Can we make jokes in AskMe? March 14, 2004 1:08 AM Subscribe
Would some "wisecracks" liven Ask Meta up a bit ?
We've all behaved very well so far.
We've all behaved very well so far.
Nothing wrong with adding a joke to your answer, the notice is just there to prevent rampant quonsaring. And if you have a wisecrack you really think is so great it just has to be shared, a little googling can make you knowledgeable enough on any topic to allow you to at least add something to the discussion/answering while making your wisecrack, at which point nobody will mind. In fact, a few seconds of googling can flat out answer a lot of the recent questions on Ask, I've been meaning to start a MetaTalk about it but I'm just too nice a person…
posted by fvw at 1:22 AM on March 14, 2004
posted by fvw at 1:22 AM on March 14, 2004
Please no, that's what MetaTalk is for.
posted by Space Coyote at 3:32 AM on March 14, 2004
posted by Space Coyote at 3:32 AM on March 14, 2004
No, that is not what Metatalk is for.
As fvw said, there's no harm with levity in your answer in AskMe, of course, as long as you are actually answering the question.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:04 AM on March 14, 2004
As fvw said, there's no harm with levity in your answer in AskMe, of course, as long as you are actually answering the question.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:04 AM on March 14, 2004
No, that is not what Metatalk is for.
posted by Keyser Soze at 4:16 AM on March 14, 2004
posted by Keyser Soze at 4:16 AM on March 14, 2004
can we just delete the googlenazi comments ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:34 AM on March 14, 2004
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:34 AM on March 14, 2004
No, that is not what Metatalk is for.
Cute. Now that I think about it, didn't you have a MeTa thread deleted, like, yesterday, Keyser, one whose topic was, in its entirety, your good grades (or something like that)?
It seems you've got some ideas about what Metatalk is about that might be somewhat divergent from 'a discussion area for topics specific to MetaFilter itself, ranging from bug reports to feature requests to questions of content'.
How about you share them with us, then?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:13 AM on March 14, 2004
Cute. Now that I think about it, didn't you have a MeTa thread deleted, like, yesterday, Keyser, one whose topic was, in its entirety, your good grades (or something like that)?
It seems you've got some ideas about what Metatalk is about that might be somewhat divergent from 'a discussion area for topics specific to MetaFilter itself, ranging from bug reports to feature requests to questions of content'.
How about you share them with us, then?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:13 AM on March 14, 2004
get out of the wrong side of the coop this morning, wonderchicken? i think space coyote was joking (although i have no idea what ks is on about - maybe he just saw a shiny object?).
oh, and godwin.
posted by andrew cooke at 5:26 AM on March 14, 2004
oh, and godwin.
posted by andrew cooke at 5:26 AM on March 14, 2004
It's bedtime here, andrew.
Yeah, OK, I was excessively cranky. They are what they are, the grey and the blue too. But I'd really hate to see the green go similarly noise-swamped and pear-shaped.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:30 AM on March 14, 2004
Yeah, OK, I was excessively cranky. They are what they are, the grey and the blue too. But I'd really hate to see the green go similarly noise-swamped and pear-shaped.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:30 AM on March 14, 2004
that question could easily have been answered by googling , andrew.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:51 AM on March 14, 2004
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:51 AM on March 14, 2004
Didn't someone get banned recently for wisecracks in AskMetafilter?
posted by macadamiaranch at 6:07 AM on March 14, 2004
posted by macadamiaranch at 6:07 AM on March 14, 2004
Hell, some of the valid answers make the respondents look like idiots, including a couple of mine. ;-P
posted by mischief at 6:57 AM on March 14, 2004
posted by mischief at 6:57 AM on March 14, 2004
I can't for amount support the practice of doing some half-cocked google research just in order to justifiably quip your way into a thread, fvw. Levity I can get with. Wisecracks would be fine, but 90% of metafilter wisecracks are designed to make other members look small. If this means users are less inclined to turn to Ask.me for answers then that's a very bad thing. How about some self-deprecating wise crackery?
posted by nthdegx at 7:44 AM on March 14, 2004
posted by nthdegx at 7:44 AM on March 14, 2004
can we just delete the googlenazi comments?
