Greasemonkey script displays picture next to username June 4, 2005 1:36 PM Subscribe
Ever wondered wonder what that user looks like? I've written a quick greasemonkey script that adds photos of users next to their usernames. Photos were gleaned from meetup pictures and there are currently about 75 photos in the database (Firefox only).
If you do not have Greasemonkey, you can install the script by clicking here. If you have Greasemonkey, right click here and hit "Install User Script".
I'd like to know what you guys think.
If you do not have Greasemonkey, you can install the script by clicking here. If you have Greasemonkey, right click here and hit "Install User Script".
I'd like to know what you guys think.
I'm not sure if it's really all that useful, but it's definitely entertaining. And it works on opera too.
posted by fvw at 1:47 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by fvw at 1:47 PM on June 4, 2005
Question: is there any way I can choose which photo of me is used?
posted by Ryvar at 1:52 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by Ryvar at 1:52 PM on June 4, 2005
I think it's creepy. I don't like having a picture selected for me and associated with what I write here. In environments where a picture is associated with what I write already, I get to select the picture, and I like it that way.
posted by caitlinb at 2:09 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by caitlinb at 2:09 PM on June 4, 2005
I dont know...It seems a bit creepy. I know other sites use avatars but in this case, you have selected the avatars for them - which seems wrong. If it was opt-in, and you could pick your avatar then It'd be no big deal.
Also, If anyone was dying to see what I look like, I posted a picture on my userpage a while back. I think, if anything, thats where it belongs - not beside every comment.
posted by vacapinta at 2:16 PM on June 4, 2005
Also, If anyone was dying to see what I look like, I posted a picture on my userpage a while back. I think, if anything, thats where it belongs - not beside every comment.
posted by vacapinta at 2:16 PM on June 4, 2005
While I think this script is really nifty, I think it's presumptuous to assume what photos, if any, others would choose to represent themselves. People may be reluctant to post meet-up photos here in the future if they think their goofy/drunken/off guard/unflattering head shots are going to be turned into avatars.
posted by iconomy at 2:23 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by iconomy at 2:23 PM on June 4, 2005
maybe give people the option to ask for their images to be removed and/or changed? is the image db centralised?
posted by andrew cooke at 2:28 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by andrew cooke at 2:28 PM on June 4, 2005
I think it's a little gross. Slightly less gross would be if you retooled it so that right-clicking a username gives you a "view photo" option.
Besides, do you really want all your mefi pages cluttered up like that? In any case, if you are going to maintain it, you should give people the option of having their photo replaced or removed the database completely. When you add a photo to the database you should email the user in question to let them know, giving them a chance to opt out.
On preview: agreeing with andrew cooke.
posted by nobody at 2:31 PM on June 4, 2005
Besides, do you really want all your mefi pages cluttered up like that? In any case, if you are going to maintain it, you should give people the option of having their photo replaced or removed the database completely. When you add a photo to the database you should email the user in question to let them know, giving them a chance to opt out.
On preview: agreeing with andrew cooke.
posted by nobody at 2:31 PM on June 4, 2005
I like the concept: it gives one pause the next time you decide to open up a can of verbal whoop-ass on someone. It reminds you that these words are actually connected to real human beings. Unfortunately, the practical considerations (no "Select only DaShiv shots," etc.) probably outweigh the pros. An avatar system would probably be better, but then, Matt has (to my knowledge) always been against avatars. And for good Jreason.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:02 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:02 PM on June 4, 2005
1) Ability to opt in/out and for users to change photos.
2) Browsable image database.
3) Links to original pictures -- for example, I have no idea when/where the picture that's my current avatar came from, and I'd like to find the original Flickr set. Either a link in the database or on the avatar itself proper.
4) I would not feel comfortable posting meetup pics in the future if people were uncomfortable that it might unwittedly become their avatar, so opting in/out is mandatory in my book.
(On preview: Ha, C_D!)
posted by DaShiv at 3:04 PM on June 4, 2005
2) Browsable image database.
3) Links to original pictures -- for example, I have no idea when/where the picture that's my current avatar came from, and I'd like to find the original Flickr set. Either a link in the database or on the avatar itself proper.
4) I would not feel comfortable posting meetup pics in the future if people were uncomfortable that it might unwittedly become their avatar, so opting in/out is mandatory in my book.
(On preview: Ha, C_D!)
posted by DaShiv at 3:04 PM on June 4, 2005
Cool idea but yeah, opt in/out and all that. I like the idea of being able to change from this unwieldy melon-head to something a bit more flattering.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 3:34 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 3:34 PM on June 4, 2005
Just to see if ya got me...
posted by dash_slot- at 3:35 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by dash_slot- at 3:35 PM on June 4, 2005
Ha! Still anonymouse!
posted by dash_slot- at 3:35 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by dash_slot- at 3:35 PM on June 4, 2005
Extra super terrible. One of MetaFilter's greatest strengths is its simplicity. Avatars and signatures with multiple Star Wars quotes and bake-sale-to-buy-a-bomber platitudes and animated smiley gifs and blinking, dancing gewgaws -- these are bad things. Community sites that use them are cluttered, distracting and generally devoid of substance.
MeFi has its hitches and outages but it usually looks good on the page. Also, within the context of a MetaTalk pile-on, already having photos next to each poster's username would certainly detract from the power of the random image.
And, more practically, we're bound to have a hundred people who insist on having goatse as their photo (or hacking their way to such an end).
posted by gramschmidt at 3:59 PM on June 4, 2005
MeFi has its hitches and outages but it usually looks good on the page. Also, within the context of a MetaTalk pile-on, already having photos next to each poster's username would certainly detract from the power of the random image.
And, more practically, we're bound to have a hundred people who insist on having goatse as their photo (or hacking their way to such an end).
posted by gramschmidt at 3:59 PM on June 4, 2005
The reason the avatars were taken from photos and not chosen by the users is that I wanted to see the actual photos of the people, not an animated gif of a Batman logo.
It's also not as if I've taken private anonymous photos and done detective work to mathers the usernames with the photos. These were all taken from publicly available photos where the photo indentified the subject.
Besides, do you really want all your mefi pages cluttered up like that?
Yes, I like it. If I didn't, I'd uninstall the extension. Anyone else who dislikes it is free to do the same. This is not a part of metafilter, merely an extension.
posted by null terminated at 4:29 PM on June 4, 2005
It's also not as if I've taken private anonymous photos and done detective work to mathers the usernames with the photos. These were all taken from publicly available photos where the photo indentified the subject.
Besides, do you really want all your mefi pages cluttered up like that?
Yes, I like it. If I didn't, I'd uninstall the extension. Anyone else who dislikes it is free to do the same. This is not a part of metafilter, merely an extension.
posted by null terminated at 4:29 PM on June 4, 2005
What DaShiv said (and isn't he a cutie?).
posted by melissa may at 4:32 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by melissa may at 4:32 PM on June 4, 2005
It ain't working in my copy of mozilla, what pic of me did this null terminated mook use?
posted by jonmc at 4:33 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by jonmc at 4:33 PM on June 4, 2005
I completely get this is a client-side script, and it goes right to the heart of the classic discussion: Who gets to control what the user sees? The content provider? Or the user?
But in this case, null terminated is using identifying information and moreover using (and distributing[ access to]) images to which it has no rights. That's a pretty hot button on the net. Or does the script magically respect all the copyright and Creative Commons notices that travel with the images it pulls?
posted by caitlinb at 4:34 PM on June 4, 2005
But in this case, null terminated is using identifying information and moreover using (and distributing[ access to]) images to which it has no rights. That's a pretty hot button on the net. Or does the script magically respect all the copyright and Creative Commons notices that travel with the images it pulls?
posted by caitlinb at 4:34 PM on June 4, 2005
Yes, odin, I do, but it's the principle. It's something that I think should be discouraged.
I just wrote a script that splits each MeFi thread into seventeen spatial pieces, distributes them randomly around the browser, colors some of them opaque red, turns some of them into shimmering, laughing Japanese cats (with embedded audio), morphs a person's username into an Al Hirschfeld caricature of that person and scrawls "BIG DILDOHEAD!" over those users who have disagreed with you in the past and then shoots lasers from your DVD-R drive, sets your monitor aflame and bombs the closest substation. Should I give it everybody? Probably not.
MetaFilter is simple. Simplicity encourages parity. Obviously, what you do on your end is of no interest or concern to me. Go ahead and use my 17-Dildo-Bomb script if you think it enhances MetaFilter. But I wish to go on record as not digging such things.
And, yes, to go on record as today's slippery slope cassandra. Why not?
On preview: caitlinb's issues are valid, as well.
posted by gramschmidt at 4:39 PM on June 4, 2005
I just wrote a script that splits each MeFi thread into seventeen spatial pieces, distributes them randomly around the browser, colors some of them opaque red, turns some of them into shimmering, laughing Japanese cats (with embedded audio), morphs a person's username into an Al Hirschfeld caricature of that person and scrawls "BIG DILDOHEAD!" over those users who have disagreed with you in the past and then shoots lasers from your DVD-R drive, sets your monitor aflame and bombs the closest substation. Should I give it everybody? Probably not.
MetaFilter is simple. Simplicity encourages parity. Obviously, what you do on your end is of no interest or concern to me. Go ahead and use my 17-Dildo-Bomb script if you think it enhances MetaFilter. But I wish to go on record as not digging such things.
And, yes, to go on record as today's slippery slope cassandra. Why not?
On preview: caitlinb's issues are valid, as well.
posted by gramschmidt at 4:39 PM on June 4, 2005
caitlinb: That's a good point. I didn't consider it distribution because I don't have a page of these graphics online, but I see how it could be seen as such.
posted by null terminated at 4:46 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by null terminated at 4:46 PM on June 4, 2005
"..and distributing[ access to..."
I'd think that was the biggest problem right there. I don't know how the code works, but the screenshot seems to show a cropped photo, which leads me to believe that the photos have been copied, altered, and put in place where the script can find them. I'm pretty sure that any random person does now have the rights to use those images in that way.
More ambiguous is if the script made the image inline from the original external site, somehow sizing and cropping automatically and correctly. That, I think, would be "legal" (or should be). Still doesn't make it right.
In my opinion, where you've gone wrong is in offering this plugin to anyone else. Making it for yourself is one thing, offering it publicly is impolite, very impolite maybe, to the people for which you've included in your db.
If you must, you should distribute the code without the db part. Let the end-user find and link whatever images they want for particular users.
On Preview: if you've manipulated the images and are storing them and making them available to the script, then you're distributing them.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:54 PM on June 4, 2005
I'd think that was the biggest problem right there. I don't know how the code works, but the screenshot seems to show a cropped photo, which leads me to believe that the photos have been copied, altered, and put in place where the script can find them. I'm pretty sure that any random person does now have the rights to use those images in that way.
More ambiguous is if the script made the image inline from the original external site, somehow sizing and cropping automatically and correctly. That, I think, would be "legal" (or should be). Still doesn't make it right.
In my opinion, where you've gone wrong is in offering this plugin to anyone else. Making it for yourself is one thing, offering it publicly is impolite, very impolite maybe, to the people for which you've included in your db.
If you must, you should distribute the code without the db part. Let the end-user find and link whatever images they want for particular users.
On Preview: if you've manipulated the images and are storing them and making them available to the script, then you're distributing them.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:54 PM on June 4, 2005
Ooh, weird confusing typo:
"that any random person does now have the rights...
Should be "that any random person does not have the rights..."
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:56 PM on June 4, 2005
"that any random person does now have the rights...
Should be "that any random person does not have the rights..."
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:56 PM on June 4, 2005
It ain't working in my copy of mozilla, what pic of me did this null terminated mook use?
None. You're a little tiny black pixel. A cute one, though.
posted by iconomy at 4:58 PM on June 4, 2005
None. You're a little tiny black pixel. A cute one, though.
posted by iconomy at 4:58 PM on June 4, 2005
Alright, alright, the idea was not completely thought through. The plugin has been turned off. If you're still seeing images, clear your cache.
I'm (usually) very respectful of copyrights. In this case I was doing something for myself, where the restrictions on distribution would not apply. I decided to share it with others and my mind didn't make the connection.
My apologies. Offense was not intended.
posted by null terminated at 5:00 PM on June 4, 2005
I'm (usually) very respectful of copyrights. In this case I was doing something for myself, where the restrictions on distribution would not apply. I decided to share it with others and my mind didn't make the connection.
My apologies. Offense was not intended.
posted by null terminated at 5:00 PM on June 4, 2005
Um, I quite like this extension. Not a lot, but some. However, i don't understand this bit:
I don't have a page of these graphics online
The server location of your pic, null, is 'http://www.cowpimp.com/mefi/getPic.php?user=null%20terminated; caitlin's is similar. So, you do have a local copy, right? What am I missing here?'
posted by dash_slot- at 5:00 PM on June 4, 2005
I don't have a page of these graphics online
The server location of your pic, null, is 'http://www.cowpimp.com/mefi/getPic.php?user=null%20terminated; caitlin's is similar. So, you do have a local copy, right? What am I missing here?'
posted by dash_slot- at 5:00 PM on June 4, 2005
actually, I'm a tiny black pixel in real life, too. I've been living a lie.
posted by jonmc at 5:00 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by jonmc at 5:00 PM on June 4, 2005
Oh well. Nice try, mate.
posted by dash_slot- at 5:01 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by dash_slot- at 5:01 PM on June 4, 2005
dash_slot-: I meant I didn't have a webpage where these images were displayed, although the images themselves are (or now, 'were') online.
posted by null terminated at 5:05 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by null terminated at 5:05 PM on June 4, 2005
For the record - I'm uninstalling this ext right now. I wanted to see what it did, exactly, but I prefer my mf sweet and simple.
