Tags:

No tags yet.

April 9, 2005
12:17 AM Subscribe

Bevets is abusing his membership. Undeniable evidence included inside.
posted by furtive to etiquette/policy at 12:17 AM (101 comments total)

Advertise here: Contact FM.

I don't know. Bevet's posts here (and his website and over at fark) have made me realize I was wrong about the whole godless heathen lifestyle I've been living for the past. I've found Jesus and now accept the bible as the one-true Word. Now that he's converted just one of us commie gay loving, abortion loving, stem cell loving, evolutionist he's ready to move on.

Seriously, I ignore his comments. Your annotation of his posting history proves he's a one-issue poster. Should he be banned? Probably. But I would hope Matt gives him a warning first. That his posting style needs to change -- he can't just re-post his canned diatribes against anything secular. He can stay if he doesn't cut and paste the same shit over and over again.

I don't agree with a single thing is bevets has said* but I'm also not a fan of silencing opinions that we not agree with.

* actually I've probably only read < 5% of his posts since they are the same worn out points, but maybe somewhere in there he may have pointed out some I do agree with like "it is a nice day" or "I prefer waffles to pancakes."
posted by birdherder at 1:02 AM on April 9, 2005

I prefer waffles to pancakes.

Burn, blasphemer!
posted by DaShiv at 1:20 AM on April 9, 2005

I fully agree that Bevets is seriously overdoing it with the self-linking and copy/pastes. It's sloppy and lazy.

However, you did provoke him in the most recent thread. This callout right after that makes you look a bit like a jerk.

Still, Bevets, get a textad or something. Self-linking in comments is something you shoud keep as sparse as possible.
posted by Saydur at 1:25 AM on April 9, 2005

As birdherder points out, Bevets is single-issue poster. Being that he is so passionate about his issue, it's unsurprising he has a website dedicated to it. Given that he's spent much time arguing that issue, and that he wishes to make his arguments as strong as he can, it's unsurprising he repeats those arguments he finds most effective.

Indeed, I think you'll find that true of nearly anyone highly invested in a position; I know that when I argue that Bevets is completely wrong, my arguments for evolution and against creationism/intelligent design tend to be the same arguments again and again, those that I've found most effective. After all, if something is (believed by you to be) true, there are only so many ways to say it.

You'll even find that across various camps, arguments tend to be the same: creationists try to find "irreducible complexity", evolutionists tend to mention Darwin's finches, or the changes in frequencies in moth coloration -- indeed, the evolutionist talkreason site calls "Peppered moth melanism" "the classic story of natural selection in the wild". Anti-Bush commentators talk about Abu Ghraib, pro-Bush commentators talk about free elections in Iraq.

Is he self-linking excessively? Perhaps, but given that he's a zealot, I suspect he does this more to lead readers to a longer exposition of his views, in the hopes of converting them, than he does it to "link farm".

Is he abusing his membership by copying and pasting his arguments? I know of no guideline that days that comments must be exclusive to MetaFilter; he's copying because he believes he came up with an effective argument. Since he believes he's providing valid information (I don't, but it's his beliefs that are pertinent, not mine) he can hardly be blamed for presenting that information in the form he feels is most persuasive. Why should we care if his edits were made just before posting or years ago? (For the record, I've copied a few of my own posts, with slight modifications, from other fora, and have copied some of my MetaFilter posts, with slight modifications, to other fora.)

One might even give Bevets some credit for parroting himself, rather than -- as certain ideological Posters_at_MetaFilter do -- copying others' talking points as seen at Little Green Snotballs.

Is Bevets annoying? I think so. Are his views laughably wrong? I strongly believe they are. Do his posts persuade me to his viewpoint? Not in the least. Do I think they're well written? No, they seem to me to be mostly quotes taken far, far out of context.

But he's as entitled as anyone else to bray like a donkey, if it so pleases him. And you're as entitled to skip reading his posts.
posted by orthogonality at 1:30 AM on April 9, 2005

Every time I see his/her user name I read it as brevets which are long distance bicycle rides.
posted by fixedgear at 2:57 AM on April 9, 2005

Excessive self-linking in comments is poor form, but not ban-worthy.
posted by squirrel at 3:15 AM on April 9, 2005

ban worthy.
posted by Dean Keaton at 4:24 AM on April 9, 2005

I had understood that linking to your own site in a comment was acceptable. Cutting and pasting from something you wrote somewhere else is certainly ok.

