Mefi's scholarly value?

January 29, 2005 10:05 PM

"My thesis is on Metafilter..."
This isn't the first reference I've seen to The Blue as an empirical playground for academic discourse. What exactly is Mefi's scholarly value?
posted by Saucy Intruder to MetaFilter-related at 10:05 PM (70 comments total)

The relation of physical communities to online communities and how a similar infrastructure is achieved (or is shed in favour of something different). There's also a lot of things you could look into about moderation, rules and punishment, etc.--how it's handled in different communities and what the effects are.

There are literally endless things you could look at, especially if you're coming at it from a sociological perspective.
posted by The God Complex at 10:08 PM on January 29, 2005

"What exactly is Mefi's scholarly value?" Well, I got my PhD from one of the text ads here. $19.95!
posted by arse_hat at 10:19 PM on January 29, 2005

I think its interesting to watch the social dynamic, basically, how a virtual community becomes a way for people to gather in real life. People form rules, in-jokes, and subcommunities, and it all happens organically.

The thing that I like most about Metafilter is its variety (even with all the PoliticsFilter stuff). Its sort of the same situation I see at college: broad, ranging, informed and uninformed discussion that forces you to think. Its addictive and often educational to read or participate in a different discussion every day. For me its a digital agora and just by listening I can occasionally learn something new (for example). I'll probably castigated for being a starry-eyed newb, but learning through conversation is my preference, and I don't think anything here can be judged empirically or be found statistically significant.
posted by tweak at 10:45 PM on January 29, 2005

I have been an active reader / semi-active participant of this site for a long time. I was offered some money to do a MA in Sociology (didn't even have to apply!) with a prof who does work in the field of Sociology of Cyberspace (specifically, online gaming clans). I jumped at the chance, and knew instantly that I was going to do my thesis on Metafilter. I started my coursework in Fall of '03, and have been working on the thesis aspect since last September.

My thesis is fairly straightforward: it examines the emergent way that Mefites have become either socially stratified over time or simply socially differentiated (the difference being more of a visual one - are certain users higher up in the social ladder - or are they all at the same level, with some users simply being more visible than others?)

Considering that we have only one user with any formal power (well, I guess two now), it seemed at first to me that there were certain members here that have influential power over the rest of the community. Following the work of Pierre Bourdieu, I argue that this influential power stems from those members cultural and social capital (stemming from the offline world - i.e. being technologically savvy, particular taste in culture etc), and a form of capital specific to the virtual community that I have labeled virtual capital (which I am still toying with at the moment - but looks at things like knowledge of memes, frequency of posting etc).

I have been using online ethnographical methods along with computer mediated discourse analysis, going through the archives, etc. To be honest, the whole thing seems like a total mess right now - I am still working on making the pieces fit, and working through all the stuff that happened when the gates were opened in November.

So that is it - in a nutshell.

Here is my question (slash favour slash getting down on my knees and begging for mercy):

I am wanting to make a couple of posts over the next month or so on Metatalk to ask some questions I would like the community's input on. These questions are not without precedent (think Miguel, but less chatty). However, I am cognizant of past attempts of using Metafilter in this way, and the cries of "homework filter." Do you think this would be acceptable? Even though I kind of already know the answer (some people would be willing to participate, some others would give me a hard time - just like everything else here), I don't want to start a huge "thing" over it. An example of a post would be something like "How do you differentiate between users when you are reading a thread?" (badly formed - but you get the idea).

Kosher?
posted by Quartermass at 11:23 PM on January 29, 2005

I think you should do it. I have all sorts of social capital on metafilter, stemming from my awesomeness, and people will listen to me when I say that you should do it. You can quote me and use pictures in your thesis, perhaps one of me in a flattering sport coat and raybans.
posted by The God Complex at 12:07 AM on January 30, 2005

I'd like to confirm that The God Complex is indeed awesome.
posted by interrobang at 12:25 AM on January 30, 2005

The God Complex, don't forget the kakhie Dockers.
posted by arse_hat at 12:30 AM on January 30, 2005

Quartermass - shall you include reactions to the female minority?
posted by Cranberry at 12:41 AM on January 30, 2005

I will wear creased khakis.