On preview - probably for the best.
posted by iconomy at 5:06 PM on June 4, 2005
On preview - probably for the best.
posted by iconomy at 5:06 PM on June 4, 2005
Hey, I didn't even see what picture he had of me. I hope it was one that Bob took, though - that man's a genius!
posted by caitlinb at 5:07 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by caitlinb at 5:07 PM on June 4, 2005
I want DaShiv to take a pic of me. He'd make me look like Paul Newman somehow.
posted by jonmc at 5:08 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by jonmc at 5:08 PM on June 4, 2005
caitlinb, I purposely left your pic out of the screenshot because you were creeped out. You looked really good though, I have to say! You were looking to the left and down a little, and it looked like you were laughing. A very good head shot. Probably taken by Helmut Newton or Francesco Scavullo. Or DaShiv.
posted by iconomy at 5:15 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by iconomy at 5:15 PM on June 4, 2005
caitlinb looks great in person as well, and she's sat gamely while I've drunkenly blabbered about nothing in her face, which wins her points in any universe.
posted by jonmc at 5:22 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by jonmc at 5:22 PM on June 4, 2005
null terminated, your usage can be seen as thumbnails which fall right under fair use. To make that explicit consider making them links to the original larger picture.
posted by nixerman at 6:08 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by nixerman at 6:08 PM on June 4, 2005
Are all the images loading off your server null? If so, I'm not saying I don't trust you, but it does seem like you could log people's usage and stuff with the image traffic, right?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:22 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:22 PM on June 4, 2005
"your usage can be seen as thumbnails which fall right under fair use"
Hmm.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:54 PM on June 4, 2005
Hmm.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:54 PM on June 4, 2005
No one has permission to post a picture of me. Even if i were snapped at a meetup, I'd expect that pic to not be grabbed by a stranger and appended to my posts. Opt out must be an option.. at the very least. grrrr
'kthxbye
posted by reflecked at 6:59 PM on June 4, 2005
'kthxbye
posted by reflecked at 6:59 PM on June 4, 2005
Or you could go, and just wear a mask. That's what I plan on doing.
posted by iconomy at 7:16 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by iconomy at 7:16 PM on June 4, 2005
If you wanna see what I look like, just click on my website.... look for the older guy (some people think I'm my son- the one with the bowler hat- but I'm not).... then subtract about 60 lb. (I need to get a more recent picture up)
posted by Doohickie at 7:20 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by Doohickie at 7:20 PM on June 4, 2005
Ok, that seals it. I am never, ever going to a meetup.
I'm thinking we have a SF meetup where only DaShiv is allowed to take photos. And then each person can decide whether they want their photo published or not.
posted by vacapinta at 7:38 PM on June 4, 2005
I'm thinking we have a SF meetup where only DaShiv is allowed to take photos. And then each person can decide whether they want their photo published or not.
posted by vacapinta at 7:38 PM on June 4, 2005
Or you could go, and just wear a mask. That's what I plan on doing.
iconatrix, in all our minds, you are hotter'n Georgia asphalt and nothing could change that.
posted by jonmc at 7:42 PM on June 4, 2005
iconatrix, in all our minds, you are hotter'n Georgia asphalt and nothing could change that.
posted by jonmc at 7:42 PM on June 4, 2005
Just for sake of argument, since this is something I do for a living, I don't think the script violates any laws or copyright. As per Flickr's user agreement:
Further...
No one has permission to post a picture of me.
Incorrect. It may not be nice to post a picture of you against your wishes, but if you're in a public space, a photographer has every right to take your picture. Now, they'd have to get a signed release in order to make any money off your image, but even then the issue is murky (as National Enquirer et. al. might attest). Don't like it? Don't go outside.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:47 PM on June 4, 2005
The Flickr service makes it possible to post images hosted on Flickr to outside websites. This use is accepted (and even encouraged!). However, pages on other websites which display images hosted on flickr.com must provide a link back to Flickr from each photo to its photo page on Flickr.Provided you're not profiting off the plugin, merely redirecting already public images that are, by the above contract, available for distribution (even encouraged), you're not breaking copyright law.
...
We claim no intellectual property rights over the material you provide to the Flickr service. Your profile and materials uploaded remain yours. You can remove your profile at any time by deleting your account. This will also remove any private images you have stored in the system. However, by setting your uploaded images as "public", you agree to allow other Flickr users to view and share your images and you therefore agree to allow us to display and store them. [emphasis mine]
Further...
No one has permission to post a picture of me.
Incorrect. It may not be nice to post a picture of you against your wishes, but if you're in a public space, a photographer has every right to take your picture. Now, they'd have to get a signed release in order to make any money off your image, but even then the issue is murky (as National Enquirer et. al. might attest). Don't like it? Don't go outside.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:47 PM on June 4, 2005
Leave me out of this too...i don't photograph well at all, esp in meetup pics.
posted by amberglow at 7:51 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by amberglow at 7:51 PM on June 4, 2005
please, amber, you come out looking fine, much better than me. I always look like a corned beef that's been boiled an hour too long.
posted by jonmc at 7:54 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by jonmc at 7:54 PM on June 4, 2005
Don't like it? Don't go outside.
that's rather agressive, isn't it? and you're pushing your case rather - the only "right" you have is that there's no law against it, as far as i can see. that's not a right in the usual sense (giving you immunity from laws).
personally, i find public photography intrusive, and if i see someone taking my photo i signal/ask them to stop. people normally respect that. it makes sense, after all - most cameras are rather expensive items, and easily damaged.
posted by andrew cooke at 8:01 PM on June 4, 2005
that's rather agressive, isn't it? and you're pushing your case rather - the only "right" you have is that there's no law against it, as far as i can see. that's not a right in the usual sense (giving you immunity from laws).
personally, i find public photography intrusive, and if i see someone taking my photo i signal/ask them to stop. people normally respect that. it makes sense, after all - most cameras are rather expensive items, and easily damaged.
posted by andrew cooke at 8:01 PM on June 4, 2005
andrew cooke : "if i see someone taking my photo i signal/ask them to stop. people normally respect that. it makes sense, after all - most cameras are rather expensive items, and easily damaged."
That's rather aggressive, isn't it?
Null, I think this was a wonderful idea. Don't trash the code, I may ask for it some day (and, don't worry folks, I'll find pictures of you myself, not via some centralized database or anything).
posted by Bugbread at 8:08 PM on June 4, 2005
That's rather aggressive, isn't it?
Null, I think this was a wonderful idea. Don't trash the code, I may ask for it some day (and, don't worry folks, I'll find pictures of you myself, not via some centralized database or anything).
posted by Bugbread at 8:08 PM on June 4, 2005
That's rather aggressive, isn't it?
that was my point.
posted by andrew cooke at 8:10 PM on June 4, 2005
that was my point.
posted by andrew cooke at 8:10 PM on June 4, 2005
C_D, Flickr is talking about the sized images and thumbnails Flickr generates. This script did not link back to those (right?) (as you noted it would have to, to be in compliance). Flickr allows users to set their own rights to their pictures - and that could be traditional copyright or any of the Creative Commons licenses.
Also, when Flickr talks about "posting" images hosted at Flickr to outside websites, it's talking about its "badge" feature (or other Flickr-hosted accessibility) - not about offsite replication and hosting of Flickr-hosted pictures. The agreement is for Flickr to store them, not any old person who can see them publicly.
With no link back to Flickr, with local hosting, and by creating thumbnails himself, null terminated cannot possibly have been in compliance with Flickr's terms of service, let alone individuals users' rights settings. And that would just apply to the Flickr-hosted source images. Images from elsewhere (nota bene, bugbread) would have their own terms.
Obviously, I have no qualms about pictures of me being accessed on the Internet. After more than a decade, I've gotten used to it. I like putting faces to names, and I have often gone out of my way to seek out pictures of MetaFilter users. But a publicly distributed script that is crawling for images, which it then alters to fit into an arbitrary format, without explicit notice or opt-out (preferably opt-in) to the photographer or the subject ... I have a problem with that.
posted by caitlinb at 8:21 PM on June 4, 2005
Also, when Flickr talks about "posting" images hosted at Flickr to outside websites, it's talking about its "badge" feature (or other Flickr-hosted accessibility) - not about offsite replication and hosting of Flickr-hosted pictures. The agreement is for Flickr to store them, not any old person who can see them publicly.
With no link back to Flickr, with local hosting, and by creating thumbnails himself, null terminated cannot possibly have been in compliance with Flickr's terms of service, let alone individuals users' rights settings. And that would just apply to the Flickr-hosted source images. Images from elsewhere (nota bene, bugbread) would have their own terms.
Obviously, I have no qualms about pictures of me being accessed on the Internet. After more than a decade, I've gotten used to it. I like putting faces to names, and I have often gone out of my way to seek out pictures of MetaFilter users. But a publicly distributed script that is crawling for images, which it then alters to fit into an arbitrary format, without explicit notice or opt-out (preferably opt-in) to the photographer or the subject ... I have a problem with that.
posted by caitlinb at 8:21 PM on June 4, 2005
null terminated had extremely good intentions with this--and it was something that one could opt into or ignore--but this is still a bad idea. If one wants to see what another user looks like, one can look at their user page and find out if they want to be that public.
posted by interrobang at 8:22 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by interrobang at 8:22 PM on June 4, 2005
interrobang, opting into using the script is one thing, but it's having your picture distributed that should have been subject to opt-in.
I would bet a nontrivial amount of money that if he'd announced his script's purpose and invited people to submit 70px by 70px headshots to be included, he'd have had 750 submissions before the end of the day. And hardly any would have been goatse.
posted by caitlinb at 8:34 PM on June 4, 2005
I would bet a nontrivial amount of money that if he'd announced his script's purpose and invited people to submit 70px by 70px headshots to be included, he'd have had 750 submissions before the end of the day. And hardly any would have been goatse.
posted by caitlinb at 8:34 PM on June 4, 2005
The reason the avatars were taken from photos and not chosen by the users is that I wanted to see the actual photos of the people, not an animated gif of a Batman logo.
I don't mean to sound snippy,[sic] but I'm a bit offended that you immediately assumed I was asking that your plugin be used to turn MeFi into yet another EZBoards zone of negative IQ. What I *was* trying to say, rather, was that there are many different photos of me on flickr, let alone online. Some of these photos are more flattering, some less so. I would have appreciated that, if you can't (couldn't have) prevented yourself from being creepy in the first place (which you did), it would've been nice if I could at least have had a choice as to which actual photo of me was used. It didn't (doesn't) seem like it would've (wasn't) a big deal (ex-undeal).
posted by Ryvar at 8:37 PM on June 4, 2005
I don't mean to sound snippy,[sic] but I'm a bit offended that you immediately assumed I was asking that your plugin be used to turn MeFi into yet another EZBoards zone of negative IQ. What I *was* trying to say, rather, was that there are many different photos of me on flickr, let alone online. Some of these photos are more flattering, some less so. I would have appreciated that, if you can't (couldn't have) prevented yourself from being creepy in the first place (which you did), it would've been nice if I could at least have had a choice as to which actual photo of me was used. It didn't (doesn't) seem like it would've (wasn't) a big deal (ex-undeal).
posted by Ryvar at 8:37 PM on June 4, 2005
interrobang, opting into using the script is one thing, but it's having your picture distributed that should have been subject to opt-in.
I agree, and I also think that sites with avatars look assy in general. But I still think we should all acknowledge that null terminated meant well. Road paved to Hell and all.
I wouldn't have gone for this, either. I like metafilter because you grow to know the people here by their voices, not by their images.
posted by interrobang at 8:46 PM on June 4, 2005
This idea takes us a step closer to LiveJournal. How can that possible be a worthwhile thing?
posted by beth at 8:51 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by beth at 8:51 PM on June 4, 2005
Would it be possible to morph one's own photo into the 'avatars' of other posters, so that we'd agree more with their posts?
posted by birdsquared at 9:19 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by birdsquared at 9:19 PM on June 4, 2005
beth, don't you know? LJ is kewl now because Anil & the gang bought it.
posted by keswick at 10:40 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by keswick at 10:40 PM on June 4, 2005
most cameras are rather expensive items, and easily damaged
Well, that's the practical consideration every photog has to evaluate before snapping a photo of someone in a public space. It's this animosity that usually makes me forget about street photography in general, or simply strap on the telephoto lens. People these days are violent little shits.
This script did not link back to those (right?) ... With no link back to Flickr, with local hosting, and by creating thumbnails himself,
I don't know, I didn't install it. All I saw were the screen grabs people posted above. But from what I've seen of Flickr, there are small thumbnails built-in that people often create themselves, and I believe that's where the script gets the images from. If the images are coming from Flickr's server, with a link back to the appropriate Flickr web page, he's in compliance.
But a publicly distributed script
...I don't see what this has to do with the price of tea in China
that is crawling for images
...Google does this all the time, but you don't have a problem with that, do you? Web crawling is what search engines are all about.
which it then alters to fit into an arbitrary format
...I don't think so. I think these crops are straight from the thumbnails (though this could be wrong)
without explicit notice or opt-out (preferably opt-in) to the photographer or the subject
...You don't have to install the script; there's your opt-out. If you're referring to asking people if it's OK if you take their picture and put it up for public view, well, we're back to square one again. And as I said, there's nothing inappropriate about it.
he'd have had 750 submissions before the end of the day
Doubtful, considering everyone's aversion to their public likeness.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:46 PM on June 4, 2005
Well, that's the practical consideration every photog has to evaluate before snapping a photo of someone in a public space. It's this animosity that usually makes me forget about street photography in general, or simply strap on the telephoto lens. People these days are violent little shits.
This script did not link back to those (right?) ... With no link back to Flickr, with local hosting, and by creating thumbnails himself,
I don't know, I didn't install it. All I saw were the screen grabs people posted above. But from what I've seen of Flickr, there are small thumbnails built-in that people often create themselves, and I believe that's where the script gets the images from. If the images are coming from Flickr's server, with a link back to the appropriate Flickr web page, he's in compliance.
But a publicly distributed script
...I don't see what this has to do with the price of tea in China
that is crawling for images
...Google does this all the time, but you don't have a problem with that, do you? Web crawling is what search engines are all about.
which it then alters to fit into an arbitrary format
...I don't think so. I think these crops are straight from the thumbnails (though this could be wrong)
without explicit notice or opt-out (preferably opt-in) to the photographer or the subject
...You don't have to install the script; there's your opt-out. If you're referring to asking people if it's OK if you take their picture and put it up for public view, well, we're back to square one again. And as I said, there's nothing inappropriate about it.
he'd have had 750 submissions before the end of the day
Doubtful, considering everyone's aversion to their public likeness.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:46 PM on June 4, 2005
Would the weight of all those ego-prints cause Meta-everything to collapse, um, even more often?
posted by Cranberry at 10:47 PM on June 4, 2005
posted by Cranberry at 10:47 PM on June 4, 2005
FYI as far as usage rights go, if anyone wants to use any meetup photos I've taken of they themselves as an avatar or whatever else, that's A-OK with me. I'd appreciate a heads up more out of curiosity about the usage than anything else, but otherwise, if you had the patience to let me poke you in the face with a camera, the least I can do in return is to let you use the results. I'm not so comfortable though with other people using the photos without the permission of the subject him/herself.
What DaShiv said (and isn't he a cutie?).
Well, that's a comment I get like, never.
posted by DaShiv at 11:13 PM on June 4, 2005
What DaShiv said (and isn't he a cutie?).
