French-fried cars callout

January 3, 2004 7:10 PM

Getting quite fed-up of Postroad's racism. I take it it's not an acceptable form of speech to characterise a whole nation as violent as it's most anti-social elements?
posted by dash_slot- to etiquette/policy at 7:10 PM (78 comments total)

That's not racism, it's nationalism. Get your -isms straight before you go waving them around in public.
posted by subgenius at 7:17 PM on January 3, 2004

Well, in dash_slot's defense, the difference between a race (whatever that is) and a nation is hardly crucial to the point: people shouldn't act like dildos.
posted by Hildago at 7:24 PM on January 3, 2004

Getting quite fed-up of Postroad's nationalism. I take it it's not an acceptable form of speech to characterise a whole nation as violent as it's most anti-social elements?
posted by dash_slot- at 7:26 PM on January 3, 2004

outer slobovia sucks dogs.
posted by quonsar at 7:28 PM on January 3, 2004

I duno, I thought Postroad's post was funny. But I guess that must be the RACIST in me.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:33 PM on January 3, 2004

well, even objectively it's a very poor post, one link to news24 might as well be one link to cnn, it's hardly interesting, and certainly not the "best and most interesting of the web". Beyond that, I personally am tired of the anti-french garbage.

A good mental test is to think about what would happen if this were about some other country. I think it would be seen as offensive. As long as that other country wasn't Canada.
posted by rhyax at 7:34 PM on January 3, 2004

I'm tired of Q's Jingoism
and dashs J'Accusism
and Hildagos saying dildos are a BAD thingism and
no problem with subgenius
posted by clavdivs at 7:35 PM on January 3, 2004

By failing to explicitly limit the scope of his reference to Detroit, Postroad has characterized the entire populace of Detroit as prone to "fire guns during New Year's celebrations." Upon reading that, I immediately cancelled my plans to visit the Motor City for New Year's Eve 2004. Way to screw over Detroit, Postroad.

Luckily, I will now be travelling to France to set stuff on fire.
posted by subgenius at 7:40 PM on January 3, 2004

I take it it's not an acceptable form of speech to characterise a whole nation as violent as it's most anti-social element?

Oh please. Everyday I see a non-Americans taking pot shots at the US population because they disagree with its current leadership. People are allowed to stereotype. But they must accept their own loss of credibility in the process.
posted by BlueTrain at 7:48 PM on January 3, 2004

That's not racism, it's nationalism. Get your -isms straight before you go waving them around in public.

Actually, the original call of "xenophobia" was probably the most accurate. Postroad's free to feel xenophobic if he wants to, but he shouldn't expect the rest of us to laugh along with him. Quite frankly, the most confusing thing to me was what the hell Detroit had to do with anything...
posted by Jimbob at 7:50 PM on January 3, 2004

Quite frankly, the most confusing thing to me was what the hell Detroit had to do with anything...

The citizens of Detroit have a bad reputation for burning things on Halloween night. The citizens of France apparently have a habit of burning cars on New Year's Eve..... so....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 7:56 PM on January 3, 2004

People are allowed to stereotype. But they must accept their own loss of credibility in the process.

Bluetrain, I see your reasoning, but it seems to only work in this case because insulting the french is currently deemed acceptable. If the subject were frowned upon I think your argument would seem less cogent. For instance, if I made a post about how Ethiopians are skinny, the Israelis cheap and greedy, or the Japanese pedophiles, I'm pretty sure I'd get called out bigtime on it. Consistency sort of demands some call-out of Postroad, doesn't it?
posted by Hildago at 7:58 PM on January 3, 2004

as its most anti-social elements
posted by donth at 8:04 PM on January 3, 2004

Actually it is racism, since the French would heartily consider themselves an autonomous ethnic group, despite some folks' insistence that all white folk are white folk, period. Hate to break it to all the cereberal types who like to mock the French, but just because America has melted many to one doesn't mean they don't have distinct ethnic identities in their countries of origin. I suppose "mick," "dago," and "heeb" are all nationalist insults, because those people are light-skinned?

I frequently enjoy Postroad's contributions, but posts like this are an undesireable alternative to masturbation.
posted by scarabic at 8:10 PM on January 3, 2004

I don't want to desconstruct Postroad's post too carefully because it's not that deep, but the post, in plain terms, was as follows:

French people, like Detroit people, have stupid ways of celebrating. Maybe the French aren't as tasteful, refined, and well cultured as the world would like to believe.

