particular brand of insane troll logic not welcome June 14, 2004 10:12 PM   Subscribe

Ok, I wasn't going to say anything when Witty decided to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to ruin amberglow's thread with his particular (read: vapid, boring) brand of insane troll logic. However, he then decided an interesting course of action would be to make a similarly unwarranted (perhaps even moreso) comment in an unrelated thread.

Therefore, I politely and humbly request that Witty please refrain from making similarily irrelevant--and snide--comments in the future, at least in in the blue.
posted by The God Complex to Etiquette/Policy at 10:12 PM (124 comments total)

So this isn't plea for the removal of amberglow's shit post? Ok then. I guess as long as "the joke" (because I can't imagine what else it could have been posted for) fits your political view, then the shit should remain on the front page. How hypocritical.

As for my other comment, in the other thread... gimme a break. People make observations like that all the time around here. It wasn't rude or mean and I stuck it in small text, which carries a meaning all it's own. There's nothing wrong with it. Pick on someone else. Oh, and ask Matt to delete amberglow's post because it's the right thing to do... one link to a shitty essay about bullshit that isn't even worth trying to discuss seriously. Shit. Delete!
posted by Witty at 10:42 PM on June 14, 2004


Yes, shut up asshole.
posted by scarabic at 10:48 PM on June 14, 2004


From the link in question:
One special act of congress and we could immediately draft the Halliburton, Blackwater, CACI, Tital, et al, employees.

Perhaps Witty works for one of the aforementioned companies.
posted by brownpau at 10:50 PM on June 14, 2004


Berkeley... figures.
posted by Witty at 10:50 PM on June 14, 2004


A lot of people would have made the first this-is-a-bullshit-post comment. It takes someone special to make the next five, then continue the nastiness on another thread all together.

Throwing a temper tantrum will get you nowhere, young man.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 10:51 PM on June 14, 2004


So this isn't plea for the removal of amberglow's shit post? Ok then. I guess as long as "the joke" (because I can't imagine what else it could have been posted for) fits your political view, then the shit should remain on the front page. How hypocritical.

Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant in regards to your behaviour inside of the threat, behaviour that was at once immature and unbecoming. If you have a problem, bring it here, or at the very least make one comment about it and leave it at that. The continued need to make your poorly expressed opinion heard by the masses was tiresome and counter-intuitive to any results you were attempting to achieve.

As for my other comment, in the other thread... gimme a break. People make observations like that all the time around here. It wasn't rude or mean and I stuck it in small text, which carries a meaning all it's own.

It was assuredly rude and mean, both to amberglow (he's a big boy--I'm sure he can handle it) and to the creator of the second thread, who surely isn't interested in the one-sided pissing match you were engaging in.

one link to a shitty essay about bullshit that isn't even worth trying to discuss seriously. Shit. Delete!

You, sir, are ever the wordsmith. My hat's off *doffs cap*
posted by The God Complex at 10:53 PM on June 14, 2004


Inside of the "thread"--my apologies.
posted by The God Complex at 10:54 PM on June 14, 2004



posted by brownpau at 10:56 PM on June 14, 2004


Sometimes, The God Complex, "shit" just says it all.

It was assuredly rude and mean, both to amberglow (he's a big boy--I'm sure he can handle it) and to the creator of the second thread, who surely isn't interested in the one-sided pissing match you were engaging in.

So you're just going to ignore amberglow's first comment that brought it to the thread? Sure, ok.
posted by Witty at 10:58 PM on June 14, 2004


I will apologize, Witty, for sudden and unmitigated vulgarity. As it happens, you'd gotten my hackles way up in another thread, and, upon seeing this one, I blew. Sorry.

I still think your attitude sucks, and it's really boring the way you try to essentialize everyone down to their personal politics, which, in your view, is a really simple left/right, liberal/conservative, Berekely/Dallas continuum. I'm not really that amazed that your perspective could be so narrow, or the depth of your arguments so shallow, just that you would spend so much time here so inadequately equipped.

It's obvious that you think you're on some kind of crusade to educate the rest of us, but, judging by your contributions here, I submit to you that you have a lot to learn about a) the world, and b) how to to talk about it to other people.
posted by scarabic at 10:58 PM on June 14, 2004


There's nothing wrong with it. Pick on someone else. Oh, and ask Matt to delete amberglow's post because it's the right thing to do... one link to a shitty essay about bullshit that isn't even worth trying to discuss seriously. Shit. Delete!

I think Witty's been hitting the hard stuff.
posted by subgenius at 11:00 PM on June 14, 2004


So you're just going to ignore amberglow's first comment that brought it to the thread? Sure, ok.

Okay. I won't ignore it. I'll address it directly.

1) There's nothing combative or insulting about amberglow's comment. She pointed out a simple pattern. So what? Take it as bitchy if you want, but you have no case. Nada.

2) Even if it were bitchy, I'm willing to tolerate a hell of a lot more attitude and moodiness from someone who regularly contributes interesting things to this community.

3) The pattern amberglow was pointing out, in #1, was you jumping on some person for his completely innoccuous comments, on the simple grounds that he hadn't posted in a long time. What the hell was your problem?
posted by scarabic at 11:02 PM on June 14, 2004


Yes, witty's behaviour was way out of line and very annoying. Please stop.

"She"?
posted by fvw at 11:11 PM on June 14, 2004


Criticism of the suitability of the post belongs only in the grey, never in the blue.

Criticism of people, if it has any place at all, also belongs exclusively in the grey.

In short, stop pissing on things in the blue. It's really fucking unseemly, and undermines a major point of having the grey, namely keeping that shit out of the blue.

Bicth and moan all you want in here, Witty (and everyone else), but it's got no place in the blue at all.
posted by NortonDC at 11:11 PM on June 14, 2004


No, that's just the way you read it scarabic.

...and it's really boring the way you try to essentialize everyone down to their personal politics, which, in your view, is a really simple left/right, liberal/conservative, Berekely/Dallas continuum.

Are you kidding me? That's what this whole website does at every turn. How is that you seem to know so much about me and MY politics, yet observations I make are somehow invalid. I know where my ideas and opinions stand around here... unpopular at best.

I make a comment about Moore's film and it's rating (WHICH NOBODY HAS EVEN SEEN YET) and crasspastor says the following. What the fuck is ANY of that suuposed to mean, and what does it have to do with the topic, and how does that NOT do EXACTLY what you claim I am guilty of?

I mean jesus christ... do you want me to just agree with you on everything. Ok... Michael Moore's new movie should be rated G because GOD DAMNIT every kid in America should know the fuckin' truth. WHOO HOO!

AND you make a post complainign that I quoted one point in italics and make and argument over it... which is exactly what you did in the VERY COMMENT I'M REFERRING TO.

...was you jumping on some person for his completely innoccuous comments, on the simple grounds that he hadn't posted in a long time. What the hell was your problem?

I didn't jump on anyone. You are blowing that comment WAY out of proportion. I simply made an observation, which someone else happened to agree with at some point. It's really not that big of a deal. If you're referring to my response to SenshiNeko, my answer is exactly the same. What's the big deal? The person made a charge that was unfounded... as if I ACTUALLY said that no one is allowed to lurk for a long time and tehn suddenly post. Good god.
posted by Witty at 11:17 PM on June 14, 2004


Woop! Brain fart. I thought for sure amberglow was female. Who am I thinking of...?
posted by scarabic at 11:18 PM on June 14, 2004


Me, right?
posted by LittleMissCranky at 11:20 PM on June 14, 2004


gay, yes.... female, no.
posted by Witty at 11:20 PM on June 14, 2004


Well, apparently, Witty, you can sustain an entirely self-generated fantasy world ad infinitum, so I see no reason to expend energy bitching at you further. I think you earned this callout, not only with your poor behavior tonight, but by chipping away at people's patience for some time before that. Hopefully, having some attention drawn to your ridiculous antics will calm them down, or at least get you on the candidate list for banning.

