Memories...misty water-colored memories...

April 18, 2005 2:56 PM

Memories...misty water-colored memories...

ahhh--it takes me back to the olden days in the blue. good times, good times. ; >
posted by amberglow to etiquette/policy at 2:56 PM (136 comments total)

Ok Amberglow, what's the call-out for, exactly? A ParisParamus induced clusterfuck is obnoxious, but hardly unprecedented. What's up?
posted by pieisexactlythree at 3:10 PM on April 18, 2005

Yeah... kept waiting for a MI.
posted by sonofsamiam at 3:11 PM on April 18, 2005

I hate that thread so very much. Why do we have to give it more attention?
posted by underer at 3:13 PM on April 18, 2005

Um, the clusterfuck was well underway before ParisParamus showed up. I'd be upset that this callout inspired me to read the thread except that I uncovered this here gem which made it all worthwhile.
posted by stet at 3:15 PM on April 18, 2005

Right the fuck on stet! In all the shit-slinging, that just slid by without my even noticing.
posted by pieisexactlythree at 3:19 PM on April 18, 2005

So many people here should get a life (or, at least make an attempt). Unbelievable.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:27 PM on April 18, 2005

Nothing more inside--it was just something i haven't seen here in quite a while (since the runup to and initial invasion of Iraq, actually, i think--even the election threads didn't degenerate so quickly). It had the usual lopsidedness of one side having facts and links to support their statements, and the other only insults, and an apparent inability to google or even want to prove that what they say is anything more than hot air.

i miss those kinds of threads--but then, you know, i am Schiavo-esque.
posted by amberglow at 3:28 PM on April 18, 2005

You need to keep that shit contained in the political threads. Don't bring it over here.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 3:29 PM on April 18, 2005

*flings handful of iraqi entrails at PP*
posted by quonsar at 3:31 PM on April 18, 2005

So many people here should get a life

well, let's just say that those of us lucky enough not to be Iraqis can
posted by matteo at 3:34 PM on April 18, 2005

It had the usual lopsidedness of one side having facts and links to support their statements, and the other only insults, and an apparent inability to google or even want to prove that what they say is anything more than hot air.

Oh for pete's sake...put a sock in it, amberglow.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 3:34 PM on April 18, 2005

amberglow: interesting rhetorical technique. Claim "the other side doesn't have facts" but when they try to show some, just claim that their facts and sources on are wrong. In fact, ignore anything contrary to your side as clearly wrong. Then, you can claim that you are the only one with facts on their side. Interesting.


well, let's just say that those of us lucky enough not to be Iraqis can
posted by matteo at 3:34 PM PST on April 18
Yeah. Because before, when Saddam was there, they could live a full and free life, eh matteo? That they are given the power to form their own government and constitution and vote really is an effort to prevent them from living their lives.
posted by dios at 3:38 PM on April 18, 2005

There's a lot of love in this thread.
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:39 PM on April 18, 2005

Trollin' Trollin' Trollin'
Keep those insults rollin'
posted by pieisexactlythree at 3:40 PM on April 18, 2005

Why is ParisParamus so intent on assuring everyone that he has a life and insisting that they get one? Next we'll be seeing "It's just the internet! It's not real! I bet you can't even get LAID!"
posted by trey at 3:43 PM on April 18, 2005

It had the usual lopsidedness of one side having facts and links to support their statements, and the other only insults, and an apparent inability to google or even want to prove that what they say is anything more than hot air.

I think that's a really unfair characterization. My only intention with linking to Google's News search was to demonstrate that the story was being reported by nearly every major, reputable news service and that nearly all of them re-quoted the line—which neither of us knows the truth about—concerning 300,000 dead Iraqis. It is not an 'inability to use Google', it's an attempt to show that a story is being given credence.

The thread was not for the benefit of any Right vs. Left dialogue, but was just another datapoint of evidence in the history of Saddam Hussein's rule over Iraq and the various other—accurate or otherwise—piles of evidence which will surely be used in his upcoming trial.

Amberglow, I don't remember you yourself adding a lot of light to the heat of thread, in all honesty. And you'll notice that plenty of anti-war folks added their own substance-free comments to that thread.
posted by jenleigh at 3:44 PM on April 18, 2005

It's just the internet! It's not real! I bet you can't even get LAID!
*cries*
posted by dg at 3:48 PM on April 18, 2005

Fire!
posted by underer at 3:53 PM on April 18, 2005

I guess I am so interested in the thread because I was in Jordan on an extended trip in October where I had the chance to speak with many local people who, although not Iraqi, are neighbors and are therefore much more in tune with the situation there.

One of the amazing arguments I heard more than a couple of times are that in the Arab world, especially in the more traditional Islamic parts, being part of a democracy and forming their own government isn't something that is highly valued.

This is because of the associations with individual tribes, and how a strong figure in power within a tribe is much more important, acceptable and desired, than a Western-style constitutional democracy.

Dios, I can see why you argue the way you do. And I can respect it, from a liberal, Western point of view. The problem is that the people there aren't Western, do not have a culture of individual liberties or even the value of an individual life such as we have in the West. The culture there is collective, and sees centuries the same we see decades.

I'm not pretending to be an expert or anything, it's just that during my time there, I was made aware of a strong perspective: those I spoke to had no doubt that Americans had good intentions in disposing of Saddam. Really, I was told that many, many times. However, I could not find one person who said that the way we actually went and did it was a good thing.

The tribal system is still there, and it is as old as the desert. There will still be tribal favoritism, corruption, patronage, just as there is in any Islamic culture. And that's not a good thing or a bad thing, it is just the way the culture is.

So yes, Dios, from a Western perspective, it was the right thing to do. Unfortunately, the goals of a peaceful Middle East, a decreasing threat to the US, and promises of freedom to the people of Iraq will not be achieved because of the means used.

People voting is a good thing. And a step in the right direction. But to think that we did anything more than replace one dictator who thumbed his nose at us to a more friendly group of the same culture used to living under the same conditions and trained to use the same means, well, we're only fooling ourselves.

No one wants anyone to fail. But simply because you see purple fingers doesn't mean real change is happening. When water flows, when Iraqis stop other Iraqis from planting bombs, when local leaders take control of their neighborhoods, when a sense of law and order takes hold from the bottom up... that is when freedom and peace will be achieved.

That isn't something that is happening now.