That's all I'm reading here. It's a lame post and is inflammatory, but quite frankly, I didn't see anyone call out XQUZYPHYR's post regarding Robertson's vision of God. Stupid posts are made quite frequently here. I hardly think that calling Postroad a racist, a xenophobe, or a nationalist will solve anything, though.
posted by BlueTrain at 8:10 PM on January 3, 2004

I suppose "mick," "dago," and "heeb" are all nationalist insults, because those people are light-skinned?

Well, they certainly aren't racist, since they are based on cultural traits or (gasp) national heritage, not "race."
posted by rushmc at 8:27 PM on January 3, 2004

Postroad has posted 311 links and 2704 comments to MetaFilter
and no threads and no comments to MetaTalk

I guess community censure will have little to no effect on this anyhow (even if we could agree).
posted by dash_slot- at 8:28 PM on January 3, 2004

If anything this was an effort on Postroad's part towards cultural understanding, in the "we're none of us perfect" vein.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:29 PM on January 3, 2004

I frequently enjoy Postroad's contributions, but posts like this are an undesirable alternative to masturbation.

*backs slowly away, cackling*
posted by y2karl at 8:49 PM on January 3, 2004

Steve@ Says: The citizens of Detroit have a bad reputation for burning things on Halloween night

Mmm, maybe if Postroad had expanded on the post into a wider analysis of silly people burning things on special days, it wouldn't have attracted to much attention. Although, it's good to see other people have taken on that job in the thread.
posted by Jimbob at 8:57 PM on January 3, 2004

Scarabic, who are these "French" who would consider themselves an autonomous ethnic group? White folks? Or do all the peoples of France (e.g., not only white folks but the Moslem and Jewish communities, both of which seem to be having turbulent experiences of late) transcend the myth of "race" to adopt a common shared heritage as Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys?
posted by subgenius at 9:13 PM on January 3, 2004

I suspect Postroad didn't know about the Detroit's traditional arson on Devil's Night and obliviously and accidentally brought up the worst possible American city to cite for Halloween traditions when pointing out French holiday arson. That was my take, and I hopped on pointing out that we Americans have a much longer tradition for holiday arson than the French. Which is a fact.

On a side note: Why is it that the people who get the most hot and bothered about the Bush haters here always turn out to be the ones who still have the biggest hairs up their ass about Bill and Hillary Clinton?
posted by y2karl at 9:27 PM on January 3, 2004

MetaFilter: Where the least of links generates the greatest amount of whining.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:27 PM on January 3, 2004

Why is it that the people who get the most hot and bothered about the Bush haters here always turn out to be the ones who still have the biggest hairs up their ass about Bill and Hillary Clinton?

For the same reason that sometimes parents must play a child's game to prove a point. Sometimes the only way people understand their own shortcomings is to be introduced, directly, to them.

While I cannot say that all Clinton-bashing is "good" or "bad", I can state that Bush-bashers, like Clinton-bashers, occasionally need a taste of their own medicine to understand their own behavior.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:32 PM on January 3, 2004

Bashing the French, who are our allies in Afghanistan, with troops on the ground in harm's way, for opposing our war in Iraq is dumb, no matter how much fun it is for our some of members. Get a clue, kids. If they are willingly putting their lives on the line for us in Afghanistan, how is it that they are our enemies?

Calling French bashing racism is way over the top but it does derive from the same impulse. People are more motivated by having an enemy group than a high ideal. This is why the Christian right hopped on the homosexuals--after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they needed a new enemy to demonize so as to keep the contributions rolling in.

I will say, however, that some of our Francophobes aren't on the homophobe tip as well. For example: So, where are you guys--Bluetrain and Steve At Linnwood--on the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage?
posted by y2karl at 9:43 PM on January 3, 2004

Yeah, because I know seeing some crank go on about the Clinton's death list (often cleverly spelling it 'klinton', those witty devils) always makes me see the error of my ways in criticizing the idiotic policies of the current US administration.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:43 PM on January 3, 2004

Way to miss the point, Space Coyote. Try this: mentioning Bush's financial mishaps with depth and insight is good. Calling him a crook every other post is bad. Mentioning Clinton's inaction toward Osama bin Laden with depth and insight is good. Calling him a supporter of bin Laden is bad. See how that works? Hyperbole and one-liners are usally very unnecessary and only seek to polarize your audience.