I'd like to confirm that The God Complex is indeed awesome.

Your next payment is in the mail.
posted by The God Complex at 12:41 AM on January 30, 2005

"I will wear creased khakis." I think the crease is in your legs. But hey! That's awesome too!
posted by arse_hat at 12:53 AM on January 30, 2005

What exactly is Mefi's scholarly value?

Interesting question.




I will wear creased khakis.

I grow old . . . I grow old . . .
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.
posted by orange clock at 1:45 AM on January 30, 2005

metafilter: so elegant, so intelligent
posted by andrew cooke at 4:58 AM on January 30, 2005

Won't knowing we're part of a thesis paper somehow change us?
posted by graventy at 5:05 AM on January 30, 2005

ala Heisenberg?
posted by caddis at 5:44 AM on January 30, 2005

squeak!
posted by petebest at 6:37 AM on January 30, 2005

Quartermass - shall you include reactions to the female minority?

The ruling anglo American male discourse is a defining quality of the discourse on Metafilter. Lots of recent example of that...

Won't knowing we're part of a thesis paper somehow change us?
posted by graventy at 5:05 AM PST on January 30

Well it might if I was doing quantum mechanics! :)

Actually, because my methodology is qualitative in nature, I am not looking to scientifically measure my hypothesis - in which case I might be worried about "changing" the outcome. It is the same as if I was interviewing you - you know that I am interviewing you, so all I can hope for is honesty.

Lemke says it better than I can:
Human communities and cultures are often more interesting for what is unique to them than for what they all have in common. Moreover, one of the important properties of any class is precisely the specification of how the members of the class differ from one another. Many sentences have a lot in common; that is the foundation of grammar. Many texts have a little in common, hence the concept of genre. But while the resources and strategies by which texts and discourse are constructed may be common to many texts, and help to specify how they may differ from one another, what is ultimately of interest about any text is its meaning, and that is its most unique feature. Discourse analysis will not tell us a lot about how all classrooms or all science writing is alike (it will tell us a little), but it provides us with the tools to analyse and understand what exactly is going on in any discourse or text we wish to analyse. That is as much as any theory really does for us in practice.
posted by Quartermass at 6:48 AM on January 30, 2005

Quartermass: And you in turn will post your completed thesis online, right? I think it sounds like fun, but maybe you should also email #1 and discuss it off-site.
posted by LarryC at 7:13 AM on January 30, 2005

I vote "yes" on donating our virtual bodies to science.
posted by taz at 7:23 AM on January 30, 2005

Of course, when I am finished (looking at late Spring here), I am going to post it, and then get someone to link it for me!

I was actually going to contact #1 first, but it kind of slipped out last night, and I felt I needed to respond asap.
posted by Quartermass at 7:26 AM on January 30, 2005

You've been using this community as a research subject for almost four months and this is the first time you bothered to let us in on our lab rat status? I find that I'm quite uncomfortable with that.
posted by jacquilynne at 8:03 AM on January 30, 2005

if you're lucky he might use that quote as a chapter heading.
posted by andrew cooke at 8:13 AM on January 30, 2005

.
posted by mischief at 8:29 AM on January 30, 2005

/ fixes hair and puts on makeup.
posted by madamjujujive at 8:41 AM on January 30, 2005

You've been using this community as a research subject for almost four months and this is the first time you bothered to let us in on our lab rat status? I find that I'm quite uncomfortable with that.