Well, that's a comment I get like, never.
posted by DaShiv at 11:13 PM on June 4, 2005
C_D, seriously, are you even following this discussion? I think I've been clear, and I see that you're making assumptions about him being in the clear that rely on no apparent familiarity with what he himself represented about his script.
This guy is not Google (which links to source, uses scaled images and not details cropped from images, and reminds users that rights may apply to the images in question), and his own description describes violations of Flickr terms of service. Besides which, I recognized some of the images and know they are not Flickr-generated thumbnails.
Null terminated, I think you did the right thing in responding directly to remarks here, and I want to be clear that my qualms are only with the way the image data was gathered and made available. If I could have meaningfully opted out of (or better yet would have had to opt in to) having my picture available in this way, I would have simply done that and said nothing more about it.
posted by caitlinb at 12:26 AM on June 5, 2005
This guy is not Google (which links to source, uses scaled images and not details cropped from images, and reminds users that rights may apply to the images in question), and his own description describes violations of Flickr terms of service. Besides which, I recognized some of the images and know they are not Flickr-generated thumbnails.
Null terminated, I think you did the right thing in responding directly to remarks here, and I want to be clear that my qualms are only with the way the image data was gathered and made available. If I could have meaningfully opted out of (or better yet would have had to opt in to) having my picture available in this way, I would have simply done that and said nothing more about it.
posted by caitlinb at 12:26 AM on June 5, 2005
Civil_Disobedient
As caitlinb suggested, you might want to read the thread.
Null terminated - a nice idea. Shame it required actual human beings to approve it. You know - complex assemblages of stuff with strange ideas about who they are and how they get to be it.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 1:25 AM on June 5, 2005
As caitlinb suggested, you might want to read the thread.
Null terminated - a nice idea. Shame it required actual human beings to approve it. You know - complex assemblages of stuff with strange ideas about who they are and how they get to be it.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 1:25 AM on June 5, 2005
Let's not all jump on null terminated -- he had an interesting idea and he coded it, and he's responded to the criticism very well.
mathowie writes "Are all the images loading off your server null? If so, I'm not saying I don't trust you, but it does seem like you could log people's usage and stuff with the image traffic, right?"
The same is true, to a lesser extent, for MetaFilthy (although it only "phones home" when it's used to quote, and on the first visit to MetaFilter after starting Firefox, in order to check for updates). All that's really revealed is that a user is visiting MetaFilter, and the user's IP address.
posted by orthogonality at 1:38 AM on June 5, 2005
mathowie writes "Are all the images loading off your server null? If so, I'm not saying I don't trust you, but it does seem like you could log people's usage and stuff with the image traffic, right?"
The same is true, to a lesser extent, for MetaFilthy (although it only "phones home" when it's used to quote, and on the first visit to MetaFilter after starting Firefox, in order to check for updates). All that's really revealed is that a user is visiting MetaFilter, and the user's IP address.
posted by orthogonality at 1:38 AM on June 5, 2005
Nice idea, but creepy. If people wanted to put pictures of themselves in their profiles fine. The downside of the internet is how it can take all kinds of formerly obscure bits of information about you and put it in one easily accessible place thereby diminishing your privacy. This is but one more minor aspect of that.
posted by caddis at 3:32 AM on June 5, 2005
posted by caddis at 3:32 AM on June 5, 2005
Nice idea, null terminated. My objections are not for any of the privacy issues or fair use issues, but because the little fantasies in my head get messed up when I see pictures of people I've never met and are unlikely to meet. I like those little fantasies.
posted by OmieWise at 3:50 AM on June 5, 2005
posted by OmieWise at 3:50 AM on June 5, 2005
OmieWise writes "Nice idea, null terminated. My objections are not for any of the privacy issues or fair use issues, but because the little fantasies in my head get messed up when I see pictures of people I've never met and are unlikely to meet. I like those little fantasies."
Exactly.
(though i was DaShived and therefore lookin' good)
posted by schyler523 at 3:57 AM on June 5, 2005
Exactly.
(though i was DaShived and therefore lookin' good)
posted by schyler523 at 3:57 AM on June 5, 2005
andrew cooke : "That's rather aggressive, isn't it?
that was my point."
Well, then, you should be fine with not going outside if you don't like your picture taken.
Ryvar : "I don't mean to sound snippy,[sic] but I'm a bit offended that you immediately assumed I was asking that your plugin be used to turn MeFi into yet another EZBoards zone of negative IQ."
I think you're off a little. I don't think he was assuming you were asking to use it for animated gifs, but that if people picked their own images, it would inevitably be used for animated batman gif goatse avatars by someone.
It's a shame that there isn't more support behind this idea, bet c'est la vie. And the fact that people find it "creepy" I find, actually, marginally creepy. It's taking public data in one place (flickr) and putting it next to public data in another place (Mefi). It's like having flickr open in one tab and Mefi in another, and switching back and forth to see which names go with which faces. I can understand people being bothered by violation of Flickr's terms, or image usage rights, or even image selection ("pick a more flattering image!"), but finding the automated equivalent of tab switching creepy is kinda weird.
posted by Bugbread at 4:05 AM on June 5, 2005
that was my point."
Well, then, you should be fine with not going outside if you don't like your picture taken.
Ryvar : "I don't mean to sound snippy,[sic] but I'm a bit offended that you immediately assumed I was asking that your plugin be used to turn MeFi into yet another EZBoards zone of negative IQ."
I think you're off a little. I don't think he was assuming you were asking to use it for animated gifs, but that if people picked their own images, it would inevitably be used for animated batman gif goatse avatars by someone.
It's a shame that there isn't more support behind this idea, bet c'est la vie. And the fact that people find it "creepy" I find, actually, marginally creepy. It's taking public data in one place (flickr) and putting it next to public data in another place (Mefi). It's like having flickr open in one tab and Mefi in another, and switching back and forth to see which names go with which faces. I can understand people being bothered by violation of Flickr's terms, or image usage rights, or even image selection ("pick a more flattering image!"), but finding the automated equivalent of tab switching creepy is kinda weird.
posted by Bugbread at 4:05 AM on June 5, 2005
The coder in me goes : "Ooooh neat!"
The coder in me then goes : "Aw crap, I missed the boat."
The self conscious cow in me follows up with : "That's a relief, those pictures from the meetup were terrible."
I'm fine with it, but if the pictures are going to be culled from meetup photos I'd like to suggest a new Ottawa meetup so I can generate one that doesn't suck. Cough.
posted by pookzilla at 4:50 AM on June 5, 2005
The coder in me then goes : "Aw crap, I missed the boat."
The self conscious cow in me follows up with : "That's a relief, those pictures from the meetup were terrible."
I'm fine with it, but if the pictures are going to be culled from meetup photos I'd like to suggest a new Ottawa meetup so I can generate one that doesn't suck. Cough.
posted by pookzilla at 4:50 AM on June 5, 2005
Related: my script to add a star next to contacts' names (screen)
posted by Plutor at 4:52 AM on June 5, 2005
posted by Plutor at 4:52 AM on June 5, 2005
perhaps a line in our user pages that would be, like, I dunno...
<a href="...">avatar</a> that your script could search for & cache locally to a user's machine?
That way the system would always be opt in, and present the picture that user wants.
posted by boo_radley at 5:47 AM on June 5, 2005
<a href="...">avatar</a> that your script could search for & cache locally to a user's machine?
That way the system would always be opt in, and present the picture that user wants.
posted by boo_radley at 5:47 AM on June 5, 2005
C_D, seriously, are you even following this discussion? I think I've been clear, and I see that you're making assumptions about him being in the clear that rely on no apparent familiarity with what he himself represented about his script.
I've been following the discussion quite closely, as should be obvious by the fairly evenly-spaced responses I've made throughout the thread. I think you're making assumptions of my reading thoroughness that rely on no apparent familiarity with what he (null) has directly said in this thread, re: local/hotlinked images.
So far, the question has been asked by Matt: "Are all the images loading off your server null?" but not yet answered. As I haven't installed the script (as I said before), I don't know, either. But if they're hotlinked then my comments are still valid. It seems to me like it would be trivial for null to set it up to point to thumbs on Flickrs servers. Would you still have a problem with it? For example, here's a thumb of DaShiv.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:20 AM on June 5, 2005
I've been following the discussion quite closely, as should be obvious by the fairly evenly-spaced responses I've made throughout the thread. I think you're making assumptions of my reading thoroughness that rely on no apparent familiarity with what he (null) has directly said in this thread, re: local/hotlinked images.
So far, the question has been asked by Matt: "Are all the images loading off your server null?" but not yet answered. As I haven't installed the script (as I said before), I don't know, either. But if they're hotlinked then my comments are still valid. It seems to me like it would be trivial for null to set it up to point to thumbs on Flickrs servers. Would you still have a problem with it? For example, here's a thumb of DaShiv.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:20 AM on June 5, 2005
By the way, I believe you can get thumbs from any Flickr photo by just tacking on "_s" to the image filename from the server.
Thumb
Full-Size
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:25 AM on June 5, 2005
Thumb
Full-Size
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:25 AM on June 5, 2005
So far, the question has been asked by Matt: "Are all the images loading off your server null?" but not yet answered.
Yes, the images were manually cropped by me and hosted on my own server. And no, it didn't occur to me to monitor or log user data. Just to be clear, the images were on my server and have all been deleted.
posted by null terminated at 8:32 AM on June 5, 2005
Yes, the images were manually cropped by me and hosted on my own server. And no, it didn't occur to me to monitor or log user data. Just to be clear, the images were on my server and have all been deleted.
posted by null terminated at 8:32 AM on June 5, 2005
Well, that's the practical consideration every photog has to evaluate before snapping a photo of someone in a public space. It's this animosity that usually makes me forget about street photography in general, or simply strap on the telephoto lens. People these days are violent little shits.
if you took the attitude that what you do in a public place is something that requires negotiation between those involved, rather than laying down the ultimatum that it's "your right" then people wouldn't have to take the law into their own hands and we could all get along just fine.
people are "aggressive little shits" because others forget they are people. if you dismiss their concerns as inconsequential, why should they care about yours?
posted by andrew cooke at 8:38 AM on June 5, 2005
if you took the attitude that what you do in a public place is something that requires negotiation between those involved, rather than laying down the ultimatum that it's "your right" then people wouldn't have to take the law into their own hands and we could all get along just fine.
people are "aggressive little shits" because others forget they are people. if you dismiss their concerns as inconsequential, why should they care about yours?
posted by andrew cooke at 8:38 AM on June 5, 2005
bugbread: I can understand people being bothered by violation of Flickr's terms, or image usage rights, or even image selection ("pick a more flattering image!"), but finding the automated equivalent of tab switching creepy is kinda weird.
Well, I think it has to do with the effort required. If someone wants to see what I look like, and goes through the effort of looking through meetup photos to find one, okay. There's some distance there. But to just automagically have your photo next to your words . . . not so much distance.
posted by dame at 9:49 AM on June 5, 2005
Well, I think it has to do with the effort required. If someone wants to see what I look like, and goes through the effort of looking through meetup photos to find one, okay. There's some distance there. But to just automagically have your photo next to your words . . . not so much distance.
posted by dame at 9:49 AM on June 5, 2005
I think it's quite important to have people opt into this if they want their picture shown, but not assume that they do.
posted by nthdegx at 10:22 AM on June 5, 2005
posted by nthdegx at 10:22 AM on June 5, 2005
timb writes "Related: my script to indicate creeps on metafilter"
Don't use new RegExp unless you call compile on the new'd object. Literal regexps are already compiled, so just use those unless you really need to create the RegExp on runtime data.
posted by orthogonality at 10:23 AM on June 5, 2005
Don't use new RegExp unless you call compile on the new'd object. Literal regexps are already compiled, so just use those unless you really need to create the RegExp on runtime data.
posted by orthogonality at 10:23 AM on June 5, 2005
seems odd to celebrate the "humanity" while ignoring the wishes of the humans, doesn't it?
why do you think people are "violent little shits" (sorry, got my quote wrong last time) if not for the reason i gave?
i realise that there's a context involved. i'm not saying (perhaps this is the root of the misunderstanding?) that no-one, ever, can take a photo of me. a remote crowd scene is completely out of my hands, for example. but i see nothing wrong in wanting some control over a closer, more intimate process that involves me. whatever the law says it seems to me that is simply common decency.
i'm willing to negotiate - if i frown at a photograper, and they come over and say "hey, look, i'd really appreciate if if i could, that red coat just makes the shot" i'd be more than happy. fine. but when people start saying they have "the right" to do whatever they want, then it sounds like an excuse for avoiding that interaction. the agressive response i came back at earlier. and if so, i will fight that. whatever the law says. common decency and equality comes above the law in my book. if you think otherwise, take me to court - that certainly is a right you have.
i'm not going to back down and say you can do what you want with something that involves me. i will fight that. sorry, but that seems the most fundamental thing here - if you push something on me, i will push back.
posted by andrew cooke at 10:46 AM on June 5, 2005
why do you think people are "violent little shits" (sorry, got my quote wrong last time) if not for the reason i gave?
i realise that there's a context involved. i'm not saying (perhaps this is the root of the misunderstanding?) that no-one, ever, can take a photo of me. a remote crowd scene is completely out of my hands, for example. but i see nothing wrong in wanting some control over a closer, more intimate process that involves me. whatever the law says it seems to me that is simply common decency.
i'm willing to negotiate - if i frown at a photograper, and they come over and say "hey, look, i'd really appreciate if if i could, that red coat just makes the shot" i'd be more than happy. fine. but when people start saying they have "the right" to do whatever they want, then it sounds like an excuse for avoiding that interaction. the agressive response i came back at earlier. and if so, i will fight that. whatever the law says. common decency and equality comes above the law in my book. if you think otherwise, take me to court - that certainly is a right you have.
i'm not going to back down and say you can do what you want with something that involves me. i will fight that. sorry, but that seems the most fundamental thing here - if you push something on me, i will push back.
posted by andrew cooke at 10:46 AM on June 5, 2005
But to just automagically have your photo next to your words . . . not so much distance.
That's an excellent point, dame.
if i frown at a photograper, and they come over and say "hey, look, i'd really appreciate if if i could, that red coat just makes the shot" i'd be more than happy.
The problem, ac, is that some (many) photographers don't want you posing, because, for the most part, people look far worse when putting on their "cheese" face.
but when people start saying they have "the right" to do whatever they want, then it sounds like an excuse for avoiding that interaction.
Not whatever they want. This is something very specific. And it has (time and time again) been shown to be perfectly legal. If you wish to "fight that," as you say, playing fisticuffs with someone doing something that society has given a green light to, you will be the one behind bars, and rightfully so.