Sorry for the rant...
posted by AspectRatio at 3:59 PM on April 18, 2005

so amberglow is calling out a political thread? what's the objection exactly? that the other team sneaked one in? or is he just admiring their technique?
posted by andrew cooke at 4:01 PM on April 18, 2005

I said it before--i really LIKE those threads. From the old I/P shitstorms thru Iraq...i miss them. (and jenleigh--this is not an attack on you--your highlighting--and miscontruing the 300,000 number as "disputed"--is what drew me into it in the first place, given that i had already previously posted to the blue that the British admitted it was a lie. If media sources also keep peddling it then you have to question everything they're "reporting" that "Iraqi officials" say. It makes the entire article as suspect as that already-admitted lie.)
posted by amberglow at 4:20 PM on April 18, 2005

Wow, so there is no point. Use [this is good] Use [this brings back warm memories] in the original thread, but don't spread it Metatalk. Really.
posted by john at 4:28 PM on April 18, 2005

i do have a point tho--Why have threads like that become such rare events?
posted by amberglow at 4:56 PM on April 18, 2005

I'm currently enjoying reading the thread that's been called out. Been a long time since there was a good meltdown around here, too.
posted by interrobang at 5:31 PM on April 18, 2005

Why have threads like that become such rare events?

Because they suck. And the same personalities that made those threads "great" are leaving (for whatever reason) and the newbies aren't as good with the gratuitous personal attacks, yet.

Those threads make this community look like a bunch of unintelligent, arrogant, belligent assholes. They are a black mark on an otherwise cool place to hang out. If you enjoy them, great. But, to me, there were 3 good links to follow, a half dozen intelligent comments, and the rest was just shit. BTW, it shocks me that I delved through that mess to begin with, but the previous MeTa thread, which was posted in regards to the same post you decided to link to, created a morbid curiousity.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 5:54 PM on April 18, 2005

when Saddam was there, they could live a full and free life

ask mr. Rumsfeld, dios -- he knows all the facts, he was there 22 years ago, smiling and happy with his secular, non-fundy Mesopotamian friend. he'll be happy to answer your letter, I am sure.
I am quite certain that the thousands of Iraqis (how many we'll never know, the Pentagon ain't counting -- Google that up) who have been liberated by their own corporeal existence after your beloved Iraq Attaq, well, they aren't living anymore. you know, they're not breathing, talking, walking, etc anymore.
posted by matteo at 6:41 PM on April 18, 2005

so amberglow is calling out a political thread? what's the objection exactly? that the other team sneaked one in? or is he just admiring their technique?

Well said.
posted by Witty at 7:10 PM on April 18, 2005

What a stupid fucking callout. Worse than that shitty thread, though just barely. What a bunch of tiresome petty pointscorers the ideological posters -left and right- on this site are.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 8:12 PM on April 18, 2005

I actually found the thread highly entertaining when not degrading to name-calling.

Some good volleys interspersed with actual evidential arguments. Yeah, it could be more reasoned and on topic, but it was entertaining.

Still a little dissapointed that nobody seems to recognize fungible's argument that the graves are a result of the multiple wars in Iraq - not genocidal execution. :(
posted by destro at 8:15 PM on April 18, 2005

Wait until the world discovers that 1/2 of those corpses are tutsis. ;-P
posted by mischief at 8:22 PM on April 18, 2005

Ah. Dead brown people's corpses tossed around as footballs in the televised infotainment game of American politics. Oh, but it's so enjoyable. This is what makes metafilter so fun! It's what makes it relevant and meaningful! Crocodile tears make us all feel so important and evolved.

Fuck off.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:46 PM on April 18, 2005

EB: how did you make the jump from 'televised infotainment' to 'metafilter'?
posted by mischief at 8:50 PM on April 18, 2005

Don't worry, destro, that didn't entirely fall on deaf ears. On the matter of whether or not this thread was a complete waste of time, I think the answer is some from column A, some from column B. The fact that anyone took the 'america hater' comments seriously is pathetic. On the other hand, I learned some things from this thread, not the least of which was the consideration of fungible's argument.

I joined mefi for two reasons. 1) You folks have introduced me to some wonderfull goofy internet shit I wouldn't have seen otherwise, and I'd like to return the favor. and 2) I enjoy discussing the issues of the day with people I don't necesarily agree with, but who, like jenleigh, are intelligent and articulate. Sometimes things get a bit ugly around here, but I'm willing to live with that.
posted by pieisexactlythree at 8:58 PM on April 18, 2005

And EB, are you really that pissed off, or are you the one who enjoys feeling superior. i.e., that little gem of wisdom you just tossed off from the moral high ground?
posted by pieisexactlythree at 9:00 PM on April 18, 2005

mischief : "EB: how did you make the jump from 'televised infotainment' to 'metafilter'?"

EB reads MeFi via WebTV.
posted by Bugbread at 9:14 PM on April 18, 2005

I think EB has a point. Seriously. He may have phrased it in a trollish manner, but I think that it's a valid viewpoint.
posted by ashbury at 9:20 PM on April 18, 2005

He may have phrased it in a trollish manner, but I think that it's a valid viewpoint.

but there's the rub: the trollish manner all but negates any potentially valid content. Who would pay much creadence to a remark that sounds as though it passed through the lips of a petulant teenager?
posted by pieisexactlythree at 9:26 PM on April 18, 2005

maybe we should put something in the guidelines about talking to PP?
posted by mcsweetie at 9:29 PM on April 18, 2005

Wait until the world discovers that 1/2 of those corpses are tutsis. ;-P

Hmm, "civilian enters area of military activity and gets killed".
Rather formulaic, dontca think? ;-P

Now, if we could just exterminate the hutus as well... ;-P

Are you on some kind of a dare to post the dumbest shit you can think of with ;-) on the end of it?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:52 PM on April 18, 2005

Seizetheday said:

and the newbies aren't as good with the gratuitous personal attacks, yet.

Well, I'm fucking trying, asshole!
posted by shmegegge at 10:01 PM on April 18, 2005

Well, I'm fucking trying, asshole!

Very.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:04 PM on April 18, 2005

Did EB make his comment in a trollish manner?

I just thought it was a good point.

MeTa threads just to say "I wish we had more obnoxious train wrecks because it makes me feel important" are bullshit.

I mean, sure it was caustic and had the word Fuck in it. But that's being angry, not trolling.

He's legitimately pissed, and this thread is worth being legitimately pissed at. Good for him.

