have Pims-Number-1-Cup-O-Clock
posted by mattoxic at 2:44 AM on July 3, 2009
posted by mattoxic at 2:44 AM on July 3, 2009
You think you're so sophisticated with your skivvies & books & chardonnay & football teams that actually win games, and aren't just some kind of elaborate promotional vehicle for Barry Hall's upcoming boxing career.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:09 AM on July 3, 2009
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:09 AM on July 3, 2009
you & the Kiwis are pretty much the same to us
i parsed that as "the same as us" and i'm sticking to that interpretation; one of those quirks of ameringlish, like "could care less".
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:12 AM on July 3, 2009
i parsed that as "the same as us" and i'm sticking to that interpretation; one of those quirks of ameringlish, like "could care less".
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:12 AM on July 3, 2009
Everytime I see the tag FIAMO, I can't help but think of a Flamenco dancer posing, arms in the air and a rose in his teeth; at the end of a raucous gypsy ballad; frozen in some 80's postcard nightmare.
"FIAMO! OLE!"
That is all.
posted by Jofus at 3:15 AM on July 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
"FIAMO! OLE!"
That is all.
posted by Jofus at 3:15 AM on July 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
OMG, I hate it TOO when I have to use the mouse wheel, scrollbar, space bar, arrow key, PageDn, and/or eyeball muscles to scan past stuff. I wish those lazy motherfuckers would stop bitching about interfaces already.
posted by fleacircus at 3:45 AM on July 3, 2009
posted by fleacircus at 3:45 AM on July 3, 2009
Is the "don't want to be that guy" thing something that people actually say?
Real Men of Genius commercials celebrate Him.
Jofus, I too think FIAMO is festive. But hearing the words tweet or twitter make me want to destroy something.
posted by auntbunny at 3:47 AM on July 3, 2009
Real Men of Genius commercials celebrate Him.
Jofus, I too think FIAMO is festive. But hearing the words tweet or twitter make me want to destroy something.
posted by auntbunny at 3:47 AM on July 3, 2009
Where did the longboat thing originate?
Norway, most likely.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:54 AM on July 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
Norway, most likely.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:54 AM on July 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
While we're at it, I seem to notice a lot of threads where one or more posters chip in with nothing to add to the conversation beyond feeble demonstrations of their Australian national identity. It's kind of like jonmc relating everything to his coolness, but jonmc was kinda cool, whereas these guys are merely Australian.
Also, I've been noticing that some MeFi users (not all, but enough to cause a problem), are constantly turning threads into some kind of "laughter-filled chucklefest." This makes it annoyance for those of us who would also like to contribute "jokes", or more importantly, tackle the deadly serious business of scenting out the exact ratio of racism or sexism going on in any post or comment.
I request moriatoria on these things, too.
posted by fleacircus at 3:58 AM on July 3, 2009
Also, I've been noticing that some MeFi users (not all, but enough to cause a problem), are constantly turning threads into some kind of "laughter-filled chucklefest." This makes it annoyance for those of us who would also like to contribute "jokes", or more importantly, tackle the deadly serious business of scenting out the exact ratio of racism or sexism going on in any post or comment.
I request moriatoria on these things, too.
posted by fleacircus at 3:58 AM on July 3, 2009
Barry Hall doesn't drink Pims Number One Cup
no, i don't think he does. that kind of effete drink suppresses homicidal neck-snapping tendencies.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:59 AM on July 3, 2009
no, i don't think he does. that kind of effete drink suppresses homicidal neck-snapping tendencies.
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:59 AM on July 3, 2009
whereas these guys are merely Australian.
piss off. we're just having fun & communing over post-work beers on a friday evening, while you're still stuck probably around midday.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:05 AM on July 3, 2009
piss off. we're just having fun & communing over post-work beers on a friday evening, while you're still stuck probably around midday.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:05 AM on July 3, 2009
you know ubu's got no respect for you when he reverts back to the lower case.
posted by gman at 4:06 AM on July 3, 2009
posted by gman at 4:06 AM on July 3, 2009
Y'know, I always find it interesting when people bitch about this sort of thing (splitting articles onto multiple pages to increase ad revenue).
I have a question for all of you who hate it:
Where, exactly, do you think the money that pays for the writers of these articles comes from?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 4:08 AM on July 3, 2009
I have a question for all of you who hate it:
Where, exactly, do you think the money that pays for the writers of these articles comes from?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 4:08 AM on July 3, 2009
no, no, no. Americans must be back on Friday sometime - on the other side of the international dateline, roundabout Kiribati way. maybe even early Friday morning. that's why our Mondays are such fucking slow days on MetaFilter...y'all are out enjoying Sunday.
I also have no idea how international time works.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:26 AM on July 3, 2009
I also have no idea how international time works.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:26 AM on July 3, 2009
While we're at it, I'd like to mention that I hate wet blankets. They're useless.
posted by gman at 4:34 AM on July 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by gman at 4:34 AM on July 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
I'm really tired. It's four forty Friday morning in Portland, Oregon on the west coast of the U.S. It's nine forty Friday evening in Ipswich, Queensland.
posted by cgc373 at 4:40 AM on July 3, 2009
posted by cgc373 at 4:40 AM on July 3, 2009
And they're probably a fairly effective if somewhat indirect form of contraception.
posted by cgc373 at 4:50 AM on July 3, 2009
posted by cgc373 at 4:50 AM on July 3, 2009
Afroblanco: Obviously we disagree on this point.
Uh, no we don't? Pls reread my comment above again. I agreed with you.
posted by zarq at 4:51 AM on July 3, 2009
Uh, no we don't? Pls reread my comment above again. I agreed with you.
posted by zarq at 4:51 AM on July 3, 2009
I was going to say smothering people, but fires are also good.
posted by Dr Dracator at 4:52 AM on July 3, 2009
posted by Dr Dracator at 4:52 AM on July 3, 2009
Y'know, I always find it interesting when people bitch about this sort of thing (splitting articles onto multiple pages to increase ad revenue).
I have a question for all of you who hate it:
Where, exactly, do you think the money that pays for the writers of these articles comes from?
Investors who mistakenly think that the ad revenue will make them money, and then throw good money after bad until they live in penury, at which point the website goes under.
posted by Lemurrhea at 5:29 AM on July 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
I have a question for all of you who hate it:
Where, exactly, do you think the money that pays for the writers of these articles comes from?
Investors who mistakenly think that the ad revenue will make them money, and then throw good money after bad until they live in penury, at which point the website goes under.
posted by Lemurrhea at 5:29 AM on July 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
I get my flash Friday fun on Saturdays, and I'm like yeah, so, flash Friday fun was yesterday and it was shit.
posted by mattoxic at 5:46 AM on July 3, 2009
posted by mattoxic at 5:46 AM on July 3, 2009
I'm American and I have no fucking idea what day of the week this is.
posted by little e at 5:54 AM on July 3, 2009
posted by little e at 5:54 AM on July 3, 2009
Why would you? Everyone's unemployed.
posted by gman at 6:00 AM on July 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by gman at 6:00 AM on July 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Some previously proposed moritoria:
xkcdposted by Plutor at 7:26 AM on July 3, 2009 [6 favorites]
"Mefi's own"
The Wire
April Fools Day jokes
Questions
"FTW"
"Get off my lawn"
Harry Potter
Pirates
[more inside] cuteness
Tax questions
YouTube
Ann Coulter
Winning the thread
Contagious Media
"teh"
New users
US politics, and again, and again
Moratoria (this happens a lot in moratorium threads, which inevitably leads to moratoria on moratoria on moratoria)
I would like to propose a moratorium on "Blue" comments where the poster is clearly not a shill. Pretty please?
posted by the littlest brussels sprout at 7:56 AM on July 3, 2009
posted by the littlest brussels sprout at 7:56 AM on July 3, 2009
Aww, I missed the drinking cause I was composing poorly-spelled Zelda script treatments before I passed out in the chair.
You know, like every other night.
posted by The Whelk at 7:58 AM on July 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
You know, like every other night.
posted by The Whelk at 7:58 AM on July 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Where, exactly, do you think the money that pays for the writers of these articles comes from?
As a freelance writer, I wouldn't mind getting paid less if it meant having my work posted in a format that didn't actively discourage people from reading the whole thing.
posted by hermitosis at 7:59 AM on July 3, 2009
As a freelance writer, I wouldn't mind getting paid less if it meant having my work posted in a format that didn't actively discourage people from reading the whole thing.
posted by hermitosis at 7:59 AM on July 3, 2009
But if you're someone who just complains about normal, run-of-the-mill pagination… you're an entitled, bratty piece of shit
My, how standards have fallen.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:05 AM on July 3, 2009
My, how standards have fallen.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:05 AM on July 3, 2009
Wow. This seems to really piss you off, Afroblanca. You poor poor thing. Those starving children in the Sudan have nothing on you.
posted by Bugbread at 8:07 AM on July 3, 2009
posted by Bugbread at 8:07 AM on July 3, 2009
I agree with Afroblanco. Every time I have to click through to get to more content, I realize that's one less click that my mouse has left in it. And when your mouse runs out of clicks, where are you then? WHERE ARE YOU THEN?!
Anyway, I'm out of here. Time to play through Diablo 2.
posted by Spatch at 8:14 AM on July 3, 2009
Anyway, I'm out of here. Time to play through Diablo 2.
posted by Spatch at 8:14 AM on July 3, 2009
A sincere thanks to Mikey-san for finding and answering my question amongst all the dick-slinging.
posted by vincele at 8:30 AM on July 3, 2009
posted by vincele at 8:30 AM on July 3, 2009
The only reason it gets any play at all is because it kicks at a very easy target. While I hate ads as much as the next person, they are, again, ignorable. Moreover, they're the business model which keeps things free of charge to the reader.
Well, that's not really quite right.
The annoying thing, for a lot of people, is not the mere presence of ads, and the annoyance at ads in this context is an indirect thing.
The main annoying thing is being forced to click through multiple pages for not a whole lot of content. It's a minor UI gripe, but it's not invented from whole cloth: you incur load time and search time in order to keep reading something you were doing a perfectly good job of reading in the first place before that "next --->" button volunteered itself as Official Reading Interrupter.
There is no reward for clicking next. It is a speedbump to consuming the content the reader is, ostensibly, being encouraged to read in the first place. It's a small but in aggregate significant devolution of the UI experience.
Now, if the motivation for that speedbump, that explicit UI hit, were something reader-positive or at least reader-neutral, it'd be less frustrating (is the page content so large that serving it in chunks will make server performance significantly better for the user or keep the server from falling over? is the piece so many thousands of words long that breaking it down over two or four pages will make navigating it a little more manageable?), that'd be a little less goat-getting.
But when the motivation for making the reading experience worse for most readers is short-sighted money grubbing—"more pages = more pageviews = more ad revenue [we hope!]"—it kind of goes out the window. You fucked up people's reading experience for cash. That's a bullshit move.
That's why a lot of people bitch about it.
It's the same reason many people bitch about obnoxious or intrusive ads: not just because Ads Are Bad, but because Ads Can Be Fucking Annoying. I say this as someone who doesn't run adblock and has no problem ignoring static, unintrusive ads, but for the most part I just avoid the hell out of sites that use frequent rollover ads or expanding shit or super-blinky gifgasm stuff.
Actively choosing to make your user experience significantly worse because you think it's the key to success is such a grating bit of business logic that it's actually a little frustrating to see that ignored for the sake of taking a lazy swipe at readers' alleged desire to "kick at a very easy target", as if they are kicking blindly and falsely.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:08 AM on July 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
Well, that's not really quite right.
The annoying thing, for a lot of people, is not the mere presence of ads, and the annoyance at ads in this context is an indirect thing.
The main annoying thing is being forced to click through multiple pages for not a whole lot of content. It's a minor UI gripe, but it's not invented from whole cloth: you incur load time and search time in order to keep reading something you were doing a perfectly good job of reading in the first place before that "next --->" button volunteered itself as Official Reading Interrupter.
There is no reward for clicking next. It is a speedbump to consuming the content the reader is, ostensibly, being encouraged to read in the first place. It's a small but in aggregate significant devolution of the UI experience.
Now, if the motivation for that speedbump, that explicit UI hit, were something reader-positive or at least reader-neutral, it'd be less frustrating (is the page content so large that serving it in chunks will make server performance significantly better for the user or keep the server from falling over? is the piece so many thousands of words long that breaking it down over two or four pages will make navigating it a little more manageable?), that'd be a little less goat-getting.
But when the motivation for making the reading experience worse for most readers is short-sighted money grubbing—"more pages = more pageviews = more ad revenue [we hope!]"—it kind of goes out the window. You fucked up people's reading experience for cash. That's a bullshit move.
That's why a lot of people bitch about it.
It's the same reason many people bitch about obnoxious or intrusive ads: not just because Ads Are Bad, but because Ads Can Be Fucking Annoying. I say this as someone who doesn't run adblock and has no problem ignoring static, unintrusive ads, but for the most part I just avoid the hell out of sites that use frequent rollover ads or expanding shit or super-blinky gifgasm stuff.
Actively choosing to make your user experience significantly worse because you think it's the key to success is such a grating bit of business logic that it's actually a little frustrating to see that ignored for the sake of taking a lazy swipe at readers' alleged desire to "kick at a very easy target", as if they are kicking blindly and falsely.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:08 AM on July 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
Are a whole crapload of comments being removed from this thread?
posted by cjorgensen at 9:46 AM on July 3, 2009
posted by cjorgensen at 9:46 AM on July 3, 2009
Yeah, and still I just don't get why this is such a big deal. I mean, if an article is interesting enough, I think it's worth clicking on a link to bring you to the next page. Or are we all so lazy that the action of clicking on a link and waiting a couple seconds is just TOO MUCH WORK?
It's a matter of degree, and a matter of industry precedent.
If the article is interesting enough, it's totally worth click on a link for the next thousand excellent words. Most of the people complaining about this aren't raw about well-written, long-form multi-thousand-word articles that happen to break across a few pages.
For the next item, though? For the next few paragraphs? Or clicking five or ten times? That's just silly bullshit.
And that it's not just a random decision that the occasional one-off site here or there is experimenting with but rather (as people have pointed out in apparent defense of the thing) a Business Model means that it's an aggregate annoyance, and is seemingly being taken by new players as gospel. It's what some people think is not merely a way you can do things if you're willing to accept the compromised user experience and yadda yadda yadda, but The Way To Do Things.
So that's the thing. If I rarely tripped across an aberrant site that did this, it'd be one thing. That this is how a bunch of sites do it, seemingly more as time goes on, and not out of random experimentation but with full intentionality and the fuck with the readers: that's why it's an annoyance. This is just another chapter in user-unfriendly commercial webmucking. It's pop-up ads and crazy-blinky gifs and browser-resizing and so on, this is just another notch in that backwards-ass design-fuckery belt.
And really, why is trying to maximize ad revenue a problem?
In a vacuum? It's not! Go for it!
In practice, it's a problem because it compels bad decisions and leads to a degradation of user experiences—not only in the individual cases where some site or another first decides to make a user-unfriendly design decision, but in general as that promotes an arms race among all those sites willing to sacrifice user experience for another potential slice of profit.
There's a reason Metafilter doesn't look like some hyper-monetized trainwreck, and it's not because Matt's just unfamiliar with these exciting money-making design concepts.
You compared it to intrusive Flash ads, but I don't think the comparison is valid at all. Animated ads (at least for me) are completely distracting and prevent me from actually reading the content -- which is why I use a flash blocker. Clicking on next is such a minor inconvenience that it's not even worth mentioning.
I'll take a click of "next" over a flash strobe any day, but then I'd take a pinch on the arm over a kick in the nuts, too. I'd rather not be pinched or nutted, though, and I have very little sympathy for the sorts of folks who think I'm supposed to be impressed that they only did one or the other.
Or how about this -- I'll put it another way. Say there's a really great article that you think is awesome and want to share with the site. But (DUN DUN DUN!) there is no printer-friendly link. Do you post it anyway? Or do you let yourself be cowed by the whining voices that say, "Oh no, I have to click on NEXT, that's just so much work!" I would argue that if you hold back on the post because of pagination, you actually suck at life and deserve to lose at everything you do.
Is it a great article? Is it something you think is worth a post? Post it. Does it have annoying pagination? People might comment on it. Get over it. I'm not sure the "you suck at life" approach to this is helpful in any case, and I think it's a little weird that you'd so aggressively attack the abstract figure of a poster buckling under criticism of their post, dude.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:10 AM on July 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
It's a matter of degree, and a matter of industry precedent.
If the article is interesting enough, it's totally worth click on a link for the next thousand excellent words. Most of the people complaining about this aren't raw about well-written, long-form multi-thousand-word articles that happen to break across a few pages.
For the next item, though? For the next few paragraphs? Or clicking five or ten times? That's just silly bullshit.
And that it's not just a random decision that the occasional one-off site here or there is experimenting with but rather (as people have pointed out in apparent defense of the thing) a Business Model means that it's an aggregate annoyance, and is seemingly being taken by new players as gospel. It's what some people think is not merely a way you can do things if you're willing to accept the compromised user experience and yadda yadda yadda, but The Way To Do Things.
So that's the thing. If I rarely tripped across an aberrant site that did this, it'd be one thing. That this is how a bunch of sites do it, seemingly more as time goes on, and not out of random experimentation but with full intentionality and the fuck with the readers: that's why it's an annoyance. This is just another chapter in user-unfriendly commercial webmucking. It's pop-up ads and crazy-blinky gifs and browser-resizing and so on, this is just another notch in that backwards-ass design-fuckery belt.
And really, why is trying to maximize ad revenue a problem?
In a vacuum? It's not! Go for it!
In practice, it's a problem because it compels bad decisions and leads to a degradation of user experiences—not only in the individual cases where some site or another first decides to make a user-unfriendly design decision, but in general as that promotes an arms race among all those sites willing to sacrifice user experience for another potential slice of profit.
There's a reason Metafilter doesn't look like some hyper-monetized trainwreck, and it's not because Matt's just unfamiliar with these exciting money-making design concepts.
You compared it to intrusive Flash ads, but I don't think the comparison is valid at all. Animated ads (at least for me) are completely distracting and prevent me from actually reading the content -- which is why I use a flash blocker. Clicking on next is such a minor inconvenience that it's not even worth mentioning.
I'll take a click of "next" over a flash strobe any day, but then I'd take a pinch on the arm over a kick in the nuts, too. I'd rather not be pinched or nutted, though, and I have very little sympathy for the sorts of folks who think I'm supposed to be impressed that they only did one or the other.
Or how about this -- I'll put it another way. Say there's a really great article that you think is awesome and want to share with the site. But (DUN DUN DUN!) there is no printer-friendly link. Do you post it anyway? Or do you let yourself be cowed by the whining voices that say, "Oh no, I have to click on NEXT, that's just so much work!" I would argue that if you hold back on the post because of pagination, you actually suck at life and deserve to lose at everything you do.
Is it a great article? Is it something you think is worth a post? Post it. Does it have annoying pagination? People might comment on it. Get over it. I'm not sure the "you suck at life" approach to this is helpful in any case, and I think it's a little weird that you'd so aggressively attack the abstract figure of a poster buckling under criticism of their post, dude.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:10 AM on July 3, 2009 [2 favorites]
I don't think pagination adds to the viewing experience, but I don't really think it detracts either.
Convincing people that they're wrong rarely works on the internet.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:16 AM on July 3, 2009
Convincing people that they're wrong rarely works on the internet.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:16 AM on July 3, 2009
Yes, it detracts, according to virtually everyone else. Afrobianco doesn't mind? Good for him. But "quit bitching about something that doesn't bother me, I don't care about your stupid pointless opinions"? Fail.
posted by languagehat at 10:30 AM on July 3, 2009
Seriously? If this is your biggest problem in life, we should all be so lucky.
As are in-thread gripes about pagination.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:41 AM on July 3, 2009
As are in-thread gripes about pagination.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:41 AM on July 3, 2009
> Besides, I think I've offered a number of counterarguments.
And yet your argument basically comes down to "I don't mind it, therefore you shouldn't object." Which is ridiculous.
posted by languagehat at 10:45 AM on July 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
And yet your argument basically comes down to "I don't mind it, therefore you shouldn't object." Which is ridiculous.
posted by languagehat at 10:45 AM on July 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
But I think pagination is a silly complaint. And I guess I'll just leave it at that.
129 comments in.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:59 AM on July 3, 2009
129 comments in.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:59 AM on July 3, 2009
O come on guys. It is a pretty exciting link and the link submission button said that it had not been submitted previously.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 1:28 PM on July 3, 2009
posted by Potomac Avenue at 1:28 PM on July 3, 2009
I'm really tired. It's four forty Friday morning in Portland, Oregon on the west coast of the U.S. It's nine forty Friday evening in Ipswich, Queensland.
That's probably not the best comparison - it's still 1983 in Ipswich.
posted by dg at 4:26 PM on July 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
That's probably not the best comparison - it's still 1983 in Ipswich.
posted by dg at 4:26 PM on July 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
Regret that I'm in so late.
In a thread for an article that has pagination, there's usually 2-4 people complaining about it. Everyone else is typically discussing the content.
Right. These comments are a little less than insightful, but, as this thread has shown, they evidence a legitimate shared by many users. Perhaps instead of calling these users out, you might be thankful they only spring from a small minority of users who a rather wide-spread view.
Or, instead of suggesting that the mores of the site be readjusted so as to delegitimize such comments, you suggest they're adjusted to make a "warning - annoying pagination" qualification on the FPP.
posted by 7segment at 4:50 PM on July 3, 2009
In a thread for an article that has pagination, there's usually 2-4 people complaining about it. Everyone else is typically discussing the content.
Right. These comments are a little less than insightful, but, as this thread has shown, they evidence a legitimate shared by many users. Perhaps instead of calling these users out, you might be thankful they only spring from a small minority of users who a rather wide-spread view.
Or, instead of suggesting that the mores of the site be readjusted so as to delegitimize such comments, you suggest they're adjusted to make a "warning - annoying pagination" qualification on the FPP.
posted by 7segment at 4:50 PM on July 3, 2009
Is there a term for the rhetorical technique where you characterize any complaint as the worst possible thing the complainer can imagine?
posted by Plutor at 4:53 PM on July 3, 2009
A: Man, needlessly paginated news articles suck.Because I feel like that's going on a lot in this thread, and I wish I knew what to call it.
B: What about those AIDS orphans in Africa? How do you think they feel?
posted by Plutor at 4:53 PM on July 3, 2009
Because I feel like that's going on a lot in this thread, and I wish I knew what to call it.
Fucking horsehit?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:55 PM on July 3, 2009
Fucking horsehit?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:55 PM on July 3, 2009
I'm curious about comments that say "This". Is it a regional thing that people actually say?
posted by auntbunny at 11:11 PM on July 2 [+] [!]
My personal theory is Rush Limbaugh and his zombie fans ruined the perfectly good "ditto" by associating it with their ilk.
In fact, now that I think about it "This"ing needs to stop if only because when you do it you are, consciously or not, shying away from the dark shadow cast by Rush Limbaugh.
(And you look like an ass, but I'm less concerned with that.)
posted by vapidave at 12:08 AM on July 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by auntbunny at 11:11 PM on July 2 [+] [!]
My personal theory is Rush Limbaugh and his zombie fans ruined the perfectly good "ditto" by associating it with their ilk.
In fact, now that I think about it "This"ing needs to stop if only because when you do it you are, consciously or not, shying away from the dark shadow cast by Rush Limbaugh.
(And you look like an ass, but I'm less concerned with that.)
posted by vapidave at 12:08 AM on July 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Has anyone mentioned that one benefit to a public shaming re: idiotic, time-wasting extra-click strategies is that site owners often track referrals and might actually see the complaints?
Also, afroblanco, sometimes I see stuff I've written here and step back far enough to realize what I've really written is "Damn I need a blow job STAT" and I rearrange my priorities to get one, which I've found really really helps with the online complaining thing.
Honestly, I think perhaps this might be one of those moments for you.
posted by mediareport at 4:11 PM on July 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Also, afroblanco, sometimes I see stuff I've written here and step back far enough to realize what I've really written is "Damn I need a blow job STAT" and I rearrange my priorities to get one, which I've found really really helps with the online complaining thing.
Honestly, I think perhaps this might be one of those moments for you.
posted by mediareport at 4:11 PM on July 4, 2009 [1 favorite]
Get complainy on the internet, arrange a blowjob.
I don't know, mediareport. Sounds like positive reinforcement to me.
posted by fleacircus at 6:13 AM on July 5, 2009
I don't know, mediareport. Sounds like positive reinforcement to me.
posted by fleacircus at 6:13 AM on July 5, 2009
Yeah, that's the right response. Bravo.
posted by mediareport at 8:39 AM on July 5, 2009
posted by mediareport at 8:39 AM on July 5, 2009
[ HEY KIDS, TRY WHEETABIX! IT'S BACK AND IT'S DEEEE-LISH! ]
fleacircus in mefisex shocker pg 1 of 10
I'll blow you, Afro.
<Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next>
--
THIS POST WAS MADE ON MY BLACKBERRY
(c) fleacircus enterprises
posted by fleacircus at 3:07 PM on July 5, 2009
fleacircus in mefisex shocker pg 1 of 10
I'll blow you, Afro.
<Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next>
--
THIS POST WAS MADE ON MY BLACKBERRY
(c) fleacircus enterprises
posted by fleacircus at 3:07 PM on July 5, 2009
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Also, OMG NYTIMES REQUIRES REGISTRATION WHATEVER SHALL I DO
posted by ook at 4:56 PM on July 2, 2009