Frankly, I think providing an accurate Google link is worthwhile, because:
1. People are posting too many easily-Googleable questions which they would have realized, had they spent five minutes parsing search results. Ask MetaFilter is not (and should not be) an excuse to exert no effort searching for answers yourself.
2. People are posting too many questions that have already been answered. Do we really need a new "Which Content Management Software should I use?" or "How can I convert Audio Format X into Audio Format Y?" thread on a weekly basis?
3. Often, people may be unaware of the proper syntax or keywords through which they could find information via Google. Rather than simply dumping a list of the first ten links, teaching them to use Google more effectively will prove more useful to those who post questions. "Give a man a fish, etc."
posted by Danelope at 7:54 AM on March 14, 2004
Frankly, I think providing an accurate Google link is worthwhile, because:
1. People are posting too many easily-Googleable questions which they would have realized, had they spent five minutes parsing search results. Ask MetaFilter is not (and should not be) an excuse to exert no effort searching for answers yourself.
2. People are posting too many questions that have already been answered. Do we really need a new "Which Content Management Software should I use?" or "How can I convert Audio Format X into Audio Format Y?" thread on a weekly basis?
3. Often, people may be unaware of the proper syntax or keywords through which they could find information via Google. Rather than simply dumping a list of the first ten links, teaching them to use Google more effectively will prove more useful to those who post questions. "Give a man a fish, etc."
posted by Danelope at 7:54 AM on March 14, 2004
Another vote from yours truly for leaving wisecracks and snark factory out of AskMe. That's what #mefi IRC is for, IMHO.
posted by yoga at 8:38 AM on March 14, 2004
posted by yoga at 8:38 AM on March 14, 2004
IMO we need more googlenazi-ing. There is no excuse for using AskMe when Google can provide the answer quickly and easily.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:00 AM on March 14, 2004
posted by five fresh fish at 9:00 AM on March 14, 2004
IMO we need more googlenazi-ing. There is no excuse for using AskMe when Google can provide the answer quickly and easily.
Gotta agree here. And stop calling everything you disagree with "*nazi-ing".
posted by jpoulos at 9:03 AM on March 14, 2004
Gotta agree here. And stop calling everything you disagree with "*nazi-ing".
posted by jpoulos at 9:03 AM on March 14, 2004
Frankly I can tolerate the wisecracks better than the answers that aren't really answers. If someone asks for an alternative to snaking a clogged sink, don't try to change their mind by telling them the best brand of snake to buy, how to use it properly, and all the various advantages to snaking versus dran-o. People aren't stupid (an assumption I will only make here) and if they ask for an alternative, that's what they're looking for.
posted by scarabic at 9:13 AM on March 14, 2004
posted by scarabic at 9:13 AM on March 14, 2004
You know, there *are* things that can easily be looked up on Google, but sometimes you want to know what the Hivemind thinks. Google is fairly easily swayed, and doesn't have the specialized knowledge that many of us have.
posted by bshort at 9:28 AM on March 14, 2004
posted by bshort at 9:28 AM on March 14, 2004
IMO we need more googlenazi-ing. There is no excuse for using AskMe when Google can provide the answer quickly and easily.
I respectfully disagree. I do not mind answering questions that could be easily Googled. Google is a great tool, but people are better for many things.
Now, if the question is "what is the capitol of paraguay," go ahead and Google it, sure. But if the question is "What are some fun things to do in Paraguay," you could google and find a travel site or somebody's blog entry, but I say AskMetafilter is a better resource, because:
1. The people who answer your question are writing their answers in response to your inquiry, not just writing up their experiences on a blog, or trying to make money, like on a travel site.
2. A thread made by humans experiences a phenomenon of automatic filtering and cross-referencing. In other words, people respond both to your initial question, but also to each other, such that things you would never have thought to Google come to the surface as if by magic. This is awesome.
3. There is a benefit to the people responding. They get to tell their stories, share their knowledge, seem smart and wise, and get the warm feeling of helping somebody and participating in a community. Every AskMetafilter thread requires at least two parties, and it wouldn't be so successful if both parties were not getting something out of it.
4. I will give you cookies if you agree with me on this.
Shit, I ran out of reasons.
posted by Hildago at 10:56 AM on March 14, 2004
I respectfully disagree. I do not mind answering questions that could be easily Googled. Google is a great tool, but people are better for many things.