Well said, EB.
posted by shmegegge at 10:05 PM on April 18, 2005

Who would pay much creadence to a remark that sounds as though it passed through the lips of a petulant teenager?

Point 1: You have read some of the political threads here, haven't you?

Point 2: How was his remark petulant or teenager-ish?

Point 3: And by the way, it's credence. Note the lack of an "a" in the word. Learn to spell.
posted by ashbury at 10:15 PM on April 18, 2005

i do have a point tho--Why have threads like that become such rare events?

I can't tell if you're being serious or not. Do you really like clusterfucks this much, even with your obvious disdain for dios, PP, s@l, etc? Callouts were posted left and right in MeTa over the insaness of these kind of threads and now people want them back? WTF, MATE?!?!?!?!?
*head implodes*
posted by jmd82 at 10:19 PM on April 18, 2005

so amberglow is calling out a political thread? what's the objection exactly? that the other team sneaked one in?

You hit the nail on the head. One thread out of hundreds posted on the topic doesn't agree with amberglow's world views and he can't just disagree in the actual thread, he brings it to metatalk. Very entertaining, and very predictable, and very, very, childish.

The ability to accept that metafilter is filled with members with differing views and that even those in the minority should be allowed to express them without being dragged to metatalk ended somewhere around user 14275. It's not your personal sand box amberglow, no matter how much you might wish it to be.
posted by justgary at 10:22 PM on April 18, 2005

This thread has no reason to exist. Posting it was a mistake, amberglow. It's petty, self-indulgent, attention-whoring and has all the intellectual merit of a fourth-grader going, "Nyah! Nyah!"

I would have thought you could get your fill of me-too-ing in the Blue, as it's surely a reason why you like the clusterfucks so much.
posted by Cyrano at 10:25 PM on April 18, 2005

So many people here should get a life (or, at least make an attempt). Unbelievable.

What loftier calling than whacking the peepee of a wannabe antichrist? I can think of no greater pleasure (or service to mankind) than tying your balls up in knots, Paris.
posted by scarabic at 10:28 PM on April 18, 2005

Hi ashbury. Thank you so very much for the advice RE spell check! I really appreciate it. You can be absolutely assured I'll never make such a silly, silly error ever again! Fuckyouverymuch : )

As for points one and two, I've been reading the political threads here for the last couple years. Your point?
EB's remark was exceeded in petulance only by your churlish snark regarding my spelling. Really, what's accomplished by that? EB took a cheap shot at the sort of dialogue that goes on around here all the time. His post had all the appearances of simply intending to out-liberal his fellow mefites. Unless, that is, he seriously believes that they believe genocide is funny. IMHO if they did, they probably wouldn't be hanging out in a forum such as this without attracting considerably more attention. I hope that answers your incisive tripartite wank. Please feel free to belittle me some more, if it makes you feel like a big man.

cheers!
posted by pieisexactlythree at 10:51 PM on April 18, 2005

FIRE! FIRE IN THE DISCO!
posted by jenovus at 10:57 PM on April 18, 2005

EB took a cheap shot at the sort of dialogue that goes on around here all the time.

Just because this sort of dialogue goes on all the time doesn't make it right. Sometimes people have to be reminded that there are actual people with families, lives, loves, etc who are being destroyed. It's very easy to watch it on tv and say to yourself, "gee, that's horrible," and then go to bed and sleep through the night. I guarantee you that if you witnessed a quarter of the shit that goes down in war-torn countries you wouldn't sleep at all for the horror and fear that it would create in you. So was it a cheap shot? I don't think so. He was pointing out that this meta thread was about the lack in recent times of huge insult-trading threads and the good times that amberglow had with them (entertainment, in other words) rather than the fact that thousands of lives were being ended and/or disrupted. If you call a concern for life, anybody's life and as a liberal-leaning attitude, then fine, he's a liberal. But don't go saying that he's a petulant teenager, which implies that he's an immature and whining spoiled brat - his comment implies a caring for people that I don't see you embodying (caveat: I don't know you or your politics and you probably do care about this stuff).

Frankly, you were more on target when you said that he was coming from a moral high ground. Now THAT would be harder to argue against.

I hope that answers your incisive tripartite wank. Please feel free to belittle me some more, if it makes you feel like a big man.

Insecure much?
posted by ashbury at 11:19 PM on April 18, 2005

FIRE IN THE TACO BELL!

God fucking dammit. Y'know, I'm one of those long-time listeners, first-time callers with a relatively new MeFi membership.
But God fucking dammit, that's not a political thread. That's a bunch of screaming bullshit like fucking LJ Debate.
Jenleigh posted something that's politically worth noting, that there are more mass graves being exhumed in Iraq. From there on, a respectful discussion of whether those sources were accurate or what this means with regard to the long-term rationale of invasion could have happened.
But instead, what the fuck, we got "Why do you hate America?" and a bunch of lefties (a group I consider myself part of) in high dugeon over perceived attacks tearing their hair and rending their clothes.
We got Amber and Paris trying to bite each other's cocks off, we got AlexReynolds and Dios both being absolutely fucktarded, and we got a smattering of drive-by bullshit one-liners. Where the fuck is the discussion there?
And here, instead of saying, "Y'know, maybe we should just clear all the fucking comments in that thread, since it looks about as pretty as your father fucking a chicken," we get "Boy, why can't more threads degenerate into screaming shitfests. That's how I get my rocks off."
Y'know, I used to read this fucking site believing that not only were the links the best of the web, but that the commenting was generally the best of the web too. Languagehat and Monju were the models of intelligent discourse, even while being partisan. I'm sure Quonsar will toss off something about me being a jackass of a n00b for ever liking this site, but fuck. Can you see yourselves? Can you look at that thread and not just go "Shut the fuck up! Shut the fuck up!"
And you know, I kinda expect this bullshit from the conservatives here. While people like Dhoyt argue strenuously points that I disagree with to the fibre of my being, I can at least respect their grasp of rhetoric. But c'mon, has Dios ever not been a douche?
And jesus fuck, don't you liberals see that when you abandon critical reasoning in order to scream at those jackasses that THEY'RE WINNING?