How do you equate "taking a picture" with "physical violence"? How in the hell are those two equal? You sound like a very overly aggressive person, andrew, and I can only hope this is merely Internet Toughguy. Would you throw down because your neighbor's unattended dandilions keep messing up your lawn? Is "dismembered limb" good response for cue-cutting?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:12 AM on June 5, 2005
That's an excellent point, dame.
if i frown at a photograper, and they come over and say "hey, look, i'd really appreciate if if i could, that red coat just makes the shot" i'd be more than happy.
The problem, ac, is that some (many) photographers don't want you posing, because, for the most part, people look far worse when putting on their "cheese" face.
but when people start saying they have "the right" to do whatever they want, then it sounds like an excuse for avoiding that interaction.
Not whatever they want. This is something very specific. And it has (time and time again) been shown to be perfectly legal. If you wish to "fight that," as you say, playing fisticuffs with someone doing something that society has given a green light to, you will be the one behind bars, and rightfully so.
How do you equate "taking a picture" with "physical violence"? How in the hell are those two equal? You sound like a very overly aggressive person, andrew, and I can only hope this is merely Internet Toughguy. Would you throw down because your neighbor's unattended dandilions keep messing up your lawn? Is "dismembered limb" good response for cue-cutting?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:12 AM on June 5, 2005
andrew cooke : "if you took the attitude that what you do in a public place is something that requires negotiation between those involved, rather than laying down the ultimatum that it's 'your right' then people wouldn't have to take the law into their own hands and we could all get along just fine."
If you took the attitude that what you do in a public place is something that requires negotiation between those involved, rather than laying down the ultimatum that it's 'your right' not to have your picture taken and that you'll bust someone's camera if you they take one, then people wouldn't ignore your wishes so gleefully, and we could all get along just fine.
andrew cooke : "people are 'aggressive little shits' because others forget they are people. if you dismiss their concerns as inconsequential, why should they care about yours?"
People are "aggressive little shits" because they forget the people they're being aggressive at are people. If you dismiss their physical safety as inconsequential, why should they care what you think about a photo?
Personally, I think you could beat me up. I don't think you'd kill me, though, or break any limbs. So make sure to point yourself out if you're in town, so I can: 1) Take a picture, 2) Get a punch in the nose, 3) Get to watch the cops take you away for assaulting me, 4) Maybe even make a little money of the side (not a lot, I'm a decent man. Maybe medical costs and $50 for emotional distress), 5) Have an amusing anecdote to tell about how some freak attacked me for taking a picture, and 6) Hopefully get an action shot of your fist coming towards me. Not a bad deal, all in all.
posted by Bugbread at 1:05 PM on June 5, 2005
If you took the attitude that what you do in a public place is something that requires negotiation between those involved, rather than laying down the ultimatum that it's 'your right' not to have your picture taken and that you'll bust someone's camera if you they take one, then people wouldn't ignore your wishes so gleefully, and we could all get along just fine.
andrew cooke : "people are 'aggressive little shits' because others forget they are people. if you dismiss their concerns as inconsequential, why should they care about yours?"
People are "aggressive little shits" because they forget the people they're being aggressive at are people. If you dismiss their physical safety as inconsequential, why should they care what you think about a photo?
Personally, I think you could beat me up. I don't think you'd kill me, though, or break any limbs. So make sure to point yourself out if you're in town, so I can: 1) Take a picture, 2) Get a punch in the nose, 3) Get to watch the cops take you away for assaulting me, 4) Maybe even make a little money of the side (not a lot, I'm a decent man. Maybe medical costs and $50 for emotional distress), 5) Have an amusing anecdote to tell about how some freak attacked me for taking a picture, and 6) Hopefully get an action shot of your fist coming towards me. Not a bad deal, all in all.
posted by Bugbread at 1:05 PM on June 5, 2005
bugbread: And the fact that people find it "creepy" I find, actually, marginally creepy. It's taking public data in one place (flickr) and putting it next to public data in another place (Mefi).
You could build an entire bio of me using info collected from all the comments I've made here over the years. Is it all public? Yes. Would it be creepy? Yes.
Sadly, I think the major thing Orwell got wrong is that it would take the government to erase privacy. But now with the advent of street photography, public webcams, satellite maps, digital archives of books, newspapers, mailing lists etc. along with the extra factor of people who are all too willing to join up the distinct pieces together, it's becoming clear that we didnt need the government - we are fully capable of getting rid of our privacy all by ourselves.
Does going to a meetup now mean that you have to be willing to have a blurry shot of yourself broadcast permanently into the Googlesphere? That seems a high price to ask for people who may just be out to make a human connection.
Sure, there are laws to protect you but cowering behind laws is the refuge of a scoundrel. When you start to compare your ethics to the National Enquirer -as C_D did above as well as being what I think of when you write about being willing to take a punch in the nose - maybe it's time to reconsider your ethics (no, not laws - ethics)
posted by vacapinta at 2:17 PM on June 5, 2005
You could build an entire bio of me using info collected from all the comments I've made here over the years. Is it all public? Yes. Would it be creepy? Yes.
Sadly, I think the major thing Orwell got wrong is that it would take the government to erase privacy. But now with the advent of street photography, public webcams, satellite maps, digital archives of books, newspapers, mailing lists etc. along with the extra factor of people who are all too willing to join up the distinct pieces together, it's becoming clear that we didnt need the government - we are fully capable of getting rid of our privacy all by ourselves.
Does going to a meetup now mean that you have to be willing to have a blurry shot of yourself broadcast permanently into the Googlesphere? That seems a high price to ask for people who may just be out to make a human connection.
Sure, there are laws to protect you but cowering behind laws is the refuge of a scoundrel. When you start to compare your ethics to the National Enquirer -as C_D did above as well as being what I think of when you write about being willing to take a punch in the nose - maybe it's time to reconsider your ethics (no, not laws - ethics)
posted by vacapinta at 2:17 PM on June 5, 2005
You could build an entire bio of me using info collected from all the comments I've made here over the years.
vacapinta, someone on MeFi (forget who at the moment) has done just that with a couple of users. It is a bit creepy.
Sure, there are laws to protect you but cowering behind laws is the refuge of a scoundrel.
Respecting laws is the mark of a member of society. Letting your fists do the talking is the refuge of the refuse of society.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:06 PM on June 5, 2005
vacapinta, someone on MeFi (forget who at the moment) has done just that with a couple of users. It is a bit creepy.
Sure, there are laws to protect you but cowering behind laws is the refuge of a scoundrel.
Respecting laws is the mark of a member of society. Letting your fists do the talking is the refuge of the refuse of society.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:06 PM on June 5, 2005
null terminated :
not entertaining, just gross -- even the impetus (aside from installing the physical program) to create a script that generates images of people next to their usernames is so unbelievably weird and obtrusive, that i was prompted after reading your thread to pull most of my self portraits off my existing flickr photostream. i guess the only good coming out of this is that you have confronted me with the reality that personal images on the web are more than just tokens of capturing a fleeting moment that you want to share with your friends...they can be manipulated, hoarded, and used in any way deemed appropriate by outside parties without consent or consideration. Writing that out, it seems obvious the possible rammifications of posting public pictures, but i've never actually come across anyone so unbelievably strange who actually did anything with them before, so it wasn't a reality.
analogy: pictures of jessica alba on the web is fine. but someone collecting the pictures of her, and making a bunch of personal background collages, and then offering them to the public to share in their obsession is fucking weird. there's a thin line here and you most definitely crossed it.
the thought of anyone prowling flickr, culling the images, adn then curating the selection is just so fucking weird. I hope your script installs syphilis in your bios, then it spreads to your penis, and you die of rotting bios penis infection.
and thanks for not putting your email address into your profile, too; this makes it much easier to publicly flay you. for someone so keen on affixing identity to 'outed' users, you certainly are private with yours, eh? Now please remove all my images you used for your script from your cache, e-stalker. I was going to say, "Wow you need a hobby," but as it turns out I think you've already found one. You are a giant queer and you should never post here again. Take that any way you want.
posted by naxosaxur at 3:47 PM on June 5, 2005 [1 favorite]
not entertaining, just gross -- even the impetus (aside from installing the physical program) to create a script that generates images of people next to their usernames is so unbelievably weird and obtrusive, that i was prompted after reading your thread to pull most of my self portraits off my existing flickr photostream. i guess the only good coming out of this is that you have confronted me with the reality that personal images on the web are more than just tokens of capturing a fleeting moment that you want to share with your friends...they can be manipulated, hoarded, and used in any way deemed appropriate by outside parties without consent or consideration. Writing that out, it seems obvious the possible rammifications of posting public pictures, but i've never actually come across anyone so unbelievably strange who actually did anything with them before, so it wasn't a reality.
analogy: pictures of jessica alba on the web is fine. but someone collecting the pictures of her, and making a bunch of personal background collages, and then offering them to the public to share in their obsession is fucking weird. there's a thin line here and you most definitely crossed it.
the thought of anyone prowling flickr, culling the images, adn then curating the selection is just so fucking weird. I hope your script installs syphilis in your bios, then it spreads to your penis, and you die of rotting bios penis infection.
and thanks for not putting your email address into your profile, too; this makes it much easier to publicly flay you. for someone so keen on affixing identity to 'outed' users, you certainly are private with yours, eh? Now please remove all my images you used for your script from your cache, e-stalker. I was going to say, "Wow you need a hobby," but as it turns out I think you've already found one. You are a giant queer and you should never post here again. Take that any way you want.
posted by naxosaxur at 3:47 PM on June 5, 2005 [1 favorite]
lol naxOWNED!saxur
Yeah I don't like this much, either. I've done a fair amount of thinking and talking to members about their comfort level with shoutout photos, and this just changes the entire situation (which is more delicate than you think). What I don't like is our long history of shoutout photos suddenly becoming 1000% more visible, in a way that was unimagined at the time they were taken. I don't mind having my photo and my name out there for anyone who really wants to look for them, but shouting my identity from the rooftops every time I post doesn't sound so good.
I once got into an unfortunate shouting match with a certain semi-known female, name of Moller, who had posted a headshot of my girlfriend as a demonstration of some photoshop technique she'd been working on. It freaked my gf out and on her behalf I wrote (very politely) and asked for it to be taken down (she'd originally copied and pasted it from another friend's site - he also asked for it to e taken down). Surprisingly, she pushed back against my request, saying "Don't put your picture on the internet if you don't want people to use it. Once it's out there, it's out there. That's how the internet works. " (paraphrase).
After multiple email volleys, she eventually complied, though quite begrudgingly, and to this day I still think she was wrong. It's not the photo that counts, but the usage of it. And you can't just go around willy-nilly using and reusing content that others have posted on the internet. Copyright applies, and it's bad form.
I compliment you on the technical achievement of this and I'm sure that this idea was born as a well-intentioned uber-cool feature for other members to enjoy. But the usage of the photos, the lack of control, the corni-ness of avatars in general...
...not so much. Oh! And I hope you get syphillis. Just kidding - thanks for killing off the images.
posted by scarabic at 4:03 PM on June 5, 2005
Yeah I don't like this much, either. I've done a fair amount of thinking and talking to members about their comfort level with shoutout photos, and this just changes the entire situation (which is more delicate than you think). What I don't like is our long history of shoutout photos suddenly becoming 1000% more visible, in a way that was unimagined at the time they were taken. I don't mind having my photo and my name out there for anyone who really wants to look for them, but shouting my identity from the rooftops every time I post doesn't sound so good.
I once got into an unfortunate shouting match with a certain semi-known female, name of Moller, who had posted a headshot of my girlfriend as a demonstration of some photoshop technique she'd been working on. It freaked my gf out and on her behalf I wrote (very politely) and asked for it to be taken down (she'd originally copied and pasted it from another friend's site - he also asked for it to e taken down). Surprisingly, she pushed back against my request, saying "Don't put your picture on the internet if you don't want people to use it. Once it's out there, it's out there. That's how the internet works. " (paraphrase).
After multiple email volleys, she eventually complied, though quite begrudgingly, and to this day I still think she was wrong. It's not the photo that counts, but the usage of it. And you can't just go around willy-nilly using and reusing content that others have posted on the internet. Copyright applies, and it's bad form.
I compliment you on the technical achievement of this and I'm sure that this idea was born as a well-intentioned uber-cool feature for other members to enjoy. But the usage of the photos, the lack of control, the corni-ness of avatars in general...
...not so much. Oh! And I hope you get syphillis. Just kidding - thanks for killing off the images.
posted by scarabic at 4:03 PM on June 5, 2005
I hope your script installs syphilis in your bios, then it spreads to your penis, and you die of rotting bios penis infection.
And you though avian influenza was going to be the big pandemic of the year.
posted by boo_radley at 4:11 PM on June 5, 2005
And you though avian influenza was going to be the big pandemic of the year.
posted by boo_radley at 4:11 PM on June 5, 2005
But now with the advent of street photography [...] we are fully capable of getting rid of our privacy all by ourselves.
Sorry, but street photography is as old as photography itself, ever since William Henry Fox Talbot trained his first calotypes on the streets of London in 1843 and Charles Negre with his series of calotypes on the candid life of open-air markets along the Seinne in the 1850's as well. What is new is the (almost) uniquely American paranoid phenomenon of seeing photography in public places as either a huge affront to privacy or a terrorist act in and of itself.
I certainly sympathize with those who are wary of photographs of themselves being used maliciously, just as one's street address can likewise be used maliciously. But someone jotting down your address isn't invading your privacy; neither is someone taking your photo in a public place. What they do choose with that though (for example, whether they make it public and in what context) is another matter entirely, and that's why most photographers are pretty consciencious about the laws regarding rights, usage, and libel.
posted by DaShiv at 5:34 PM on June 5, 2005
Sorry, but street photography is as old as photography itself, ever since William Henry Fox Talbot trained his first calotypes on the streets of London in 1843 and Charles Negre with his series of calotypes on the candid life of open-air markets along the Seinne in the 1850's as well. What is new is the (almost) uniquely American paranoid phenomenon of seeing photography in public places as either a huge affront to privacy or a terrorist act in and of itself.
I certainly sympathize with those who are wary of photographs of themselves being used maliciously, just as one's street address can likewise be used maliciously. But someone jotting down your address isn't invading your privacy; neither is someone taking your photo in a public place. What they do choose with that though (for example, whether they make it public and in what context) is another matter entirely, and that's why most photographers are pretty consciencious about the laws regarding rights, usage, and libel.
posted by DaShiv at 5:34 PM on June 5, 2005
Jesus, naxosazur, you're the one who's bugshit crazy here. Seriously. null terminated was trying to do something that other people might find fun or useful. It wasn't thought through very well, perhaps, but that's it.
there's a thin line here and you most definitely crossed it.