Remember, before you go to sleep: lots of water.
posted by scarabic at 11:22 PM on June 14, 2004


Metafilter may be a boy zone, but I doubt it's gotten so extreme that you can go "Which one of you was the female one again?" just yet.
posted by fvw at 11:22 PM on June 14, 2004


I always mentally add a t to Witty's nom de web and get Twitty, as in Conway Twitty and his Twitty Birds.
posted by y2karl at 11:28 PM on June 14, 2004


If I posted an FPP pointing to a ~500 word essay, suggesting that all of MeFi's finest (including you, cuz you're one of the dandy ones indeed, scarabic) should be shipped to Iraq to fight the war... for reasons one, two and three (which is essentially about what amberglow's absurd post was all about), Matt would have found the time tonight to delete that sucker in a heartbeat. It would've been called out within three comments, if it even made it that far. I wanted to see if anyone would have taken the time to continue the self-policing by calling out a post made by one of everyone's favorites... amberglow (which is why I didn't). I KNEW it wouldn't happen, even though it should've been. If that post is anything, it's a perfect example of what SHOULDN'T be posted... and everyone knows it. Yet, it remains. amberglow has no excuse for thinking that crap would fly. It's just plain hypocritical, that's all.
posted by Witty at 11:34 PM on June 14, 2004


"Which one of you was the female one again?"

Oh, you. I was just trying to remember if there's someone with a reminiscent personality/tone or similar-sounding name that I was thinking of, who was female, or if it was a complete brain fart. I commit many worse ones around the house every day, so I have to assume the blame lies in my brain.
posted by scarabic at 11:43 PM on June 14, 2004


The people on metafilter are no public figures, Witty, nor are they responsible for the war in the first place, meaning your fantastical essay of whim would be without merit to an almost absurd degree. The link in question was one of political fancy. It may also be one you don't agree with, but I thought it was of some interest.

Regardless, you're missing the point of this thread, which is not whether you feel amberglow's fpp was a good one; rather, it's a discussion of your behaviour in the thread. Half a dozen separate comments about how "shitty" the thread was, not to mention another comment in a completely different thread, is certainly not an undertaking in which I would support anyone.

Oh, and amberglow's comment that "brought it into that thread" was actually him pointing out what a royal fucktwit you were being to seemingly everyone you could get your grimy mits on, be it for a political reason or simply because they lurked around for a bit before posting.
posted by The God Complex at 12:01 AM on June 15, 2004




Hello all! I'm on holiday! Wish you were here! That block of ice, btw, has been previously soaked in rum and fresh lime juice, in case you were thinking. :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:05 AM on June 15, 2004


I love amberglow, but the essay was a bit, er, lame. I had been putting-off reading the link until later, thinking it was a real, meaty proposal, but was disapointed when I saw what it was. It maybe wasn't the world's best FPP. But, hey, standards aren't that high. Am I right? :)

And I'm not seeing, exactly, Witty's really bad behavior in the Moore thread. No mistake, I've been pretty outspoken against Witty in the past.

Maybe I'm just feeling mellow after my thrashing. I'm not really in the mood for more blood, not even if someone that's annoyed me in the past the way Witty has.

Amber has an awfully good posting history and discursive style here, though, Witty, and you might think twice about a crusade against him. There's probably better targets, if you're so inclined. Me, for example. What the hell. That thread's thataway. Let it all out. Have yourself a catharsis1.

Scarabic, you're in the "god-fucking-dammit, he fucking deserves it" frame of mind; which, I submit, perhaps may often be justified when it occurs but usually leads to excess. Right? Right.

1 That's a drink involving tequila, syrup of ipecac, six maraschino cherries, and tonic water.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:08 AM on June 15, 2004


Witty's a dumbshit, and we all know it. Why shovel giant piles of attention at him?
posted by interrobang at 12:35 AM on June 15, 2004


It probably does lead to excess more often than is wise. But when's excess ever wise? ;)

Do you mean to say I've gone too far? You may say so if you think so.
posted by scarabic at 12:57 AM on June 15, 2004


I dunno. Really, I don't know if I have an opinion on it. You seem awfully mad and using what is for you (I think) unusually strong language. Just saying you might go a bit too far if you're not careful. Like I said, I've seen enough metaphorical blood for the next few days. Witty really pissed me off in the past, and I've had a very low opinion of him, but I can't work up that much outrage, condemnation, and vitriol tonight. So, being that that's my state of mind, I'll urge restraint. I might go post in the Reagan thread, though, if I feel I've gone too far.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:03 AM on June 15, 2004


Like I said, I've seen enough metaphorical blood for the next few days.

Wow. You sound so calm. All the tension has been removed. You've come through your harrowing experience and survived it. You're a new man. You'll never take this site or yourself as seriously again.

This is the "bounce" to which I referred repeatedly yesterday. I'm so glad you've embraced it. Once your shit has really hit the fan good, once and for all, that's it. You've been around the block. And you can relax more. It's a good change. It's a second life, really.

Yes, I have been pummelling Witty today. but only because he's been a prick, and degraded the level of discourse around here with his retarded my politics / your politics garbage, and his completely unsupported assertions that this is bullshit, or that is obviously wrong. Whatever. You can be a moron, if you wish, but don't attack innocent bystanders as well.

I don't jump on people very often. If you're shocked at my aggression and/or language, just bear in mind that this is what I'm keeping in check most of the time. It's rarely that I feel justified letting it loose. I need pretty much an overwhelmingly obvious reason to do so. This was one of those times.
posted by scarabic at 1:29 AM on June 15, 2004


You can be a moron, if you wish, but don't attack innocent bystanders as well. - meaning Witty, not you
posted by scarabic at 1:30 AM on June 15, 2004


I for one, don't like seeing the blue turn to brown as some dim bulb smears shit all over the walls.
posted by Goofyy at 1:38 AM on June 15, 2004

"Wow. You sound so calm. All the tension has been removed. You've come through your harrowing experience and survived it. You're a new man. You'll never take this site or yourself as seriously again."—scarabic
Heh. I wouldn't count on it. I just get a little better at this every time, is all. I've been tooling around the online world for two decades. I know the drill. The worst experience of this sort I've had in the last few years has been on my (unofficial) college alum mailing list. I'm used to super-duper-high standards for discourse in that community, with a "leave-it-at-the-door" mentality about ideological biases, etc., but the alum list is dominated by about twenty or so people who have been active on the list for a decade, and the political divide is stark, and the flame wars routine. I have been so disapointed with the list, because I expect so much from it, that things go like my experience here except much more extreme. As soon as I see that bad behavior is the norm, I start to lose my inhibitions against bad behavior, and I become vicious like everyone else. More, probably. You can see that side of my personality here. Then, it just descends into madness. I've subbed to the list off and on for, oh, five years now, but I can't really hang around. Anyway, no small part of all this is my personality, as it is with most of us people in these situations that are controversial, and I've spent probably way too much time over the years criticizing my own behavior, trying to smooth down my own rough edges, figuring out what's my fault and what's not. Mostly, though, I get less thin-skinned as time goes on, which serves me, as it does most people, pretty well. It's sort of a shame, though, that this environment is such a social darwinist environment.