That thread is the worst of the web. At least this is a place where criticizing Metafilter threads is acceptable. But jesus. All of you, just shut the fuck up.
posted by klangklangston at 11:24 PM on April 18, 2005

Let's vote to ban 4 people. 1 from tribe Rightwingfucker and 3 from tribe Leftwingasshole. (numbers skewed to reflect relative size of the tribes.
posted by cell divide at 11:25 PM on April 18, 2005

God fucking dammit what the fuck cocks fucktarded bullshit fucking comments fucking a chicken screaming shitfests fucking site jackass fuck Shut the fuck up! Shut the fuck up! bullshit douche? jesus fuck jackasses jesus shut the fuck up

klangklangston has a bit of a potty mouth.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:39 PM on April 18, 2005

God fucking dammit
That's how I get my rocks off
just shut the fuck up
posted by thatweirdguy2 at 11:44 PM on April 18, 2005

Mmm, I found the thread interesting.

I think it's a little strange to denigrate a thread because it involves politics, dead people, Wars and the suchlike. I thought it was perfectly reasonable to expect a few silly comments, some skepticism and some reinforcement.

Sometimes, when you can't choose your debating society members, arguments can get a little heated and dirty. I guess if it's sterile debate one is looking for there's always the newspapers and other trusted sources. Or, somebody somewhere could setup Bleachfilter.

And of course, we all need our Two Minute Hate.
posted by gsb at 2:13 AM on April 19, 2005

There's a lot of love in this thread.

*hugs sgt.serenity*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:15 AM on April 19, 2005

I found my own true love was.........on a blue sundayyyy.........
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:33 AM on April 19, 2005

*gives stavros a handjob*
posted by Kwantsar at 5:49 AM on April 19, 2005

Now that's what I'm talkin' about.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:53 AM on April 19, 2005

I'm with amberglow insofar as those shitcluster threads of yore used to make me feel superior, and assured me that the 2004 election would be a landslide, like shooting idiot fish in an idiotic barrel. Since the 2004 election, though, I have changed my perspective: I don't think little green dittoheads should be engaged, they should be ignored--they simply don't understand what's going on. Some conservatives can make coherent points that we can all learn from... but that's not what we're talking about here. This is just trolling. And in the case of theturd, he's the reason I always skip down first to read who wrote the post in political threads. I haven't read a word of his text in months. Try it, you'll like it.
posted by squirrel at 6:27 AM on April 19, 2005

"Are you on some kind of a dare to post the dumbest shit you can think of "

No dare involved whatsoever. Think of it as performance art. ;-P
posted by mischief at 6:57 AM on April 19, 2005

I never, ever thought I would do this, but:

Metafilter: Idiot fish in an idiotic barrel.
posted by coelecanth at 7:04 AM on April 19, 2005

...we got AlexReynolds and Dios both being absolutely fucktarded, and we got a smattering of drive-by bullshit one-liners. Where the fuck is the discussion there?

I added to the discussion in an appropriate way, thank you. Don't get me involved in your bullshit.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:37 AM on April 19, 2005

"Where the fuck is the discussion there?"

If MeFi was a discussion site, the comments would be threaded. With its linear infrastructure, MeFi is a simple comment site.

Don't make more of it than the system can handle. ;-P
posted by mischief at 8:59 AM on April 19, 2005

Alex: No, you started off with an attack on the poster. You can read it yourself here.
You added a link in a way that wasn't respectful, assumed a bias that wasn't there in the post, and was a derailment.
It's just as bullshit when Dios does the same thing.
Then you went into a pissing match with DHoyt, in which you called the NY Times a Bush apologist paper, thus eschewing any gradiated understanding of the coverage that the paper provided.
Then a one-liner about PP.
Then an attack on Dios, where you call him "dramatic," (and I'll note that you had decent content to add to the discussion there, but your tone made it so that no one who didn't agree with you would click the link).
Then another attack on Dios.
The only saving grace you had was leaving the thread early on.
Don't you get it? I agree with the points that you're raising, and yet you're still choosing to make them in a tone that can best be described as shrill and histrionic. You, like Dios and Paris, become a walking ad hominem target for the views you espouse. And that neither convinces nor informs. C'mon, you're better than that.
posted by klangklangston at 9:14 AM on April 19, 2005

MetaFilter: neither convinces nor informs
posted by mischief at 9:19 AM on April 19, 2005

Why have threads like that become such rare events?

Probably because the resident content police always indulge in precisely this sort of whining and bitching every time one of them goes down.

I agree with you, amberglow. I think threads like that are spiky, lively, heated, fun and interesting. I wish there were more like it and I wish we didn't have such resistance to them. My God, I'd take one of those threads over a dozen that go:

"Oh do look at this little crop of massively selective-interest links I found (following a one-hour Googlefest) and lovingly crafted into a perfectly-formed and totally MetaPC FPP for your delectation and admiration. Let the back-slapping 'Great FPP!' replies commence!"
posted by Decani at 9:35 AM on April 19, 2005

ashbury:

That was a rotten exchange. Let's not do this again?
posted by pieisexactlythree at 9:37 AM on April 19, 2005

and the newbies aren't as good with the gratuitous personal attacks, yet.

Well, coming as it does from a suppurating quimdrip whose lamentable, spasticated linguistic ability could very probably be bettered by half a pound of month-old spam, it's hard for me to be either offended or motivated by that inane remark. I've heard more worthwile observations emanating from a petri dish. If you haven't checked yourself for testicular cancer recently, might I suggest you keep it that way?
posted by Decani at 9:44 AM on April 19, 2005

klangklangston: Alex: No, you started off with an attack on the poster. You can read it yourself here.
You added a link in a way that wasn't respectful, assumed a bias that wasn't there in the post, and was a derailment.

I respectfully disagree. Alex made a valid point, snarkily to be sure, but a valid point nonetheless. Far from being theatrical about the whole thing, he asked a good question, and really did a hell of a better job than amberglow and ParisParamus at keeping things on an even keel. At least insofar as his first comment goes. I haven't read any further than that, so maybe I'll disagree in a few minutes.
posted by ChrisR at 9:56 AM on April 19, 2005

pieisexactlythree, okay.
posted by ashbury at 10:14 AM on April 19, 2005

Alex: No, you started off with an attack on the poster. You can read it yourself here.

Jenleigh made a post suggesting that, because Saddam may or may not have created more mass graves, that our colonial activities are justified. The suggestion is not direct, but based upon this person's posting history. I would suspect many read her FPP with the same intent.

In fact, I would suggest that such a poorly-idealized FPP is a trainwreck-in-waiting. What a horrible FPP, jenleigh. Horrible.