It is a public product, after all, available for anyone to observe and opine upon. It's not as if he's been doing secret experiemental research, instigating particular kinds of incidents in order to see how you react. (At least I hope not! The Human Research Board at his university would have something to say about that.) Maybe you could think of it as if you were a writer for the New York Times and someone were doing a research project about trends in Times reporting.
posted by redfoxtail at 8:43 AM on January 30, 2005

ooh! I hope does the one where he makes us shock one another until our eyes bulge out just to see if we'll ever stop. (We wont.)
posted by taz at 8:53 AM on January 30, 2005

damn apostrophes.
posted by taz at 8:54 AM on January 30, 2005

You've been using this community as a research subject for almost four months and this is the first time you bothered to let us in on our lab rat status? I find that I'm quite uncomfortable with that.

As others have pointed out, I am not doing experimental research. I have full ethics clearance from my university, in which it was discussed at what point I should make myself known. Because I have been doing non-intrusive archival research, the committee did not feel it was necessary to make my research presence known. All I have been doing is inferring meaning from aggregates of comments and posts - not unlike what most of us do all of the time when we are reading Metafilter. I am just doing it on a (slightly) larger scale.

I was planning on "coming out" at around this point to bring up the possibility of starting a few discussions, which would be self selecting (meaning you don't have to participate).

Rest assured that I will not be using any names/quotes (which you can search and find the names) in the final product without consent from the authors (which is more than what most people do when they use Metafilter for news articles etc.)

It is a grey area though - I will admit that. This is a public forum that anyone can read, and seeing as we are all as anonymous as we want to be (i.e. everyone uses a nickname and no one is forced to put their real name or email address in their user page). However, there is research that points to the fact that while people know they are posting publicly, they still feel it to be somewhat private.

Also, if you look at the press section about page, people have been copping off of Metafilter for a long, long time. I don't think what I am doing is any different, I am just using Metafilter for a slightly different reason, and I am not getting paid for it.

Now, about those scholarships. . .
posted by Quartermass at 9:20 AM on January 30, 2005

I'm confused. This cultivation of influential power within online communities through the attainment of social/cultural and virtual capital, it vibrates?
posted by eddydamascene at 9:38 AM on January 30, 2005

Like you wouldn't believe, eddy.
posted by jonmc at 9:51 AM on January 30, 2005

Yes it does.

Actually, the theory I am working from comes from french sociologist Pierre Bourdieu's notion of class.

It goes like this -

Capital presents itself in three fundamental guises:

as economic capital, which is immediately and directly convertible into money and may be institutionalized in the forms of property rights;

as cultural capital, which is convertible, on certain conditions, into economic capital and may be institutionalized in the forms of educational qualifications;

as social capital, made up of social obligations ("connections"), which is convertible, in certain conditions, into economic capital and may be institutionalized in the forms of a title of nobility (Bourdieu, 1986, 243).

Bourdieu states that the structure of the distribution of the different types and subtypes of capital at a given moment in time represents the “immanent structure of the social world;” it acts like a set of constraints that is inscribed in the very reality of society that regulates its functioning and determines the chances of success for practices (p. 242).

In other words, capital (in all its forms) is the foundation of society, and at the same time works to guide the actions of its participants. Bourdieu posits that “it is in fact impossible to account for the structure and functioning of the social world unless one reintroduces capital in all its forms” (p. 242).

The goal of my thesis is to try this idea out in a virtual setting: Metafilter. Obviously, economic capital has no direct influence here, while cultural and social capital are very important. As well, I have seen evidence of a new form of capital, which may be unique to online forums. (still working that part out). And if we are not using capital for economic gain what are we using it for? My thought is that users transfer it for influential power.
posted by Quartermass at 9:53 AM on January 30, 2005

How do you measure influence? Noninfluential people still post a lot; the frequency by which they get ignored is impossible to quantify.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 10:09 AM on January 30, 2005

How do you measure influence? Noninfluential people still post a lot; the frequency by which they get ignored is impossible to quantify.

You are exactly right. It is easy to see when people are being listened to, but less easy to figure out when they are not.