No, you did. Your vitriol here is frightening and inexplicable.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:15 PM on June 5, 2005
there's a thin line here and you most definitely crossed it.
No, you did. Your vitriol here is frightening and inexplicable.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:15 PM on June 5, 2005
lole! i can't believe you think what i wrote was "frightening and inexplicable"!
listen, if null terminated had publicly shared his contact info via website or email, this wouldn't be necessary, and i'd keep it to a private venue -- but as he doesn't, this was very certain and very necessary. I was responding to something that made me feel violated, so i'm not going to defend my actions, rescind my impulse, or waffle on my motivation (aside from this obvious discourse). Osama yo mama.
posted by naxosaxur at 6:47 PM on June 5, 2005
listen, if null terminated had publicly shared his contact info via website or email, this wouldn't be necessary, and i'd keep it to a private venue -- but as he doesn't, this was very certain and very necessary. I was responding to something that made me feel violated, so i'm not going to defend my actions, rescind my impulse, or waffle on my motivation (aside from this obvious discourse). Osama yo mama.
posted by naxosaxur at 6:47 PM on June 5, 2005
Apologies, DaShiv. I think what's new is the sheer number of digital cameras and of people posting frantically everything they take on sites like Flickr.
I'm part of the problem too, in that way. A recent photo I took featured the car of someone's husband and they commented on it to tell me so. Not creepy in this case (they made a funny comment) and I am seeing this happen all the time on Flickr now. But this stuff wasn't happening in the time of Talbot or Negre.
posted by vacapinta at 7:18 PM on June 5, 2005
I'm part of the problem too, in that way. A recent photo I took featured the car of someone's husband and they commented on it to tell me so. Not creepy in this case (they made a funny comment) and I am seeing this happen all the time on Flickr now. But this stuff wasn't happening in the time of Talbot or Negre.
posted by vacapinta at 7:18 PM on June 5, 2005
i'm not going to defend my actions, rescind my impulse, or waffle on my motivation
Whatever. Just stay well away from me while you're not doing all that, mmkay?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:46 PM on June 5, 2005
Whatever. Just stay well away from me while you're not doing all that, mmkay?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:46 PM on June 5, 2005
Naxo, you're out of line. Please refrain from wishing death on any mefite, particularly one that did indeed provide for himself exactly what he was sharing about others.
Don't post drunk, bro.
Or (if you're not drunk) just don't talk shit, yo.
posted by metaculpa at 7:55 PM on June 5, 2005
Don't post drunk, bro.
Or (if you're not drunk) just don't talk shit, yo.
posted by metaculpa at 7:55 PM on June 5, 2005
this thread and all your wonderful replies are the only things missing from my life thanks.
posted by naxosaxur at 8:07 PM on June 5, 2005
posted by naxosaxur at 8:07 PM on June 5, 2005
Again, I'm sorry I did this in the first place. I wasn't trying to invade anyone's privacy, which is why I only used images where the metafilter user was identified by username under the photo. I didn't go to any blogs and take personal photos, or do any other sort of detective work. I thought it would be fun to see the face of the person posting funny, witty, or outrageous comments. I'm a very visual person, and I connect better with others when I can see them. I thought it might make things more personable. Obviously, this was a horrible idea.
Thanks for the comments naxosaxur, I think I'll stay away from meetups for fear of a beatdown.
btw, I've added my email to my profile, let me know if you want any other personal information about it.
posted by null terminated at 8:10 PM on June 5, 2005
Thanks for the comments naxosaxur, I think I'll stay away from meetups for fear of a beatdown.
btw, I've added my email to my profile, let me know if you want any other personal information about it.
posted by null terminated at 8:10 PM on June 5, 2005
"*personal information about me", I mean.
posted by null terminated at 8:11 PM on June 5, 2005
posted by null terminated at 8:11 PM on June 5, 2005
What. The. Fuck. naxosaxur?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:13 PM on June 5, 2005
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:13 PM on June 5, 2005
FWIW I think null terminated has behaved civilly and responded appropriately. I don't really care either way about the avatars. I think I've seen most meetup pix and I enjoy being able to marry up those images with online personalities. I look at them when they're posted here. But I'm happy enough to do it by memory. I sure don't think this was creepy though, just a bit zealous and unthought out as has been mentioned.
posted by peacay at 9:01 PM on June 5, 2005
posted by peacay at 9:01 PM on June 5, 2005
Oh, naxo... you had me at "syphilis." Seriously, I won't comment on whether or not your response was out of line, cause, who gives a shit what I think. I will say, however, that "I hope your script installs syphilis in your bios, then it spreads to your penis, and you die of rotting bios penis infection." is fucking awesome, just brilliant, and I now have a disturbing, e-stalker internet crush on you just for coming up with that phrase. Hey, some people like others for their looks, I like people for their ability to creatively inflict syphilis on others. Don't judge. If my pregnant wife somehow doesn't make it through the birthing process, will you move to Southern California & help me through the grieving process? I have adorable pugs...
posted by jonson at 9:08 PM on June 5, 2005
posted by jonson at 9:08 PM on June 5, 2005
FWIW I think null terminated has behaved civilly and responded appropriately.
I agree. Naxosaur, not so much.
Thanks for the effort, null terminated - it might have been interesting to see - maybe it could be built so that users could generate their own images for other users to help remind them who they are reading?
posted by dg at 9:08 PM on June 5, 2005
I agree. Naxosaur, not so much.
Thanks for the effort, null terminated - it might have been interesting to see - maybe it could be built so that users could generate their own images for other users to help remind them who they are reading?
posted by dg at 9:08 PM on June 5, 2005
it seems obvious the possible rammifications of posting public pictures, but i've never actually come across anyone so unbelievably strange who actually did anything with them before, so it wasn't a reality.
What planet do you live on? I know you see people doing this on Metafilter all the time. Telling someone you hope they die of syphillis is never "very necessary"
null terminated, that was a neat hack.
posted by jessamyn at 9:13 PM on June 5, 2005
What planet do you live on? I know you see people doing this on Metafilter all the time. Telling someone you hope they die of syphillis is never "very necessary"
null terminated, that was a neat hack.
posted by jessamyn at 9:13 PM on June 5, 2005
Looked cool to me.
posted by puddinghead at 9:59 PM on June 5, 2005
posted by puddinghead at 9:59 PM on June 5, 2005
I was responding to something that made me feel violated
With your definition of "violated", it's impressive that you dared to venture outside long enough to even have your picture taken.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:59 PM on June 5, 2005
With your definition of "violated", it's impressive that you dared to venture outside long enough to even have your picture taken.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:59 PM on June 5, 2005
Good goddamn Naxosaur..."eat shit and die" is the only reasonable response I can come up with to that garbage--I can't imagine how I would feel if that were directed at me. So, a curse on your next intended life-affirming endeavour.
posted by hototogisu at 10:54 PM on June 5, 2005
posted by hototogisu at 10:54 PM on June 5, 2005
whoa nelly!
I agree that null terminated has reacted in a reasonable manner, and i think that the idea, though not thought through completely, was an interesting one.
I also don't think its fair to pile on naxosaxur for feeling icky and lashing out, even though it was a bit dramatic (everyone freaks out on something, chill.) I'm sure she doesn't really wish harm on null (i hope.) Besides, the syphilis bit is classic...
posted by schyler523 at 11:07 PM on June 5, 2005
I agree that null terminated has reacted in a reasonable manner, and i think that the idea, though not thought through completely, was an interesting one.
I also don't think its fair to pile on naxosaxur for feeling icky and lashing out, even though it was a bit dramatic (everyone freaks out on something, chill.) I'm sure she doesn't really wish harm on null (i hope.) Besides, the syphilis bit is classic...
posted by schyler523 at 11:07 PM on June 5, 2005
Jesus. Before this thread I thought naxosaur was just an intellectually useless hausfrau. Imagine my shock at finding out she's a hysterical useless hausfrau.
posted by Ryvar at 11:31 PM on June 5, 2005
posted by Ryvar at 11:31 PM on June 5, 2005
Wait.
nullterminated: Not creepy.
naxosaxur: Paranoia and misplaced outrage taken to a level that's incredibly creepy.
(Also, wtf? I mean did you notice what the default "copyright" agreement was with flicker... I mean... information....emergent behavior..web...?? c'mon... I mean....If you want your pictures private check the little box. If you want them public but copyrighted....check the little box. If you want them open and out there for people to do interesting things with tags and meta-information and imagery.......Sigh. Nevermind.)
posted by johnjoe at 11:43 PM on June 5, 2005
nullterminated: Not creepy.
naxosaxur: Paranoia and misplaced outrage taken to a level that's incredibly creepy.
(Also, wtf? I mean did you notice what the default "copyright" agreement was with flicker... I mean... information....emergent behavior..web...?? c'mon... I mean....If you want your pictures private check the little box. If you want them public but copyrighted....check the little box. If you want them open and out there for people to do interesting things with tags and meta-information and imagery.......Sigh. Nevermind.)
posted by johnjoe at 11:43 PM on June 5, 2005
I think Naxos is right here. I mean really, when I'm looking for wank fuel while waiting for my animal skins to dry in the tool shed, I seek out 70 X 70 gifs of half blurry Mefites.
WTF?
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 11:44 PM on June 5, 2005
WTF?
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 11:44 PM on June 5, 2005
vacapinta : "You could build an entire bio of me using info collected from all the comments I've made here over the years. Is it all public? Yes. Would it be creepy? Yes."
And I agree. But in this case, we're talking about pictures from meetups which are announced here, in Mefi, and whose pictures are linked to here, on Mefi. It's not taking data from disparate sources. It's more like if somebody mentions that Matt is busy because of his baby; we don't find it creepy just because Fiona was mentioned in a different thread.
If people were tracking down photos through the net, unlinked home pages, or the like, I'd be majorly creeped out. As it is, I find it about as creepy as somebody asking me about Japan, which I've indicated I live in in another thread.
vacapinta : "Does going to a meetup now mean that you have to be willing to have a blurry shot of yourself broadcast permanently into the Googlesphere? That seems a high price to ask for people who may just be out to make a human connection."
And this I don't quite get either. "A high price to pay"? It's not a price. That's like saying "Does going outside now mean that strangers can look at your face? That seems a high price to pay." Well, it's always been that price. Yes, going outside, since the invention of the Daguerrotype, has meant that a picture could be taken. And going outside, since the invention of charcoal, has meant that a picture could be drawn of you. Doing things in public does tend to make the things you do public. It seems like somebody saying "I can't shout my name out now without everyone learning my name? It seems like a high price to pay for just shouting my name."
naxosaxur : "they can be...used in any way deemed appropriate by outside parties without consent or consideration."
You mean "people can look at them"? Yes, if you go to a meetup and smile for the camera, and then post your pics on Flickr and link them in MeTa, and then label who you are in the picture, I can look at the picture. And, apparently, looking by clicking the link to Flickr every time I see your post is fine, but saving a step by having the image displayed in MeFi is "unbelievable weird and obtrusive".
Naxosaxur, you are a fucking loon. There are people who support null. They seem fine, though I may disagree on some points. There are neutral people. They seem fine, though I may disagree on some points. There are people who don't like null's script. They seem fine, though I disagree on some points. Andrew Cooke supports physically attacking people who take photos in public. He's a bit of a psycho. But you, nax, are fucking crazy. Spooky shit.
(and I'm going to get total shit for this, but...)
The face of insanity (on left)
posted by Bugbread at 11:49 PM on June 5, 2005
And I agree. But in this case, we're talking about pictures from meetups which are announced here, in Mefi, and whose pictures are linked to here, on Mefi. It's not taking data from disparate sources. It's more like if somebody mentions that Matt is busy because of his baby; we don't find it creepy just because Fiona was mentioned in a different thread.
If people were tracking down photos through the net, unlinked home pages, or the like, I'd be majorly creeped out. As it is, I find it about as creepy as somebody asking me about Japan, which I've indicated I live in in another thread.
vacapinta : "Does going to a meetup now mean that you have to be willing to have a blurry shot of yourself broadcast permanently into the Googlesphere? That seems a high price to ask for people who may just be out to make a human connection."
And this I don't quite get either. "A high price to pay"? It's not a price. That's like saying "Does going outside now mean that strangers can look at your face? That seems a high price to pay." Well, it's always been that price. Yes, going outside, since the invention of the Daguerrotype, has meant that a picture could be taken. And going outside, since the invention of charcoal, has meant that a picture could be drawn of you. Doing things in public does tend to make the things you do public. It seems like somebody saying "I can't shout my name out now without everyone learning my name? It seems like a high price to pay for just shouting my name."
naxosaxur : "they can be...used in any way deemed appropriate by outside parties without consent or consideration."
You mean "people can look at them"? Yes, if you go to a meetup and smile for the camera, and then post your pics on Flickr and link them in MeTa, and then label who you are in the picture, I can look at the picture. And, apparently, looking by clicking the link to Flickr every time I see your post is fine, but saving a step by having the image displayed in MeFi is "unbelievable weird and obtrusive".
Naxosaxur, you are a fucking loon. There are people who support null. They seem fine, though I may disagree on some points. There are neutral people. They seem fine, though I may disagree on some points. There are people who don't like null's script. They seem fine, though I disagree on some points. Andrew Cooke supports physically attacking people who take photos in public. He's a bit of a psycho. But you, nax, are fucking crazy. Spooky shit.
(and I'm going to get total shit for this, but...)
The face of insanity (on left)
posted by Bugbread at 11:49 PM on June 5, 2005
At this point, I feel like "drama queen" no longer quite cuts it. There needs to be some sort of formal award or distinction for identifying outstanding performance in Metatalk.
posted by nixerman at 12:11 AM on June 6, 2005
posted by nixerman at 12:11 AM on June 6, 2005
I'll take a shot:
"And now, Metafilter, your Miss Dramaverse for 2005 is . . . naxosaxur!"
posted by Ryvar at 12:16 AM on June 6, 2005
"And now, Metafilter, your Miss Dramaverse for 2005 is . . . naxosaxur!"
posted by Ryvar at 12:16 AM on June 6, 2005
i get it! it's funny because you can see the outline of their penises.
posted by mistersix at 12:38 AM on June 6, 2005
posted by mistersix at 12:38 AM on June 6, 2005
bugbread: you should definitely take that image down. Regardless of whether you think naxosaxur was overreacting, in the face of such a reaction your posting a large inline photo is completely insensitive and inappropriate. Note that naxosaxur's user page no longer includes gender info. Take down the image.
posted by nobody at 12:56 AM on June 6, 2005
posted by nobody at 12:56 AM on June 6, 2005
bugbread, you made your point. Take it down.