y2karl, when did I become a Francophobe?
posted by BlueTrain at 9:54 PM on January 3, 2004

subgenius, I guess not all residents of the nation of France derive, ethnically, from the area, but many do. What would you call them? Ethnicity is a dynamic thing, always evolving and recombining. Even a 30-generation native of France is likely to have some odd mixture of Celtic, Frankish, Gallic, and Roman ancestry. Does this mean they're not, ethnically-speaking, French? What else are they? I'm just saying that if you think calling an Italian a "dago" is racist, then French-bashing can't be far off.

I don't really know, actually. I'm pretty sick of the French-bashing, though, so I'm willing to play devil's advocate on this one. I will agree that bombing cars for fun is fucked up. I just won't milk the news item for national/ethnic finger-pointing value while I'm at it.
posted by scarabic at 10:09 PM on January 3, 2004

y2karl, when did I become a Francophobe?

Why ask me--you're the self-appointed mindreader here.
posted by y2karl at 10:22 PM on January 3, 2004

re: racism, nationalism, etc., I think "bigotry" is the universal wrench we are looking for.
posted by taz at 10:56 PM on January 3, 2004

Stupidity comes to mind as well.
posted by y2karl at 11:05 PM on January 3, 2004

And Francophobe or not, I'm still waiting to see where you guys fall on the question of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. For or against?
posted by y2karl at 11:07 PM on January 3, 2004

Against, but I doubt it will ever get free from the states.
posted by mischief at 11:14 PM on January 3, 2004

As a point of order, when someone makes a joke about "the french", you and I both know they're not talking about a cross-section of the French population. They aren't talking about, for instance, an Algierian immigrant, or a Japanese person living in Paris. They're talking about a stereotype of a French person, white, male, wearing a beret, smoking a cigarette, et cetera.

This is the issue, and we know it's true, because if they weren't talking about a stereotype, they wouldn't be making broad generalizations like this in the first place.
posted by Hildago at 11:14 PM on January 3, 2004

Tonight I watched "Day of The Jackal." It had lots of Citroens in it, none burned. Happy-making.
posted by adamgreenfield at 11:16 PM on January 3, 2004

Oh please. Everyday I see a non-Americans taking pot shots at the US population because they disagree with its current leadership. People are allowed to stereotype. But they must accept their own loss of credibility in the process.

Now, me, I take potshots at the US population because they're Pure Evil. If that's stereotyping, well, golly, I don't know what to do. [/satire]

Way to get it entirely wrong, there, Bluetrain. Everyday I see non-Americans (and Americans, a-plenty, let us be clear) take shots at the current leadership of America because they disagree with that its current leadership. The fact that you (and so many of your countrymen) apparently take it to be a tautology that 'those who despise America's government despise Americans' is regrettable, as it is clearly what the leadership of Bushco believes, and leads to more bloodshed and more willful misunderstanding with each turn of the worm.

Way to go. Gold freaking star.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:19 PM on January 3, 2004

So, where are you guys--Bluetrain and Steve At Linnwood--on the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage?

Just once, could you try not to change the subject?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:36 PM on January 3, 2004

That's all I'm reading here. It's a lame post and is inflammatory, but quite frankly, I didn't see anyone call out XQUZYPHYR's post regarding Robertson's vision of God.

Except of course when you tried to shit all over it directly in the thread and everyone pretty much ignored it. Perhaps now you can frame an Ask topic so you can somehow throw a third tantrum about it.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 1:07 AM on January 4, 2004

That's not racism, it's nationalism.

No. Nationalism is about national pride, aspirations toward national independence, and/or a general belief in the benefits of nations acting alone to their own ends rather than collectively.

Nationalism is not discrimination on the basis of nationality. Discrimination on the basis of nationality is a form of racism, given that the term "race" can be used as a casual interchange for nationality, and that some nations are comprised of particular ethnicities. It's a woolly use of the term, admittedly, and xenophobic is more exact.

So yeah - get your isms straight...

That said, I don't really see that Postroad's comment was either racist, nationalistic, or xenophobic. People don't seem to agree as to whether PR was offensive to Americans or the French (so, I'm assuming both), but here's how I read the post.

