a girl called Laura who had Chris Rock's old phone

May 24, 2004 10:35 PM

My thoughts flashed back to yet another of the negative MetaFilter comments.

Earlier this year some Mefites were rather mean [mea culpa] to a girl called Laura who had Chris Rock's old phone. In an update she tells how it all turned out pretty good for her, thanks, in part, to Metafilter - still, don't be expecting her round here any time soon.
posted by meech to MetaFilter-related at 10:35 PM (55 comments total)

1. Proof that criticism isn't necessarily bad.

2. Forgot Thank you MetaFilter at the end.

3. Still needs editing.

4. Should really breath more.

5. Another happy ending. Ain't life grand?
posted by i_cola at 10:50 PM on May 24, 2004

breathe
posted by i_cola at 10:51 PM on May 24, 2004

... It was better written than half the comments on this site, so I don't know what everyone was kvetching about.
posted by SpecialK at 11:15 PM on May 24, 2004

That's a great followup, though it kind of reads like "ha ha, fuckers at MetaFilter, I got to talk to Chris Rock and you didn't" which is totally cool and how I'd feel if people shit on my project that eventually got way bigger than I expected. (it happens to me from time to time, a few months ago a swedish metafilter-clone site kinda trashed my ticketstubs site as dumb (according to the votes, i can't read swedish)).

When I originally read the story, I thought she was kinda tame with the callers and could have tweaked them a bit more, but she's right, that if she screwed with people it probably wouldn't have gotten anywhere. Also kind of proves the whole six degrees thing that eventually via email, web, and press mentions you can get Chris Rock to read your site.
posted by mathowie at 11:24 PM on May 24, 2004

Her writing isn't very good so far, though perhaps she'll eventually forget some of the cliches drummed into her by a high-school creative writing teacher.

But so what? The world has an abundance of writers. What it doesn't have enough of is good hearted people. Thanks for just being yourself, Laura. Good luck.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:30 PM on May 24, 2004

Glad she singled my comment out for special attention. Of course the leap in logic baffles me but hey, why let that stand in the way if a good story, eh Laura? Tell Chis I said hi.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 11:46 PM on May 24, 2004

I'd hit it.
posted by keswick at 9:25 AM on May 25, 2004

Great ending... all hail the power of MeFi!
posted by chaz at 9:31 AM on May 25, 2004

That was a great story.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:35 AM on May 25, 2004

Cute ending.

but:
The National Post (Canada's national newspaper, with a circulation of 300,000)

ew.
posted by ODiV at 9:41 AM on May 25, 2004

I thought the original thread was a little bit catty and mean to her. Reading her response, I think she deserved it, because she actually does sound quite a bit like Jean Teasdale. Honest criticism! This can be fixed, of course.

And she sort of over-reacted to the thread here, what with the frantic rush to change her site for us, it sounds like she took it too much to heart -- we are just crackpots, and she shouldn't care what we say so long as we drive sweet, sweet traffic to her site. I bet that's what Chris Rock would tell her, too.

I wonder what what comes of the William Morris sidebar, though. Best of luck to her.
posted by Hildago at 9:58 AM on May 25, 2004

mathowie> if she screwed with people it probably wouldn't have gotten anywhere...

She got somewhere: the place where you yet again have a telephone conversation with someone you don't know and then you gush about it.

No harm, no foul... and something shiny just captured my attention, so I'll be over here.
posted by snarfodox at 10:09 AM on May 25, 2004

*Tries to take Laura seriously*


*Fails*
posted by dhoyt at 10:23 AM on May 25, 2004

Man, you guys are meanies.

I'm more interested in this syndrome of people being linked/mentioned on MeFi and then being offended by it—particularly in being aggrieved that they can't respond. Yeah, sure, I recognize that this is a normal human reaction. I'm just not convinced it's valid. Where does this notion of a "right of rebuttal" for anything said about one in public (not to mention private!) come from?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:31 AM on May 25, 2004

dhoyt, it's also not that nice of you to embed that photo, as a MeTa thread surely must get far, far more pageviews than her little blog.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:33 AM on May 25, 2004

Etheral, I'm confused by your confusion.

You say that her reaction is normal, but not valid. What is a "valid" reaction? I'm not trying to be cute, I really don't get what you mean.