Anyway, I don't pay much attention to bevets, and while it's certainly your right to do so, furtive, I find this call out, and the amount of research you did to make it, both petty and a little creepy. Stop stalking the guy.
posted by anapestic at 4:29 AM on April 9, 2005

I, for one, am impressed by the amount of research you put into this post.
posted by ruelle at 4:38 AM on April 9, 2005

Now, this is a quality call out.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 4:59 AM on April 9, 2005

Self-linking in comments is acceptable if it's on-topic. And while the comments are crap and uninteresting, being a boring, axe-grinder is not a banning offence - if it was then MeFi would be little more than an eerie silence.
posted by dodgygeezer at 5:42 AM on April 9, 2005

The only place I seem to encounter bevets is here in MeTalk.
Perhaps, furtive, you are just reading the wrong threads. ;-P
posted by mischief at 6:02 AM on April 9, 2005

However, you did provoke him in the most recent thread

Yeah, and I'd say posting a whopping great image in the thread, as part of a comment that isn't even a response to the post, is much more irritating than Bevets' inane prattle. You do have a point about the self-linking, though, furtive - it is excessive, and not needed, since Bev is already quoting the content behind the link.

(And is it me, or has posting images gone from being an occasional thing, mostly restricted to mucking about in doomed threads, to a common practice? I get bored of zapping them.)
posted by jack_mo at 6:59 AM on April 9, 2005

I wouldn't call it provoking personally. Afterall, if you do post something to do with evolution or fossils or perhaps intelligent design bevets comes immediately to mind as one who consistently shows up and pretends to make constructive posts.
posted by juiceCake at 8:01 AM on April 9, 2005

I just think that bevets' canned responses derail the conversation at hand and do little to add to the discussion of the topic. I think what he is doing is quite similar to someone trying to sell penis enlargers in mefi posts: he's selling a product that the vast majority of the people on this site don't want, and don't believe works.

As to the detail of my post, I just wanted to make sure that if I was going to post a thread in MeTa that I had data to back it up, and that I was covering an angle that hadn't been covered before, after all there's been a bevets thread on MeTa before.

And the pic? It wasn't so much provocation as a preemptive attempt at disarming bevets' post since there was no doubt in my mind that he was going to reply with his typical canned response.

If the majority of people think it's fine to have him here, then I won't pursue the matter further.
posted by furtive at 8:13 AM on April 9, 2005

I just wanted to say I find it amusing that some people have questioned the "undeniable evidence." Huh, sounds like some other debates I can think of.

That said, do I find consistent self-linking annoying? yes. ineffective? yes. wearisome and a bit desperate? yes. bannable? I'd hope not; I think that an explanation that it's poor form would be better.
posted by Tuwa at 8:17 AM on April 9, 2005

I, for one, am impressed by the amount of ~~research~~ resentment you put into this post.
posted by quonsar at 8:30 AM on April 9, 2005

I honestly read one or two posts from bevets, and I really skip over them now. I looked at his website one time, when he first popped up, realized what his agenda was, the method to further that agenda (the quoting out of context, &c.), and pretty much wrote him off.

But it's good comedy relief. Really, I don't engage people that argue that way in honest debate, because there is no way it can ever come to any degree of consensus.

Like talking to a quote-machine.

Is it bannable? I don't think so. Annoying? Certainly. It's like me signing all my posts with a self-link.
posted by exlotuseater at 8:36 AM on April 9, 2005

Let's just make you the internet police ok???
posted by angry modem at 8:36 AM on April 9, 2005

As to the detail of my post, I just wanted to make sure that if I was going to post a thread in MeTa that I had data to back it up, and that I was covering an angle that hadn't been covered before, after all there's been a bevets thread on MeTa before.

The last bevets thread was among the lamest callouts in recent memory. He was called out for speaking about himself in the third person.

I get that people don't like him, but he's posted 25 times to MetaFilter, so it's not like he can't be ignored.
posted by anapestic at 8:40 AM on April 9, 2005

I see that the thread I talked about is not the thread you linked, but the thread you linked was not intended as a callout of him. I'm sure he loves the attention, though.
posted by anapestic at 8:42 AM on April 9, 2005

He was called out for speaking about himself in the third person.