It's unnecessarily inflammatory. There's no misunderstanding your words.
Take the picture down.
posted by peacay at 1:15 AM on June 6, 2005
It's unnecessarily inflammatory. There's no misunderstanding your words.
Take the picture down.
posted by peacay at 1:15 AM on June 6, 2005
(Just for reference:
nobody : "Regardless of whether you think naxosaxur was overreacting, in the face of such a reaction your posting a large inline photo is completely insensitive and inappropriate."
I dunno. I'd say the opposite (then again, of course I would, or I wouldn't have posted the picture. Sorry, that was kind of a pointless statement). Or, rather, it was intentionally insensitive, and not inappropriate. That is, not posting public pictures of people is an issue of respecting their wishes. I respect people who show respect to others, and don't feel so much respect for those that don't. So I certainly wouldn't post your picture, or anyone else who has posted so far in opposition to null's script (with the possible exception of Cooke) because I respect you and your wishes, even though your opinions are quite different than mine. In naxo's case, I can't find any particular reason to respect his/her wishes, as respect is mutual and he/she wished death on null just for making a script that removes a few mouse clicks. Respect is a two way street. I wouldn't swear at a kindly old man; I would swear at an old guy who called my mother a whore and told me to fuck myself. I wouldn't walk slowly in front of some business man in a hurry; I would walk slowly in front of a business man in a hurry complaining about all the peasants and low-life that clutter up the streets and should be swept away somewhere and killed. And, in the same way, I wouldn't post the picture of someone who said they disliked having their picture posted; I would post the picture of someone who wished death on someone for doing what null did. However, I respect your and peacay's wishes, so I pulled the image (more or less).)
posted by Bugbread at 1:42 AM on June 6, 2005
nobody : "Regardless of whether you think naxosaxur was overreacting, in the face of such a reaction your posting a large inline photo is completely insensitive and inappropriate."
I dunno. I'd say the opposite (then again, of course I would, or I wouldn't have posted the picture. Sorry, that was kind of a pointless statement). Or, rather, it was intentionally insensitive, and not inappropriate. That is, not posting public pictures of people is an issue of respecting their wishes. I respect people who show respect to others, and don't feel so much respect for those that don't. So I certainly wouldn't post your picture, or anyone else who has posted so far in opposition to null's script (with the possible exception of Cooke) because I respect you and your wishes, even though your opinions are quite different than mine. In naxo's case, I can't find any particular reason to respect his/her wishes, as respect is mutual and he/she wished death on null just for making a script that removes a few mouse clicks. Respect is a two way street. I wouldn't swear at a kindly old man; I would swear at an old guy who called my mother a whore and told me to fuck myself. I wouldn't walk slowly in front of some business man in a hurry; I would walk slowly in front of a business man in a hurry complaining about all the peasants and low-life that clutter up the streets and should be swept away somewhere and killed. And, in the same way, I wouldn't post the picture of someone who said they disliked having their picture posted; I would post the picture of someone who wished death on someone for doing what null did. However, I respect your and peacay's wishes, so I pulled the image (more or less).)
posted by Bugbread at 1:42 AM on June 6, 2005
Some people have weird ideas.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:25 AM on June 6, 2005
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:25 AM on June 6, 2005
I dunno if that's directed at us supporting the script, or those opposing it, but either way: you're right.
posted by Bugbread at 4:55 AM on June 6, 2005
posted by Bugbread at 4:55 AM on June 6, 2005
Woah. I kind of liked the idea. Basically, the pictures are already around for people to see, no? Anyway, back to the 14K thread...
posted by bdave at 5:43 AM on June 6, 2005
posted by bdave at 5:43 AM on June 6, 2005
I liked this idea too. As long as people can opt in or out as they choose. Good thinking, null terminated!
posted by orange swan at 5:54 AM on June 6, 2005
posted by orange swan at 5:54 AM on June 6, 2005
Anyway, back to the 14K thread...
There is a script idea. Append the user number to the user name with a dash or in parentheses or something. That way when naxosaurus goes off I know she is just a 17ker lashing out for attention.
posted by geekyguy at 6:28 AM on June 6, 2005
There is a script idea. Append the user number to the user name with a dash or in parentheses or something. That way when naxosaurus goes off I know she is just a 17ker lashing out for attention.
posted by geekyguy at 6:28 AM on June 6, 2005
It must be said, all the 17kers do seem to be a bit... dysfunctional. Maybe there should be some sort of 'reach out to 17kers' program.
posted by nixerman at 6:47 AM on June 6, 2005
posted by nixerman at 6:47 AM on June 6, 2005
D'oh! I'm dysfunctional!
(As a network troubleshooter, I should probably run a battery of tests on myself to figure out the problem point...Anyone got a link to some good test software?)
posted by Bugbread at 6:54 AM on June 6, 2005
(As a network troubleshooter, I should probably run a battery of tests on myself to figure out the problem point...Anyone got a link to some good test software?)
posted by Bugbread at 6:54 AM on June 6, 2005
You know, it is tough being a 17ker. You're sandwiched between the so-called 'Greatest Generation' 14kers and the godless 20ker newbies that are sure to destroy Mefi. It's the lost generation. Not really belonging to the past or the future, they're just silently dissed and dismissed. So maybe the occassional 17ker flame-out should be forgiven.
posted by nixerman at 7:02 AM on June 6, 2005
posted by nixerman at 7:02 AM on June 6, 2005
geekyguy: There is a script idea. Append the user number to the user name with a dash or in parentheses or something.
(posts meekly) Right click install (if you have greasemonkey), click here to install extension.
posted by null terminated at 7:12 AM on June 6, 2005 [1 favorite]
(posts meekly) Right click install (if you have greasemonkey), click here to install extension.
posted by null terminated at 7:12 AM on June 6, 2005 [1 favorite]
I'd have prefered that my 17K status remain obscured. Pointing it out with a script is obscenely bizarre and stalkerly, and an attack on my privacy ; )
posted by Bugbread at 7:30 AM on June 6, 2005
posted by Bugbread at 7:30 AM on June 6, 2005
oh hay bugbread: you are now by far the creepiest fucking member of metafilter. thanks for that photoshop, and thanks for e-stalking my flickr photostream. now go
cockgobble somewhere else, dickbaby clownfuck.
bye whore!!
posted by naxosaxur at 7:37 AM on June 6, 2005 [1 favorite]
cockgobble somewhere else, dickbaby clownfuck.
bye whore!!
posted by naxosaxur at 7:37 AM on June 6, 2005 [1 favorite]
I dunno... call me crazy, but when someone tells me that they hope I get a nice rosy venereal disease from the internet via my BIOS, I tend to, you know, sense humor. It really is the sixth sense, folks. Squeegee your third fucking eye.
posted by scarabic at 7:38 AM on June 6, 2005
posted by scarabic at 7:38 AM on June 6, 2005
for a bunch of pasty fucking nerds who fill their lonely hours reading chat logs and coding manuals, it's obvious that "real life" humor would be lost on them... for those social pariahs who lick anus all day, i will try to wit down my responses from now on. Because, you know, the internet is serious business and i'm being completely serious right now.
posted by naxosaxur at 7:50 AM on June 6, 2005
posted by naxosaxur at 7:50 AM on June 6, 2005
null terminated: I do hope the "creep" label is appended to anyone over 19k, and not just those of us (well, not me) who write scripts that end up creeping people (okay, me) out.
[on long preview, deleted a couple of mostly conciliatory paragraphs to bugbread. naxosaxur and scarabic have it covered. strongly second scarabic's elegant reply. feels wrong that your image-post showed up after naxosaxur's flickr stream was taken down.]
[also deleted for no good reason a sentence about null terminated's script being a bit gross, but not really thinking that null terminated is much of a creep for it.]
posted by nobody at 7:52 AM on June 6, 2005
[on long preview, deleted a couple of mostly conciliatory paragraphs to bugbread. naxosaxur and scarabic have it covered. strongly second scarabic's elegant reply. feels wrong that your image-post showed up after naxosaxur's flickr stream was taken down.]
[also deleted for no good reason a sentence about null terminated's script being a bit gross, but not really thinking that null terminated is much of a creep for it.]
posted by nobody at 7:52 AM on June 6, 2005
Wow.
Null-you did a nice job of responding to the comments here. Thanks for the number script too, it's good for me to know how lately I have become a member.
Naxo-You went off a little bit, huh? Perhaps a bit over the top? You scared me. [On preview-I don't buy the humor defense. Subsequent post bear out the vitriol and overreaction. I think a sense of humor was precisely what was missing from your screed.]
bugbread-You picked and picked and picked and now look what happened. That's gonna leave a scar!
posted by OmieWise at 7:55 AM on June 6, 2005
Null-you did a nice job of responding to the comments here. Thanks for the number script too, it's good for me to know how lately I have become a member.
Naxo-You went off a little bit, huh? Perhaps a bit over the top? You scared me. [On preview-I don't buy the humor defense. Subsequent post bear out the vitriol and overreaction. I think a sense of humor was precisely what was missing from your screed.]
bugbread-You picked and picked and picked and now look what happened. That's gonna leave a scar!
posted by OmieWise at 7:55 AM on June 6, 2005
scarabic : "I dunno... call me crazy, but when someone tells me that they hope I get a nice rosy venereal disease from the internet via my BIOS, I tend to, you know, sense humor."
So do I. Hence the surprise at someone wishing death by venereal disease via BIOS and yet without humor. Creepiest motherfucking thing I've seen in a while. Makes me wonder what other kind of e-stalking, cockgobbling, babydicking, clownfucking, and whoring Naxosaxur is up to that makes her publicly available picture a state secret.
Besides which, I thought Ryvar got the be creepiest member of MeFi for the rape haikus. He's going to be mighty disappointed to lose his position. Not as disappointed as wdpeck would be to find out that posting a flickr picture is creepier than molesting a 9 year old, though.
posted by Bugbread at 7:55 AM on June 6, 2005
So do I. Hence the surprise at someone wishing death by venereal disease via BIOS and yet without humor. Creepiest motherfucking thing I've seen in a while. Makes me wonder what other kind of e-stalking, cockgobbling, babydicking, clownfucking, and whoring Naxosaxur is up to that makes her publicly available picture a state secret.
Besides which, I thought Ryvar got the be creepiest member of MeFi for the rape haikus. He's going to be mighty disappointed to lose his position. Not as disappointed as wdpeck would be to find out that posting a flickr picture is creepier than molesting a 9 year old, though.
posted by Bugbread at 7:55 AM on June 6, 2005
The "creep" label was for me and me only. The 19Ker extension was a joke of sorts, so I hope it won't start another riot.
posted by null terminated at 7:56 AM on June 6, 2005
posted by null terminated at 7:56 AM on June 6, 2005
Um...my manuals and code don't tell me much about humor. Were you really angry at null for making the script? If so, was the death-wish not said in humor? Or if the reverse is true, and you did post it in humor, does that mean I should revert the photo of you?
posted by Bugbread at 7:57 AM on June 6, 2005
posted by Bugbread at 7:57 AM on June 6, 2005
Watch out, nax. I hear hundreds of people live in that city of yours. Some might see your face.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:01 AM on June 6, 2005
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:01 AM on June 6, 2005
bugbread, seriously:
take your flaccid, limp dick, and put it back in your pants -- because we're all laughing at you here. thanks for playing, though.
posted by naxosaxur at 8:03 AM on June 6, 2005
take your flaccid, limp dick, and put it back in your pants -- because we're all laughing at you here. thanks for playing, though.
posted by naxosaxur at 8:03 AM on June 6, 2005
i will try to wit down my responses from now on
I doubt that's even possible.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:06 AM on June 6, 2005
I doubt that's even possible.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:06 AM on June 6, 2005
naxosaxur-Was that humor? I'm not a coder, but I have to admit that I'm having a hard time telling.
posted by OmieWise at 8:08 AM on June 6, 2005
posted by OmieWise at 8:08 AM on June 6, 2005
Would anyone who has been, is being or intends to be violated in the future, please raise your hand.
posted by peacay at 8:13 AM on June 6, 2005
posted by peacay at 8:13 AM on June 6, 2005
naxosaxur : "take your flaccid, limp dick, and put it back in your pants -- because we're all laughing at you here. thanks for playing, though."
Er...I'm at work. My dick is indeed flaccid and limp. It's already in my pants. I'm happy to have amused. You're welcome for playing.
posted by Bugbread at 8:15 AM on June 6, 2005
Er...I'm at work. My dick is indeed flaccid and limp. It's already in my pants. I'm happy to have amused. You're welcome for playing.
posted by Bugbread at 8:15 AM on June 6, 2005
What if you'd like to be violated but aren't sure if it will ever happen like you want it to?
*raises hand*
posted by OmieWise at 8:22 AM on June 6, 2005
*raises hand*
posted by OmieWise at 8:22 AM on June 6, 2005
You know, it is tough being a 17ker.
Baby, you think you got problems, try being a 15ker. No one even notices us!
"I hope your script installs syphilis in your bios, then it spreads to your penis, and you die of rotting bios penis infection." is the best death curse ever. I'm keeping it. "Squeegee your third fucking eye" makes it all worthwhile.
posted by octobersurprise at 8:42 AM on June 6, 2005
Baby, you think you got problems, try being a 15ker. No one even notices us!
"I hope your script installs syphilis in your bios, then it spreads to your penis, and you die of rotting bios penis infection." is the best death curse ever. I'm keeping it. "Squeegee your third fucking eye" makes it all worthwhile.
posted by octobersurprise at 8:42 AM on June 6, 2005
Wow, you guys wouldn't know a joke if it bit you on your flaccid, limp dicks.
naxo's follow-up should have made it clear she was only kidding around: I was responding to something that made me feel violated, so i'm not going to defend my actions, rescind my impulse, or waffle on my motivation (aside from this obvious discourse).
See, isn't it obvious now?
On the other hand, BIOs inflicted syphilis is a keeper. Thanks for that, at least.
posted by cedar at 8:59 AM on June 6, 2005
naxo's follow-up should have made it clear she was only kidding around: I was responding to something that made me feel violated, so i'm not going to defend my actions, rescind my impulse, or waffle on my motivation (aside from this obvious discourse).
See, isn't it obvious now?