Now, if the question is "what is the capitol of paraguay," go ahead and Google it, sure. But if the question is "What are some fun things to do in Paraguay," you could google and find a travel site or somebody's blog entry, but I say AskMetafilter is a better resource, because:
1. The people who answer your question are writing their answers in response to your inquiry, not just writing up their experiences on a blog, or trying to make money, like on a travel site.
2. A thread made by humans experiences a phenomenon of automatic filtering and cross-referencing. In other words, people respond both to your initial question, but also to each other, such that things you would never have thought to Google come to the surface as if by magic. This is awesome.
3. There is a benefit to the people responding. They get to tell their stories, share their knowledge, seem smart and wise, and get the warm feeling of helping somebody and participating in a community. Every AskMetafilter thread requires at least two parties, and it wouldn't be so successful if both parties were not getting something out of it.
4. I will give you cookies if you agree with me on this.
Shit, I ran out of reasons.
posted by Hildago at 10:56 AM on March 14, 2004
Frankly I can tolerate the wisecracks better than the answers that aren't really answers. If someone asks for an alternative to snaking a clogged sink, don't try to change their mind by telling them the best brand of snake to buy, how to use it properly, and all the various advantages to snaking versus dran-o. People aren't stupid (an assumption I will only make here) and if they ask for an alternative, that's what they're looking for.
I disagree. If someone asks what parachute to use when exiting a roof, I think it's reasonable and useful to suggest that they consider using a ladder instead.
posted by timeistight at 11:46 AM on March 14, 2004
I disagree. If someone asks what parachute to use when exiting a roof, I think it's reasonable and useful to suggest that they consider using a ladder instead.
posted by timeistight at 11:46 AM on March 14, 2004
IMO we need more googlenazi-ing. There is no excuse for using AskMe when Google can provide the answer quickly and easily.
There are two kinds of googlenazi responses:
1) "You could have googled this."
2) "I found some useful info using (link to a particular keyword search)."
(1) is snarky and not at all helpful. (2) gets the point across in a more subtle fashion, and may also help to instruct the poster in some of the finer points of the Tao of Google.
posted by Galvatron at 11:52 AM on March 14, 2004
There are two kinds of googlenazi responses:
1) "You could have googled this."
2) "I found some useful info using (link to a particular keyword search)."
(1) is snarky and not at all helpful. (2) gets the point across in a more subtle fashion, and may also help to instruct the poster in some of the finer points of the Tao of Google.
posted by Galvatron at 11:52 AM on March 14, 2004
Well, heck, just change the AskMeta link to point to google and problem solved! [/snark]
posted by konolia at 12:13 PM on March 14, 2004
posted by konolia at 12:13 PM on March 14, 2004
I disagree. If someone asks what parachute to use when exiting a roof, I think it's reasonable and useful to suggest that they consider using a ladder instead.
Sure, it seems obvious in hindsight.
posted by Hildago at 12:14 PM on March 14, 2004
Sure, it seems obvious in hindsight.
posted by Hildago at 12:14 PM on March 14, 2004
timestight: have you considered that the person asking the question has already put thought into the holistic problem, but really only needs your help solving the part of it they ask about? If we're talking about a 32 story building, a ladder isn't going to help, for example. Nope. Need a parachute. We can trade examples all day, but comandeering the thread to expand on the big picture of the person's problems isn't always helpful, because they may have already done all that homework, or there may be innumerable other circumstances you're not aware of that led the person to ask exactly what they asked.
In other words, if they ask how to get off the roof, suggest whatever you want. If they ask for a parachute, don't give them a ladder.
posted by scarabic at 12:15 PM on March 14, 2004
In other words, if they ask how to get off the roof, suggest whatever you want. If they ask for a parachute, don't give them a ladder.
posted by scarabic at 12:15 PM on March 14, 2004
Point taken, scarabic.
BTW, were you able to find any music-writing software that produced usable sheet music for your girlfriend?
posted by timeistight at 12:26 PM on March 14, 2004
BTW, were you able to find any music-writing software that produced usable sheet music for your girlfriend?
posted by timeistight at 12:26 PM on March 14, 2004
Look, a major benefit of AskMeta is not for the asker or the askee. The rest of us peruse these threads, and we learn stuff-stuff that we may not have thought of googling for ourselves.