You added a link in a way that wasn't respectful, assumed a bias that wasn't there in the post, and was a derailment.

Bullshit. I directly assessed jenleigh's point, turned it around with evidence that we are culpable for specific deaths and asked her a direct question she chose not to answer, because she could not answer it without questioning her framework of support for this administration and its policies. The same framework that motivated this FPP in the first place.

It's just as bullshit when Dios does the same thing.

Don't drag my name down with his, please, really. It's not nice.

When Dios wrote that all the people who expressed feelings on the Schiavo matter that suggested she might die with some dignity, he suggested that we would all be singing and dancing in celebration at her death. That's just one example.

I may say some contentious stuff now and again, but I am not a complete tool like him. Alright?

Then you went into a pissing match with DHoyt, in which you called the NY Times a Bush apologist paper, thus eschewing any gradiated understanding of the coverage that the paper provided.

Well, using the NY Times as a source these days is about as foolish as looking to Fox News for fair and balanced coverage of anything not right-wing. From plagiarism to outright fabrication to printing Bush propaganda verbatim without file checking. It's apologia in any meaningful sense, and I will question the source there and anywhere else where my bullshit meter rises.

Then a one-liner about PP.

Fair enough. But he was trolling this thread and deserved my really very, very minor barb, when compared with the rest of what was flying at him.

Then an attack on Dios, where you call him "dramatic," (and I'll note that you had decent content to add to the discussion there, but your tone made it so that no one who didn't agree with you would click the link).

GIVE ME A FUCKING BREAK. Calling him dramatic (and he was being dramatic) drags me down to his level?

I get more drama queen insults than I can count, deserved or not.

If anyone has the right to use the word "dramatic" to describe anyone on this site, it is me.

Then another attack on Dios.

I asked if he could be able to distinguish his comment from anything coming from an East European Soviet Bloc propaganda ministry press announcement.

Call that a personal attack if you need it to justify your point.

The only saving grace you had was leaving the thread early on.

I received no answer from him (no fucking surprise) and the rest of the thread was a trainwreck from that point on, pretty much.
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:19 AM on April 19, 2005

Alex- No, she posted news links about finding more mass graves in Iraq. Read the FPP again. It is flat in tone and suggests nothing, except that the numbers are disputed. Her posting history is irrelevent with regard to what she posted, because each argument has to be taken on its own merits. You started out with an assumption and proceeded to hammer at it with a hysterical mein.
Your comparing the NY Times to Fox News is the same as me comparing you to Dios. Hyperbole.
posted by klangklangston at 10:34 AM on April 19, 2005

Her posting history is irrelevent with regard to what she posted, because each argument has to be taken on its own merits.

So what is her argument, exactly, if I'm not allowed to look back at her posting history? Otherwise her FPP is just newsfilter, and stinky newsfilter at that. Any hack can put such a FPP together. Did she have a point to make or not? Is she just shooting the breeze?

Finally, I'm not holding my breath for an apology from you for comparing me to another Dios, but you are way out of line and you are off the Christmas card list.
posted by AlexReynolds at 10:43 AM on April 19, 2005

Yeah, it was newsfilter. It was newsfilter that could have provoked an intelligent discussion about all of those issues that you wanted to talk about. But instead, it turned into a trainwreck.
You want an apology? You scamp! You can find you apology with your tongue. I've placed it just behind my balls.
posted by klangklangston at 10:55 AM on April 19, 2005

klangklang: jenleigh spoke of "genocide", and "disputed numbers"--when the truth is not that at all. The post was very biased, and worded extremely incorrectly as regards to the actual truth. It couldn't have provoked anything other than what was provoked, considering the provocative and incorrect language used.

I've heard more worthwile observations emanating from a petri dish. If you haven't checked yourself for testicular cancer recently, might I suggest you keep it that way?
Now that's what i like! ; >
posted by amberglow at 10:57 AM on April 19, 2005

If anyone has the right to use the word "dramatic" to describe anyone on this site, it is me.

Drama queen.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 11:25 AM on April 19, 2005

You want an apology? You scamp! You can find you apology with your tongue. I've placed it just behind my balls.

Ah, there's the intelligent discussion you so clearly were hoping for.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 12:08 PM on April 19, 2005

amberglow -

I'm curious what your intent was in posting this to MeTa. If you were really curious "Why have threads like that become such rare events?"(1), then why did you wait two hours to ask that question?

And to answer that question I agree with SeizeTheDay: Because they suck (2)

I appreciate respectful informed debate. That's not what that thread was. Not even remotely close. You say you enjoy it - I think that's sad. There's nothing positive or productive that can come out of it, it's just antagonizing and stirring up anger. What do you get out of that?

I like you and often agree with your positions, but gloating about MeFi ugliness - even going so far as to start a MeTa thead about how lovely it is to be at each others throats - definitely caused me to lose some respect for you.
posted by raedyn at 1:22 PM on April 19, 2005

raedyn, threads like that were a frequent occurrence here, once upon a time. While participating in jenleigh's current thread, it dawned on me that i haven't seen them in a long time. I miss them--they were fun, whether you think so or not, or others. They were the yin to a science or art or [this is good] post's yang, or the seedy, yet essential underbelly/skidrow/redlight district to the blue's (semi-uptight) Fifth Avenue.

It's not gloating about MeFi ugliness--that's your interpretation (and EB's). This thread is a recognition that MeFi Times Square has been cleaned up, and i'm not sure it was such a great idea. There's something healthy in threads like that, and necessary to a well-functioning community. Sort of like the gigantic shitstorms/pileons here in the grey.
posted by amberglow at 1:33 PM on April 19, 2005

You can find you apology with your tongue. I've placed it just behind my balls.

Classy. You've clearly elevated intellectual discourse at Metafilter to a whole new, almost — dare I say it? — Pynchonesque level. Free for dinner and mind-blowing oral sex this weekend?
posted by AlexReynolds at 1:58 PM on April 19, 2005

Drama queen.

Now you're just being dramatic, darling.
posted by AlexReynolds at 1:59 PM on April 19, 2005

"I appreciate respectful informed debate."

MeFi isn't Debate Club; it's Fight Club! ;-P
posted by mischief at 2:11 PM on April 19, 2005

Why don't you just replay the analogous thread from one, two, three or four years ago?
posted by ParisParamus at 2:47 PM on April 19, 2005

There's something healthy in threads like that, and necessary to a well-functioning community. Sort of like the gigantic shitstorms/pileons here in the grey.