That was berek (I made the same mistake myself).
posted by dhoyt at 8:46 AM on April 9, 2005

anapestic You are confusing bevets with berek.

berek was the 3rd-person callout.

dhoyt beat me to it.
posted by exlotuseater at 8:50 AM on April 9, 2005

Personally, I think he's useless and his continued monotonic axe-grinding should be banned. Failing that, use the mefi killfile user script with greasemonkey.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:51 AM on April 9, 2005

Wanted:
Please leave me alone. I no longer wish to have your company and your presence is disruptive. Go away now. Amy.
posted by Captaintripps at 8:52 AM on April 9, 2005

omg AMY I LOVE YOU
posted by exlotuseater at 9:01 AM on April 9, 2005

All things alliterative are alike to me.

Still, I am always apprehensive about callouts of individuals.

I was going to ask furtive how he would feel about a similar exploration of his own posting history, but then I went to his profile, and there's no posting history there. I can read some profile information by looking at the source code, but I can't see links to his comments. I don't think it's reasonable to scrutinize someone else's posting history while hiding one's own.
posted by anapestic at 9:09 AM on April 9, 2005

Failing that, use the mefi killfile user script with greasemonkey

Christ, it's not that hard to ignore him is it? Like dhoyt said, he has 26 comments on here. The only reason I've ever really noticed him is because everyone else talks about him so damn much.
posted by Stauf at 9:11 AM on April 9, 2005

Furtive must've spent quite a while crafting this message. It really would be something if he managed to use his powers for the benefit of mankind.
posted by crunchland at 9:15 AM on April 9, 2005

Your user page seems very furtive to me.
posted by adamvasco at 9:17 AM on April 9, 2005

well, in my Love and Marriage post, it was all "fair comments", so he's definitely capable.

(furtive is real--i met him in Montreal--a very good guy)
posted by amberglow at 9:29 AM on April 9, 2005

C'mon, y'all, Bevets contributes no value whatsoever to the community and is arguably harmful to the community.

Perhaps better than banning would be for user names to be posted before the message.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:13 AM on April 9, 2005

I'm still disappointed in Bevets--after all the buildup, he's not quite living up to his potential. /highschoolguidancecounselor
posted by amberglow at 10:55 AM on April 9, 2005

Self-linking comments is okay as the exception. Not when it's all you do.
posted by scarabic at 11:00 AM on April 9, 2005

Failing that, use the mefi killfile user script with greasemonkey.

Oh happy day! Thank you monju.
posted by gd779 at 11:07 AM on April 9, 2005

I don't mind the self-linking as much as I mind the fact that his posts, whether they contain self-links or not, contain almost no original words, they're >90% quotes from other people. His posts read like they were made by a quote-bot. bevets needs to learn to use his words to communicate.

That said, I don't think he should be banned. I just ignore him unless I need a good dose of frustration, which is rare.
posted by biscotti at 11:10 AM on April 9, 2005

Failing that, use the mefi killfile user script with greasemonkey

I can't wait until this script is hacked to report user killfile'd stats.
posted by weston at 11:15 AM on April 9, 2005

I'm still disappointed in Bevets--after all the buildup, he's not quite living up to his potential.

I'm disappointed no one in this thread has played the "Summon Bevets" card yet.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 11:15 AM on April 9, 2005

bevets seems to fade into the background noise pretty well. I had no idea what the hell furtive was talking about with that moronic card thing.
posted by blacklite at 11:24 AM on April 9, 2005

Whatever one might think of bevets's contributions (cough), his comments have sparked some really brilliant replies. I think he's worth keeping around just for that. Maybe not forever, you understand, but for now.
posted by puddinghead at 11:41 AM on April 9, 2005

I'm disappointed no one in this thread has played the "Summon Bevets" card yet.

While Bevets doesn't have his e-mail in his profile, You can find it on his site. He's been told about this thread I trust.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 11:51 AM on April 9, 2005

I assumed bevets' posts annoyed others as much as me, but perhaps that's because I'm already quite familiar with his fark posts. My bad. I'll adapt and learn to live with him. Thanks for putting me on the right path.
posted by furtive at 12:43 PM on April 9, 2005

isn't the problem that they're (nearly?) all crap threads anyway?
posted by andrew cooke at 12:52 PM on April 9, 2005

One might even give Bevets some credit for parroting himself, rather than -- as certain ideological Posters_at_MetaFilter do -- copying others' talking points as seen at Little Green Snotballs.