You go on to ask where the notion of a "right to rebuttal" comes from? Well, where does the notion of ANY right come from?

It either comes from one person's head ("I believe I have the right...") or it comes from a leader (The Founding Fathers/God/Miss Manners/Society). And I am free to agree with that leader or not (sometimes at my own peril).

The only question that makes sense to me is, "do most MeFi" users think it's unfair that people can't respond to criticism.

I would guess that -- if we take this out of the MeFi context -- most people would suggest that, if someone disses you, you have a "right" to respond. So why should it be any different here?
posted by grumblebee at 10:53 AM on May 25, 2004

Ack. I thought the implications of my musing wouldn't need explaining. Suffice it to say, however, that I am wondering if I, for example, have a "right of rebuttal" for anything said about me at the NYC meetup. It seems to hinge upon the distinction between "public" and "private"; but that distinction isn't as clear as one might think. Is MeFi a private club? A private club with public meeting notes? I'm interested in how indignant people have gotten when they discover that we've been talking about them.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:12 AM on May 25, 2004

I agree with the Jean Teasdale comparison.

"you got to talk to chris rock and his mom, OMG!"

Anyway, she got outdone by that AOL tech who wheedled it into a movie deal. Also-ran.
posted by milovoo at 11:12 AM on May 25, 2004

Ethereal Bligh> Where does this notion of a "right of rebuttal" for anything said about one in public (not to mention private!) come from?

If I had to guess I'd say it's from Roman jurisprudence. A good place to start researching would be Gibbon's "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", volume four, chapter forty-four. At the very least he mentions major legal documents of the time. I wouldn't bother with the twelve tables (too early and simple), but something later would be a good bet. Let me know how you go.
posted by snarfodox at 11:21 AM on May 25, 2004

at least Laura's been marginally more polite to us than that Newsday journalist whose Davos email got forwarded to everybody and her brother.
and after all, you can't expect non-MeFi people to be particularly nice after they've been hit by a MeFi snark attack. we're like the Special Forces of snark. civilians must find us appalling.
posted by matteo at 11:25 AM on May 25, 2004

Think of Laura, but laugh don't cry.
I know she'd want it that way.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:25 AM on May 25, 2004

Glad she may have received some compensation out of this. But WTF, it's your phone Laura. The price you're paying for a wrong # is hardly comedy; unless you feel less important than your actual self worth. G.A.L.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:37 AM on May 25, 2004

Snarfodox: I'd prefer a primary source. But thanks anyway.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:43 AM on May 25, 2004

My friends ask me why my personal site is kept both encrypted and requires username/password verification. Well the encrypted part is for the avi, mp3 and such I want my friend to access and not have their nosey college IT guys see.

But the username/password is specifically becaue I don't feel as if my writing is strong enough to withstand the criticism. And yes, I've had several people ask if they could reprint it in (insert small indepedent magazine/newspaper/campus thing here) but I say no. Ok yeah there's a point to this besides me being really neurotic about my work. As soon as it becomes public it opens up to public criticism. Posting something on the web opens it up to the good (talking to celebrities, job offers) and the bad (snark, criticism). If you don't want both don't post.

There should be a warning to everyone creating a web page about this. To quote South Park, "Let's have our cake, and eat it too." Doesn't work like that.

And for the record, I enjoyed the innocence of her web site. It was nice for a change to not see any ironic, post-modern, hipster, grab-me-a-pabst, stuff on the web. It was like a Reader's Digest story for the web. Not everything has to be a Thomas Pynchon wasteland epic.
posted by geoff. at 11:50 AM on May 25, 2004

It was nice for a change to not see any ironic, post-modern, hipster, grab-me-a-pabst, stuff on the web.

I went in with that mindset. And I found the Chris Rock bit rather cute. But having spent some time reading the site, I'd have to say banality is far worse than ironic. Frankly, I'm mystified as to how a verbose, attractive, single woman living in NYC could make the experience as boring as she does.
posted by jalexei at 12:02 PM on May 25, 2004

Gah, the update page is worse than the original story. She really needs to learn how to take criticism. It could improve her writing.