I'm probably projecting, or perhaps only innocently generalizing on my own experience, but I wrote to you what I wrote only because me behaving badly is, in the end, much more painful to me than other people treating me badly. In the short term, maybe not. In the long term, though, I really, really hate it when I look back and have to face up to the fact that I was being someone I really don't like. Best to nip that sort of thing in the bud rather than try to make up for it later.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That was long. Anyway, this is sorta on-topic, right? Witty? Anyone?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:47 AM on June 15, 2004


Oh definitely. I hear ya. I've also been around the bend. And I don't mean to say that getting there teaches you to be calm and polite. It may do that, among other things. But it mainly teaches you to be who you are, say what you think, and think before you say anything. I did in fact cross my own line with Witty tonight, and I already apologized for that. That might tell you where my line is.
posted by scarabic at 2:58 AM on June 15, 2004


witty acting childishly, never I say never, I refuse to believe it.
posted by johnnyboy at 4:57 AM on June 15, 2004


There's been an increasing number of "conservative vigilantes" on MeFi in the last few weeks, all deputizing themselves with the power to shit all over threads they don't like because of the political nature. Forget even that it's obnoxious, the sheer gang terror aspect of it kinda unnerves me. Oh look, here's a thread we don't like. Riot! I figure next week they'll be demanding five bucks via PayPal or else they start linking to Tubgirl.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 5:31 AM on June 15, 2004


"shit" just says it all.

so why did you choose "Witty"?
posted by quonsar at 5:39 AM on June 15, 2004


Mmm, Tubgirl. Cool.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:40 AM on June 15, 2004


So it's not the best post in the world--i thought it was interesting, and one of the only alternatives to the draft i've ever seen, given all the draft talk (and fear) here the past few months.

When you shit all over my thread, i bit my tongue, Witty, but when you followed that innocent guy (who rarely posts, btw) into another thread to make another crack, I said something. Why should you shit all over more than one thread? You dragged other people--and other threads--into your rant, which is completely wrong.

You're an asshole, and have been for a long time. If you felt my post should be deleted, you should have posted something here in MeTa to make that happen, or emailed Matt. You didn't. (I don't know, maybe you thought your derisive words alone would get it deleted? That doesn't happen here, to my knowledge, and it's nothing to do with people liking me.)
posted by amberglow at 5:59 AM on June 15, 2004


There's been an increasing number of "conservative vigilantes" on MeFi in the last few weeks, all deputizing themselves with the power to shit all over threads they don't like because of the political nature.

School's out and jobs are scarce?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:13 AM on June 15, 2004


If I posted an FPP pointing to a ~500 word essay, suggesting that all of MeFi's finest (including you, cuz you're one of the dandy ones indeed, scarabic) should be shipped to Iraq to fight the war...

Thus reinforcing my theory that Witty is probably employed by one of the companies in the "Allen Plan." Witty, get a copy of "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift. Good reading.
posted by brownpau at 6:49 AM on June 15, 2004


Witty, get a copy of The Ladybird Bumper Book Of Protruding Knives. Read it carefully.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 7:00 AM on June 15, 2004


If that post is anything, it's a perfect example of what SHOULDN'T be posted... and everyone knows it. Yet, it remains.

Yeah, hmm, that's really weird. It's almost as if... it's not worthy of deletion...

Witty, I've seen a lot of right-wing crybabies come through here, wah-wah-ing about how unfair it is that no one supports their viewpoint, but your obnoxious persistence puts you on a whole new level. Not only are your politics ignorant, but your rhetorical stylings add absolutely nothing of merit to this site, and I can't believe Matt wasted a user number on you.
posted by mkultra at 7:40 AM on June 15, 2004


Hello all! I'm on holiday!

miguel...!! oh won't you take a break from your holiday and post something lovely about dinner and smoking jackets, and being civilized...? just to tide us over...?!

posted by t r a c y at 7:56 AM on June 15, 2004


Witty, if you could just tone down your attacks, especially the taunting nature of them, you would find more people agreeing with you. I think I understand your initial comment, Amberglow's post while funny can be perceived as an attempt to elicit a string of lefty, snarky comments about the military industrial complex. You do not like that and in your own way you called him on it. If you had just spelled it out at first rather than just calling it "worthless" this all may not have happened, or do you really enjoy trading vitriol on these pages?
posted by caddis at 7:57 AM on June 15, 2004


As with the "US torture prisons" post a bit further down the page, the linked article was shit. No matter how you try, you cannot polish a turd.

Witty, your mistake was attacking the messenger and not the message.
posted by mischief at 8:00 AM on June 15, 2004


I do have to say that I laughed out loud at witty's comments to the users who came out of hiding after three years. Amusing (as in, who checks out everyone's user page to see when they last posted?!?! I mean that is taking things to the next level!).
posted by Quartermass at 8:35 AM on June 15, 2004


Berekely/Dallas continuum...

Berekely Dallas would be a great name for a TV private eye. Just saying.
posted by jonmc at 8:49 AM on June 15, 2004


The good thing about you, Eternal Bore, is that you make everyone around you seem amusing.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:04 AM on June 15, 2004


The good thing about you, Eternal Bore, is that you make everyone around you seem amusing.

this comment is beneath you.
posted by GeekAnimator at 9:18 AM on June 15, 2004


I know where my ideas and opinions stand around here... unpopular at best.

It's not your ideas and your opinions we dislike, it's your combative nature and pitiful excuse for a personality.
posted by bshort at 9:22 AM on June 15, 2004


I told you, Miguel is Ethereal Bligh, or they are close blood relatives. There is no two ways about it.

Berekely Dallas would be a great name for a TV private eye. Just saying.

It doesn't come close to defeating my all time favourite name for a private eye: Chip Striker. It does, however, take a good run at the crown. jonmc, I declare you honorary name maker-upper.
posted by The God Complex at 9:38 AM on June 15, 2004


The good thing about you, Eternal Bore, is that you make everyone around you seem amusing.

Jesus, Miguel, just when I was starting to miss you. Take another lick of the rum-soaked ice and try to recover your normal bonhomie.
posted by languagehat at 9:55 AM on June 15, 2004


so why did you choose "Witty"?

Because Matt wouldn't let me have "quonsar's_mom".

Witty, I've seen a lot of right-wing crybabies come through here, wah-wah-ing about how unfair it is that no one supports their viewpoint...

I'm not and never have complained that no one supports my viewpoint. I knew that before becoming a member (I lurked for almost 2 years). I just don't think the lot of you, even Matt sometimes, hold yourselves (those who share the majority political viewpoint/opinion) to the same standards that you hold the minority position. Simple as that.

...who checks out everyone's user page to see when they last posted?!?! I mean that is taking things to the next level!)

I don't check them habitually. But the tone of and odd simplicity of heyadam's first post in amberglow's thread, just struck me. I'd never seen the username before, so I checked. It's just weird that he's been a member for 3 years and only one comment... until last night (multiple comments and an FPP).

You're an asshole, and have been for a long time.

And you're a pussy and have been since day one.

So it's not the best post in the world--i thought it was interesting, and one of the only alternatives to the draft i've ever seen, given all the draft talk (and fear) here the past few months.