Look, with all the crap and hell and death and misery going on in this whole earth, the piddling complaining about minor stuff around here needs to STOP.
Please.
posted by konolia at 1:59 PM on March 14, 2004
Look, with all the crap and hell and death and misery going on in this whole earth, the piddling complaining about minor stuff around here needs to STOP.
Please.
posted by konolia at 1:59 PM on March 14, 2004
It's a privilege to have the quality of life that allows one to complain about minor stuff.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:12 PM on March 14, 2004
posted by five fresh fish at 2:12 PM on March 14, 2004
is it called askmetafilter or askgoogle ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:37 PM on March 14, 2004
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:37 PM on March 14, 2004
Wow. I'm sorry I brought you to the brink of despair, konolia. I thought it was cool to discuss discussion dynamics here at MeTa, without being called to answser for all the misery in the world. Consider my point spoken and closed. Yeesh.
posted by scarabic at 5:10 PM on March 14, 2004
posted by scarabic at 5:10 PM on March 14, 2004
wake up, stavros. Just because I fucked up after some party doesn't mean we should all give ourselves permission to fill MetaTalk with shit.
posted by Keyser Soze at 6:27 PM on March 14, 2004
posted by Keyser Soze at 6:27 PM on March 14, 2004
Keyser, did you take the other test yet? how'd you do?
posted by amberglow at 7:12 PM on March 14, 2004
posted by amberglow at 7:12 PM on March 14, 2004
wake up, stavros.
Back off, sonny jim.
Just because I fucked up after some party doesn't mean we should all give ourselves permission to fill MetaTalk with shit.
Which differs from what I said how, precisely?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:18 PM on March 14, 2004
Back off, sonny jim.
Just because I fucked up after some party doesn't mean we should all give ourselves permission to fill MetaTalk with shit.
Which differs from what I said how, precisely?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:18 PM on March 14, 2004
4. I will give you cookies if you agree with me on this.
Sweet! I sense a promising potential trend in conflict resolution around here!
Of course, now if I agree with Hildago, you're all going to think it's suspect.
But I really really do. No, really.
posted by weston at 7:20 PM on March 14, 2004
Sweet! I sense a promising potential trend in conflict resolution around here!
Of course, now if I agree with Hildago, you're all going to think it's suspect.
But I really really do. No, really.
posted by weston at 7:20 PM on March 14, 2004
Cute.
Back off, sonny jim.
How about you share them with us, then?
I guess if you really want my opinion on the matter, I would venture to say that comments in this perception would be more advisable to be made in MetaTalk.
posted by Keyser Soze at 7:24 PM on March 14, 2004
Back off, sonny jim.
How about you share them with us, then?
I guess if you really want my opinion on the matter, I would venture to say that comments in this perception would be more advisable to be made in MetaTalk.
posted by Keyser Soze at 7:24 PM on March 14, 2004
Can yo please repeat that last sentence in English, Keyser Soze? It makes no sense in whatever language that is.
Also - grow up - you screwed up when you posted your drunken MetaTalk thread, now cop the consequences for it. A bit of gentle ribbing will not hurt you any.
posted by dg at 7:40 PM on March 14, 2004
Also - grow up - you screwed up when you posted your drunken MetaTalk thread, now cop the consequences for it. A bit of gentle ribbing will not hurt you any.
posted by dg at 7:40 PM on March 14, 2004
Cute. Now that I think about it, didn't you have a MeTa thread deleted, like, yesterday, Keyser, one whose topic was, in its entirety, your good grades (or something like that)?
Oh my god, how did I miss that? NOOOOOOOO.
Grades aren't important, you pedant (/english major rant)
posted by The God Complex at 7:46 PM on March 14, 2004
Oh my god, how did I miss that? NOOOOOOOO.
Grades aren't important, you pedant (/english major rant)
posted by The God Complex at 7:46 PM on March 14, 2004
On Google-nazism: I'm not the worst of them, but I count myself among their number. I do so chiefly because I fancy myself capable of smelling -- most of the time -- a poorly-researched question that truly could benefit from "this is the search term you were missing." Occasionally I misstep, but every Google results link I offer is in a spirit of goodwill, not one of belittlement. A backhanded attitude is uncalled-for even in the feeblest of honest questions.