However, I have been thinking about it in terms of Mefi celebrity vs unknown user. Our celebrities are well known, and tend to be "dealt with" more within threads (which is measurable). At the same time, there are users here who post, and who I have no idea who they are (look at the deleted MeTa thread this morning, where that complaining guy had a user # in the 500's, but this was the first time I was ever aware of him).

As this is only a MA thesis, I am focusing on the high profile users and the quantities that make them highly visible. I think I would like to come back to this in a dissertation or something, where I have more time and resources.
posted by Quartermass at 10:25 AM on January 30, 2005

Quartermass, your paper sounds very interesting and I see no ethical problems at all with you writing about us. People have written about us before, and it didn't hurt us. You don't owe it to us to let us read it, but it would be great if you got someone to link to it on the blue - or perhaps you could link to it on the gray yourself.

[makes note to self to not embarrass self on MeFi in the next six months]
posted by orange swan at 10:27 AM on January 30, 2005

As someone who is so uncool it hurts, I'd be interested to see what your conclusions are. I do think, however, that your paper will be better received by the academic community if there are quantifiable attributes that can back up your analysis.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 10:29 AM on January 30, 2005

Will this thesis involve the phrase "fish in my pants'? It will, won't it?

/sobs for academia
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 10:29 AM on January 30, 2005

I don't think it's an ethical violation, but he's studying MeFi because it's a community. A community of which he is a part. This may well be perfectly in keeping with the stuff he concludes in his paper, but I find it damaging to my sense of community to know that a fellow community member would be doing something like this without telling us.

I suppose if I were to try to make an analogy to something else, it'd be like having a group of friends who hang out together regularly. Everyone uses their digital cameras with abandon to take snaps, but one member is secretly planning to use them for an art project. It's not like they're doing anything wrong, or that he's doing anything much differently from anyone else, but it still seems like something that could have been better mentioned up front. At the same time, I wouldn't expect an artist who happened to include the group in a street shot to request permission in advance.

I'll add that I'm not horrified just uncomfortable, and not trying to raise a lynch mob or even wanting Quartermass to stop. I just wish we'd been told about this in September. I'll further add that while the paper is going to be too academic for me to fully understand, it is the sort of thing that fascinates me about online communities and I do look forward to seeing the results.
posted by jacquilynne at 10:46 AM on January 30, 2005

I just wish we'd been told about this in September.

Fair enough. I apologize for not doing so. Believe me, I have been wanting to spill my guts for a really long time (I am pretty freaking excited about this), but decided to hold out until I had something to bring to the table. I understand your hesitation, and trust that it was something that I struggled with for a really, really long time. Obviously, I was expecting more of a pile on than happened here (which is another reason for holding back), and I appreciate all of your support.

It has been my plan all along to pass my research on to everyone, so I can then bask in the glory of finally becoming a Mefi-celebrity myself!!
posted by Quartermass at 11:08 AM on January 30, 2005

An ethnographer in our midst. Cool.

Kind of like having Evans-Pritchard, Lévi-Strauss, Malinowski or Mead observing the nuances of our virtual community.
posted by ericb at 11:21 AM on January 30, 2005

We have been the subject of papers before. Heck, I was one of the subjects in somebody's paper and i only found out when I googled it.

Folks, it's all public. Anybody can be watching, and if you don't already assume that, you should.

So let's not whine for the sake of whining, 'k?
posted by konolia at 11:35 AM on January 30, 2005

I'm fine with this. But I think anyone mentioned by name in the thesis deserves a cookie. Or possibly even a slice of pie.
posted by jonmc at 11:36 AM on January 30, 2005

Just call me Algernon.
posted by squeak at 12:16 PM on January 30, 2005

Neat idea, Quartermass. I, for one, am not uncomfortable with the ethics of your ethnography or with your posting questions to the community.