"In Detroit, it has been a custom to fire guns during New Year's celebrations"

Either that's true or it isn't. If it's true, then no cause to complain, if it's untrue, then the problem is falsehood, not racism.

"Perhaps we should put aside our current dislike of the French and borrow this fine way to usher in a brand new year"

OK... following on from "freedom fries" and similar episodes, there is a perception that Americans do not like the French. Sure, you can't make an assumption about any individual, and sure, perhaps it's a load of baloney, but I read this comment as being a mocking reference to such perceptions. If anything I read an implication that the "our hatred" was supposed to be ridiculous. Did I imagine it? At least, when there's room for doubt I'm quite happy to give the writer benefit of the doubt rather than assume the worst.

"After all, it is the French who have given us taste, culture, refinement, and the liberty of self-expression"

Possibly the least defensible line of the post, but I think it's probably a fair assessment to credit France with those attributes, not to apply for a moment that every French person yada yada...

I've said this before, but anyway: racism is absolutely abhorrent, therefore to call someone a racist is a very big deal. To call someone racist when they are not is a very very lame thing to do. There are several ways to take some of things PR said in his post, but only one way to take them if you credit the guy with any decency and intelligence. If we approach metafilter with a positive mindset (more like ask.mefi) then we do at the moment, then I don't think this sort of nonsense will arise.

If this MeTa had said "easy on the tongue-in-cheek national stereotypes" I probably wouldn't have said a word. Better yet, clarify what it was PR meant.

"I take it it's not an acceptable form of speech to characterise a whole nation as violent as it's most anti-social elements?"

He really, really, didn't say anything that implies that.
posted by nthdegx at 3:29 AM on January 4, 2004

Nationalism is not discrimination on the basis of nationality.

To ilustrate the point :- Mahatma Gandhi on Nationalism in India. A nationalist, but not a bigot of any description, surely.
posted by plep at 5:36 AM on January 4, 2004

Postroad has posted 311 links and 2704 comments to MetaFilter and no threads and no comments to MetaTalk.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:39 AM on January 4, 2004

Just once, could you try not to change the subject?

Heavens, changing the subject was never my intention--it was just a random thought.

I notice neither of you can simply answer my question. Afraid?
posted by y2karl at 7:10 AM on January 4, 2004

So, where are you guys--Bluetrain and Steve At Linnwood--on the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage?

Personally, I'm against. If you allow people of the Gay Persuasion to marry, next thing you know you'll also have Black people marrying Whites, leading to miscegenation, Chaos, possibly Armageddon

same thing for gays in the military: let them in, and then the Blacks will ask to desegregate the Armed Forces
posted by matteo at 7:12 AM on January 4, 2004

The fact that you (and so many of your countrymen) apparently take it to be a tautology that 'those who despise America's government despise Americans' is regrettable, as it is clearly what the leadership of Bushco believes

Do they? Or do they just promote the idea because it garners support and advances their agenda?
posted by rushmc at 8:53 AM on January 4, 2004

Way to go. Gold freaking star.

My argument doesn't exist by itself. I agree with you that there are those who seek only to garner support for their side and polarize the citizenry. I agree that the Bush Administration has successfully accomplished their agenda of causing the American people to ignore the true crimes and now only focus on what they're told.

But, but...I restate my original point. There are those out there, and I've read them here (among other places, of course), who stereotype Americans and their agenda based on current leadership. Instead of critically discussing policies over the past few years and decades, they surmise that all of America's problems are because of the Bush Administration.

Perhaps now you can frame an Ask topic so you can somehow throw a third tantrum about it.

No need. The value of your post is quite clear now. It stands as the pinnacle of "best of the web" and "hard to find".

I notice neither of you can simply answer my question. Afraid?

Afraid of what, you troll. I'm a minority, you presumptuous ass, and therefore understand the value of protecting minority rights. I think the very notion of an amendment against gay marriage shows how pathetic politics has become. And if Bush wins again, (which, sadly, is inevitable considering how pathetic his competition is at the moment) it will show further how incredibly stupid our population has become. For two reasons. Half the population who voted for him and the other half who were too stupid to convince the first half otherwise.

You do realize, y2karl, that the reason I object to Bush-bashing is not because I like Bush, but because it immediately puts your audience into one camp or another. Us vs. them. You don't try to win over your audience with reason, facts, and logic but with rhetoric and cheesy catch-phrases.