On the other hand, BIOs inflicted syphilis is a keeper. Thanks for that, at least.
posted by cedar at 8:59 AM on June 6, 2005
My sarcasm meter is thoroughly blown. Was naxosaxur just making a joke (in which case I should probably restore his/her image upthread), or was he/she serious? (In which case he/she should probably stop saying it was a joke. Unless, of course, saying it was a joke was the joke. In which case I probably need to retune both my sarcasm meter and my humorotron. Being a pasty faced nerd requires a lot of upkeep)
posted by Bugbread at 9:16 AM on June 6, 2005
posted by Bugbread at 9:16 AM on June 6, 2005
null terminated writes "Obviously, this was a horrible idea. "
Actually the idea was great. You just ran into the fact that lots of people hate the personal information datamining capabilities of databases. If you throw this back up and instead ask for people to submit their photos I'm sure it would be a big hit(in more ways then one, hope you have a big pipe in front of that photo database :) ). Because you control the source images you can take enough control to eliminate the bat logo/dancing hamster images.
posted by Mitheral at 9:21 AM on June 6, 2005
Actually the idea was great. You just ran into the fact that lots of people hate the personal information datamining capabilities of databases. If you throw this back up and instead ask for people to submit their photos I'm sure it would be a big hit(in more ways then one, hope you have a big pipe in front of that photo database :) ). Because you control the source images you can take enough control to eliminate the bat logo/dancing hamster images.
posted by Mitheral at 9:21 AM on June 6, 2005
No, I'm thinking flameout.
Yep. And I got more "Squeegeed" third eyes than you can shake a flaccid cock at.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 9:27 AM on June 6, 2005
Yep. And I got more "Squeegeed" third eyes than you can shake a flaccid cock at.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 9:27 AM on June 6, 2005
Mitheral : "If you throw this back up and instead ask for people to submit their photos I'm sure it would be a big hit(in more ways then one, hope you have a big pipe in front of that photo database :) ). Because you control the source images you can take enough control to eliminate the bat logo/dancing hamster images."
If you're at all interested in actually doing so, null, let us know. I've got nothing in Flickr, and haven't been to any meetups, but I really like the functionality the script presents and would be quite willing to upload my pic. And making it completely opt-in should alleviate any disagreement.
posted by Bugbread at 9:35 AM on June 6, 2005
If you're at all interested in actually doing so, null, let us know. I've got nothing in Flickr, and haven't been to any meetups, but I really like the functionality the script presents and would be quite willing to upload my pic. And making it completely opt-in should alleviate any disagreement.
posted by Bugbread at 9:35 AM on June 6, 2005
bugbread, give it a fucking rest. Go obsess over something else for a while. On my behalf, please give yourself a nice long wank...because you clearly have a lot of repressed and misguided aggression that would be better directed towards a positive release…as opposed to this tenuous, ineffective discourse.
...And your manic fixation over my image (that you appropriated from my personal photostream; *not* a public metafilter meet-up picture) is really disturbing.
It's nice to hide in cowardice behind your anonymity, eh? So easy it is to harass those who in good faith post images online. All this fecal talk from such a pathetic little shit is amusing, though. Thanks again for the target practice...
on preview: oh PLEASE DO UPLOAD SOME OF YOUR PICTURES. I can promise you it will be entertaining, cuntbreath.
posted by naxosaxur at 9:49 AM on June 6, 2005
...And your manic fixation over my image (that you appropriated from my personal photostream; *not* a public metafilter meet-up picture) is really disturbing.
It's nice to hide in cowardice behind your anonymity, eh? So easy it is to harass those who in good faith post images online. All this fecal talk from such a pathetic little shit is amusing, though. Thanks again for the target practice...
on preview: oh PLEASE DO UPLOAD SOME OF YOUR PICTURES. I can promise you it will be entertaining, cuntbreath.
posted by naxosaxur at 9:49 AM on June 6, 2005
nax, it's been 18 hours since your first outburst. If you really still feel the need to call people "pathetic pieces of shit" and "cuntbreath," you seriously need to take you own advice: give it a fucking rest. Any small amount of sympathy you may have originally earned by posting a funny embodiment of your feelings of violation have long since expired. Now you are just being obnoxious, and seem to have no respect for the community.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 10:00 AM on June 6, 2005
posted by If I Had An Anus at 10:00 AM on June 6, 2005
Er...aggression? I don't want anyone to be hurt or killed. Nobody. And I'm not obsessed. I'm at work, so wanking is right out. I'm not manically fixated. I didn't check whether the picture was a public mefi picture or not (I'm neither obsessed enough or e-stalkerish enough to do that much research. Sorry)
naxosaxur : "It's nice to hide in cowardice behind your anonymity, eh? oh PLEASE DO UPLOAD SOME OF YOUR PICTURES."
I wasn't aware I was hiding behind anonymity. My online persona is pretty durn open, but if it helps:
My name is Michael Brucia. My telephone number is (starting with country code) +81-80-6511-4459. I look like this:
(Yeah, I know, dorky picture, but it's not like I have a lot available here at work)
And I'm at work right now, so if you call I won't be able to answer the phone (no cell phones allowed in the workplace), but I will after about 8 hours, when the night shift ends.
posted by Bugbread at 10:07 AM on June 6, 2005
naxosaxur : "It's nice to hide in cowardice behind your anonymity, eh? oh PLEASE DO UPLOAD SOME OF YOUR PICTURES."
I wasn't aware I was hiding behind anonymity. My online persona is pretty durn open, but if it helps:
My name is Michael Brucia. My telephone number is (starting with country code) +81-80-6511-4459. I look like this:
(Yeah, I know, dorky picture, but it's not like I have a lot available here at work)
And I'm at work right now, so if you call I won't be able to answer the phone (no cell phones allowed in the workplace), but I will after about 8 hours, when the night shift ends.
posted by Bugbread at 10:07 AM on June 6, 2005
This reminds me of my sister's yelling at me. When she was 14.
bugbread: daisuki desu yo
posted by hototogisu at 10:30 AM on June 6, 2005
bugbread: daisuki desu yo
posted by hototogisu at 10:30 AM on June 6, 2005
Things I've learned from this thread:
- null terminated is not only a bright but also a reasonable fellow
- bugbread is way too trusting
- naxosaxur will be graduating into high school providing she passes grade 9 this month
bugbread, your patience and openness amazes me.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:34 AM on June 6, 2005
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:34 AM on June 6, 2005
I really like you, Bugbread. I have the same attitude about my real identity with regard to my online identity. I'm completely identified. For me, it has to do with accountability. And, by the way, after years and years of this--where my full name, address, and phone number have been only a few clicks away--I've never had a problem.
I'm sorely tempted to find some obscure photos of naxosaxur and post them inline. Better yet would be to get her real name, do one of those background checks for $30, and creep her out with that. For no other reason than to encourage her flameout here. She's completely off her nut and viciously so. I was pretty shocked at Ryvar's description of her—hysterical, intellectually useless hausfrau—but I sincerely hope that it hurt her where it counts. Crazy person.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:12 AM on June 6, 2005
I'm sorely tempted to find some obscure photos of naxosaxur and post them inline. Better yet would be to get her real name, do one of those background checks for $30, and creep her out with that. For no other reason than to encourage her flameout here. She's completely off her nut and viciously so. I was pretty shocked at Ryvar's description of her—hysterical, intellectually useless hausfrau—but I sincerely hope that it hurt her where it counts. Crazy person.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:12 AM on June 6, 2005
Ethereal Bligh : "I'm sorely tempted to find some obscure photos of naxosaxur and post them inline."
Man, we do think alike. (Read through a few responses if it doesn't make sense)
Ethereal Bligh : "Better yet would be to get her real name, do one of those background checks for $30, and creep her out with that."
But at this point, I'm thinking "creepy". Sorry, mate.
posted by Bugbread at 11:16 AM on June 6, 2005
Man, we do think alike. (Read through a few responses if it doesn't make sense)
Ethereal Bligh : "Better yet would be to get her real name, do one of those background checks for $30, and creep her out with that."
But at this point, I'm thinking "creepy". Sorry, mate.
posted by Bugbread at 11:16 AM on June 6, 2005
I think the victimization thread is a few lines up the front page of the grey under the authorship of mathowie.
Please everyone keep your photographs, your avatars, your genitals, your telephone numbers, your death threats, your creepiness and your fish in your pants where they belong.
posted by peacay at 11:56 AM on June 6, 2005
Please everyone keep your photographs, your avatars, your genitals, your telephone numbers, your death threats, your creepiness and your fish in your pants where they belong.
posted by peacay at 11:56 AM on June 6, 2005
"But at this point, I'm thinking "creepy". Sorry, mate.
Well, it's just that her outbursts here have been beyond the pale.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:16 PM on June 6, 2005
Well, it's just that her outbursts here have been beyond the pale.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:16 PM on June 6, 2005
But background checks......creeping her out.........come on EB, that is beyond the pale.
posted by peacay at 12:25 PM on June 6, 2005
posted by peacay at 12:25 PM on June 6, 2005
wow. bugbread is michael j. fox!
naxosaxur stands in front of mirrors and photographs herself. nuff said about that.
posted by quonsar at 12:25 PM on June 6, 2005
naxosaxur stands in front of mirrors and photographs herself. nuff said about that.
posted by quonsar at 12:25 PM on June 6, 2005
null terminated (creep) writes "geekyguy: There is a script idea. Append the user number to the user name with a dash or in parentheses or something.
(posts meekly) Right click install (if you have greasemonkey), click here to install extension."
This is interesting. Me likee. Might I suggest adding some description for the 1 < N < 1000 users, too?
posted by orthogonality at 12:28 PM on June 6, 2005
(posts meekly) Right click install (if you have greasemonkey), click here to install extension."
This is interesting. Me likee. Might I suggest adding some description for the 1 < N < 1000 users, too?
posted by orthogonality at 12:28 PM on June 6, 2005
bugbread (17Ker) writes "(Yeah, I know, dorky picture, but it's not like I have a lot available here at work)"
bugbread's quite... aristocratic looking.
posted by orthogonality at 12:31 PM on June 6, 2005
bugbread's quite... aristocratic looking.
posted by orthogonality at 12:31 PM on June 6, 2005
Well done, Ethereal Bligh, well done: You even managed to chafe bugbread, who had inarguably claimed the proud "stalker" title prior to you. You have now surpassed the former creepiness demonstrated in this lovely thread, and really claimed it for your own. Thanks for proving to us all what an immense freak you are, and what a precarious grasp of reality you encompass. Good luck with staying out of prison with all your stalkerish proclivities...
posted by naxosaxur at 12:34 PM on June 6, 2005
posted by naxosaxur at 12:34 PM on June 6, 2005
naxosaxur (17Ker) writes "Thanks for proving to us all what an immense freak you are, and what a precarious grasp of reality you encompass."
Man, naxos is getting her full five dollar's worth.
posted by orthogonality at 12:42 PM on June 6, 2005
Man, naxos is getting her full five dollar's worth.
posted by orthogonality at 12:42 PM on June 6, 2005
Do you really think EB would do a background check on you? Really? Well I don't.
posted by Specklet at 12:48 PM on June 6, 2005
posted by Specklet at 12:48 PM on June 6, 2005
"Thanks for proving to us all what an immense freak you are, and what a precarious grasp of reality you encompass. Good luck with staying out of prison with all your stalkerish proclivities..."
Stalker has a reasonably precise definition. All the things you're objecting to, including my facetious claim of thinking about doing a background search, do not constitute "stalking". Get the fuck over yourself. I can only speak for myself, but I doubt anyone here cares enough about you to stalk you. I'd just like to further the likliehood of your flameout so you'd go the fuck away. You're acting like a freaky narcissist or someone with borderline personality disorder—for example, as quonsar points out, you post photos taken by/of yourself publicly yet with the slightest provocation hurl accusations of "stalker" and hysterical rhetoric. That describes someone who needs to realize that almost no one really gives a fuck about them.
By the way, in case anyone is wondering, this isn't an act by naxosaxur. She's apparently bombarding people with email.
On Preview: "Do you really think EB would do a background check on you? Really? Well I don't." First of all, I couldn't afford it. Second of all, I don't care. Third of all, as a general rule, I wouldn't do such a thing because it's intolerably rude. Not that I find that a weighty consideration given naxo's behavior in this thread.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:08 PM on June 6, 2005
Stalker has a reasonably precise definition. All the things you're objecting to, including my facetious claim of thinking about doing a background search, do not constitute "stalking". Get the fuck over yourself. I can only speak for myself, but I doubt anyone here cares enough about you to stalk you. I'd just like to further the likliehood of your flameout so you'd go the fuck away. You're acting like a freaky narcissist or someone with borderline personality disorder—for example, as quonsar points out, you post photos taken by/of yourself publicly yet with the slightest provocation hurl accusations of "stalker" and hysterical rhetoric. That describes someone who needs to realize that almost no one really gives a fuck about them.
By the way, in case anyone is wondering, this isn't an act by naxosaxur. She's apparently bombarding people with email.
On Preview: "Do you really think EB would do a background check on you? Really? Well I don't." First of all, I couldn't afford it. Second of all, I don't care. Third of all, as a general rule, I wouldn't do such a thing because it's intolerably rude. Not that I find that a weighty consideration given naxo's behavior in this thread.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:08 PM on June 6, 2005
Ethereal Bligh : "She's apparently bombarding people with email."
?
Odd, I haven't gotten one, and my email addy is on my user page...
posted by Bugbread at 1:12 PM on June 6, 2005
?
Odd, I haven't gotten one, and my email addy is on my user page...
posted by Bugbread at 1:12 PM on June 6, 2005
...in before the $5 fee, suckas...
Ethereal Bligh, you clearly lack enough common sense that you probably can't even bathe yourself... better yet have the skills to hire a stalker. It's just painfully obvious how socially inept you are to even allude running a background check on a stranger -- on a website -- on the internets. I can't believe I actually have to share space on this website with losers like you...
posted by naxosaxur at 1:19 PM on June 6, 2005
Ethereal Bligh, you clearly lack enough common sense that you probably can't even bathe yourself... better yet have the skills to hire a stalker. It's just painfully obvious how socially inept you are to even allude running a background check on a stranger -- on a website -- on the internets. I can't believe I actually have to share space on this website with losers like you...
posted by naxosaxur at 1:19 PM on June 6, 2005
I think what EB may have been getting at is, when information is so cheap and readily available, it's foolish to get so twisted about some cheesy little pixelated image. If it had stopped there we could chalk it to naxo feeling a little more strongly about her privacy than some others... but it didn't stop there, she decided to start flinging shit around the room and is now upset that some of it has stuck to her trendy clotheing.
I just wish I had participated in this thread earlier, I'm feeling a little left out. Naxo: if it's not too much trouble, could I have a little string of profanity laced invective like the rest of the cool kids? If you need justification, rest assured that I think your as crazy as anyone* else does.