One question: can you (now or in the future) elaborate on how you think "virtual capital" is different from plain old (Bourdieuian) cultural capital? Seems like people's methods of making distinctions among posters is no different from the way that we make distinctions in other areas of life that Boudieu discusses. The one major difference that I can think of is the fact that participation in this community is semi-anonymous, so many of the characteristics that are often part of cultural capital (education, speech patterns, taste, etc.) have to be inferred.

And BTW, don't worry if your thesis seems like a total mess right now - thats a very common phase of thesis-writing. Just wait until you hit the "I'm so sick of my &*#@$ thesis that I just cleaned my entire bathroom with a toothbrush" phase...
posted by googly at 12:28 PM on January 30, 2005

I am wanting to make a couple of posts over the next month or so on Metatalk to ask some questions I would like the community's input on.

Back to the question you asked: to me, this is fine if a few things happen 1. you link back to this thread so people can get backstory on what it is that you're doing [i.e. posting "who do you think has the most social capital here?" without identifying that it's for school isn't too cool, imho] 2. you're cognizant of not abusing resources and your questions are about MetaFilter, since that's what MetaTalk is for. 3. I'd drop a few bucks in the scholarship hat or otherwise give-back. If you want in-depth back and forth with people here, it would seem prudent to do that via email/chat/phone. Also, keep in mind that the nature of observing disturbs the observed, so you would almost necessarily get a different set of reactions to your questions if you asked people to respond to them in public than you would if people contacted you privately. You might want to also consider getting a list of interested MeFites from all MeFi strata who are willing to submit to [anonymous?] in-depth questioning that takes place somewhere other than here.

If you're seriously talking about "a couple of posts" I don't see the harm as long as they're on topic and accurately portrayed. I'd also consider linking back to this thread in your profile, since not everyone reads MetaTalk. FWIW I tend to use my social capital here to buy beer/coffee in foreign cities and get advice and places to stay when I travel, dunnow about everyone else.
posted by jessamyn at 12:35 PM on January 30, 2005

To answer your question googly (I haven't really fleshed it out yet), I was thinking of the ways that users become distinguished, and I think the first way is frequency of postings, which I don't think would be a form of capital in the real world.

If you post alot here, people begin to notice you. But say you were in class, and you raised your hand every three minutes, most people would just get annoyed with you. Which is to a certain degree still true here - I am thinking of people's reactions to some of the new users who came in running - but overall if I think about the users I am most familiar with, or whom I respect the most, almost all of them have a higher than average contribution index rating.

I don't know - as I said, this is still in progress, but all of the things I have come up with deal with the fact that we are interacting with text based messages, which makes it hard for people to identify themselves as unique. Things like using memes, style of writing (as opposed to style of speaking), etc.

As for being sick of it - ugh... I am pretty sick of it. Can't...wait...to...finish...
posted by Quartermass at 12:43 PM on January 30, 2005

I think you're right about the frequency of posts thing, though with the caveat that the form and content of the posts still matters. There are plenty of names here that I recognize from the frequency of their posts, but often someone can gain a lot of capital from just a few good posts. And I think that the debates over posting style and grammar are really fascinating insofar as they relate to real-world debates about education and "proper" English, etc. The next question, of course, is how virtual capital can be converted into economic or social capital. You might have to attend a mefi meetup for that one....

BTW, this is a brilliant idea. I can't tell you how much mefi-reading distracts me from academic work. If only I could say that I was "collecting data"......
posted by googly at 1:01 PM on January 30, 2005

I used to have social capital, but I spent it all on parties and women, so now I get no interest at all.
posted by arse_hat at 1:28 PM on January 30, 2005

it sounds cool, quarter, but only say nice things about me, ok?
posted by amberglow at 1:30 PM on January 30, 2005

Jessamyn,

I appreciate the feedback, and it was something I spent a lot of time debating. Early stages of my thesis involved interviews, but in the end, I feel that it would miss the group dynamic that is found here. It may not be as in-depth as it could be, but I also feel it is more natural to the way that we communicate here.
posted by Quartermass at 1:40 PM on January 30, 2005

