Callouts are fine, but leave the personal info offsite, please.

September 11, 2003 12:22 PM

Posting the phone and fax number of an organization for protest seems fair game. Posting the home address of that organization's director, not so much.
posted by headspace to Etiquette/Policy at 12:22 PM (104 comments total)

Copy and paste from public information, correct? If it's not, then yes, there's a problem.

If it's the address on the WHOIS record, or other public listing, I fail to see how mentioning it in the thread is an issue.
posted by thanotopsis at 12:29 PM on September 11, 2003

I went to 411.com, entered her name and that was the first and only result. So, yes, public record.

I debated about posting it, but decided that the amount of time it took me to do a search on her name and post it could be done by anybody. I also thought about the amount of hatred that woman represents and then quickly pressed Post.

If I crossed a line, I apologize.
posted by fletchmuy at 12:33 PM on September 11, 2003

Just because one can find something doesn't mean one should post it. Hence posting this in the the etiquette category.
posted by headspace at 12:33 PM on September 11, 2003

Because in the time it takes to look up a person's contact information yourself, you might actually calm down and think about what you're doing.

Posting things directly to the thread is just a little too much like rounding up the possee for a lynchin' for me. You remove one barrier between thinking and acting. That's great if you're a mild-mannered reasonable activist, but if you're riled up an irrational that can be a problem.
posted by namespan at 12:34 PM on September 11, 2003

It's kind of "Nuremburg Files"-esque. I mean, didn't that website get some of its information from the public phone book? The same information in a different context can become a threat.

Although I still chuckle when I think about that Detroit Free Press reporter who said that he wouldn't print an uberspammer's home address, "which I found in [whatever town it was] real estate records."
posted by transona5 at 12:35 PM on September 11, 2003

Posting a home address and phone number to encourage harrassment is obnoxious, whether or not the information is publicly available. These days, everything is public. You can Google for a name followed by a city and state and find anyone with a listed phone number. (Note: I wouldn't use fletchmuy as an example if the information wasn't already in the WHOIS database for his personal domain.)
posted by rcade at 12:39 PM on September 11, 2003

Pray tell why one should "play nice" with hatemongers?
posted by five fresh fish at 12:46 PM on September 11, 2003

if someone can calm down in the time it takes to pull up a public record, then they'll calm down pretty quickly after seeing it here.

"Well, I'd send a pipebomb, if only I had the ... Whoa-ho! Looky there! It's right there on the scree ... ho hum. I'm bored."
posted by crunchland at 12:49 PM on September 11, 2003

Pray tell, what kind of sick chaotic world would it be if we formally harassed, at their private home, anyone whose opinions we didn't share?
posted by dhoyt at 12:50 PM on September 11, 2003

Has anyone actually called her?

Ask her if she has Dr. Pepper in a can! That'll show her!
posted by xmutex at 12:55 PM on September 11, 2003

Pray tell why one should "play nice" with hatemongers?

Because the extreme alternative would be playing hatefully, an ironic twist laying at the end of a slippery slope that posting addresses implicitly gets a little too far along for my taste. Unless he's suggesting people go to her door to hug her...
posted by dness2 at 12:55 PM on September 11, 2003

Surprisingly (to me, anyway), I'm with dhoyt on this one. An animal-rights organization whose basic goals I share has been doing this - formally harassing those affiliated with an animal-testing company - and I'm adamantly opposed to the action.
posted by soyjoy at 12:56 PM on September 11, 2003

But do you know why Dr. Pepper comes in a can?

Posting the info is just stupid: "Look, we know where you live! And we're on the Internet!" It's on the same list as people who respond to online insults by mentioning how big and menacing they are in real life.
posted by yerfatma at 12:58 PM on September 11, 2003

I'm going to have to go with namespan here. A little too rounding-up-the-posse here; that's not what we're about. There are more appropriate places for that.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 1:00 PM on September 11, 2003

Yeah, and making statements to a reporter making light of AIDs victims is also obnoxious.

I wouldn't have even mentioned her address if the post didn't have to do with a show that follows gay men around as they offer their style tips. I figured her own home would probably be a great candidate for a makeover.

Hey, I'm just trying to help make great television here. As Ms. Millam obviously is trying to do as well.
posted by fletchmuy at 1:02 PM on September 11, 2003

The worst possible use of MetaFilter is as distribution for zealots seeking to cow their political oppenents.
posted by raaka at 1:15 PM on September 11, 2003

But do you know why Dr. Pepper comes in a can?

Because he's single.
posted by vito90 at 1:23 PM on September 11, 2003

The worst possible use of MetaFilter is as distribution for zealots seeking to cow their political opponents.