So you took it seriously and thought MeFi should know about it? Aren't you smarter than that? Gimme a break. It was shit and you knew it when you posted it.... which means you purposely shit on the front page because you knew you could get away with it... knowing that even if your hands were slapped, you would still garner plenty of, "bad post amberglow, but I hear ya... har har har" support. Admit it.
posted by Witty at 9:55 AM on June 15, 2004

"The good thing about you, Eternal Bore, is that you make everyone around you seem amusing."—Miguel
How kind of you to notice, Miguel. Likewise, it's my understanding that you make everyone around you seem genuine and virile—including the ladies. You see, we all have our perverse virtues.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:57 AM on June 15, 2004


I just don't think the lot of you, even Matt sometimes, hold yourselves (those who share the majority political viewpoint/opinion) to the same standards that you hold the minority position.

I don't know about any of the other shouting going on in this thread, but that's definitly true. Maybe not consciously, and probably a product of the number of members on either side, but those posting or saying anything with a "righty" slant or vaguely pro-Bush is attacked right away and usually silenced. It's intimidating to take an unpopular view around here most of the time. When PP or DD or whoever use the same language and tone in attacking a majority opinion, it creates a pile on or a MeTa thread or calls for banning.

I like to think of myself as mild mannered and a non-inflammatory poster, but I'm on the right side of things most of the time. Just in expressing my opinion I've been sworn at and insulted and piled on. Not that I care, but if I did, I might have the same kind of reactions that some of the more notorious right-wingers have on here.

Something for the benevolent majority to think about... that is, if you want current members and the new members of the future to bring opposing viewpoints to the table.
posted by loquax at 10:11 AM on June 15, 2004


All of this just reinforces why politics shouldn't be done here. I don't know why on earth Matt allows hyper-partisan shit like amberglow posted (or anything by postroad) because it doesn't create good discussion and all it does is aide in a circle jerk for those who already get off on that kind of hackjob.

But I want to comment on thing that displays an AMAZING amount of IGNORANCE. In this thead, alone, we have crasspastor, XQwhatever, skallas, mkultra all making the same IGNORANT comment. That is, that those who think a certain link has no value or that some lefty argument is silly and doesn't need to be presented here are all some sort of right-wing nutjobs. You dense people can't get it through your warped minds that people can agree with the substance of the argument but think that the tone and delivery of it is complete bullshit.

So many of you have been so mindfucked by politics on the intarweb that you view the whole world in a Us v. Them battle to the death wherein anyone who doesn't trumpet the same shit that you trumpet is suddenly tossed into the Them category. But this ignorant view ignores the fact that some people may agree with the substance of an idea, but think that your advancement and attitude are complete asinity.

Unfortunately, this attitude has overwhelmed MeFi. Politics cannot be done here and does anyone need any more evidence of that then the last couple months? It is a never-ending stream of shit that drowns out any value of this website. The whole blue is lost as the signal to noise ratio is so out of whack. Some many wackjobs have decided that they are required to somehow save the world by fighting to death anyone who won't join their cause by sounding out their cries in the Blue incessantly in crappy posts. It gives whole new meaning to the phrase: "Same shit, different day." It is repulsive to any rational being who would like to have a legitmate discourse of ideas.

Why on earth, Matt, have you let so much of this go on?

To you PoliFilter addicts: in many ways, Michael Moore and his enflamed irrationality is the perfect standard bearer for your asshat worldview that anyone who doesn't say what you say is evil. You people need to get some fucking perspective and quit making embarassment of those of us who are rational left-minded individuals.
posted by Seth at 10:28 AM on June 15, 2004


this comment is beneath you.

Wow. That is so meta.
posted by kindall at 10:35 AM on June 15, 2004


I don't know about any of the other shouting going on in this thread, but that's definitly true. Maybe not consciously, and probably a product of the number of members on either side, but those posting or saying anything with a "righty" slant or vaguely pro-Bush is attacked right away and usually silenced. It's intimidating to take an unpopular view around here most of the time. When PP or DD or whoever use the same language and tone in attacking a majority opinion, it creates a pile on or a MeTa thread or calls for banning.

So, outraged at the majority rhetoric refuseing to concede to their demands, right-leaners of Witty's mentality justify destructive actions against MetaFilter, damned be the cost. It's like the West Bank and Vichy Europe, with less explosions. (Wait'll we tell hama7 he's just acting like the French Resistance)

Still, it avoids the basic fact that not liking amberglow's link doesn't justify Witty being a collosal shit- an attitude that's not aided by how juvenile he's acting in this thread. Nor is it an explanation for Seth's concurring logic: apparently, it's our fault that others are assholes.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:35 AM on June 15, 2004


You are not left-minded, as has been shown time and time again with your comments. You may be moderate, but that's about it.

The rest of the dead horse I'll ignore.
posted by The God Complex at 10:42 AM on June 15, 2004


(that was directed at seth)
posted by The God Complex at 10:43 AM on June 15, 2004


It makes a difference whose ox is gored.
Martin Luther
posted by y2karl at 10:43 AM on June 15, 2004


No, XQUZYPHYR, it means that if Witty held the same opinions as the majority of the users of the site, it'd be excused or explained away a lot more. Whether he actually is an asshole or not is beside the point.

I don't think this is intentional planning on anybody's part and I don't really think politics has much to do with it. It's group dynamics: If people form a large enough majority, they feel perfectly comfortable marginalizing those who disagree. It happens at right-wing sites, and non-political sites, too. Are we somehow immune?
posted by jonmc at 10:43 AM on June 15, 2004


apparently, it's our fault that others are assholes.

No, what I'm saying is that it's understandable, when you feel ganged up on to act out in unconstructive ways. If every time you try to say "well, maybe there are some positive things about Iraq", someone responds by remarking how much you enjoy killing little brown people or whatever, you're not going to feel motivated to keep the discussion civil.

The level of discourse on here is often pathetic, and it's not the right's fault or the left's fault; it has become a spiral of vitrolic snarks and insults on both sides. However, with a left-right ratio of about 10:1, it's a lot more difficult for a righty to summon the nerve to jump in and make their point, however benign. And the minority certainly can't change the nature of the discourse in the politics thread, they're just too outnumberd. The onus looks like it's on the vast majoirty here to make this a more civil place for a conversation, and it will mean ignoring insults and turning the other cheek. Again, if you folks are interested in having real, multi-viewpoint discussions.

On preview, 100% agreed with JonMC, this is a group dynamics problem, not a personality or politics problem.
posted by loquax at 10:47 AM on June 15, 2004


Let's give poor Witty a break. Maybe he just didn't understand amberglow's post. After all,
"I'm nowhere near as versed on the ins and outs of of the topic as many of you are. I don't have the historical background necessary. I admit that. I based far too much of "what I know" on the here and now."


Wow, remember when Witty was almost contrite and self-aware for three or four minutes? Good times.
posted by soyjoy at 10:47 AM on June 15, 2004


But this ignorant view ignores the fact that some people may agree with the substance of an idea, but think that your advancement and attitude are complete asinity.

Perhaps you should consider applying this logic to your endless whiny complaining.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:55 AM on June 15, 2004


It may be a group dynamics problem at heart, but I think people being assholes is what makes it blow up.
posted by Vidiot at 10:58 AM on June 15, 2004


No, what I'm saying is that it's understandable, when you feel ganged up on to act out in unconstructive ways. If every time you try to say "well, maybe there are some positive things about Iraq", someone responds by remarking how much you enjoy killing little brown people or whatever, you're not going to feel motivated to keep the discussion civil.