Everyone wants to be chosen as an "important" user because they will gain even more social capital. Quartermass now has mucho capital, i.e. everyone wants to be his buddy to be chosen. How very Meta.
So, no. Heisenberg is not just for quantum mechanics. Especially when you are not just observing but also making judgements and quantifications of the status of those being observed.
posted by tinamonster at 1:53 PM on January 30, 2005

i think most of us think we're important anyway, tina, even without a scholarly paper about us. : >
posted by amberglow at 2:08 PM on January 30, 2005

So, no. Heisenberg is not just for quantum mechanics. Especially when you are not just observing but also making judgements and quantifications of the status of those being observed.

*squirms away from the spotlight*

I think you are right, but at the same time such a thing is unavoidable. All I can say is that I am not going to "choose" anyone because they are my "buddy." (probably).

I had two choices - both of them with their own pros and cons. I could remain annonymous, and ask my research questions under the guise of disinterested interest (and then "suprise" - here is a paper about you all - which would have been a no-no as jessamyn pointed out), or I could do as I have done here - lay everything on the table - and possibly sway the outcome.

In the end, I can live with the results of my candor (especially if it makes me a few new friends!). and again, the bulk of my research is done - the discussion threads will be used more for enrichment (i.e. my results are not contingent on how people respond to me). Thus, again, all I can ask for is honesty, and full-blown, no holds barred flamewars.
posted by Quartermass at 2:12 PM on January 30, 2005

I don't think it's an ethical violation, but he's studying MeFi because it's a community. A community of which he is a part. This may well be perfectly in keeping with the stuff he concludes in his paper, but I find it damaging to my sense of community to know that a fellow community member would be doing something like this without telling us.

This does blur the line, though I think it comes out on the ethical side of things. While he is part of the community and members post without thinking about whether or not it's going to be used in an MA thesis, it is also open to anyone with access to the internet to search and save and quote and analyze. If MetaFilter were just a group of people who got together to hang out a lot, like a Stitch 'n Bitch (but predominantly male and with more politics), Quartermass would certainly need to obtain informed consent before recording data. In this situation, not so much. That goes for the IRC channel too, since those participating know that it can be logged by anyone who's online. The criteria for requiring informed consent are kind of blurred by the web -- you can't record people on the subway, but you can keep a log of #mefi; you can't videotape your buddies in a bar without telling them, but you can keep copies of interactions on MeFi.

(Informed consent requires that those recorded know what has been recorded, how it's going to be used, and who will have access to it. They also have the power to make you use a transcription rather than the recording, to ensure the use of a pseudonym, and to erase anything they don't want to go public. MetaFilter is already public, so it seems to be a moot point.)
posted by heatherann at 2:16 PM on January 30, 2005

it's really no different from a stranger writing about us (and they have, haven't they?)

everything here really is available to everyone who's online--member or not.
posted by amberglow at 2:28 PM on January 30, 2005

"Everyone wants to be chosen as an "important" user because they will gain even more social capital. " That and $100.00 might get you a dinner date.
posted by arse_hat at 2:29 PM on January 30, 2005

Especially when you are not just observing but also making judgements and quantifications of the status of those being observed.

In defence of the study, this is really no different than what Erving Goffman (a sociologist) did in his study of American psychiatric institutions and his concept of "total institutions". If I recall either Goffman or another person have also studied psychiatric institutions by becoming "patients" at a hospital in order to better understand some of the behaviour there*, it's a branch of sociology that gets criticism because of the interaction with the subject. I'm not surprised it is being done here, I've often thought, why aren't online communities being studied?

*curious derail: the patients at the hospital were better able to tell when the fake patients were faking illness than the doctors trained to diagnose illness, something that I found amusing.
posted by squeak at 2:39 PM on January 30, 2005

If you post alot here, people begin to notice you. But say you were in class, and you raised your hand every three minutes, most people would just get annoyed with you.