*You can tell this by the fact I think EB is being more rational than you are. Trust me, that never happens.
posted by cedar at 1:19 PM on June 6, 2005
I just wish I had participated in this thread earlier, I'm feeling a little left out. Naxo: if it's not too much trouble, could I have a little string of profanity laced invective like the rest of the cool kids? If you need justification, rest assured that I think your as crazy as anyone* else does.
*You can tell this by the fact I think EB is being more rational than you are. Trust me, that never happens.
posted by cedar at 1:19 PM on June 6, 2005
On Preview: "Do you really think EB would do a background check on you? Really? Well I don't." First of all, I couldn't afford it. Second of all, I don't care. Third of all, as a general rule, I wouldn't do such a thing because it's intolerably rude. Not that I find that a weighty consideration given naxo's behavior in this thread.
Ditto.
I have to admit my first impulse to naxosaxur's histrionics was a brief internal debate over the ethics of using a background check to trigger a flameout, but after thinking it over I think a photoshop contest would be much, much funnier. Fair use, right?
posted by Ryvar at 1:20 PM on June 6, 2005
Ditto.
I have to admit my first impulse to naxosaxur's histrionics was a brief internal debate over the ethics of using a background check to trigger a flameout, but after thinking it over I think a photoshop contest would be much, much funnier. Fair use, right?
posted by Ryvar at 1:20 PM on June 6, 2005
naxosaxur : "I can't believe I actually have to share space on this website with losers like you..."
You don't have to, you know.
posted by Bugbread at 1:28 PM on June 6, 2005
You don't have to, you know.
posted by Bugbread at 1:28 PM on June 6, 2005
This is all going to end in tears.
Slightly more interesting, it seems like Matt is now hiding user numbers a bit more.
posted by nixerman at 1:33 PM on June 6, 2005
Slightly more interesting, it seems like Matt is now hiding user numbers a bit more.
posted by nixerman at 1:33 PM on June 6, 2005
No prob. Just pointing out that you being here was voluntary. You're quite welcome to stay.
posted by Bugbread at 1:38 PM on June 6, 2005
posted by Bugbread at 1:38 PM on June 6, 2005
nixerman writes "Slightly more interesting, it seems like Matt is now hiding user numbers a bit more."
Huh? What do you mean, #17987?
posted by orthogonality at 1:43 PM on June 6, 2005
Huh? What do you mean, #17987?
posted by orthogonality at 1:43 PM on June 6, 2005
Wow, naxosaxur, I really don't understand where this level of vitiol is coming from.
I can understand you being uncomfortable with null's script, and demanding to be removed from it. I can understand you changing which photos you allow to be publicly available on Flickr. But the name calling and ranting seems over the top.
Null had good intentions, but hadn't thought it all the way through. Several people, yourself included, expressed concern, so null removed the offending script and retracted the entire plan. That's a reasonable response. Wishing such horrible things to someone who made an honest mistake - and then promptly rectified it doesn't seem to be very reasonable.
Obviously bugbread was being a twit by posting that image here, but he removed it, too. And EB made a tasteless joke about the background check. But, as cedar said, stalking has a strict definition, and looking at pictures that YOU put on the internet, and joking about accessing publicly available information about you is not stalking.
Even knowing that those guys acted boorishly, I think your reaction seems to be on a completely different scale than the what you are responding to.
posted by raedyn at 1:46 PM on June 6, 2005
I can understand you being uncomfortable with null's script, and demanding to be removed from it. I can understand you changing which photos you allow to be publicly available on Flickr. But the name calling and ranting seems over the top.
Null had good intentions, but hadn't thought it all the way through. Several people, yourself included, expressed concern, so null removed the offending script and retracted the entire plan. That's a reasonable response. Wishing such horrible things to someone who made an honest mistake - and then promptly rectified it doesn't seem to be very reasonable.
Obviously bugbread was being a twit by posting that image here, but he removed it, too. And EB made a tasteless joke about the background check. But, as cedar said, stalking has a strict definition, and looking at pictures that YOU put on the internet, and joking about accessing publicly available information about you is not stalking.
Even knowing that those guys acted boorishly, I think your reaction seems to be on a completely different scale than the what you are responding to.
posted by raedyn at 1:46 PM on June 6, 2005
orthogonality, well the username link in 'posted by' now uses the username format instead of the user number format. I suppose Matt is slowly phasing out the user number link. It's a good idea. Not wise to expose database primary keys like that. There may eventually come a day when nobody will have numbers, when we must judge Mefites on the content of their character rather than their record index. Some day soon.
posted by nixerman at 1:46 PM on June 6, 2005
posted by nixerman at 1:46 PM on June 6, 2005
THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO, I AM NOT GOING ANYWHERE.
GET OF OUT THE CAR NOW, OR I AM GOING TO TAZE YOU.
posted by Ryvar at 1:49 PM on June 6, 2005
GET OF OUT THE CAR NOW, OR I AM GOING TO TAZE YOU.
posted by Ryvar at 1:49 PM on June 6, 2005
nixerman writes "orthogonality, well the username link in 'posted by' now uses the username format instead of the user number format"
It doesn't for me:
<span class="smallcopy">posted by <a href="http://www.metafilter.com/user/17987">nixerman</a> at <a href="/mefi/9610#221929">1:46 PM</a> PST on June 6
posted by orthogonality at 1:51 PM on June 6, 2005
It doesn't for me:
<span class="smallcopy">posted by <a href="http://www.metafilter.com/user/17987">nixerman</a> at <a href="/mefi/9610#221929">1:46 PM</a> PST on June 6
posted by orthogonality at 1:51 PM on June 6, 2005
nixerman: the username link in 'posted by' still shows up as user number over here.
posted by Ryvar at 2:03 PM on June 6, 2005
posted by Ryvar at 2:03 PM on June 6, 2005
I've seen what nixerman is talking about, the names-not-numbers seems to come and go.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 2:07 PM on June 6, 2005
posted by If I Had An Anus at 2:07 PM on June 6, 2005
You're acting like a freaky narcissist or someone with borderline personality disorder
Seconded.
My Goodness, My Google!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 2:10 PM on June 6, 2005
Seconded.
My Goodness, My Google!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 2:10 PM on June 6, 2005
The names-not-numbers thing is a preview phenomenon, well described, although frequently asked (yet again) about.
posted by caitlinb at 2:33 PM on June 6, 2005
posted by caitlinb at 2:33 PM on June 6, 2005
If I Had An Anus writes "I've seen what nixerman is talking about, the names-not-numbers seems to come and go."
You don't see numbers when you are previewing a comment.
posted by Mitheral at 3:00 PM on June 6, 2005
You don't see numbers when you are previewing a comment.
posted by Mitheral at 3:00 PM on June 6, 2005
I still like this thread. I like how bugbread looks like David Duchovny. I also like how he stopped using gendered pronouns after being told of naxosaxur's user page update. I like how naxos is furious, because I agree with naxos but don't feel as furious about it. This makes me think that naxosaxur is my Rush Limbaugh. I think if naxosaxur noticed how bugbread stopped using gendered pronouns then maybe they could get along. I bet there wouldn't even be any stalking involved.
posted by nobody at 3:23 PM on June 6, 2005
posted by nobody at 3:23 PM on June 6, 2005
Publicly-posted comments: ok
Publicly-posted photographs: ok
Posting link from public website to public photographs: ok
Automating link between public website and public photographs: I hope your script installs syphilis in your bios, then it spreads to your penis, and you die of rotting bios penis infection. You are a giant queer and you should never post here again. I AM SO VIOLATED!!!!!
posted by blag at 4:14 PM on June 6, 2005
"By the way, in case anyone is wondering, this isn't an act by naxosaxur. She's apparently bombarding people with email."
EB-Is this true, or just specious? It would be interesting to know given just what this conversation is about.
posted by OmieWise at 4:41 PM on June 6, 2005
EB-Is this true, or just specious? It would be interesting to know given just what this conversation is about.
posted by OmieWise at 4:41 PM on June 6, 2005
THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO, I AM NOT GOING ANYWHERE.
posted by naxosaxur at 1:34 PM PST on June 6 [!]
naxo-Is this another joke, because I'm still afraid I don't get it. Maybe you should step away from your computer.
bugbread-You've shown an amazing amount of restraint. The picture incident notwithstanding.
posted by OmieWise at 4:50 PM on June 6, 2005
posted by naxosaxur at 1:34 PM PST on June 6 [!]
naxo-Is this another joke, because I'm still afraid I don't get it. Maybe you should step away from your computer.
bugbread-You've shown an amazing amount of restraint. The picture incident notwithstanding.
posted by OmieWise at 4:50 PM on June 6, 2005
This is a sad thread for me, because I like everybody involved, and yes, that includes naxo, who is obviously having a Moment but is quite a nice person. But I agree with OmieWise: bugbread is doing very well indeed; my already high opinion of him has gone up a couple of notches. And I like nobody's comment a lot.
I dunno, I guess pile-ons are more fun when you don't know the pilee.
*hastens to post before JRun strikes again*
posted by languagehat at 4:58 PM on June 6, 2005
I dunno, I guess pile-ons are more fun when you don't know the pilee.
*hastens to post before JRun strikes again*
posted by languagehat at 4:58 PM on June 6, 2005
EB-Is this true, or just specious?
Naxo sent me some emails today. I mentioned this in an email to EB saying some version of "Please don't do creepy things to naxo as you are suggesting, it will result in more admin work on this end at the very least" I assume that's what he's talking about, possibly not.
thanks to bugbread for taking the high road.
posted by jessamyn at 5:02 PM on June 6, 2005
Naxo sent me some emails today. I mentioned this in an email to EB saying some version of "Please don't do creepy things to naxo as you are suggesting, it will result in more admin work on this end at the very least" I assume that's what he's talking about, possibly not.
thanks to bugbread for taking the high road.
posted by jessamyn at 5:02 PM on June 6, 2005
aw, shucks
Somebody insult me fast, or it'll be too awkward for me to post anything in this thread ever again, even really neutral un-naxo or un-cooke related stuff.
posted by Bugbread at 5:08 PM on June 6, 2005
Somebody insult me fast, or it'll be too awkward for me to post anything in this thread ever again, even really neutral un-naxo or un-cooke related stuff.
posted by Bugbread at 5:08 PM on June 6, 2005
Somebody insult me fast, or it'll be too awkward for me to post anything in this thread ever again, even really neutral un-naxo or un-cooke related stuff.
If you could've kept your fucking mouth shut we would've had to endure less of her stupidity.
How'd I do?
posted by Ryvar at 5:15 PM on June 6, 2005
If you could've kept your fucking mouth shut we would've had to endure less of her stupidity.
How'd I do?
posted by Ryvar at 5:15 PM on June 6, 2005
You... you... don't look very Japanese! So there.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:16 PM on June 6, 2005
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:16 PM on June 6, 2005
Ryvar : "How'd I do?"
Good job, thanks.
(I kinda enjoyed some of the stupidity, especially after it was no longer aimed at null. What can I say, the occasional flameout is kinda fun to watch.)
posted by Bugbread at 5:18 PM on June 6, 2005
Good job, thanks.
(I kinda enjoyed some of the stupidity, especially after it was no longer aimed at null. What can I say, the occasional flameout is kinda fun to watch.)
posted by Bugbread at 5:18 PM on June 6, 2005
Welcome to bizzaroworld.
Is this the thread where reading will make me poop or is this the thread where vigilante justice is being meted out? The grey is the new blue.
posted by peacay at 10:08 PM on June 6, 2005
Is this the thread where reading will make me poop or is this the thread where vigilante justice is being meted out? The grey is the new blue.
posted by peacay at 10:08 PM on June 6, 2005
naxosaxur : "...sad, ineffectual, useless little men..."
Look at that picture of me up above again: I'm a happy inneffectual and useless little man.
posted by Bugbread at 3:21 AM on June 7, 2005
Look at that picture of me up above again: I'm a happy inneffectual and useless little man.
posted by Bugbread at 3:21 AM on June 7, 2005
(and I make a mean Spanish Omelette, so I'm not sure that I'm completely useless)
posted by Bugbread at 3:28 AM on June 7, 2005
posted by Bugbread at 3:28 AM on June 7, 2005
bugbread writes "(and I make a mean Spanish Omelette, so I'm not sure that I'm completely useless)"
Is that the kind that's mostly those glorious potatoes? I love those. If it isn't that kind...meh.
Also, although the other thread got closed, I wanted to assure you that cannibalism is the sweetest taboo. I'm not sure about incest.
posted by OmieWise at 6:14 AM on June 7, 2005
Is that the kind that's mostly those glorious potatoes? I love those. If it isn't that kind...meh.
Also, although the other thread got closed, I wanted to assure you that cannibalism is the sweetest taboo. I'm not sure about incest.
posted by OmieWise at 6:14 AM on June 7, 2005
I told Ryvar that I'd post in this thread this morning to explain to naxosaxur or whatever about how batshit crazy she is regarding her rights over her image. But, alas, I am too hungover to think. And it would be pointless because is seems others have already explained it. So... I'll just say:
What Ryvar said.
And quonsar.
And ask the guys who can do these greasemonkey scripts so well if they can make me a script that will make Metafilter work (for a change).
posted by dios at 9:44 AM on June 7, 2005
What Ryvar said.
And quonsar.
And ask the guys who can do these greasemonkey scripts so well if they can make me a script that will make Metafilter work (for a change).
posted by dios at 9:44 AM on June 7, 2005
OmieWise : "Is that the kind that's mostly those glorious potatoes?"
That's the one.
posted by Bugbread at 9:45 AM on June 7, 2005
That's the one.
posted by Bugbread at 9:45 AM on June 7, 2005
Civil_Disobedient asked who it was who creeped people out with the intensely researched backgrounds. It was tamim. Examples: thomcatspike, Miguel.
Tamim should also be remembered as a fan of the multilink post, culminating in this lulu (context).
(See also: rcade strikes back!)
(And, bonus hit from the MetaTalk archives: A button that, when you push it, makes everything ok, with the immortal line, "Dude, you are so going to be swimming in pie.")
posted by gleuschk at 12:11 PM on June 7, 2005
Tamim should also be remembered as a fan of the multilink post, culminating in this lulu (context).
(See also: rcade strikes back!)
(And, bonus hit from the MetaTalk archives: A button that, when you push it, makes everything ok, with the immortal line, "Dude, you are so going to be swimming in pie.")
posted by gleuschk at 12:11 PM on June 7, 2005
gleuschk, that's an amazing collection. But the rcade link is a repeat of the thomcatspike one.
posted by peacay at 10:34 PM on June 7, 2005
posted by peacay at 10:34 PM on June 7, 2005
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
this.
posted by null terminated at 1:38 PM on June 4, 2005