LOL! on the money.
posted by mr.marx at 1:28 PM on April 9, 2005

andrew cooke nailed it.
posted by Galvatron at 1:32 PM on April 9, 2005

"isn't the problem that they're (nearly?) all crap threads anyway?"

heheh. The emperor isn't wearing any clothes.
posted by BoringPostcards at 1:53 PM on April 9, 2005

Someone really wants a ban? For this?

Good God.
posted by Kwantsar at 2:29 PM on April 9, 2005

What Kwanstar said.
And Bevets was already discussed in a MeTa thread I raised a little while back, albeit a different topic. I think if Bevets gets banned for this, then so should a whole lot of other people. He's far from the only sloppy axe-grinder here- as I pointed out a while back (though some may disagree), he gets a call out simply because of his views.
posted by jmd82 at 2:37 PM on April 9, 2005

What is it with people who want to ban those they dislike, or those that irritate them? Just what is it about those people that irritates me so fucking much... yet, strangely, not enough to want to ban them? I swear I don't know.
posted by Decani at 3:04 PM on April 9, 2005

What is it with people who want to ban those they dislike, or those that irritate them?

Oh relax with the righteous indignation. While irritation is a part of it, self-linking is a pretty objectively bannable thing to point out. The issue was whether or not this constituted out-of-bounds self-linking, not whether it was just irritating.

All this shooting the messenger must have greatly encouraged bevets by now. He's a "character" now. He has a "style" now. Good lord. furtive - you did too good a job on the callout. All the folks who never noticed or couldn't give a crap have now noticed you, and in complaining about your complaing, have validated and even championed some pretty iffy behavior.

[shrugs]
posted by scarabic at 4:39 PM on April 9, 2005

Oh relax with the righteous indignation

You misread my tone, scarabic. I was sarcastically taking the piss, not being righteously indignant. I'd hoped that would have been obvious.

If anyone needs to relax, I'd suggest it's those who seek to ban people. Or things. Not those who question that.
posted by Decani at 5:59 PM on April 9, 2005

Beautifully crafted from the finest of Pixels. Bravissimo!
posted by blasdelf at 7:10 PM on April 9, 2005

self-linking is a pretty objectively bannable thing to point out.

no, self-linking in comments is not now, nor has it ever been, an issue. it's perfectly legit.
posted by quonsar at 7:59 PM on April 9, 2005

quonsar is correct.
posted by exlotuseater at 9:35 PM on April 9, 2005

Bevets has served a useful purpose -- though not the one he intended. If not for Bevets silly gibberish in the Scientific American thread, we never would have seen Felix Betachat's awesome and stellar performance in response.

Absolutely the only time I have ever seen a trollish flamewar decisively won -- hands down. It was splendid.

So Bevets earned massive slack points for making Felix's brilliant comments possible.
posted by warbaby at 9:41 PM on April 9, 2005

Show me the precedent for someone who opens an account and does nothing but self-link in comments, and show me the thread where it is decided that this is okay.

Come on, quonsar, this is a question of $5 spam, not the odd self-link in the comments, which I agree was long age established as okay and which I have done myself. But, at the risk of repeating myself, this isn't the odd self-linking comment. This is a crapload of them from someone who's contributed relatively little (except perhaps being an easily shot-down troll).

Do we really value someone because he's a straw man who brings out the flaming sword in each of us? Please don't feed the troll, let alone offer him gifts of gold.
posted by scarabic at 12:39 AM on April 10, 2005

HOLY SHIT! I didn't realize there was actually a "summon bevets" card.

This is why I'm always grateful that Fark exists.
posted by blasdelf at 2:50 AM on April 10, 2005

Ban those who think sarcasm has a place in these discussions.
I'd hoped that would have been obvious is hoping in vain. It isn't obvious.

(Am I being sarcastic? What do you think?)
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:39 AM on April 10, 2005

think?
posted by quonsar at 6:09 AM on April 10, 2005

What warbaby said. Good point and your first MeTa comment! Welcome.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 7:02 AM on April 10, 2005

A few have commented that I am single issue. Actually you will find me in threads regarding evolutionism, abortion, euthanasia, and Secular Fundamentalism.