I've also found it to be very ineffective as a treatment for tuberculosis.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 1:30 PM on September 11, 2003

Pray tell why one should "play nice" with hatemongers?

Because other people think differently than you, and your hero may be someone else's hatemonger, and if you encourage the principle of harassing "hatemongers" you don't have any control over who gets harassed.

"And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?  This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes,  I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake."
posted by languagehat at 1:57 PM on September 11, 2003

I've also found it to be very ineffective as a treatment for tuberculosis.

It's an industrial lubricant and food for the poor!
posted by arto at 1:58 PM on September 11, 2003

I deleted it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:00 PM on September 11, 2003

Outing a national public figure like John Poindexter is a bit different than a nobody like this woman in Montana, though I'll concede that she thrust herself into the public eye willingly with this campaign.

A better example of situational ethics might be the outing of Debbie Swenson in Peabody, Kansas, which both headscape and I participated in. As much as she deserved to be the media's freak du jour for her con games, I still feel a bit squeamish about how that all went down.

Incidentally, that was an amazingly short-lived apology, fletchmuy.
posted by rcade at 2:01 PM on September 11, 2003

Isn't this all academic? Someone who's got the time, energy and vitriol required to make a harassing phone call to Montana certainly has the same amount of time to go looking up phone numbers. It's not like anyone's out there right now saying, "I would have called her, too, if it hadn't been for that damned Matt Haughey deleting the number!"
posted by vraxoin at 2:14 PM on September 11, 2003

I came across the number and address myself, doing a simple google search. I opted not to post it, for what seemed like obvious reasons. I had the same dilemma last week, when I stumbled across the number of another Christian activist I had mentioned on my blog.

People who voice controversial opinions really ought to know that their phone number, address (even MapQuest directions to their house!) are often just a few keystrokes away.
posted by jpoulos at 2:42 PM on September 11, 2003

Funny, I don't remember any complaints when the web attacked John "total information awareness" Poindexter.

Funny, I do.
posted by soyjoy at 2:47 PM on September 11, 2003

People who voice controversial opinions really ought to know that their phone number, address (even MapQuest directions to their house!) are often just a few keystrokes away.

What? That's oddly threatening. I'd rather that people who bother to voice opinions were secure enough in them not to cower in fear that someone might Google them later. Is it not possible that this woman knew full well that her info was public and believed enough in what she was saying not to care?

For example, I'm pro-life. That passes for controversy around here often enough. My real email address is in my profile, as well as my zip code just in case another Mefite moves into my area (not that they'll probably talk to me now, with jpoulos picketing outside...) Should I be concerned?
posted by donnagirl at 3:17 PM on September 11, 2003

That was a dangerous spur of the moment reaction, and Matt has wisely deleted it. It could have lead this site into dangerous, litigious waters, and it's also slightly cowardly in the sense of trying make people physically vulnerable because you disagree with them.
posted by 111 at 3:43 PM on September 11, 2003

rcade, I don't quite understand. Are you saying that my second post on this thread negates the first? The apology still stands, I just had other feelings about the matter and wanted to express them. By the way, I e-mailed Matt to alert him that the situation existed and if he felt it necessary, to delete my post about her address.

I still find this topic interesting. Would I post that info again? Probably not. But I'm still conflicted.

The information I posted was a mere 3 clicks away for anyone to see. By bringing the info closer a couple of clicks and into a discussion about this woman's (idiotic) statements, I'm the obnoxious one? I really was using her address to make a joke; tying it together with the show she was discussing in her statement. I probably should have left off her phone number, but oh well.

And, what vraxion said.
posted by fletchmuy at 4:07 PM on September 11, 2003

could have lead this site into dangerous, litigious waters, and it's also slightly cowardly

Yes, 111, you would know all about that, wouldn't you?
posted by jca at 4:29 PM on September 11, 2003

... a nobody like this woman in Montana, though I'll concede that she thrust herself into the public eye willingly with this campaign.

She's not really all that much of a nobody in Montana, or at least a few years ago she was up for an appointment as a public member on some Montana Senate board ... which is where I found her name and address, in the Senate Journal. You can't get more public record than legislative minutes.
posted by Orb at 4:44 PM on September 11, 2003

could have lead this site into dangerous, litigious waters, and it's also slightly cowardly...

Yes, 111, you would know all about that, wouldn't you?
posted by jca

...in the sense of trying make people physically vulnerable because you disagree with them.

No I wouldn't. I think cowardice manifests itself in not standing by your own beliefs, trying to sick irrational radicals into your opponents' lives or else in attempting to propagate deliberate lies. Are you implying that she has to go to a gay bar and speak her mind out loud before the whole coterie of pederasts to validate her opinion?
posted by 111 at 4:52 PM on September 11, 2003

could have lead this site into dangerous, litigious waters, and it's also slightly cowardly

Yes, 111, you would know all about that, wouldn't you?