Except that setup is bullshit. A left-winger posts a left-leaning FPP, and the right-winger comments along the lines of "why's this shit on MetaFilter?" They waive their rights to have their feelings hurt after that. In David Dark's case, for example, some will deliberately seek out right-leaning FPPs to post specifically as a "fuck you, I'm posting shit since I think you're posting shit" statement. Again, I see no validation for civility. The difference between this truth and your pretense is that in my case the right-wingers are the ones going above and beyond the call of what any left-winger had done in terms of staining the site.

Your entire argument centers around agreeing with me that people are being assholes. You're just trying to justify it, and there simply is no excuse.

The minority can certainly change the discourse in the thread, but they won't do it by acting riduclous. hama7 "tried to change the discourse" in a recent thread by endlessly posting NewsMax and similarly extreme-right links. To act upset that the- by your own admission- left-leaning MetaFilter would refuse to accept that is disingenuous.

I personally stopped posting Mark Morford and Ted Rall links because even when I like their work, as far as discourse goes, they're poo. Believing a left-wing bias in an FPP merits posting a deliberately and blatantly right-wing response doesn't suddenly make a good thread.

Ultimately, it's the smarmy fakeness of most of the right-leaners who feel "cornered" as an excuse to piss on threads that's the most irritating- I doubt a single right-winger posting trolls like that doesn't know what they're doing, any more than Fox News knows it's not really "fair and balanced." It's entering these silly Meta debates where they suddenly pretend they're being repressed as if they don't know dawn well why their noses are being rubbed in their own shit that defines them as assholes.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 11:01 AM on June 15, 2004


ah, the Lion licking winter.
posted by clavdivs at 11:02 AM on June 15, 2004


You are not left-minded, as has been shown time and time again with your comments. You may be moderate, but that's about it.

The rest of the dead horse I'll ignore.
posted by The God Complex at 10:42 AM PST on June 15


This is EXACLTY my point! TGC, you have no fucking idea what my politics are, because I don't share them here. I don't need to state my political credentials to you. But it is extreme arrogance on your part for you to ASSUME you know what the fuck my political leaning is. Forget arrogance, it is IGNORANCE.

Please explain how you think you "know from my comments" what my political views are and where it "was proven before." You can't! You might find some posts that were made in the blue right after I said in the grey, "I'll go play devil's advocate to show how intolerant everyone is of dissent." I tipped my hand. So please explain how you think you know what my politics are? You don't.

But thank you for proving my point PERFECTLY.
posted by Seth at 11:10 AM on June 15, 2004


but I think people being assholes is what makes it blow up.

...And the group dynamics issue is that it is a lot easier for those in the majority to be assholes. There are fewer consequences. Assholes in the minority get ripped to shreds.

On preview, XQUZYPHYR: I'm not saying you shouldn't say whatever you want to DD and PP or whoever. I'm suggesting that if you want to encourage opinions from both sides, some people on here should try harder to differentiate between trolling or ultra-offinsive righties and people with whom they just have a normal civil disagreement with. Not everyone who voted for GWB is a brownshirt, or hates gays, or is racist, or whatever.

I'm not saying that being in the minority excuses anyone from being an asshole, I'm saying that you folks should understand why sometimes, when faced with overwhelming, insulting, dissmissive and often patronizing arguements, some people will pull stunts, or start screaming and yelling to get attention. Think what you will of it, but that's a large reason why.

If the occasional anti-right pile on checked itself just a little, and various people on the right saw that the guidelines for the site were being enforced more evenly cross specrum, I bet you'd see an improvement in overall behaviour. That goes for obnoxious righty behaviour too, of course, but I think the majority has to make the first move.
posted by loquax at 11:13 AM on June 15, 2004


It may be a group dynamics problem at heart, but I think people being assholes is what makes it blow up.

This is true, but I cab think of several non-asshole conservatives (unclefes, aaron, lileks) and moderate leftist critics (owillis, dhartung)* who we don't see much of any more due to the aforementioned dynamic. Which is our loss. Do we want debate or do we want an echochamber?

*these people should share some blame since they've left the David Dark's and 111's of the world to represent conservatism here, and they're truly self-caricatures.
posted by jonmc at 11:15 AM on June 15, 2004


This is EXACLTY my point! TGC, you have no fucking idea what my politics are, because I don't share them here.

But see, we only know what you tell us via your posts and comments. From that information we can deduce certain things about you both that you intend to communicate and that you unintentionally reveal.

You style yourself a liberal, but your comments say otherwise.
posted by bshort at 11:27 AM on June 15, 2004


I agree, and I wish we had more non-asshole conservatives here.
posted by Vidiot at 11:28 AM on June 15, 2004


I'm a non-asshole (Canadian) conservative. Anyone want to be my friend? I promise I won't make straw man arguments or ever mention moral equivalency or post retaliatory and inappropriate threads.
posted by loquax at 11:36 AM on June 15, 2004


Seth, I've seen you claim dozens of times you don't share your political affiliations here, but considering the comments we've all read, it's pretty clear that's either bullshit or you're the worst liberal in the history of the world.
posted by The God Complex at 11:39 AM on June 15, 2004


To those who would defend Witty here, claiming that he is merely the victim of an unmerited pile-on, please go back and read the the original thread in question, specifically the first comment. Sorry, but you can't come piss in a thread and then wonder why no one's being nice to you. You get ZERO sympathy from me, Witty.

I totally agree, Jon, with your comment about the "non-asshole conservatives" being turned off from MeFi. I'd argue, however, that it's more the result of folks like DD, 111, and Witty being such loud, boorish champions of the worst aspects of conservative thinking. They've claimed the mantle of Right Wing Representation here, and the site is worse off for it.
posted by mkultra at 11:43 AM on June 15, 2004


that it's more the result of folks like DD, 111, and Witty being such loud, boorish champions of the worst aspects of conservative thinking.

I'd say it's about 50/50 that and dealing with a swarm of people who equate criticism of liberalism with conservatism and conservatism with pure evil/stupidity.
posted by jonmc at 11:55 AM on June 15, 2004


Aren't you smarter than that? Gimme a break. It was shit and you knew it when you posted it....

Oh my God I can't believe people are coming out of the woodwork to lend creedence to Witty's whinge about being persecuted for being in the "minority viewpoint." Thank you, Seth, for connecting your tireless crusade to this individual's bullshit excuses. His problem is that he responds to reason by saying things like the above: appealing to the "obvious," calling something "shit" instead of making a case against it, and getting very nasty and personal at the drop of a hat.

Witty is not at the core of some right/left MeFi soul search. Period.
posted by scarabic at 11:56 AM on June 15, 2004


Witty is not at the core of some right/left MeFi soul search. Period.

No shit, sherlock.

But it's spawning a much needed discussion anyways.
posted by jonmc at 12:02 PM on June 15, 2004


I'm not saying you shouldn't say whatever you want to DD and PP or whoever. I'm suggesting that if you want to encourage opinions from both sides, some people on here should try harder to differentiate between trolling or ultra-offinsive righties and people with whom they just have a normal civil disagreement with. Not everyone who voted for GWB is a brownshirt, or hates gays, or is racist, or whatever.