I seem to remember you condemning the awful, awful shitstorm which ensued when a buddy of yours made an utter fool of himself for 800+ comments before finally unplugging his fingers from his ears and acknowledging he'd made a mistake. I also remember you condemning me for the supposedly homophobic "drama queen" comment but never acknowledging it even after that really 'fun, healthy' thread ensued. How about we make up for lost time—let's see if we can make /9402/ the new /deleted/.
posted by dhoyt at 3:01 PM on April 19, 2005

I don't see it as fun. I see it as sad and distracting. Some of us would actually like to do more than fight over talking points and make cheap jokes. There is a time and a place for that and I really don't think a thread about genocide is it.

An increase in the noise level is not "healthy" and only lessens the amount of communication going on. It discourages those from contributing because they rightfully think their comments will only be lost in the shuffle of your celebrated shitstorm.
posted by john at 3:05 PM on April 19, 2005

How about we make up for lost time—let's see if we can make /9402/ the new /deleted/.

So that was your original intent in the 800+ thread anyway, wasn't it? I thought as much. So much for your "apology".

Dhoyt, quick suggestion before this goes further: get over yourself and move on.
posted by AlexReynolds at 3:23 PM on April 19, 2005

How about we make up for lost time—let's see if we can make /9402/ the new /deleted/.

So that was your original intent in the 800+ thread anyway,


I was being facetious, genius.
posted by dhoyt at 3:29 PM on April 19, 2005

raedyn, threads like that were a frequent occurrence here, once upon a time.

I can't seem to read that line as anything but condescending. I'm not sure if that's how you wrote it, or if it's just me parsing it wrong. Wanna clarify what your point is, exactly? I'm not new here, if that's what you're implying. *confused*

While participating in jenleigh's current thread, it dawned on me that i haven't seen them in a long time. I miss them--they were fun, whether you think so or not

Please recognize that while some people, such as yourself, enjoy those confrontations, other people find that they make MeFi feel hostile and negative. It's okay that we have different viewpoints on it. But please don't assume that you can speak for everyone in harkening back to the good ol' days. I'm not the only one that was happy to see those kinds of threads die off. If you don't believe me, go back and read this thread again.
posted by raedyn at 3:30 PM on April 19, 2005

Why don't you just replay the analogous thread from one, two, three or four years ago?
People seem to think we all just did, Paris, with the addition of new members.

dhoyt--I'll condemn 700-on-1 pileups because they're unfair. I also at the same time understand that they happen and nothing i could do would stop them. A shitstorm of a FPP is a communal thing and not just everyone ganging up on one person, which is what that was.

And you using offensive slurs is always going to be condemned, hon.

It's funny you don't get that i can be burned by a shitstorm yet still think they're fun, and enter into them willingly. Call it growth-- from when i first was insulted by PP.
posted by amberglow at 3:33 PM on April 19, 2005

I was being facetious, genius.

Dhoyt, I take back my suggestion: Don't let me stop you making a smug ass of yourself.
posted by AlexReynolds at 3:34 PM on April 19, 2005

raedyn, i don't know why you're taking this personally or as an insult. Threads like that were a frequent occurrence--it's fact. It has zero to do with you. I don't think i've been speaking for anyone except myself throughout this thread. I'm confused why you think otherwise.

This is about something that used to happen here alot and now doesn't--not about any specific people.
posted by amberglow at 3:37 PM on April 19, 2005

And you using offensive slurs is always going to be condemned, hon.

Incredible.

After that delightful 800+ comment romp, you still think 'an offensive slur' was uttered in the first place?

I take it you didn't read the thread, where the 'slur' was acknowledged as a 'non-slur' by 99.9% of contributing users. You still think you were on the right side of that arguement? Again, incredible. The concept of acknowledging fault is like kryptonite to you. Look at how many people are calling this very thread for what it is—giggly, gossipy, lame gloating—and you're still defending it a day later. You're beyond reason.
posted by dhoyt at 3:46 PM on April 19, 2005

The jenleigh trainwreck was worth it, if only for quonsar's double-OT witticism.

After that delightful 800+ comment romp, you still think 'an offensive slur' was uttered in the first place?

Well, apparently you did know digaman before you called him a drama queen, but that slipped underneath everyone's radar at the time. Maybe people were too busy with their Gaussian filters to care.
posted by AlexReynolds at 3:55 PM on April 19, 2005

I may be beyond reason, but you're the one reigniting old fires.
posted by amberglow at 4:01 PM on April 19, 2005

I'm confused why you think otherwise.
I guess it was because of the "they were fun no matter what you say" comment. Sure, you found them fun. Congrats. Just a reminder that we aren't all agreed on that. No hard feelings.
posted by raedyn at 4:02 PM on April 19, 2005

And as to why there's fewer of them? I'd wager it somewhat has to do with the influx of new users. There isn't as much old resentments - not everyone has had a chance to get a chip on their shoulder. And that older crap that still comes up here (you can see some of it surface in this thread) is more diluted because there is more other stuff that accompanies it - like this is only one of several active MeTa threads today, so it sucks less attention and energy from the rest of the community.
posted by raedyn at 4:08 PM on April 19, 2005

I should have said "i found them fun" but i thought that was clear. sorry raedyn.

(and i think the new users who weren't around for old shitstorms made the jenleigh thing more fun)
posted by amberglow at 4:12 PM on April 19, 2005

Reigniting old fires? You're the one who pines for the time when the site was filled with political threads that were, to put it mildly, more heat than light. (Not so gently, filled with idiot invective and rhetoric, along with insults, ignorance and part-line bullshit.) It might not be "fair" that someone was recognized by the vast majority of the posters in a thread as an egotistical belligerent moron who is heroically incapable of admitting any misunderstanding or culpability for anything, but that's the logical extension of what you love so friggin much.

I mean, amberglow, you generally seem like a smart person, but from reading your posts from the past 3.5 years, I can predict what you'll just take some stereotypical "lefty" position in opposition to whatever the stereotypical "right" thinks about something. This proclamation of love for these kinds of clusterfuck threads, and your ensuing comments, just confirms this. It shows you're not interested in reasoned/informed debate, or accuracy, or critical self-analyisis. You just like seeing the regular players show up on their sides, and insult, belittle and ignore each other. It doesn't lead to accuracy in arguments, and it goes without saying that no one's mind is changed. I used to think that viable political threads were impossible here, but they're not, as long as the usual suspects stay out of them or are ignored, but it's inconceivable to me that anyone could actually publicly admit a desire for such crappy threads.
posted by Snyder at 4:52 PM on April 19, 2005

AlexReynolds: Jenleigh made a post suggesting that, because Saddam may or may not have created more mass graves, that our colonial activities are justified. The suggestion is not direct, but based upon this person's posting history.