As orthogonality has observed, Evolutionism is a topic I have spent a great deal of time researching and thinking about. When someone brings up a point, there is a pretty good chance I have responded to that point somewhere before. Rather than reinvent the wheel everytime, I will respond with what I regard as the most incisive response. People are rarely bothered that the original post is, itself, a cliche. They complain instead about my canned response to the cliche.

Several people have complained that I self link. My links pertain to the topic of the thread (I do not link to my evolutionism page on threads about Google Maps) My view on evolutionism is unique. There are millions of people in this country (and some MeFi members) who are still unaware of my views. Linking to my sight gives people who want to know more the opportunity to pursue the topic off line -- it is also much easier to skip over a link than 5 or 6 paragraphs.

I do not understand the desire to ban viewpoints that disagree with the status quo. It is most certainly counter intuitive for a public forum. I find forums where everyone agrees with me dreadfully boring. I find forums where people disagree with me MUCH more interesting.

As a fitting conclusion, a few quotes:

The wise man always throws himself on the side of his assailants. It is more his interest than it is theirs to find his weak point. ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. ~ John Stuart Mill

I don’t know how Richard Nixon could have won. I don’t know anybody who voted for him. ~ Pauline Kael
posted by bevets at 9:12 AM on April 10, 2005

Bevets quotes famous Unitarian minister and progressive thinker--Emerson. Nicely ironic.
posted by found missing at 10:34 AM on April 10, 2005

There isn't pressure to ban you because of your viewpoints. Hell, Konolia was a welcome and delightful member of this community, despite being a socially conservative frothing evangelist.

You need to be banned because you cause more harm to the community than good, through your incessantly out-to-lunch trolling. You derail threads, continually post untruths, completely fail to address your well-identified lies and misrepresentations, and are a single-themed socially-retarded twit of no value whatsoever.

We deserve better than you.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:36 AM on April 10, 2005 [1 favorite]

Even Jesus hates you.
posted by found missing at 10:44 AM on April 10, 2005

My view on evolutionism is unique. There are millions of people in this country (and some MeFi members) who are still unaware of my views...

As a fitting conclusion, a quote:

If we never flattered ourselves we should get very little pleasure indeed.

François, Duc de La Rochefoucauld MMaxims
posted by y2karl at 11:05 AM on April 10, 2005

oh, dear! MMy bad!
posted by y2karl at 11:06 AM on April 10, 2005

This is no time to be getting all steamed up about La Rochefoucauld. It's only a question of minutes before I'm going to be pretty darn good and sick of La Rochefoucauld, once and for all. La Rochefoucauld this and La Rochefoucauld that. Yes, well, let me tell you that if nobody had ever learned to quote, very few people would be in love with La Rochefoucauld. I bet you I don't know ten souls who read him without a middleman. People pick up those scholarly little essays that start off "Was it not that lovable old cynic, La Rochefoucauld, who said . . ." and then they go around claiming to know the master backwards. Pack of illiterates, that's all they are.

--Dorothy Parker, The Little Hours
posted by felix betachat at 11:37 AM on April 10, 2005

I do not understand the desire to ban viewpoints that disagree with the status quo.

Neither do I. Nor do I see it reflected here. Uncommon POVs may be engaged with lots of rhetorical opposition, here, but this thread is about self-linking, which anyone can commit, liberal and conservative alike. The only issue is whether dozens of self-links in comments add up to the self-link offense per se.

I think the message you're gettting is that it's not going to get you banned, but it's a little self-indulgent. If you have views that you want to articulate here, then articulate them here. Linking to another site where you have the freedom to pontificate unchallenged isn't the richest way to contribute to a conversation.
posted by scarabic at 11:52 AM on April 10, 2005

Like I said: summon bevets get felix.

I think it more than balances out. That's a pretty funny Dorothy Parker quote, eh?
posted by warbaby at 12:04 PM on April 10, 2005

five fresh fish

You need to be banned because you cause more harm to the community than good, through your incessantly out-to-lunch trolling. You derail threads, continually post untruths, completely fail to address your well-identified lies and misrepresentations, and are a single-themed socially-retarded twit of no value whatsoever.

Why not tell everyone what you really think? Preferrably on a pertinant thread with specific examples, so that I would have the opportunity to defend myself.

Evolutionism is a topic I have spent a great deal of time researching and thinking about. When someone brings up a point, there is a pretty good chance I have responded to that point somewhere before. Rather than reinvent the wheel everytime, I will respond with what I regard as the most incisive response...