I'm purposefully not reading 111's own response to this, so please don't lump me in with whatever he said.

111 has never done anything on this site that would pass for dangerous or litigious. Not once. If you don't like him, just call him a name, or rip on him for something germaine to the thread. There are honest ways to be rude. We have to live with 111, so it might be wise to make sure that any judgment of him is made fairly.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 5:00 PM on September 11, 2003

Holy crap! I'm glad I didn't read that before, or I never would have stuck up for him.

111: If you refuse to be civil in getting your message across, it is no wonder that many here find the message itself to base and uncivil.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 5:02 PM on September 11, 2003

Anatomy of a trainwreck:

111 calmly expresses a valid opinion.

jca attacks him without bothering to even agree or disagree with what he said.

111 goes off the rails, smearing gays with the "pederast" label.

Anyway we can avoid the usual result?
posted by timeistight at 5:22 PM on September 11, 2003

Nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 5:27 PM on September 11, 2003

Anyway we can avoid the usual result?

If only, timeistight, if only.
posted by namespan at 5:37 PM on September 11, 2003

Pederast is not a label, it's a synonym. Ignatius is probably discomfited because I implied elsewhere, based on his own assumptions, that he could be a marxist. Apparently, being candid can be considered "uncivil".
posted by 111 at 5:50 PM on September 11, 2003

Can you at least say "paederast"? It's so much classier. And when did we stop capitalizing "Marxist"? You could at least be polite about insulting folks.
posted by yerfatma at 6:14 PM on September 11, 2003

it's not a synonym, it's a slur

it comes from a Greek root, means "attracted to children/adolescent boys"
posted by matteo at 6:18 PM on September 11, 2003

Apparently, being candid can be considered "uncivil"

You're an unposed informal photograph?

Huh. Strangely, that makes sense.

and yes, i had to look up candid.
posted by Stynxno at 6:18 PM on September 11, 2003

Pederast is not a label, it's a synonym.

What thesaurus are you using, 111 - the Fred Phelps Big Book of Big Words? 'Cause Mr. Roget doesn't consider it a synonym - unless you consider every word that has anything to do with sex, normal or deviate, homo or hetero, to be a synonym. You may believe all homosexuals are deviate statutory rapists - and if so, come out and say so - but don't tar the English language with that equation.
posted by soyjoy at 7:04 PM on September 11, 2003

pederast. Just sayin'.
posted by weston at 7:10 PM on September 11, 2003

i'm really tired of this troll's continual slurs...if one user's hate speech gets them banned, then why is this asshole still here?
posted by amberglow at 7:15 PM on September 11, 2003

Thanks for spelling it out, weston. Hopefully, everybody on this thread (other than 111, I guess) already knew the definition, but that will save people a couple clicks (to return to the topic of this thread).
posted by soyjoy at 7:37 PM on September 11, 2003

Amberglow, I think the difference is commitment. As distasteful as I find the crap 111 posts, he takes the time to defend his views. Straw men, personal attacks and idiocy notwithstanding, he doesn't hit and run and is consistent. Boys got balls, I'll give him that-- or he's a masochist, I can't imagine playing so much on a site where my heartfelt beliefs were the subject of constant derision.

He actually believes this nonsense; the tragedy is, so do a great many people I work with, attend church with and see on the street daily.
posted by cedar at 7:37 PM on September 11, 2003

i view commitment differently i guess...you'd think there'd be at least one fact or link in all the "defending his views" he does, but i haven't seen one. I just see offensive untrue slur, someone calling him on it, and then more offensive untrue slurs as a response. Am i missing anything?
posted by amberglow at 7:49 PM on September 11, 2003

cedar, you have a point that in contrast to riptide, 111 does have a good number of posts that are thoughtful and even useful - but on this thread, Ignatius' two consecutive posts sum it up for me: I want to respect him and his abillity to dissent with whatever candor he finds necessary. But while we're defending his right to do that, we turn around and he's casually equating all gay people (OK, all gay-bar patrons) with child molesters. How is simply saying "it's a synonym" - which it plainly isn't except in his own lexicon - "defending his views?"

In other words, what amberglow said
posted by soyjoy at 8:07 PM on September 11, 2003

Don't feed the troll.
posted by bshort at 8:10 PM on September 11, 2003

If you don't like him, just call him a name

you... you big stinker!
posted by t r a c y at 8:59 PM on September 11, 2003

I just see offensive untrue slur, someone calling him on it, and then more offensive untrue slurs as a response. Am i missing anything?