On handing out ladders: Again, it's pretty easy to tell when a question is a misinformed one, as opposed to one that has specific requirements. Several questioners have openly admitted or demonstrated a deep misunderstanding or ignorance of their question's subject, and they stand to benefit from being taught as opposed to merely answered. This isn't always the case, but it's frequent enough, particularly with respect to the technical questions. Not everyone knows what the hell they're asking for. I'd rather we be too helpful than assume expertise and wind up answering over the questioner's head. That said, there have been more than a few apalling examples of unhelpful ladder-offering that might better be considered useless snarkiness than sincere attempts at helpfulness.
On polling the hivemind: I've got mixed feelings about these questions. I generally dislike them, but there are good poll questions such as the travel questions which take advantage of the broad range of experience and location that the community (such as it is) has. Some of the other poll questions have been kind of horrifying to me, but I can't muster a coherent argument against them beyond my feeling they generally go against The Point of Ask, and a suspicion that the place could easily degenerate into a bunch of "what's your favorite" chat.
On wisecracks: No. If there's no way in hell it can pass for an actual answer, restraint should be used. I've had to hold myself back several times, and others have said the same of themselves, but it's a better place for it. That said, a great majority of questions and answers could benefit from a little humor, though not all.
posted by majick at 8:09 PM on March 14, 2004
On handing out ladders: Again, it's pretty easy to tell when a question is a misinformed one, as opposed to one that has specific requirements. Several questioners have openly admitted or demonstrated a deep misunderstanding or ignorance of their question's subject, and they stand to benefit from being taught as opposed to merely answered. This isn't always the case, but it's frequent enough, particularly with respect to the technical questions. Not everyone knows what the hell they're asking for. I'd rather we be too helpful than assume expertise and wind up answering over the questioner's head. That said, there have been more than a few apalling examples of unhelpful ladder-offering that might better be considered useless snarkiness than sincere attempts at helpfulness.
On polling the hivemind: I've got mixed feelings about these questions. I generally dislike them, but there are good poll questions such as the travel questions which take advantage of the broad range of experience and location that the community (such as it is) has. Some of the other poll questions have been kind of horrifying to me, but I can't muster a coherent argument against them beyond my feeling they generally go against The Point of Ask, and a suspicion that the place could easily degenerate into a bunch of "what's your favorite" chat.
On wisecracks: No. If there's no way in hell it can pass for an actual answer, restraint should be used. I've had to hold myself back several times, and others have said the same of themselves, but it's a better place for it. That said, a great majority of questions and answers could benefit from a little humor, though not all.
posted by majick at 8:09 PM on March 14, 2004
Handbags at 20 paces, Keyser? En garde!
(...yeah, I know, I just yesterday chastized Miguel for posting inline images. I am a bad, cranky man.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:54 PM on March 14, 2004
(...yeah, I know, I just yesterday chastized Miguel for posting inline images. I am a bad, cranky man.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:54 PM on March 14, 2004
timestight: have you considered that the person asking the question has already put thought into the holistic problem, but really only needs your help solving the part of it they ask about? If we're talking about a 32 story building, a ladder isn't going to help, for example. Nope. Need a parachute. We can trade examples all day, but comandeering the thread to expand on the big picture of the person's problems isn't always helpful, because they may have already done all that homework, or there may be innumerable other circumstances you're not aware of that led the person to ask exactly what they asked.
If so, they should say so in the question or the MI. "Which parachute is best for getting off of a building? I can't use a ladder because I'm 32 stories up." Your solution would just have us assume that the asker has considered and rejected every other one of the dozens of ways to get off of a building.
A good questioner will ask about his true need: "What's the best way to get down from the roof of a 32 story building?" And include any obvious things he's already tried: "The door off of the roof is locked." But questioners don't always ask about their true need--sometimes you have to draw that out of them. Having worked at a library reference desk, that's something you learn quickly. ("Do you have a Tokyo phone book?" A good reference librarian will answer, "No, what were you looking for? There may be some other way we can find it. A mediocre reference librarian will just answer "No." But if the questioner had asked for his true need in the first place--"I need the phone number for such-and-such hotel in Tokyo"--he might have gotten a useful answer even from the mediocre librarian.)
I seem to remember that there have been questions where some people gave answers which did not strictly answer the question asked, but were more of the "here's an alternate solution you may not have considered" variety, and those answers were praised by the original asker. Oh look, here's one on the front page right now. I'm sure I could find several more if I went back through the archives.
Bottom line, I don't think we can assume that the questioner has already considered and rejected the possibility of using a ladder if he doesn't say he has. If he has, it's at worst a minor annoyance to read the suggestion; but if he hasn't, it's potentially very valuable and useful information.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 7:43 AM on March 15, 2004
If so, they should say so in the question or the MI. "Which parachute is best for getting off of a building? I can't use a ladder because I'm 32 stories up." Your solution would just have us assume that the asker has considered and rejected every other one of the dozens of ways to get off of a building.
A good questioner will ask about his true need: "What's the best way to get down from the roof of a 32 story building?" And include any obvious things he's already tried: "The door off of the roof is locked." But questioners don't always ask about their true need--sometimes you have to draw that out of them. Having worked at a library reference desk, that's something you learn quickly. ("Do you have a Tokyo phone book?" A good reference librarian will answer, "No, what were you looking for? There may be some other way we can find it. A mediocre reference librarian will just answer "No." But if the questioner had asked for his true need in the first place--"I need the phone number for such-and-such hotel in Tokyo"--he might have gotten a useful answer even from the mediocre librarian.)
I seem to remember that there have been questions where some people gave answers which did not strictly answer the question asked, but were more of the "here's an alternate solution you may not have considered" variety, and those answers were praised by the original asker. Oh look, here's one on the front page right now. I'm sure I could find several more if I went back through the archives.
Bottom line, I don't think we can assume that the questioner has already considered and rejected the possibility of using a ladder if he doesn't say he has. If he has, it's at worst a minor annoyance to read the suggestion; but if he hasn't, it's potentially very valuable and useful information.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 7:43 AM on March 15, 2004
and here we go with the whole ontology of questioning thing. should the software force conformance? should we spit on losers whose questions are dumb? can the appropriate spit trajectory be calculated in advance and the algorithm built into the software? leading of course, to the whole 'how dumb is dumb and why can't *i* be the final arbiter of dumbness' debate. THIS is why we don't have nice things. because pseudo-intellectual elitists, so desperate to belong to something nicer than the average elitist on the net, keep trying to make mefi that thing. fortunately for all of us normies, they have a fatal flaw. they deflate when you remove the cork from their ass.
PHOOSH!
messy. smelly. but so deliciously fun to watch them flap about the room, bashing into the walls and off the ceiling and making rude, fart-like noise as they offload their hot air.
gah! but wait!!!! who will think of the mathowie, that selfless soul??? like the digital Job he is - yoked forever to babysit the free server on the free T1 that pays his mortgage and sends him to run marathons in iceland, forced unmercifully to become known favorably across the world, leading to horrific situations like employment in areas of interest and other afflictions too dire to utter. i hang my head in shame.
ok. there, i've thought about him. duty complete!
posted by quonsar at 8:39 AM on March 15, 2004
PHOOSH!
messy. smelly. but so deliciously fun to watch them flap about the room, bashing into the walls and off the ceiling and making rude, fart-like noise as they offload their hot air.
gah! but wait!!!! who will think of the mathowie, that selfless soul??? like the digital Job he is - yoked forever to babysit the free server on the free T1 that pays his mortgage and sends him to run marathons in iceland, forced unmercifully to become known favorably across the world, leading to horrific situations like employment in areas of interest and other afflictions too dire to utter. i hang my head in shame.
ok. there, i've thought about him. duty complete!
posted by quonsar at 8:39 AM on March 15, 2004
MeFi/AskMe: Permission to fill MetaTalk with shit.
Damn q, you should write a novel, really! Maybe a road buddy thing along the lines of "Fear and Loathing..."
Welcome back, friend!
posted by mischief at 8:55 AM on March 15, 2004
Damn q, you should write a novel, really! Maybe a road buddy thing along the lines of "Fear and Loathing..."