Based on the fact that your own posting history once made you the subject of one of the fattest Meta threads in existence, where pretty much every active Metafilter member turned on you, I think we can all agree that, by your logic, no one should listen to anything you say ever again.
posted by Krrrlson at 5:03 PM on April 19, 2005

This proclamation of love for these kinds of clusterfuck threads, and your ensuing comments, just confirms this. It shows you're not interested in reasoned/informed debate, or accuracy, or critical self-analyisis.

Obviously you haven't read my posts then. Even in that very thread, I provided links to actual fact (which the poster had characterized as "the numbers were disputed" instead of as the official admission of the lie it actually was), as i always try to do. I'm very interested in accuracy, as my posting history will show.
posted by amberglow at 5:06 PM on April 19, 2005

Oh. My.

This is the funniest fucking thing I've seen so far. I am so glad I stayed away from that thread. Recently I've avoided any threads that threaten to suck away more than 3 hours of my day.

Some day I hope to graduate to the status that so many of you have apparently achieved, wherein your presence is blatant for the entire length of a very long thread. My question is: How do you do it? Do you have jobs that allow you to periodically fling digital shit, or do you collapse time in order to facilitate your mefi habit? I'm not trying to get anybody down, I'd really love to join in on the fun - It's just the time! My God, the time! Where does it come from?

And for the record, I don't really mind PP that much...there are conservative assholes around here who make him look like a Canadian hippy. I wish people wouldn't bash him at such a personal level so often.
At least his snarks are intelligible.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 5:17 PM on April 19, 2005

Based on the fact that your own posting history once made you the subject of one of the fattest Meta threads in existence, where pretty much every active Metafilter member turned on you, I think we can all agree that, by your logic, no one should listen to anything you say ever again.

Krrrlson, sweetie darling, I'm not going anywhere. So until Matt deletes my account, here's something you can do to pass the time.
posted by AlexReynolds at 5:30 PM on April 19, 2005

Based on the fact that your own posting history once made you the subject of one of the fattest Meta threads in existence, where pretty much every active Metafilter member turned on you, I think we can all agree that, by your logic, no one should listen to anything you say ever again.

And I was one of the most vociferous torch carriers in that infamous thread, and I'll publicly go on record as saying that I'm glad Alex has decided to stick around. He still occasionaly makes me clutch my head in disbelief* but the fact that he's still here tells me he's no kind of chickenshit and has the courage of his convictions which is more than I can say for a lot of people around here.

*I'm sure I have the same effect on him
posted by jonmc at 5:33 PM on April 19, 2005

I'm still reeling in shock from the mullet thread.
posted by AlexReynolds at 5:38 PM on April 19, 2005

which mullet thread? There've been so many, and I've become cheif defender of all things mullet and mullet-rock related, becuase...well, because someone articulate has to.
posted by jonmc at 5:45 PM on April 19, 2005

Fight! Fight! Fight!
posted by Jimbob at 7:22 PM on April 19, 2005

I'm a lover, not a fighter.

plus I just scored tickets to see Paul Westerberg next week. I'm so happy I could shit blueberries. I am oozing the milk of human kindness
posted by jonmc at 7:25 PM on April 19, 2005

Krrrlson, sweetie darling, I'm not going anywhere. So until Matt deletes my account, here's something you can do to pass the time.

I couldn't give a damn where you're going - in fact, I find your hogwash amusing. I did, however, make a point about the fact that you have (yet again) said something truly stupid, which you have chosen not to address (as usual).
posted by Krrrlson at 8:30 PM on April 19, 2005

even going so far as to start a MeTa thead about how lovely it is to be at each others throats - definitely caused me to lose some respect for you.

See, the funny thing about that statement is that its author has absolutely no insight what.so.ever into how much of a total and utter cunt it makes him/her sound. You can't put a price on that. That's the best of MeFi, rght there.
posted by Decani at 8:33 PM on April 19, 2005

I did, however, make a point about the fact that you have (yet again) said something truly stupid, which you have chosen not to address (as usual).

Here's how I'll address your "point": When you rudely speak on other people's behalf, perhaps you don't have anything to add but your own spittle. Wipe your juicy lips with a rag, give your bile duct a few minutes to catch its breath, and try again, sweetie.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:40 PM on April 19, 2005

which mullet thread? There've been so many...

I can't remember... All that hair spray makes me dizzy.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:42 PM on April 19, 2005

That strategy of saying something stupid and then trying to defend it with insults is really working well for you. Keep it up, pity I can't stay.
posted by Krrrlson at 8:50 PM on April 19, 2005

Obviously you haven't read my posts then. Even in that very thread, I provided links to actual fact (which the poster had characterized as "the numbers were disputed" instead of as the official admission of the lie it actually was), as i always try to do. I'm very interested in accuracy, as my posting history will show.

Along with Fuzzy Monster's contribution, amberglow's is just one more reason why jenleigh's FPP was weak. Not because the post lacked an agenda — indeed, it had one, veiled as it was under the pretense of a newsfilter — but because when someone came along and called the poster on the facts, all that remained was to throw monkey poop at the people who bothered to do their homework.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:51 PM on April 19, 2005

That strategy of saying something stupid and then trying to defend it with insults is really working well for you.

At least you're speaking for yourself this time. You're learning, albeit slowly.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:52 PM on April 19, 2005

I mean, both these threads are okay but they feel a bit forced. Maybe a 4 on the drama scale. I know it's been awhile since there's been some decent metadrama, but coming from an Iraq post it's a bit cliche. Let's see a 500 comment flame war with two metatalk posts decontructing it all over a biased FPP on toaster ovens. That's a Tuesday night.
posted by frecklefaerie at 10:42 PM on April 19, 2005

The amusing thing about reading MeFi for several years is to see someone complaining about how MeFi has become less civil, followed up a year or two later by someone complaining about how MeFi has become more civil.