Not much... but maybe the fact that actually, before 111 got gratuitously kicked there really wasn't anything wrong with what he'd said.

And I think... except for the one-word conflation of homosexuality with pederasty, his second comment wasn't that bad (and there might actually be an interesting question in there somewhere). It's a little self-congratulatory, but I like to think that just linking to the actual definition pretty much nukes the issue without having to roast 111 on top of it...
posted by weston at 9:19 PM on September 11, 2003

111, don't make me come over there...and give you a big hug. :-)

Someday I'll look back on this and...not remember a damn thing.
posted by attackthetaxi at 10:22 PM on September 11, 2003

"Some day we'll all look back on this and... PLOW STRAIGHT INTO A PARKED CAR!"
posted by namespan at 10:30 PM on September 11, 2003

I'd say 111's second lengthy comment was more of a "serious argument with points I can actually think about and formulate an intelligent response to" than most of his very trollish postings. In other words, I think he can be trained (not necessarily to change his mind, but to post better content). Could be our greatest triumph since teaching thomcatspike English... sorry... snicker... couldn't resist...

In other words, "Someday we'll all look back on this and do a really funny spittake!"
posted by wendell at 10:32 PM on September 11, 2003

For the record, this wasn't some random "gratuitous" kicking of 111 (well, probably just gratuitous, but not so random). I just can't personally stomach his profound hypocrisy when he invokes ideas like "litigious" and "cowardly" - but that's just a personal issue I have, which gets posted here in lieu of having a private email conversation with him - which as we all well know, is not possible at this time.
posted by jca at 10:40 PM on September 11, 2003

if one user's hate speech gets them banned, then why is this asshole still here?

Amberglow, you realize that if MeFi devised a comprehensive system to classify selected opinions as "hate speech" or "too controversial" and banned users accordingly, this website would be a ghost town, right?

Just because you don't agree and because 111's opinions are not fashionable do not unquestionably make it "hate speech". Personally I think ANY comparison between homosexuality and pederasty is odious, unfair and ridiculous. But I don't expect my 2-cent opinion to result in anyone getting banned.

Some of you seem so threatened by 111 it's like this comical tableau--he posts something outrageous, you react hysterically, and everyone looks like a fool.
posted by dhoyt at 11:35 PM on September 11, 2003

I'm thinking of becoming a Marxist. Think of the comedy potential!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:20 AM on September 12, 2003

sorry dhoyt, we got the whole "child-molesting/aids-ridden/promiscuous/gay agenda" against gay men going in the montana thread and here--it's hate speech, just as much as using blood libels and other lies to denigrate whole groups of people.

The thread i referenced before is interesting--there's a post by cedar that says it well: ...Though it may not affect his future posting, it establishes a record and may help rid us of future bigoted crap. Believe it or not, I'm actually pretty tolerant and rarely care what people post, but when it comes to outright hatred I have a problem. I think it's a good place to draw the line.

You don't have a problem with the hatred expressed by 111, apparently. I do.
posted by amberglow at 12:33 AM on September 12, 2003

I don't care who he hates, but I don't get why he has to post on this site. He doesn't care about communicating with people. He says the same shit over and over again. I am actually beginning to think that he is a regular poster masquerading to have fun.

My crazy theory: 111=mathowie's other personality, which is slowly taking over.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 12:46 AM on September 12, 2003

...a gay Marxist!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:49 AM on September 12, 2003

...a gay Marxist!

Yeah, just wait until signups get re-enabled ...
posted by walrus at 3:07 AM on September 12, 2003

111 you're not funny anymore. No real person who refers to "the philadelphia effect" would ever post on MeFi, which shows even you are getting tired and sloppy.

Cut and run dude, or you'll soon be doing medleys of your most famous trolls.

Personally, I think it's a bored A-lister trying to recapture a feeling of being "underground" ;)
posted by fullerine at 3:18 AM on September 12, 2003

Do gay Marxist drink vodka tonics? I need a Cardoso ruling on this.....
posted by Dagobert at 4:16 AM on September 12, 2003

By bringing the info closer a couple of clicks and into a discussion about this woman's (idiotic) statements, I'm the obnoxious one?

No. She wins that title hands down. It's just objectionable to use someone's personal address and phone number against them online, because it's an implicit encouragement to harrass them. With the per-capita rate of doofuses exceptionally high on the Internet, you can pretty much guarantee someone will make use of the information.
posted by rcade at 5:36 AM on September 12, 2003

You don't have a problem with the hatred expressed by 111

Nice, amberglow. You ignore my comments two posts up ("Personally I think ANY comparison between homosexuality and pederasty is odious, unfair and ridiculous.") to paint me an an appeasing, fellow homophobe. How to make it any clearer--it *is* possible to dislike what someone is saying without getting out the torches. If anything he says is a bannable offense, I'm sure Matt will take care of it. For some of you, though, 111 is just this obsession, and it never fails to be amusing.