Welcome back, friend!
posted by mischief at 8:55 AM on March 15, 2004
Here's a funny example of quonsar's latent hypocrisy, if there was ever any doubt:
ah, we approach the crux! you see Seth, greens and homos and christies are funadamentally (no pun) different. a green acts based on his considered opinions and scientific/spiritual concern for the viability of life on an increasingy polluted planet. and while there remains some doubt, a homo pretty much is a homo out of necessity: choosing doesn't seem to be much involved there. but christies? they make a conscious decision to worship all-powerful non-existent beings who live in the sky, walk on water, make like david copperfield with loaves and fishes. christies *are* inferior - and crazy. the same goes for those foaming at the mouth mohammadans. you see Seth, a man who walks in here criticizing logic and reason because it refuses to talk with, be guided by, and worship ghosts *is* inferior and crazy. - quonsar
That example took 30 seconds to find. You have the audacity to claim that others are pseudo-intellectual elitists, but then make comments which suggest that you are a member of the group you rail against. What was the point of your comment in this thread, honestly? You can't stand it when people here are attempting to understand good community standards? You don't care for communal self-awareness? Or that you have already decided the community standards for the rest of us...somehow you are an outstanding citizen here, and have some sort of moral authority to criticize anyone and everyone?
posted by BlueTrain at 9:02 AM on March 15, 2004
ah, we approach the crux! you see Seth, greens and homos and christies are funadamentally (no pun) different. a green acts based on his considered opinions and scientific/spiritual concern for the viability of life on an increasingy polluted planet. and while there remains some doubt, a homo pretty much is a homo out of necessity: choosing doesn't seem to be much involved there. but christies? they make a conscious decision to worship all-powerful non-existent beings who live in the sky, walk on water, make like david copperfield with loaves and fishes. christies *are* inferior - and crazy. the same goes for those foaming at the mouth mohammadans. you see Seth, a man who walks in here criticizing logic and reason because it refuses to talk with, be guided by, and worship ghosts *is* inferior and crazy. - quonsar
That example took 30 seconds to find. You have the audacity to claim that others are pseudo-intellectual elitists, but then make comments which suggest that you are a member of the group you rail against. What was the point of your comment in this thread, honestly? You can't stand it when people here are attempting to understand good community standards? You don't care for communal self-awareness? Or that you have already decided the community standards for the rest of us...somehow you are an outstanding citizen here, and have some sort of moral authority to criticize anyone and everyone?
posted by BlueTrain at 9:02 AM on March 15, 2004
Ask Metafilter doesn't need livening up. It works fine the way it is.
posted by Mars Saxman at 9:12 AM on March 15, 2004
posted by Mars Saxman at 9:12 AM on March 15, 2004
What was the point of your comment in this thread, honestly?
hook. line. sinker.
the offense rests, your honor.
posted by quonsar at 9:14 AM on March 15, 2004
hook. line. sinker.
the offense rests, your honor.
posted by quonsar at 9:14 AM on March 15, 2004
apparently, in BlueTrains universe, anyone who doesn't prostate themselves before a dead guy who lives in the sky is an intellectual. CHOO! CHOO!
posted by quonsar at 9:57 AM on March 15, 2004
posted by quonsar at 9:57 AM on March 15, 2004
Blue: You obviously do not understand the concept of "quonsar" to any depth whatsoever. ;-P
posted by mischief at 1:30 PM on March 15, 2004
posted by mischief at 1:30 PM on March 15, 2004
Hey q, did you use the word prostate on purpose up there?
posted by Lynsey at 2:45 PM on March 15, 2004
posted by Lynsey at 2:45 PM on March 15, 2004
The chattering voices in my head: they all have metafilter usernames. The chattering voices in my head: they all have metafilter usernames. The chattering voices in my head: they all have metafilter usernames.
posted by ook at 2:56 PM on March 15, 2004
posted by ook at 2:56 PM on March 15, 2004
Hey q, did you use the word prostate on purpose up there?
that would have been rather enlarged of me, huh? :-)
posted by quonsar at 2:57 PM on March 15, 2004
I think "embiggened" is the term we prefer to use around here.
posted by taz at 3:13 PM on March 15, 2004
posted by taz at 3:13 PM on March 15, 2004
http://www.fanta.dk/showmovie.asp?mid=F6B0564C-BB21-4CFA-AF67-45D51E6BBE0F
posted by Keyser Soze at 4:42 AM on March 16, 2004
posted by Keyser Soze at 4:42 AM on March 16, 2004
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by scarabic at 1:18 AM on March 14, 2004