How remarkably stupid. One the one hand, you (general you) hate conservatives for calling everyone terrorists, supposedly (even though that in itself is a farce), but have no objection calling conservatives fascists, idiots, and crooks. You're playing "their" game and expect respect.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:42 AM on January 4, 2004

And forgive me if I seem rather harsh toward gay rights, because that wasn't my intention. I just find it rather difficult to believe that after all the minority issues we've had in the recent past, (MLK Jr., Korematsu, 9-11) that this country's natural inclination would be to grant gays equal status. But I also assumed, incorrectly, that this site would be far more forgiving with its slow progress.

While I understand that there are many gays who frequent this site, the reality of social change is quite obvious. And given that only recently, (past few years) more progressive countries have given civil unions equal status, the US was bound to follow suit.

I've said this before, but you can't compare a country with 30 million to a country with 300 million when it comes to social changes. There is a huge difference in ability to inform the public accurately. Take cell phone usage, for instance. NYC, if I'm not mistaken, has a ban on usage while driving. How likely is it that the entire US could follow suit?
posted by BlueTrain at 10:09 AM on January 4, 2004

Karl, your ... your no better then Matteo these days and someone needs to prick your balloon son. What kind of question is that (amendment one) huh. Are you that stupid, ARE YOU. You are a coward to change the subject to one that is even to dumb to contemplate. (gay marrage should be decided on the state level, yes a federal law may be needed to make sure these rights will be upheld in other states where the law may not apply)


Calling French bashing racism is way over the top but it does derive from the same impulse

BA-Jebus man your BRIGHT.
same impulse
IMPULSE?
posted by clavdivs at 10:17 AM on January 4, 2004

Surely you can find smaller nits to be picked than that.
posted by y2karl at 10:22 AM on January 4, 2004

I watched the "Matrix 3", a couple of days ago, when it came to my town's el-cheapo $4.50 (and they serve pitchers of beer too!) cinema, and I wondered about that nasty, mercenary french guy who says he has to have the eyeballs of the oracle. What was his name - the Slobovingian or something?

The French - they're so mercenary. Not like the selfless, principled Americans. Plus, they smell bad and eat lots of runny cheese. I've heard they have a lot of sex though, and that the french women do not shave their legs or underarms. I find underarm hair to be a turn on, and virtually all of the women I've become involved with haven't shaved their legs (at least at first). Does this make me a little bit french? If so, should I loathe, or punish myself a little bit for my bit of frenchness? Can I have my frenchness surgically extracted or otherwise removed, or do I have to live with it for the rest of my life?
posted by troutfishing at 12:09 PM on January 4, 2004

should I loathe, or punish myself a little bit for my bit of frenchness?

oui.
posted by quonsar at 12:17 PM on January 4, 2004

How remarkably stupid.

Considering the source, how remarkably ironic.
posted by y2karl at 12:42 PM on January 4, 2004

(clavdivs defers the smaller nits)

does karl know the effort, consensus and resources that go into a amendment to the constitution?

the last one was about themselves.

Amendment XXVII
No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Be realistic.
posted by clavdivs at 1:02 PM on January 4, 2004

OT

/ot

Last. Meta-thread. Ever.
posted by dash_slot- at 1:17 PM on January 4, 2004

There are those out there, and I've read them here (among other places, of course), who stereotype Americans and their agenda based on current leadership.

Nur. Fair enough. I would venture that those're conscious rhetorical shortcuts in many cases, more than anything else, but I'll take your point as read, if disputed.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:07 PM on January 4, 2004

posted by dhoyt at 3:56 PM on January 4, 2004

Well, this certainly wasn't the bone of contention over in the link our own Rhynchocephalian provides in the blue. They thought it was funny, too.
It's a warped reality we live in.
posted by y2karl at 5:18 PM on January 4, 2004

It's a warped reality we live in.

yes, y2karl, you could say that.
posted by poopy at 5:36 PM on January 4, 2004

Someone said they're sick of the French bashing. That's pretty funny.