In brief:
As bshort said, don't feed the troll, if you feel that's what 111 is doing.
posted by dhoyt at 6:18 AM on September 12, 2003

As bshort said, don't feed the troll, if you feel that's what 111 is doing.

Yeah, come on, it's not hard. You see the name 111, pass on by. You know what he's going to say. You could probably write it yourself.
posted by Summer at 7:15 AM on September 12, 2003

Fair enough, rcade. I thought of that same point last night as I couldn't get to sleep (unrelated). I put myself in the shoes of a radio dj. Would I mention seomeone's home address and phone number on the air? Hell no. At that point I realized I shouldn't have done it. I had kind of glossed over the insane amount of traffic this site generates, I guess.

Whew, glad that's over.

Although, I now apologize for derailing 111's thread.
posted by fletchmuy at 10:29 AM on September 12, 2003

Good for you fletchmuy. It takes a big person to admit mistakes.
posted by timeistight at 10:43 AM on September 12, 2003

dhoyt, i didn't ignore your personal opinion of 111. It's just that you bracketed it between Just because you don't agree and because 111's opinions are not fashionable do not unquestionably make it "hate speech". and But I don't expect my 2-cent opinion to result in anyone getting banned.

let's see--you classified it as a personal opinion, declared i spoke "just because" i didn't agree with 111's unfashionable opinions, as if it's a difference of opinion, like disagreement on that new-fangled rock music or something, instead of the malicious slurs it actually is. Then you stated how you don't expect your "2-cent opinion" to have any effect, implying that i shouldn't either.

Well, that's one of the reasons metatalk is here, no? To express "2-cent opinions" about content on the site? It's not EVER ok to spread offensive, malicious slurs about whole groups of people, or is it? It wasn't ok in riptide's case, and it's not ok here, in my "2-cent opinion."

You know, just because this shit is heard alot, being a staple of am radio and "family associations" and used to raise money for certain political parties doesn't make it less offensive or hateful.

And not feeding the troll won't stop them...so???
posted by amberglow at 11:19 AM on September 12, 2003

m-w.com:
Main Entry: ped·er·ast
Date: circa 1736
: one that practices anal intercourse especially with a boy

In France, pedé is a common slang for homosexuals in general.

But you know what's funny? The same people who don't object to someone's home address being posted for unknown reasons, and who often resort to gutter-level, hysterical namecalling try to transform all opinions critical of their own preferences into "trolling"!

For some of them, it's ok to derail, ignore opposing views and attempt to dismiss every single argument that contradicts their own opinions. They insult freely, but get hypocritically indignant when they read what they perceive as insults aimed at them. They're bigots, but live on denouncing what they perceive as prejudice. They possess, at the very best, the irrational dumbness of a spoiled poodle with rabies.

One trait most gays (not all) and virtually all leftists (but not all liberals) have in common: they live in a schizoid, 1984-nightmare where things are seen not within the rules of real free speech, but along the lines of their own delusional codes of which truths must be hidden and which lies must be believed.

Saying there is a link between homosexuality and AIDS, for example, is mislabeled as "hate speech" or some kind of fictional conspiracy to hurt the proud, oh-so innocent gay community. Guess what: you're living a lie. Don't ask others to join you in your rainbow-colored padded-cell. Embrace free speech and deal with the consequences of your choices.

Cut and run dude, or you'll soon be doing medleys of your most famous trolls.

Who on earth are you to even remotely believe that you can tell me anything? Have you even read my comments in their original context? Can you contradict me?
posted by 111 at 11:44 AM on September 12, 2003

And to paraphrase dhoyt's comments:

For some of you, though, fold_&_mutilate is just this obsession, and it never fails to be amusing.

As bshort said, don't feed the troll, if you feel that's what fold_&_mutilate is doing.

Remember, if you are going to stick up for one controversial guy on one side, stick up for one on the other. f-&-m's remarks yesterday in madamejujujive's post were on topic by anyone's standards, as dhoyt himself noted, and, moreover, fold_&_mutilate attacked no one personally in making them. Yet it is considered perfectly permissible by many here to attack him personally for any post or comments he makes, regardless of the content.