Personally, I think the thread is shit, and I lost a bit of respect for amberglow, but A) I know that doesn't particularly matter to him, and B) I know I have no position from which to speak, considering how much I enjoy the occasional meltdowns and flameouts on the grey.
posted by Bugbread at 11:44 PM on April 19, 2005

So, amberglow calls out an overtly political thread.
Because he doesn't like it.
Possibly metatalk should just be shut down? I mean it's just about finished when it can be used like this isn't it?
posted by thatwhichfalls at 12:02 AM on April 20, 2005

Alex: When you want an apology for my calling you out on your surreal psychodrama, dearest sweetie nookiekins (I know it's your fucking trope, but really, meine liebchen, can you at least err on the side of originality once?), there's no way to recover into any hope of you understanding why I believe you're acting like a jackass.
What are you, a Menendez asking the court for mercy as an orphan?
So yeah, my apology. Behind my balls. Guess that means I won't get that Christmas card that warns me about Santa's imperialistic capitalism. You've got decent taste in music, but both you and Amberglow seem to be taking notes from Bill O'Reilly (attack, then claim status as aggrieved, then attack again). Maybe you can spend some time rubbing each other with loofahs?
posted by klangklangston at 12:25 AM on April 20, 2005

Metafilter: Comunist, hippie, perverted, impotent, nose-picking, three-legged, bearded, grandmother mailmen!
posted by Balisong at 12:57 AM on April 20, 2005

Where is this infamous thread ? i missed it.
posted by sgt.serenity at 1:03 AM on April 20, 2005

thatwhichfalls : "So, amberglow calls out an overtly political thread.
Because he doesn't like it."

Er...No. That's what I thought at first, too, but if you read through this thread, in fact Amberglow posts about a peurile, juvenile political thread because he does like it.
posted by Bugbread at 1:53 AM on April 20, 2005

I can't remember... All that hair spray makes me dizzy.

Real mullets don't use spray, gel, or any other stiffeners except perhaps transmission oil, hog fat, or Royal Crown. Am I gonna have to give you a remedial course in rock and roll taxonomy?
posted by jonmc at 6:49 AM on April 20, 2005

So what is her argument, exactly, if I'm not allowed to look back at her posting history? Otherwise her FPP is just newsfilter, and stinky newsfilter at that. Any hack can put such a FPP together.

Yeah, a bunch of newslinks, posts slanted by the persons' opinion—terrible eh? What hacks.

what's the objection exactly? that the other team sneaked one in?

Couldn't be clearer at this point.
posted by dhoyt at 7:26 AM on April 20, 2005

Careful, folks. Those camels can spit their stomach juices almost two meters.
posted by squirrel at 7:50 AM on April 20, 2005

Yeah, a bunch of newslinks, posts slanted by the persons' opinion—terrible eh? What hacks.

You're really desperate, dhoyt, and sad.
posted by AlexReynolds at 9:48 AM on April 20, 2005

And—in the points above—essentially correct.
posted by dhoyt at 11:41 AM on April 20, 2005

In those "points" above, you might find a couple links to news sites here and there for background material to a cogent point.

Jenleigh did nothing of the sort. Since all the news posts I linked to were mixed in with other material, my links have nothing to do with jenleigh's trainwreck of a thread.

So, no, you're way off, kiddo. And you're still a desperate and sad character.
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:25 PM on April 20, 2005

Guys, kiss and make up. You're both desperate and sad.
posted by Bugbread at 5:58 PM on April 20, 2005

Amberglow, you misunderstand. While you posted that link in that thread, (a link that I don't believe neccesairly refutes the entire post, but that is irrelevant,) you have, in at least one instance that springs to mind, ignored others supporting links in other threads. Even if this were not the case, accuracy, and a willingness to look at others evidence and analysis seriously, are the first casualties in such threads. All these threads serve to do is entrench the usual combatants who spout of the party lines and refuse to acknowledge arguments or evidence that might cause them to change their minds, let alone even acknowledging that evidence in their own arguments.

Alex, Jenleigh's thread became a train wreck not because of what she posted, but because people like you came in and shit all over it. It was not foreordained. Also, your comparison of her post with yours is totally bogus. If you seriously think that your posts are miles apart in style, your delusional. I don't think you do though, so I just think you're self-serving and ideologically blinkered.
posted by Snyder at 6:59 PM on April 20, 2005

Alex, Jenleigh's thread became a train wreck not because of what she posted, but because people like you came in and shit all over it.

It became an official trainweck when PP and Dios came in and pissed all over everyone. Anyone could see them coming a mile away.
posted by AlexReynolds at 8:26 PM on April 20, 2005

It started long before that, and the contributions came from both "sides of the aisle." They sure didn't help, but it was well on it's way.
posted by Snyder at 9:14 PM on April 20, 2005

It became a trainwreck pretty much with these two comments:

Too bad the largest grave only fits 5,000. That won't fit our contribution. And that's not even counting the thousands upon thousands who died due to U.S. imposed sanctions before the war.
posted by banished at 1:11 AM ACST on April 19 [!]

Gee, I was just replying to predict how long it would be before the first US bashing comment. Clearly, I need to be quick on the draw to beat the America haters around here.
posted by keswick at 1:13 AM ACST on April 19 [!]

And, in true shining PoliFilterTrainWreck style, these were comments 1 and 2. It's like the trains wrecked without even leaving the station. The rest of the thread mainly consisted of various train conductors saying to themselves, "Hey, look! A train wreck! I'll go crash my own train into it too!"
posted by Bugbread at 6:14 AM on April 21, 2005

Exactly, bugbread. The thing is, even then, the thread wasn't unsalvageable, most threads aren't. It's just, who wants to spend time trying to salvage it? It's already going to attract those who love trainwrecks, and anyone who tries to post something coherent will just get attacked by someone on the other "side." It's a shame when otherwise good posters can get inflamed to crash their trains too, but when people start enjoying it, seeking it out, and then trying to make threads trainwrecks, (and sadly, amberglow isn't the only one, though the only one to come right out and say it,) when we leave the realm of tragedy and enter into farce.
posted by Snyder at 3:49 PM on April 21, 2005

...then trying to make threads trainwrecks,

Way way off on that one. and on other observations about me too.
posted by amberglow at 4:49 PM on April 21, 2005

I dunno man. I mean, if you like trainwreck threads, why wouldn't you try and make them? Or at least add your own train?
posted by Snyder at 3:52 AM on April 22, 2005