And I'm perfectly fine with that. I don't think anyone here thinks you're acting like an asshole, and as a result you I don't see anyone calling you one. On the internet, these are big steps.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 12:12 PM on June 15, 2004


Sorry, but you can't come piss in a thread and then wonder why no one's being nice to you. You get ZERO sympathy from me, Witty.

Stop making shit up duuuude. I never asked for anyone's sympathy. You'll believe what you want I guess.... selectively read what works best for you, etc. Typical. And I don't think anyone is defending me.

His problem is that he responds to reason by saying things like the above: appealing to the "obvious," calling something "shit" instead of making a case against it, and getting very nasty and personal at the drop of a hat.

Show me where I took it personal at the drop of a hat? SHOW ME. I still stand by the comment you quoted.
posted by Witty at 12:18 PM on June 15, 2004


much needed discussion

[points at jonmc, laughs]

Okay Witty, here you go. It's right in this MeTa callout.

amberglow - Campaigning for support for your shit thread?

So you're in a thread, and you're commenting, and you take a swipe at someone else, cuss at him, and insinuate that he's got some selfish purpose in mind when he comments (saving his own post).

There. You dumb slut.
posted by scarabic at 12:42 PM on June 15, 2004


Stop making shit up duuuude. I never asked for anyone's sympathy. You'll believe what you want I guess.... selectively read what works best for you, etc. Typical. And I don't think anyone is defending me.

Fair enough. How about "Sorry, but you can't come piss in a thread and then wonder why no one takes you seriously".

Show me where I took it personal at the drop of a hat? SHOW ME. I still stand by the comment you quoted.

mary8nne, didn't your mom teach your not to take gang bangs from frat boys in college?
posted by mkultra at 1:07 PM on June 15, 2004


[points at jonmc, laughs]

[points at scarabic, using different finger]
posted by jonmc at 1:21 PM on June 15, 2004


Poor example. How is that taking it personal? It's a comment in response to a comment. Is everyone here in capable of reading what people say BEFORE I (or whoever) comment? If you want to call it "personal"... fine. Then amberglow took it personal, not me. Would you call me a dumb slut to my face? I very much doubt it.

mkultra - Good example... although dated (and it's already been apologized for).
posted by Witty at 1:23 PM on June 15, 2004


Witty: You don't know what words mean, do you?
posted by Jairus at 1:42 PM on June 15, 2004


How is that taking it personal? How? It's attacking a person by name, instead of talking about the subject thread at hand. It's dragging a personal gripe from one thread to another. It's shitting on someone wherever they go because they did something you didn't like. It ascribed personal, selfish motives to amberglow, instead of dealing with what he said directly. It's not a comment on a comment. It's a comment on a person.

Moreover, you like to tell people that their opinions are bullshit because they're politically biased. That's also personal. I've never seen you construct any evidence that might support such an accusation, though that would be possible, perhaps, with a little work. But you don't want to work.

If you don't want to work: lurk.
posted by scarabic at 1:59 PM on June 15, 2004


Would you call me a dumb slut to my face? I very much doubt it.

And what does that have to do with anything? Is that some sad assertion of personal might?, Or a thinly veiled threat? What is that? I'm actually serious, Witty. What is the point of that? *chuckle*
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:16 PM on June 15, 2004


You're insane scarabic... and guilty of only reading what you want to see. The comment of mine that you used as an example is a DIRECT response to this comment made by amberglow... made BEFORE MY COMMENT. HE is the one that made it personal. HE is the one that dragged a personal grip from one thread to another. He is the one that shit on someone because of something he didn't like. It's not a comment ot a comment. It's a comment on a person.

Moreover, you like to tell people that their opinions are bullshit because they're politically biased. That's also personal.

No... FLAT WRONG. I do not. People tell ME that all the time though. If you're referring to my comment that I pulled from your previous comment... I never said you're opinion was bullshit. I merely suggested that you're opinion of the movie's rating could be (and probably is) fueled by the fact that you likely agree with Michael Moore's politics. Otherwise, I don't think you would care. I NEVER said your opinions were bullshit. You're lying and inventing shit.

What is the point of that?

What do you care?
posted by Witty at 2:26 PM on June 15, 2004


scarabic: why criticise Witty thus: "It's not a comment on a comment. It's a comment on a person" when you hypocritically attack with "You dumb slut."?

The only way to claim the moral high ground over a debating opponent is not to sink to their level.

In my eyes, witty = scarabic. I doubt I'm alone.
posted by dash_slot- at 2:30 PM on June 15, 2004


Meta-Talk; When you shit all over my thread, i bit my tongue,
posted by thomcatspike at 2:33 PM on June 15, 2004


I think it's fairly clear that this thread was a disaster. I should have known a little contrition after such behaviour was probably too much to ask, given his history, but I'm surprised that he's managed to twist this thread into something entirely different.

It would have been painfully simple for you to say "you know what, I thought it was a bad fpp and I went over the top. I shouldn't have said anything inside the thread itself, at least not number of times I said it. I apologize to amberglow for trying to ruin his thread, even though I maintain it wasn't a good fpp." Instead you came here, nailed yourself to a cross, and made a fool of yourself again. Bravo.
posted by The God Complex at 2:34 PM on June 15, 2004


No, Witty. Amberglow made a link. There was no swearing, there was no accusation. He just made what you were already doing a little more visible. There's no shitting. There's no personal attack there. Sorry. Nice try.

You accuse people of having some vested interest in the political issue, and being unable to fairly discuss the concomitant ethical issues. I'm not surprised that people accuse you of this, given your behavior, and the fact that others accuse you of this does absolutely nothing to excuse your poor behavior.

I merely suggested that you're opinion of the movie's rating could be (and probably is) fueled by the fact that you likely agree with Michael Moore's politics.

Uh, DUH! Yeah, that's exactly what I mean. I don't care if you used the word "bullshit" or not. You're still implying that I don't really have anything worth saying, because I'm too 0wn3d by my politics to care.

Thanks for repeating that little exchange. You totally made my point for me (again). Jeezus, I feel like I'm slamming a door on your head and you're willing to take over for a minute here and there when I get tired.

Your point is well taken, dash_slot, I should have given this up long ago.
posted by scarabic at 2:37 PM on June 15, 2004


What is the point of that?

What do you care?


'Cause I wanna know what you're all on this about. You're defending yourself against those awful people who pick on you, but you're doing it in the most annoying and inflammatory ways. The physical threat bit ... not gonna work on much of anybody; not me for sure. If you're itchin' for a fight, I'll give you the scrap of your life. Come on up to town. The one who picks the other off the floor buys the beer. If you're itchin' for a Mefi fight, than be honest about it, and understand that others here can and will attempt to kick your ass. Bringing up the face-to-face is a sure way to lose credibility in an online world community. So why do you do it? What do you hope to gain? Specifically: What is the point of defending yourself for being an ass with the claim that you're a badass?
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:52 PM on June 15, 2004


Witty says: "Would you call me a dumb slut to my face? I very much doubt it."

That may mean - "I'll bet you're more polite in person."

Wulfgar assumes it can *only* mean - "put yer dukes up, I'm taking you on". He takes that apart, only to make the same offer ("understand that others here can and will attempt to kick your ass").

WTF? Who's a badass on that basis?

The hypocrisy is stark, and runs throughout this thread. I thought you guys were familiar witht he golden rule?
posted by dash_slot- at 3:02 PM on June 15, 2004


I think it's fairly clear that this thread was a disaster.