Here's a policy suggestion: NO SCAPEGOATING ALLOWED

As to the original topic, just to hammer the point home, may I point out that posting an individual's personal information is something called freeping when done by members of another site.
posted by y2karl at 11:44 AM on September 12, 2003

Upon review, I must say I can't recall anything posted by f_&_m ever rising to the inflammatory level of 111's comment just above. Just sayin'...
posted by y2karl at 11:51 AM on September 12, 2003

As to the original topic, just to hammer the point home, may I point out that posting an individual's personal information is something called freeping when done by members of another site.

What point is it that, y2karl? "They" do it so "we" should be allowed to do it too?
posted by timeistight at 12:03 PM on September 12, 2003

m-w.com:
Main Entry: ped·er·ast
Date: circa 1736
: one that practices anal intercourse especially with a boy

Oh, 111, guess you didn't have room for this line from that very carefully selected definition which you skipped over in your exhaustive quote:

Etymology: Greek paiderastEs, literally, lover of boys

Man, what a pathetic attempt to weasel out of an clearly offensive statement. Many of your critics here would probably have more respect for you if you'd just say "I sincerely believe all homosexuals are child molesters" instead of this constant hit & run, cut-n-run, topic-switching strategy. If you're gonna make such obvious slurs, you can either disown them or you can stand behind them. Pretending it's not a slur may work with the crowd you hang around, but it's not fooling anyone on this thread.
posted by soyjoy at 12:07 PM on September 12, 2003

Many of your critics here would probably have more respect for you if you'd just say "I sincerely believe all homosexuals are child molesters"

Nope.
posted by widdershins at 12:17 PM on September 12, 2003

Seriously. Don't feed the troll.

You're not going to change his mind and he won't stop spewing unsupported hate-filled garbage. So what's the point?

If he gets hungry for attention then he will either leave or maybe cease to be a troll.
posted by bshort at 12:18 PM on September 12, 2003

soyjoy, the Greek etymology has nothing whatever to do with its meaning in English. Unless, of course, you are prepared to restrict pedagogue to 'slave who escorts children to school' (its meaning in Greek), or for that matter bead to 'prayer' (its earlier meaning in English itself). Etymology is fun, but should be ignored in discussing current meaning.

Besides, you don't seriously expect 111 to care, do you? (On preview: what bshort said.)
posted by languagehat at 12:36 PM on September 12, 2003

langugehat - neither does French slang have anything to do with its meaning in English. My point was that the line in question was edited out by 111 - it was in between the third and fourth lines of the Merriam-Webster entry as he presented them - for the obvious reason of implying that sex-with-a-boy was not a fundamental part of the meaning of the word. It is, though, as a more clearly-worded definition from American Heritage shows: A man who has sexual relations, especially anal intercourse, with a boy.

But you're right - I won't address 111 again, either in this thread or any other. It's like trying to teach a pig to sing.
posted by soyjoy at 1:31 PM on September 12, 2003

soyjoy, I do not care how you or anyone else perceive things. I'm true to my own views and beliefs, and the fact is that the word pederast, as the Merriam-Webster states, can apply to homosexuals in general. If you or someone else dislikes this, it's your problem. If you'd rather have "a coterie of sodomites" or "a coterie of poofs" instead, it's indifferent to me.

I remembered I once used the word "invincible" and people would go "uh?", but this is just a distracting noise to deflect the focus away from the real issue. If we're talking about capitalism, anticapitalists will often say we're talking about 111, then they'll say it's about a certain word 111 used etc-- all the while insisting that it was me, 111, who did it all to 1)"troll" and/or 2) get some "attention". It's a desperate move to curtail open debate and to prevent people from getting acquainted with multiple points of view.

Those who took the trouble to go back to the original comment will see I did not compare anyone specifically to a pederast in the strict etymological sense: those out there who felt personally addressed have (very serious) issues of their own. It's their problem. Pedophiles are disgusting, unforgivable criminals who must be very harshly punished either way.

BTW, it's also tragicomic that, in another thread, some people have tried to disregard the fact that the word "matrimony" comes from the name Mary, and all of a sudden they cling to their only glimmer of hope to portray me as an attention-starved homophobe with their emphasis on the greek root of a word whose context is totally specific and socially bound.
posted by 111 at 1:37 PM on September 12, 2003

Forget it; he's hopeless.
posted by timeistight at 1:41 PM on September 12, 2003

on preview, soyjoy, don't be disingenuous, I "edited" the whole m-w entry, not just "that" line.
posted by 111 at 1:44 PM on September 12, 2003

the fact that the word "matrimony" comes from the name Mary

111 is comedy gold, I tell you!
posted by languagehat at 1:49 PM on September 12, 2003

I've found that if I imagine 111 as a closeted, very effiminate, older guy in a tweed coat delivering his lines in a high pitched southern twang, one hand on his hip and the other flamboyantly gesturing, then he's good for a chuckle.
posted by bshort at 1:58 PM on September 12, 2003

the fact that the word "matrimony" comes from the name Mary

111 is comedy gold, I tell you!