Gotta go, my phone is going a ringy ring-ring so I'll just reach into my bag for my phone and answer it. It might be Chris calling to talk about stuff.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 12:39 PM on May 25, 2004

we are just crackpots, and she shouldn't care what we say

She really needs to learn how to take criticism

Yes, because everyone here takes criticism so well.

I have to say one of the aspects of MetaFilter I'm least fond of is the propensity to pick somebody's harmless little site, link to it, make merciless fun of it, and then make more fun of the complaints of the person being picked on. It's like grade school around here.

Yes, I know "if you put it on the internet, it's public, dude!"

Yes, I know some people are too sensitive.

I also know a lot of people are way too fond of being hip, ironic quasi-assholes. And you know, like your mother told you, if you keep making that face, your muscles will freeze that way... and you'll be an asshole for good.
posted by languagehat at 1:08 PM on May 25, 2004

Yes, I know some people are too sensitive.
Too sensitive that's an excuse. Why she wrote more, bragging that she is still taking calls for Chris. If Chris was not alive; what else would she write about?
This phone costing me way too much money, because of all the damn wrong #'s I'm receiving, F-ing aye!
posted by thomcatspike at 1:31 PM on May 25, 2004

Of course it's true that if you publish something, you risk negative comments.

But that's different than saying, you published it, so it's fair game for me to insult it.

We should all try to act humanely.

If I weigh 300lbs, I am "publishing" myself by walking around town. Does that mean that it's just fine for anyone to call me a "fat pig"? If I don't want to be called that, should I stay home?

Sure, choosing to publish a website is much more under our control than our weight, but that doesn't change the fact that choosing to insult someone is also under our control.

Choose not to.
posted by grumblebee at 2:20 PM on May 25, 2004

I'm confused - is hotlinking still bad, or are we over all that?
posted by dg at 3:08 PM on May 25, 2004

we are just crackpots, and she shouldn't care what we say
She really needs to learn how to take criticism
Yes, because everyone here takes criticism so well.

Languagehat: In this case, your p and q do not lead to r. Please revise. Alternatively, ignore my crackpot criticism of your non sequitor.
posted by Hildago at 4:35 PM on May 25, 2004

Does that mean that it's just fine for anyone to call me a "fat pig"? If I don't want to be called that, should I stay home?

It is easier to change how you react to morons than to change all the morons in the world, because 1) they're stupid, so it's hard to change even one, and 2) there are a lot more of them than there are of you, so you'd never do anything else.

So no, it's not "just fine," but it is each person's responsibility to learn to deal with the world as it is, and the world as it is contains a lot of rude idiots.

A thick skin will get you further in life than just about any other personality trait.
posted by kindall at 4:58 PM on May 25, 2004

It's true that her writing is not very good...but then, it's not horrible either. I mean, her spelling and grammar are fine and all, it's just that there's very little style, and no subtext. But honestly, that kind of straightforward simplicity appeals to me much more than, say, Washingtonienne's blog, in which the writer is herself rather uninteresting, and the coyness and the fact that she's writing about famous people (which are really the same thing) is all she's got going for her.

Anyway, I do really like the little icons representing different parts of Laura's site. I like to think that all that is her doing.
posted by bingo at 5:09 PM on May 25, 2004

*Tries to take Laura seriously*

because looks are inversely proportional to depth
posted by inpHilltr8r at 7:19 PM on May 25, 2004

Ethereal Bligh:

I'm more interested in this syndrome of people being linked/mentioned on MeFi and then being offended by it—particularly in being aggrieved that they can't respond. Yeah, sure, I recognize that this is a normal human reaction. I'm just not convinced it's valid. Where does this notion of a "right of rebuttal" for anything said about one in public (not to mention private!) come from?

A few years ago one of my close friends died, and ended up being discussed on MetaFilter.

Since I didn't have an account at the time, I felt terribly aggrieved at not being able to, at the very least, respond to some of the more idiotic comments. It's a very strange feeling to see some part of your personal life being mocked in a public space, and to not be able to respond is very frustrating. And yes, that frustration stems entirely from human nature. Regardless of whether or not you feel that it's "valid", it's impossible to not want to tell the side of a story that you feel is accurate.
posted by cmonkey at 8:06 PM on May 25, 2004

She still comes across as a conceited bitch.

That said, I'm glad it all worked out for her, as she seems to mean well.

In a conceited, kinda bitchy way.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 8:17 PM on May 25, 2004

because looks are inversely proportional to depth

My jokey comment had nothing to do with looks. Hell, I think she's pretty! If I really need to explain the reason why a vanity photo like that one is difficult to take seriously (compounded already with the self-congratulation and vanity permeating her stories), then it's clear we probably won't see eye to eye anyway.

On preview:
JK Fisher made me LOL, d00d.
posted by dhoyt at 9:02 PM on May 25, 2004

It's not like this is the first time somebody's been thrown to the wolves here over some bit of writing that didn't pass collective muster. It's been going on for years, and it's disgusting. Makes me ashamed to call myself a member of a group that behaves in such a smug, nasty fashion.

Oh, and nice going, dhoyt. Way to jack up her bandwidth bill.
posted by Optamystic at 4:19 AM on May 26, 2004

I thought mathowie established in a recent thread that he does grant the right of rebuttal to anyone who finds themselves being discussed but does not have an account already. And cmonkey could have probably gotten an account that way too (though there was probably no way for him/her to know that).

I want to know what that red thing is she's holding on to.

She does look attractive, so it's too bad she doesn't really show her face, hair, and eyes. But maybe the idea is not to be recognizable on the street.
posted by bingo at 4:25 AM on May 26, 2004

If I know user #1, and I don't, not at all, not at all...

I'd guess that mathowie, inspired by Laura's significant pixels (but pretending not to be), beetled his manly brow and promptly dispatched a chivalrous, moderately masculine email offering to rescue milady from the excessive bandwidth wyvern...

...and was sweetly answered, and thanked for his concern, but please could he leave the picture right where it is - it's no bother really - but it was so sweet of you to ask! :)
posted by Opus Dark at 5:23 AM on May 26, 2004

If she complains of a jacked up bandwidth bill, I'll gladly help her pay it as I'm guilty of hotlinking, as some of you said. I posted the pic unthinkingly yesterday before I'd had my coffee whereas should've just linked to it. Matt, please take it down if it suits you. I should've thought better of it. And it wasn't meant to be character assassination, it was just a jibe about the dramatic & unintentionally funny pose in that pic.
posted by dhoyt at 9:40 AM on May 26, 2004

If I really need to explain the reason why a vanity photo like that one is difficult to take seriously

I think attempting to take it seriously, was the problem.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 12:29 PM on May 26, 2004

Does it strike anybody as odd how the simple act of speaking with a celebrity is seen as inately positive and worthy of congratulations? I mean, if she gets a better job, cool, but how has her life been improved by just talking with this dude? Has some of his aura rubbed off on her?
I'm not saying it's bad or harmful, just that I don't see what the big deal is and why she's so smirky and vain about it.
posted by signal at 4:23 PM on May 26, 2004

If we can't be snarky about people who think getting a call from Chris Rock is more fun than pranking his celebrity friends (not to mention torturing a few of those hideously self-important Hollywood assistant/functionary/secretary/flak types) - then the terrorists will have already won.

Special Forces of Snark indeed. Can we get t-shirts?
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:00 PM on May 26, 2004

I don't see the vain and smug and whatnot tone in her stuff at all. She thinks it's neat to get calls from celebrities. So would I. So would most of you, if not all of you.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:09 PM on May 26, 2004

Update: Laura emailed me, so she's seen this thread. She's offended that JKF called her a "conceited bitch", but that shouldn't be a surprise. It's a pretty aggressive thing to say about someone who hasn't said anything similarly aggressive. Not to mention that I don't see anything at all that gives me the impression that she's a conceited bitch. I'm trying to imagine what, under similar circumstances, would strike me as conceited bitch behavior. And the first thing that occurs to me would be someone who acted and wrote exactly the opposite as Laura has. She really seems like a nice person to me.

Haven't any of you had an encounter with a celebrity? I bet you have. And I bet that most of you weren't all "I'm too cool to be impressed". It's fun to meet a celebrity. And it's fun to talk about meeting a celebrity. I'm totally with y'all on the whole "our culture's celebrity worship is excessive and annoying" thing, but it seems to me that there are a lot more appropriate targets than some person who thinks it was neat to have gotten phone calls for (and from) celebrities. Pick an obsessive fan-worship site, for example. Or the fact that Ahnold is the guv of California.

And, Matt, I told Laura that you'd said that you have an unofficial policy of providing an account to people that have been the subject of a post, and I sent her your email address.

I think Laura would make a nice addition to the MeFi community, particularly because she's not got that whole "ironic detachment hip far too self-aware vibe" that is fun in small amounts but almost oppressive around these parts.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:25 AM on May 27, 2004

So Ethereal, are you saying you won't be returning your membership application to my new club, IDHFSAV?
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 10:08 AM on May 27, 2004

Good work, EB, and I hope she joins. I strongly agree about the oppressiveness of the irony/snark atmosphere. If you're reading this, Laura, don't worry—there are plenty of us who don't agree with the naysayers!
posted by languagehat at 12:05 PM on May 27, 2004

Goddamn some of you are self-righteous assholes.
posted by tr33hggr at 1:00 PM on May 27, 2004

Yeah and that is one of our better points, too.
posted by dg at 3:13 PM on May 27, 2004

...offended that JK Fisher called her a conceited bitch...

Yeah, she emailed me too. I sent a reply and she replied to that. I didn't actually take it back, so I'm not going to pretend it's 'all okay now', but I hope I'm not too offbase in hoping my reply, explanation of intended tone, etc. helped a bit.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 7:40 AM on May 28, 2004

It wasn't until just now that I read the Chris Rock parts of her website. After this thread, I was prepared to read about her making a total fool out of herself. But she acted exactly the right way. She treated the celebrities who called her like human beings. She acted much better than most people would act in that kind of situation. Chris Rock gave her his new phone number because he knew she could be trusted not to pass it along to the wrong people, or annoy him, and that's just about the best compliment he could have paid her.
posted by bingo at 11:10 AM on May 28, 2004

Having ones webpage linked to by MetaFIlter is kind of a catch 22. The exposure and traffic can do much for you, but a lot of public criticism comes with it. Much of that criticism can be unkind or unfair.

So, it is possible* that the boost the MeFI link gave her site could well have contributed to that call from Chris Rock.

If one can, for a moment, accept the premise that MeFi made the difference an interesting question presents itself: Which would you pick if you were her. To not be trashed in a VERY public forum and forego the opportunities such exposure provides, or to be trashed in public, fairly and/or unfairly, and consequently have more opportunities arise.

*I'm sure our little neck of the woods isn't that influential, but we have been quoted or cited in some fairly public places.
posted by jester69 at 3:23 PM on May 28, 2004

Hey Guys,

It's me, Laura. Finally a member! Finally able to post into the thread myself!

I imagine most of you have moved onto other threads by now, but I just wanted to add my own few words at the end here, for those who stumble upon this at a later date.

It's certainly true that I didn't have the greatest experience in my dealings with MetaFilter. Yeah, when my Chris Rock cell phone story was trashed, some people "stuck up for me" and not everyone hopped on the trashing bandwagon, but many did, and I find it disheartening that things went as far as it did.

To summarize my MetaFilter experience, what I ask is this: How can someone's calling me a "conceited bitch" possibly add to the (supposedly) intelligent conversation that's (supposedly) going on around here? The answer is, it can't.

What I've seen/learned/experienced from this whole MetaFilter "thing" is, unfortunately, there are many negative people out there, ready and willing and loving to tear something apart at the drop of a hat, under the premise of voicing their "knowledgeable" opinion.

Whatever. Everyone has their own version of cool. Mine happens to involve being a nice person, and trying to see the good in things rather than the bad, but that's just me.

So long all, it's been swell.

Laura, aka Puffy Maverick.

P.S. Chris-call update: Jerry Seinfeld called. He was so horribly mean, it was unbelieveable! Damon Wayans called. He was great. Peter Farrelly called. He's a cool guy. Damon and Peter got a big kick out of my story about "getting Chris' old number."
posted by Puffy Maverick at 12:08 PM on June 3, 2004

Hi, Laura! Glad you're here, and I hope you're not planning to just leave that comment and run -- we desperately need more nice people around here.
posted by languagehat at 11:29 AM on June 5, 2004