Linking to my sight gives people who want to know more the opportunity to pursue the topic off line -- it is also much easier to skip over a link than 5 or 6 paragraphs...

The wise man always throws himself on the side of his assailants. It is more his interest than it is theirs to find his weak point. ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson

He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. ~ John Stuart Mill

scarabic

I think the message you're gettting is that it's not going to get you banned, but it's a little self-indulgent. If you have views that you want to articulate here, then articulate them here. Linking to another site where you have the freedom to pontificate unchallenged isn't the richest way to contribute to a conversation.

I am seeking criticism. That is how I learn.
posted by bevets at 12:09 PM on April 10, 2005

I am seeking criticism.
Seek and ye shall find.
posted by found missing at 12:17 PM on April 10, 2005

I think Scarabic got to the core of the issue here. I think banning is a little excessive in this case, a bit heavy handed. I can also understand the tendency to avoid repeating yourself in an argument you feel strongly about, but I think the self-linking in question could be handled in a better way. Perhaps stating your argument, offering to discuss it over email or/and then linking to the appropriate page.
posted by jackofsaxons at 12:20 PM on April 10, 2005

Whatever. As wendell previously noted, he should be tossed for abusing multiple MeFi accounts. Case closed.
posted by drpynchon at 12:34 PM on April 10, 2005

Whatever. As wendell previously noted, he should be tossed for abusing multiple MeFi accounts. Case closed.

Did I miss when that was actually proven to be the case?
posted by dflemingdotorg at 12:42 PM on April 10, 2005

I don't know what I'm doing mucking about with a lot of French authors at this hour, anyway... A person would be better off with La Rochefoucauld, even. Oh, damn La Rochefoucauld. The big Frog. I'll thank him to keep out of my head... The only other thing I remember his saying is that there is always something a little pleasing to us in the misfortunes of even our dearest friends. That cleans me all up with Monsieur La Rochefoucauld...

Maintenant c'est fini, ca... How do people go to sleep? I'm afraid I've lost the knack. I might try busting myself smartly over the temple with the night-light. I might repeat to myself, slowly and soothingly, a list of quotations beautiful from minds profound; if I can remember any of the damn things. That might do it. And it ought effectually to bar that visiting foreigner that's been hanging around ever since twenty minutes past four. Yes, that's what I'll do. Only wait till I turn the pillow, it feels as if La Rochefoucauld had crawled inside the slip.

Dorothy Parker, The Little Hours as well...
posted by y2karl at 12:53 PM on April 10, 2005

Did I miss when that was actually proven to be the case?

If you did we all did. The timing and style similarities are a little suspicious, but that's far from "case closed" in my book.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:54 PM on April 10, 2005

Where is konolia ?
I seem to recall people constantly taking the piss out of her.
Bevets disagrees with you , get over it.
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:05 PM on April 10, 2005

last i knew, konolia was having a pretty hard time in real life - there was some info on her blog, iirc (and apologies if i've got people mixed up).
posted by andrew cooke at 2:40 PM on April 10, 2005

"A few have commented that I am single issue. Actually you will find me in threads regarding evolutionism, abortion, euthanasia, and Secular Fundamentalism."

Unfortunately, this *is*, at least as far as your posting history is concerned, a single issue. Enlightened thought, bad. Christian Fundamentalist thought, good. That's one issue in the same way that others chime in on every political post.

You talk of people complaining about your 'canned response'. The simplest solution would be not to feel compelled to express yourself, in every single thread concerning your pet peeves, with the same response. Rather than thinking of you as succinct you run the risk of being thought of as unoriginal (and that, my fundy friend, is the one thing that is unforgivable on MeFi).

C'mon. Be realistic. We all self link in threads if we have anything relevant to offer. There is no harm in that. On the other hand, say I wrote a pro Bush post a few weeks ago -- yeah, I forget what it was but I agreed with him about something, noteworthy in itself -- how would it go over if I linked that one post, over and over and over again?

I imagine it would wear thin pretty quick.

"I do not understand the desire to ban viewpoints that disagree with the status quo."

Are we reading the same thread? The call for your banning is far from universal and most of the people here think you should stay. While feeling like a victim may provide you with enjoyment it clearly doesn't reflect reality -- then again, I suspect your perception of reality is frequently at odds with that of rational folk.