Exactly, mother, thank you languagehat, though I'm afraid you're equally desperate to thwart the real discussion.

I meant "marriage" (which, believe me or not, is a synonym for matrimony-- unless soyjoy objects...)

marry - c.1300, from O.Fr. marier, from L. maritare "wed, marry," from maritus "married man, husband," of uncertain origin, perhaps ult. from "provided with a *mari," a young woman. The obsolete oath (M.E.) is the name of the Virgin Mary.
posted by 111 at 2:03 PM on September 12, 2003

What point is it that, y2karl? "They" do it so "we" should be allowed to do it too?

You know, I rather thought my point was ''they do it'' and ''we'' should never stoop to that level. How did you get the reverse of what I wrote
--was it the often expressed comments of avowed admiration for the fine folks of Free Republic I've made here or was it the bold all caps No Scapegoating Allowed? I know where there's intent or predisposition, almost anything one writes can be twisted into its opposite statement, but that one's a doozy.

Upon review: um, bshort, isn't insulting the troll feeding the troll? I thought the whole point was to ignore inflammatory remarks--not taunting the person who made them.
posted by y2karl at 2:06 PM on September 12, 2003

y2karl: please pardon my misapprehension.

111: it's two different words – unrelated homonyms.
posted by timeistight at 2:12 PM on September 12, 2003

Upon review, I must say I can't recall anything posted by f_&_m ever rising to the inflammatory level of 111's comment just above. Just sayin'...

What you're "just sayin'" sounds pretty transparent--that your political beliefs are closer to foldy's and therefore you turn a blind eye. And hey, everyone does it. Just be honest enough to admit it.

You're seriously telling me there's nothing inflammatory about saying, for example, that PETA was downright heroic for mocking Jesse Arbogast, who boy who was mauled by a shark? Nah, there's nothing deluded or inflammatory about that, right?

At least 111 is stating his ideas (dreadful as they may be) and following up his comments, as opposed to foldy's MO which is to fling-shit-and-flee.
posted by dhoyt at 2:12 PM on September 12, 2003

Upon review: um, bshort, isn't insulting the troll feeding the troll? I thought the whole point was to ignore inflammatory remarks--not taunting the person who made them.

Well, maybe, but I thought sharing 111-coping strategies might be useful...
posted by bshort at 2:19 PM on September 12, 2003

I think you're the pot calling the kettle black there dhoyt. You're doing what you accuse y2karl of doing: forgiving one tedious ideologue simply because some of his beliefs are closer to yours.

I find 111 and f&m's posting styles and manners to be so similar as to be eerie. It wouldn't at all surprise me if they were the same person.
posted by timeistight at 2:27 PM on September 12, 2003

…"eerily similar" would have read better there.
posted by timeistight at 2:29 PM on September 12, 2003

(totally off-topic) Is it possible that "Mary" was retroactively applied to Jesus' mother because of the Latin mater? Or are the letters in common entirely coincidental?

OK, I'm done, back to your flame wars.
posted by PrinceValium at 2:35 PM on September 12, 2003

I thought my comment was about gratuitous attacks made on him when he had made no personal attacks on anyone and posted a comment in context. Wow, he expressed an outrageous opinion. For me, that does not rise to making a statement inferring all gay men are child molesters--about the deadliest insult one can make to a anyone in this culture.

To paraphrase dhartung in the other thread, has f&m been this successful at pounding the little rubber hammer on your kneecaps? Reflex! f&m evil! Reflex! f&m must be stopped! Reflex! Give f&M more attention just like he wants! You seem so threatened by fold_&_mutilate, it's like this comical tableau--he posts something outrageous, you react hysterically, and look like a fool.
posted by y2karl at 2:42 PM on September 12, 2003

timeistight, enough grammatical discussion/ Wikipedia scholarship, but I'm not even sure what you're talking about. In the name of truth, some details: if you mean matrimony-marriage, you're wrong

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
marry2

syllab: mar·ry
interj: Archaic Used as an exclamation of surprise or emphasis.
etym: Middle English Marie, the Virgin Mary, ultimately from Greek Maria. See Mary1.

(m-w.com):
Entry Word: marriage
Synonyms conjugality, connubiality, matrimony, wedlock

PrinceValium, at any rate Mary itself apparently goes back to either Hebrew or Egyptian roots depending on where you look.