Go gays!
posted by Witty at 5:38 AM on January 5, 2004

F 'em.
posted by hama7 at 6:48 AM on January 5, 2004

Frankly, if PR must post this crap here at least he's saving space on his own so called 'blog for some of the finer points of humanity.
(or so I'm told not that I'd frequent it)
posted by DBAPaul at 8:12 AM on January 5, 2004

BA-Jebus man your BRIGHT.
same impulse
IMPULSE?


well, some might argue that racism (or nationalism, or violence) comes from a quite reptilian part of the human brain -- just like, you know, fear. but it's ultimately moot.

see, I'm not into neurology that much -- it's just that as a casual European observer I'm especially amused by the US vs France thing. I mean, the French always making a point of turning artists considered hacks by Americans (Fuller, Ray, Hitchcock, etc) into heroes. and I still think that the "Freedom Fries" childish American outburst is probably the only truly funny consequence of 9-11. a Kubrickian joke if there ever was one -- the war on French food, fought with Homer Simpson as geopolitical theorist and goofy rebranding as the ultimate weapon. Freedom Fries, anyone, children?
amazing how that childishness totally gave ammunition to what the French (and most non-Americans, actually) have always thought, maybe mistakenly -- ie that the peculiarly American brand of French-hate ultimately comes from a terrible cultural inferiority complex


(I also find marginally funny the way the most hateful warblogs -- ie most of them -- call John Kerry "French-looking" to insult him. because we all know how good All-American Newt Gingrich, Cheney and Limbaugh actually look)

posted by matteo at 9:02 AM on January 5, 2004

Hey, if this is/was acceptable MeFi material, then ANYthing is game as far as I'm concerned.
posted by Witty at 9:24 AM on January 5, 2004

yes, y2karl, you could say that.

Actually, I was quoting someone as amused at Postroad's bon mot as the crew at Little Green Footballs.
posted by y2karl at 9:31 AM on January 5, 2004

what the French (and most non-Americans, actually) have always thought, maybe mistakenly -- ie that the peculiarly American brand of French-hate ultimately comes from a terrible cultural inferiority complex

I'd have to say that anyone who truly believes this in 2004 is reading way too much into it. The average American has virtually no knowledge or experience of French culture beyond the level of le French fry, and THAT is why that becomes the target of their self-important rage. What happens in France, as with the rest of Europe—and indeed, the world—is of virtually no concern to the average American, who nestles warm and protected in his unquestioned conviction of absolute cultural superiority.
posted by rushmc at 10:26 AM on January 5, 2004

Fuckin' average people. They're so... average. I mean why can't everybody be above average (aside from the mathematical possibility)?

Who's in the above average club? ME! Looks like rushmc is. Anyone else? y2karl, you in?
posted by Witty at 3:52 PM on January 5, 2004

...because we all know how good All-American Newt Gingrich, Cheney and Limbaugh actually look
Those beady-eyed, scary pigmen? *shivers*
posted by amberglow at 4:03 PM on January 5, 2004

I could never join a club that would accept Witty as a member.

Harpo Marx
posted by y2karl at 6:38 PM on January 5, 2004

That's all I'm reading here. It's a lame post and is inflammatory, but quite frankly, I didn't see anyone call out XQUZYPHYR's post regarding Robertson's vision of God.

Except of course when you tried to shit all over it directly in the thread and everyone pretty much ignored it.

I tried, anyway. The interesting links were probably my mistake.
posted by namespan at 10:13 PM on January 5, 2004

this reptilian part of the brain, does it slither?
posted by clavdivs at 8:28 AM on January 6, 2004

Harpo Marx

You mean Groucho. He was the witty one. Harpo played the harp.
posted by languagehat at 8:34 AM on January 6, 2004

Er, never mind. I think I overlooked your point.
posted by languagehat at 8:35 AM on January 6, 2004

You mean Groucho. He was the witty one. Harpo played the harp.

So Harpoon Marx was the porn star?
posted by rushmc at 6:34 PM on January 6, 2004

No, that was Stretch Marx.
posted by languagehat at 7:57 PM on January 6, 2004

And Sir Marxalot was the rap artist? Okay, I think I've got it straight now.
posted by rushmc at 8:18 PM on January 6, 2004

And Diacritical Marx was languagehat's favorite university professor.
posted by taz at 1:38 AM on January 7, 2004

Didn't Skidd Marx used to post here?
posted by rushmc at 9:02 AM on January 7, 2004

he did, until he got booted for double posting...
posted by taz at 9:11 AM on January 7, 2004

And don't forget Zippo Marx--he was always good for a laugh when he got lit up.
posted by y2karl at 10:01 AM on January 7, 2004