I don't think this is such a different case, it's just on a different scale. If someone frequently participates in a class in order to share valuable insight or personal expertise, I think it's generally appreciated, as it is here. If someone is comment-spamming, I would expect the reaction to be the same in either medium.

However, the difference is that in a class traditional etiquette dictates that whomever has been called on to speak has the floor. This means that everyone else has to listen and wait their turn the speak, which is not the case here, not to mention the fact that there has to be someone calling on the students before they can speak, whereas here it's basically a free-for-all.

In any case, this sounds like an interesting project, Quartermass.
posted by ludwig_van at 2:48 PM on January 30, 2005

I'm not at all against any aspect of Quartermass's project. I think it's great to discuss this sort of thing. It just seems to me that Quartermass is a bit naive about what kind of effects vocalizing this social strata would have, if on nothing else but on his own status, adding another strata to the discussions.

An interesting experiment might be to develop a formula to Metafilter celeb status. Then create an experimental username, apply, and chart the results.

Oh, and Amberglow:
(i think most of us think we're important anyway, tina, even without a scholarly paper about us. : >
posted by amberglow at 2:08 PM PST on January 30)
from one VERY important monster (V.I.M.?): There's no arguing that.
posted by tinamonster at 3:25 PM on January 30, 2005

Bourdieu posits that “it is in fact impossible to account for the structure and functioning of the social world unless one reintroduces capital in all its forms”

Okay, I'll bite: per Karl Popper, what evidence would one need to prove that proposition is false? And if it's impossible to falsify, why should the proposition be considered scientific?
posted by WestCoaster at 3:30 PM on January 30, 2005

"let's not whine for the sake of whining"

Is there ever any other reason?
posted by walrus at 3:45 PM on January 30, 2005

Heisenberg is not just for quantum mechanics.

Yes. Yes, he is.
posted by kindall at 4:35 PM on January 30, 2005

kindall - hell no! Heisenberg almost gave the atom bomb to the Nazis back in the 40's, and some suggest that he purposely messed with the works to ensure it didn't happen. He was also pretty important in arguing for scientist's rights under the rule of national socialism in the 30's (whether his reasoning is anything revolutionary is another question)

MetaTalk: "let's not whine for the sake of whining"
posted by cosmonik at 4:45 PM on January 30, 2005

I want a cookie!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:11 PM on January 30, 2005

from one VERY important monster (V.I.M.?): There's no arguing that.

*blushes, gets manicure from Bugs Bunny*

(i'm just a piker compared to some here--see above)
posted by amberglow at 7:11 PM on January 30, 2005

Yes. Yes, he is.

Not only that, but I hate that popular mechanistic view of Heisenberg Uncertainty. It's wrong.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:07 PM on January 30, 2005

/ fixes hair and puts on makeup.

Sorry madam... I just hadda!
posted by LouReedsSon at 9:05 PM on January 30, 2005

I tend to use my social capital here to buy beer/coffee in foreign cities and get advice and places to stay when I travel, dunnow about everyone else.
posted by jessamyn

~Checks bank account.
Figures she has enough social capital to wing a 4 hour stay at Ed's Hotel 'N Bait Shop.
Wistfully wishes she had worked harder as a young, struggling Metafiltarian.~
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 9:58 AM on January 31, 2005

That's better than the Bates Motel 'n Head Shop, SLoG — count your blessings!
posted by taz at 10:24 AM on January 31, 2005

taz Head Shops are illegal in the USA these days. Just ask Tommy Chong :-(
posted by arse_hat at 10:40 AM on January 31, 2005

Taz, thanks for the advice. I found some blessings under the seat cushions and I have enough now to upgrade to Aunt Edna's Inn & Brothel (Motto: Clean Rooms, Good Head!)
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:40 PM on January 31, 2005

:)
posted by taz at 8:54 PM on January 31, 2005