(Am. Her.)
entry: rym.
def: East Semitic, to give. marionette, marry2, Mary, Miriam; marigold, from Hebrew mirym, Miriam, meaning uncertain, perhaps “gift” (akin to Akkadian rimu, to give) or “beloved” (of Egyptian origin).
posted by 111 at 2:45 PM on September 12, 2003

his beliefs are closer to yours

Uh, this may surprise you but 111 has said nothing on MeFi I would agree with. Not a thing. He is not some "kindred spirit" I actually mean to defend. In fact, I'm not even sure how I got into this position.

*scratches head*
posted by dhoyt at 2:46 PM on September 12, 2003

111: I'm having trouble following all that, but the two words I was talking about are "marry" – the middle-english oath and "marry" – to become united with in matrimony. They are to different words with the same spelling and the fact that the first is from "Mary" has nothing to do with the second.

dhoyt: Please accept my apology then. That's twice in one thread – time for me to stop posting, I think.
posted by timeistight at 3:17 PM on September 12, 2003

"two different words," I meant.
posted by timeistight at 3:18 PM on September 12, 2003

y2karl: I tried to email you this but your listed address bounced:

You know, I rather thought my point was ''they do it'' and ''we'' should never stoop to that level. How did you get the reverse of what I wrote --was it the often expressed comments of avowed admiration for the fine folks of Free Republic I've made here or was it the bold all caps No Scapegoating Allowed? I know where there's intent or predisposition, almost anything one writes can be twisted into its opposite statement, but that one's a doozy.

I think you were a little rough on me there, Karl. I'm sorry I misunderstood you, but going back and rereading your statement, I can't see how I'm twisting anything. I assumed "NO SCAPEGOATING ALLOWED" referred to the Mefi treatment of fold_and_mutilate and/or 111. It was followed by a new paragraph and a change of subject.

There was nothing in your statement to directly say you disapproved of "freeping". I guess you think I should have assumed that. Anyway, it was an honest mistake.

Okay, now I'm done.
posted by timeistight at 3:26 PM on September 12, 2003

I'm not even sure how I got into this position.

*scratches head*

you dropped the soap.
posted by quonsar at 3:30 PM on September 12, 2003

"Hey-OOOOOOO!"

/ed macmahon
posted by dhoyt at 3:37 PM on September 12, 2003

No sweat, timeistight. We all politically box each other in far too easily on this forum, and no one is innocent of that. Why? Too many perceived "teams", not enough individuals? Too much hyperbole?

It all happens so fast, suddenly there's a brawl. It's hard to say what we mean, and mean what we say. I've been thinking MeFi brings out the worst in me sometimes, and I'm gonna try and work on that.
posted by dhoyt at 3:43 PM on September 12, 2003

Criteria for judging a successful troll:

1) The original topic is forgotten.
2) The thread becomes all about the troll, or their ridiculous assertion.
3) Participants descend into chaotic, confused bickering.

Another solid win for 111.

Oh.... No.... I forgot...... His prime motivation is to expose us to new ideas, not foment chaos. Thankfully we've now been exposed to the new idea that people in gay bars molest boys.
posted by y6y6y6 at 4:03 PM on September 12, 2003

So... how about Hurricane Isobel? The first category five storm in five years and it still has sustained winds of 160mph with gusts much higher. Should be interesting if it makes it to the east coast.

LAST NIGHT ME AND SOME DUDES FROM CHEESEBURGER HUT WERE TALKING ABOUT IT AND WE DECIDED THAT THE HURRICANE SHOULD PROBABLY HIT FLORIDA BECAUSE THERE ARE TOO MANY OLD PEOPLE THERE ANYWAY. ALL THE NUTS ROLL DOWN TO FLORIDA AND THE OLD PEOPLE CHASE AFTER THEM. COME BACK HERE YOU DAMN NUTS!!!1
posted by bargle at 4:27 PM on September 12, 2003

timeistight, I guess my mailbox is full. Anyway, I was a little too heated, my apologies. I am struck over and over how easy it is to is misconstrue words on a screen.

And dhoyt, no gripe intended here, but, as to What you're "just sayin'" sounds pretty transparent--that your political beliefs are closer to foldy's and therefore you turn a blind eye. And hey, everyone does it. Just be honest enough to admit it.--just for the record, Admit what?
posted by y2karl at 5:19 PM on September 12, 2003

Hey, when did dness become dness2? So nice to see you back!
posted by y2karl at 7:01 PM on September 12, 2003

The "Latin" root mater is actually one of the oldest, most common words in Indo-European. It was almost certainly spoken thousands of years before Mary. Or at least that's what the namby-pamby multi-culti linguists say. Maybe WorldNetDaily has an etymological expose to "Fisk" those spurious Communist lexiterrorists.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 11:12 PM on September 12, 2003