So you say. I've bowed down when necessary. I just don't find this to be one of those times. I don't care that I shit on amberglow's thread. If he can shit on the front page, then I can shit in his shit thread. What's the big deal? Obviously a meta-callout wouldn't have accomplished anything in terms of having the thread deleted, because the thread STILL exists to this day, even after all this. So the purpose of attracting attention to it's hypocritical shittiness has still been accomplished.

He just made what you were already doing a little more visible. There's no shitting.

And that's where the error was made. You don't have to agree.

Jeezus, I feel like I'm slamming a door on your head and you're willing to take over for a minute here and there when I get tired.

Well, oddly enough, I feel the same way. So we both win.

If you're itchin' for a fight, I'll give you the scrap of your life. Come on up to town. The one who picks the other off the floor buys the beer.

Are you threatening me? /beavis

The hypocrisy is stark, and runs throughout this thread.

Thank you.
posted by Witty at 3:12 PM on June 15, 2004


If he can shit on the front page, then I can shit in his shit thread.

Witty: what were you complaining of again.

Sometimes I fucking despair.

What is so hard about "don't do that which you complain of?"
posted by dash_slot- at 3:20 PM on June 15, 2004


Regarding this subject.
posted by moonbiter at 3:32 PM on June 15, 2004


"I don't care that I shit on amberglow's thread."

And therein lies the problem.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:32 PM on June 15, 2004


Because to me, the post was made deliberately. I'm familiar enough with amberglow's posting history to make that judgement, in my opinion. I could be wrong, but I haven't heard amberglow refute the charge yet. I think he knew the post was well below par and devoid of any potential worth. It was his blatant disregard for what might be best for the site that I chose to act similarly in his thread. I knew it wouldn't get deleted on poor posting etiquette alone (because it was anti-Bush administration in nature, if even in a roundabout way). The thread remains. It remains because the reasons for deletion are subjective and biased towards the politics of the majority (and the site owner). That's cool. But let's not pretend that it doesn't exist then. I didn't derail the thread. My first comment may have been "harsh", for lack of a better word. But I DID comment on the post, whereas kjh commented on my comment and therefore started the derailing at that point.
posted by Witty at 3:35 PM on June 15, 2004


Witty says: "Would you call me a dumb slut to my face? I very much doubt it."

That may mean - "I'll bet you're more polite in person."

Wulfgar assumes it can *only* mean - "put yer dukes up, I'm taking you on". He takes that apart, only to make the same offer ("understand that others here can and will attempt to kick your ass").

WTF? Who's a badass on that basis?

The hypocrisy is stark, and runs throughout this thread. I thought you guys were familiar witht he golden rule?


Dash_slot, I asked him the meaning and he refused to answer, and you're going to dig some kind of perverse hypocricy out of that? Witty is being unclear, but you're being an idiot. Quite unlike you, I was very clear about what I assumed his statements could mean. Your twisting of the obvious just shows more of that little tiny "they're picking on us"whine. Stand up and speak the truth, dash_slot. Stand up and speak the truth Witty. Why bring up what isn't going to happen as if its a defense of what is happening? Witty acted the jerk ... yet again ... and offered some face off as if it had value. I didn't profer that, he did. So, what is the meaning? (And just for the record, that's why I care, though it was misdirected in the most cowardly of fashions). You're both still pathetically avoiding the point:

Specifically: What is the point of defending yourself for being an ass with the claim that you're a badass?

Eeeewww, You wouldn't say that, like, you know, to my face!!! *snuffle, snuffle*.

Here's the thing, boys. I wouldn't call Witty a "dumb slut" (not my thing) but I would call him an ignorant fuck ... to his face. Is that a threat? No, its a statement of fact. Does that have any bearing on MetaFilter? Not in the least ... until Witty claims bullshit otherwise. And then you want to call me a hypocrite? Hardly. So, seriously, Witty, what was your meaning? Or do you, once again, prefer to answer a question with a question?
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:54 PM on June 15, 2004


...but I haven't heard amberglow refute the charge yet. I think he knew the post was well below par and devoid of any potential worth. It was his blatant disregard for what might be best for the site that I chose to act similarly in his thread.

You're some imbecile--i explained why i posted it, above. I thought it was interesting and a new idea about a topic people here care about. Your charge is that it was shitty and worthless--a charge you never even gave a reason for, and still haven't. Besides shitting all over the thread i posted, You were nasty to someone from that thread in another thread! If your rationale is blatant disregard, I suggest you should have blatantly disregarded my post, and skipped over it, but apparently you're unable to scroll or something. If you dislike the politics of the majority or of the site owner, post links about that, or leave this place. What have you gained--last night and today? What have you accomplished? Did spreading your shit over multiple threads, and again here make you feel like a big man? huh? good for you.

Shitty and worthless--interesting words...hmmm...who could they apply to?

and on preview: what Wulfgar said. You wanna be a tough, big man? come to NYC--we'll have a "chat."
posted by amberglow at 3:57 PM on June 15, 2004


You've undermined your own case, Witty.

This is not about left/right, it's about managing personal frustrations, standards of behaviour and the ability to restrain yourself- and to take responsibility for one's excesses.

Pointing at others who also transgress is juvenile. Stopping your shitting on our communal doorstep, one post at a time, will work; laying a turd next to another one won't.

Don't feel got at - we all know the message is applies to all with current posting rights. I am not going to pompously decry all who have let down our standards in this affair, but you are still here, hanging on. I wish that you could let it go.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:01 PM on June 15, 2004


Stand up and speak the truth, dash_slot.

Well, truth is, my skins gotten thicker over time, so personal attacks like "you're acting like an idiot" roll off these days. However, they demonstrate disrespect for the opinion of another mefite, putting over a possible interpretation of words on a screen. I truly believe - i need no encouragement from you Wulfgar! - that that is one meaning. Your response is aggressive and defensive - as if I attacked you, so you must attack me. Thats a crock. You're hypocrisy is in acting exactly as the person you attacked did, what's worse - you don't see that.

Your twisting of the obvious just shows more of that little tiny "they're picking on us"whine.
US? With which group or person are you assuming I have a connection or affiliation?

And Wulfgar! - I'm not avoiding the question. Don't ask me to answer for another's words ['What is the point of defending yourself for being an ass with the claim that you're a badass?'] I have nothing to do with witty or anyone else's macho posturings - if you hadn't noticed, I will state for the record - abuse and threats are out of order here.

on preview:
fuck me, the testosterone is squirting all over the place tonight, ain't it?
posted by dash_slot- at 4:16 PM on June 15, 2004


fuck me, the testosterone is squirting all over the place tonight, ain't it?

Ug!

*pisses around thread like a wolf*

*looks for female to drag off to cave by the hair*
posted by jonmc at 4:32 PM on June 15, 2004


Dash_slot, please understand, I'm well within my venue when you defend another MeFite's will to avoid a straight and fairly spoken question. Read what I've written again, and you will find no defensiveness. Aggression, absolutely. And the problem with that is ... What?

I'm sorry if I've hurt you with my claims that you are defending an idiocy, but I gave Witty ample chance to speak for himself, and he chose not to; rather to let you speak for him in a manner not at all keeping with the import of his words before you. I agree that abuse and threats are out of order here, so why do you defend them, and then allow Witty to hide cowardly behind your words? Yes, he may have meant something other than what I percieved as his import, but that was for him to support ... not you. So one wonders; why did you?