"As a fitting conclusion, a few quotes..."

Has it occurred to you that half your problem may be your insistence on using out of context quotes, by people who really aren't saying what you think they are?

Bevets, you say that your methodology of quoting yourself and others is 'incisive'. I wouldn't use that word and would argue that it is both annoying and ineffective. If your chosen method of arguement results only in people expressing their disdain for your opinion, you may want to consider the possibility that your not communicating your ideas well. Just sayin'.

On preview: where is Konalia?
posted by cedar at 2:40 PM on April 10, 2005

In a life sized Habitrail in my basement. She's very happy there.
posted by jonmc at 2:57 PM on April 10, 2005

In most of the online communities in which I participate--indeed, in most of my real life conversations, as well--I take it for granted that those I converse with share certain assumptions upon which our colloquy can build. One of these assumptions, for example, is that the earth is round. It makes it awfully hard to discuss geography, the seasons, travel, astronomy, and a host of other subjects if those conversing do not take as a given the "round earth" theory. Indeed, if they do not, discussion is often reduced to arguing over this elementary point instead of taking up more advanced topics. I recognize that certain individuals may disagree with the "round earth" theory, but I also understand that the vast majority of the scientists who have studied the issue have concluded, based on all the available evidence, that the earth's shape does indeed roughly approximate a sphere. Apparently there are some technical refinements yet necessary in the "round earth" theory, including a more detailed understanding of the changes in the deflection of the crust around continents and ice caps and the effect such deflection has on the earth's shape and rotation. Such necessary refinements, as I understand it, should not be taken as evidence that the "round earth" theory is faulty as a general matter. Given the widespread scientific agreement on the "round earth" theory, I generally avoid argument with those who insist, based primarily on cultural artifacts and folklore, that the earth is flat.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 3:09 PM on April 10, 2005

Before you blowhards keep blowing, realize this... 82 comments in, bevets is still here, and Matt is nowhere to be seen. Nobody is getting banned.
posted by crunchland at 3:20 PM on April 10, 2005

Evolutionism is a topic I have spent a great deal of time researching and thinking about.

Bullshit. Blind Christian fundamental doctrine is all that you spew, and it is of the lowest quality. There is no actual thought involved: it is proselytization masked behind an idiot savant collection of out-of-context quotations manipulated with the intent to deceive the uninformed.

Here on MeFi you will find that your distortions and lies are completely exposed for what they are, and your every claim wholly obliterated by well-represented facts, the end result being to expose you as a witless fraud.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:20 PM on April 10, 2005

The odds are currently running at 5 to 2 against bevets being able to pass a Turing test. Any takers?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 4:29 PM on April 10, 2005

monju_bosatsu

The odds are currently running at 5 to 2 against bevets being able to pass a Turing test. Any takers?

If I only had a nickle for everytime someone mentioned 'Turing Test'...
posted by bevets at 5:48 PM on April 10, 2005

Where is konolia ?
She very politely and without fuss went away some time ago, announcing this very subtly in the middle of a MeTa thread that she was doing so. Like so many others that many of us disagreed with (sometimes violently), she is missed greatly.
posted by dg at 5:57 PM on April 10, 2005

Vehemently, not violently!
posted by five fresh fish at 7:24 PM on April 10, 2005

I stand corrected.
posted by dg at 7:58 PM on April 10, 2005

What I find fascinating about this thread is that furtive (with whom I disagree on this issue) said bevets should be banned for self-linking and rehashing old quotes from his own website. Nowhere did he say he should be banned for dissent.

And yet! Here's the MeFi crowd leaping to their favorite platform: Unmerited Fake Righteous Indignation! How dare he ask for bevets to be banned for having a dissenting opinion! That's not what MetaFilter is about, man!

Seriously, read the post in its entirety. The issue was perfectly well answered by quonsar, orthogonality, squirrel and others without jumping to the "We don't ban dissenting opinions!" nonsense. Chill out.
posted by shmegegge at 8:40 PM on April 10, 2005

And in case I wasn't clear enough, bevets doesn't deserve bannination, to my mind. Self-linking in a comment (as opposed to a post), as has been stated, is not a bannable offense, nor shoudl it be.
posted by shmegegge at 8:41 PM on April 10, 2005

Just so everybody is clear about the Turing test, the object is for an interogator to determine the sex of the two players. Bevets passes the Turing test because it is easy to tell he is male.

So Bevets, you don't get $0.05 from me.

I suspect the reason the Turing test (or the suggestion that he is a badly programmed bot) comes up so often is that Bevets schtick is repeating himself.

Redundency and information content are inversely related, so the more Bevets repeats himself, the less he communicates. After a very short while, there is nothing new to Bevets and his information content drops to zero, while still taking up considerable bandwidth. Pure noise and perceived by some as jamming.

This is sad because it's a waste of human potential.

Speaking as a born and bred Unitarian, God created the universe like a book for us to learn to read. To ignore the universe and instead worship a book is to spurn God's purpose.

I think this is the point felix betachat was making about idolatry.

Neil Postman makes a similar point in Amusing Ourselves to Death -- only he was addressing the blasphemy of televangelists setting themselves in place of God.
posted by warbaby at 9:13 PM on April 10, 2005

Wikipedia claims that the Turing test was inspired by the Imitation Game that you cite.
posted by Kwantsar at 9:51 PM on April 10, 2005

warbaby writes "Just so everybody is clear about the Turing test, the object is for an interogator [sic] to determine the sex of the two players. Bevets passes the Turing test because it is easy to tell he is male."

Er, no.

Alan Turing's test was to distinguish, over a teletypewriter, whether one was interacting with a computer or a human. If Bevets is a computer, someone just passed the Turing Test, and all the books on AI and cognitive science and neuropsychology are about to be re-written. Any computer scientist would give her eye-teeth to produce a program that responded as well as Bevets.

"Redundancy and information content are inversely related, so the more Bevets repeats himself, the less he communicates. After a very short while, there is nothing new to Bevets and his information content drops to zero, while still taking up considerable bandwidth. Pure noise and perceived by some as jamming."

While you're correct about redundancy, information theory doesn't not hold that redundancy and noise are not the same.

And if redundancy -- or noise -- met the threshold for banning, Beverts would be neither the first nor the last Poster_at_Metafilter to be banned. Honestly, few if any of us are saying anything truly novel, anything that hasn't been sad more completely or more correctly or more cogently or more adroitly elsewhere.
posted by orthogonality at 10:08 PM on April 10, 2005

And if redundancy -- or noise -- met the threshold for banning, Beverts would be neither the first nor the last Poster_at_Metafilter to be banned.

Ooh, burn!
posted by ludwig_van at 11:12 PM on April 10, 2005

I included the link to Turing's article because what he proposed is so widely misunderstood. he describes the "imitation game" thus:

"The object of the game for the interrogator is to determine which of the other two is the man and which is the woman. "

It's a subtle difference, but a very different thing from a machine pretending to be a human. According to Turing, it's a machine pretending to be a man pretending to be a woman.

Andrew Hodges (in his biography of Turing) makes this point about the Turing test being more complex (and kinkier) than it's usually presented.

--

And my point about redundancy is that after a certain point, redundancy severely reduces the information content of a communication. As redundency increases, information approaches zero.

So as massive redunancy increases, the communication becomes closer and closer to noise.

In Bevets' case, this amounts to being able to replace his redundent posts with [Bevets] and have exactly the same information content --- virtually none. As a matter of fact, his posts reduce in many cases to [Bevets is here]. Annoying, but not worth banning.

But I repeat myself. heh.
posted by warbaby at 9:13 AM on April 11, 2005

In a parallel universe , a weblog full of christians are calling for an athiest to be banned.
posted by sgt.serenity at 10:18 AM on April 11, 2005

Thum are athier than others
posted by warbaby at 10:29 AM on April 11, 2005

In a parallel universe , a weblog full of christians are calling for an athiest to be banned.

That wouldn't be quite parallel would it because this weblog is certainly not full of atheists calling for a christian to be banned.
posted by juiceCake at 11:55 AM on April 11, 2005

Well theres more ways than one to get rid of them without making metatalk posts , eh ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:05 PM on April 11, 2005

Quoting a million people, mostly out of context, is not the same as making a decent argument. The BevetsBot does this regularly, however.
posted by madman at 3:33 AM on April 12, 2005

« Older I was thinking about starting ... | I inadvertently marked a best ... Newer »

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

April 9, 2005 12:17 AM Subscribe

April 9, 2005
12:17 AM Subscribe