And you will, if you choose, notice that I've laid no threats here. I've offered to Witty an outpouring of his own aggression, should he so choose. That's up to him, not you. Please don't accept his burden; that would lead to emnity that niether of us wish to happen. I've written no hypocricy here, and you've miles to go before you can prove that I have.

Seriously, don't defend stupidity. I've several logical arguments that show a granted support of said idiocy by a defense of it. The right wingnuts have grasped those as mantra. I don't see you as having such a firm grasp of wingnuttery, so why are you attempting to take me to task when I haven't mispoken the truth?

*on preview*
Jon, the Alpha male will drag down all females by the back of the neck, and the one who bares her teeth and forces herself up against his superior weight is the one he will choose as mate. She chooses by the one who will not back down to her teeth and will. And she checks to see that his piss will defend an adequate territory for her cubs. It is her choice, not his, that makes the difference. Thus the pack continues ... You'll have to trust me, but I know these things. I'm just sayin' ...
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:55 PM on June 15, 2004


Carry on - you intend to misunderstand my intentions and my words, if you think I'm accepting his burden. I don't intend to dissect all of your assumptions.

Dash_slot, please understand, I'm well within my venue
- that's ironic, as I don't know what that means - we don't have this expression in the UK.

I don't belong to any clique here. That's problematic sometimes, but I feel no need to hold back from describing his or your aggression and/or hypocrisy. Which I repeat is to be found here: Witty :"Would you call me a dumb slut to my face? I very much doubt it." - Wulfgar! assumes is aggression.
Wulfgar!: "understand that others here can and will attempt to kick your ass" - which I *interpret* as being of almost equivalent meaning.


If you are so keen for Mefites to answer questions posed by others, please answer mine.

Who do you think I'm associating with? Witty?

Jeez, man - gimme a break!

Though he's probably rubbing his hands with glee at this little spat.
posted by dash_slot- at 5:34 PM on June 15, 2004


Migs: "The good thing about you, Eternal Bore, is that you make everyone around you seem amusing."

EB: Likewise, it's my understanding that you make everyone around you seem genuine and virile—including the ladies. You see, we all have our perverse virtues.


I'd just like to say that I enjoyed this exchange immensely even though it hurts me deep inside, because I like them both.

That is all.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:41 PM on June 15, 2004



Witty says: "Would you call me a dumb slut to my face? I very much doubt it."


I honestly thought he meant that some other, different insult would occur to me once I saw what he looked like.

sorry! sorry! I'm supposed to be outta here!
posted by scarabic at 5:45 PM on June 15, 2004


Witty, can't you just stop being a jerk, so we can all get along again?
posted by majcher at 5:53 PM on June 15, 2004


Who do you think I'm associating with? Witty?

Associating with Witty? That's up to you. Defending Witty? Obviously. What is so obtuse here? And why do you find such little difference between an online verbage based kicking of ass, and a face-to-face John Wayne showdown? That seems simple enough to pretty much anybody ... save you?
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:43 PM on June 15, 2004


I don't care that I shit on amberglow's thread. If he can shit on the front page, then I can shit in his shit thread. What's the big deal?

Ya ever think maybe there's a reason people shit in your thread? It's like the grade school bully. Be the bigger man. Ignore the "shit" and just respond to the arguments and maybe people would come to respect you. Believe it or not, I have heard the occasional iota of respect for former conservatives from our resident libs. I am a conservative, but your method of...ummm..."arguing? is going to accomplish nothing but cause an even bigger strife. You think the liberals are running amock on MeFi? SO FUCKING WHAT. Be the bigger man and ignore their shitting. Plus, being such an ass is only going to further invalidate your further posts & comments (should they? no? but to say people don't see your pen name and think of crap like is not human).
posted by jmd82 at 6:47 PM on June 15, 2004


Witty, shut up and listen. I have defended you in the past, and I even thought your initial post which started this whole mess, while tasteless, was not so bad. Your subsequent invective sunk you. You would do well to listen to the criticism you are getting. You seem to be internalizing this as merely an attack on your politics, but that would be wrong. People here are attacking your interaction style. Everyone keeps saying it but you are not hearing, attack the message not the messenger. If you stuck to this principle you would garner much more respect around here.
posted by caddis at 7:02 PM on June 15, 2004


Thank God we have MetaTalk to keep this crap out of the blue.
posted by NortonDC at 7:22 PM on June 15, 2004


God, this is tedious.

Wulfgar!, it is you who said: You're both still pathetically avoiding the point:

No, I'm not.

And yes, you are.

You are obtusely associating me with Witty, simply because - on one small point - I have simply offered a non-violent explanation of his words. I've no idea whether my interpretation is more exact than yours: nor do you.You have chosen to see Witty's words as a challenge.

You don't have to respond to even your interpretation of Witty's words, another valid choice would be to ignore the hot air. Instead, you offer him out for a fight.

Do they start fights in bars up by you if ya look at 'em funny?

You are clearly being disingenuous, and not even trying to understand what I was saying . Fair enough.

And why do you find such little difference between an online verbage based kicking of ass, and a face-to-face John Wayne showdown? -
Um, no - that's you, that is. See your response to witty.

So when you say - come on up to town, we'll have a stand-up, drag-out slugfest - just after taking issue with someone else's veiled threat, I take your meaning to be clear.

I don't think it was a likely scenario, but it was clearly a contradiction. Try to see what I'm saying.

I don't think you will get what I'm saying, but I doubt I have any more to say. I'll leave the last drawn out comments (on this side issue) to you, should you need them.
posted by dash_slot- at 7:23 PM on June 15, 2004


Girls, Girls, you're both pretty, OK?

Now go to bed.
posted by jonmc at 8:11 PM on June 15, 2004


Witty
posted by quonsar at 8:19 PM on June 15, 2004


hey, witty's foxy!
posted by amberglow at 8:32 PM on June 15, 2004


Perhaps, Witty, you might consider starting your own personal weblog. It would give you a chance to vent some strong emotions and provide an opportunity to practice thoughtful composition.
posted by stevis at 9:57 PM on June 15, 2004


Migs: "The good thing about you, Eternal Bore, is that you make everyone around you seem amusing."

EB: Likewise, it's my understanding that you make everyone around you seem genuine and virile—including the ladies. You see, we all have our perverse virtues.

dash slot: "fuck me, the testosterone is squirting all over the place tonight, ain't it?"


I shouldn't be laughing hysterically over all this, should I?
*attempts to take the entire thread seriously*
*fails miserably*
Too late - I'm already terribly amused. Damn.
(I was sure Mig and EB would get along famously - turns out it's like matter and antimatter.)
posted by batgrlHG at 10:15 PM on June 15, 2004


I think it's more like pipe smoker meets pot smoker. Not necessarily a match.

until, of course, the pot smoker puts something interesting in the pipe smoker's pipe
posted by scarabic at 11:27 PM on June 15, 2004


Witty wins by managing to get posters I like to descend to his level.
posted by fuzz at 3:38 AM on June 16, 2004


batgrlHG: yes, that's natural - both to my 'squirting' quip, and to the whole thread. The tragedy is that the serious points are gonna be overlooked.

I doubt that we'll ever see Migs & EB together in the same room at the same time, kinda like Latoya and Michael Jackson.

As for witty, my advice is to stop sawing through the high-wire cable. You're a long way up.
posted by dash_slot- at 5:46 AM on June 16, 2004


« Older Announcing the new search features   |   we've now got some XFN features in place Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments