Linking to your own Livejournal as a news source: deceptive?

July 7, 2005 5:05 AM

Using breaking disaster news threads to post deceptively authoritative-looking self-links to Livejournal updates: threat or menace?
posted by brownpau to Etiquette/Policy at 5:05 AM (190 comments total)

Annoying and stupid.

Like when a pigeon craps on your head.
posted by chasing at 5:30 AM on July 7, 2005

Below the level of noise, although I like benzo8's response: SharQ, you self-linking opportunist twat...
posted by OmieWise at 5:36 AM on July 7, 2005

Using breaking disaster news threads to post blatantly callous political crap: threat or menace?
posted by trey at 5:46 AM on July 7, 2005

Self-linking is prohibited only in FPPs, not in comments. A note that they're self-links is polite, but not required AFAIK. And I fail to see how SharQ's links are "deceptively authoritative-looking;" all you have to do is hover over the link to see it's to a LiveJournal.

Not that I'm defending SharQ's links, mind you--they don't seem to be at all helpful--but they hardly rise to the level of either threat or menace.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 5:51 AM on July 7, 2005

Self-linking mildly annoying, right wing bibble very annoying, being a complete and utter cunt more annoying still:

pft. call me when buildings start falling. people are dead and dying every day zonker. time for me to exit this frenzied little circlejerk. enjoy your own private little 9/11 thread., quoth quonsar.
posted by jack_mo at 6:07 AM on July 7, 2005

I'm shocked and appalled and shocked and appalled and shocked and appalled.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 6:14 AM on July 7, 2005

What DevilsAdvocate said (with emphasis on the "not helpful" part). If we're going to call something out, let's focus on the jerks who use these threads to advance their agenda or just piss for the fun of it; besides trey's PP links, there's this and the little turd from shoos right after it. Knock it off, folks.

On preview: yeah, I don't know what got into quonsar, but I hope it gets right out again.
posted by languagehat at 6:22 AM on July 7, 2005

ParisParamus should be banned forever for the crap he pulled in that thread. It was inappropriate and disgusting. To quote from a movie, he sunk lower than the deepest layer of prehistoric frogshit at the bottom of a New Jersey scum-swamp.

SharQ, should get the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they got over-excited and thought they were helping.
posted by veedubya at 6:25 AM on July 7, 2005

BTW, and perhaps deserving of its own MetaTalk thread, I don't agree with the admin. decision to yank quonsar's comment, as disgusting as I found it. Marketplace of ideas, etc.
posted by found missing at 6:31 AM on July 7, 2005

ParisParamus should be banned forever for the crap he pulled in that thread

Definitely. Matt, how about it?
posted by unreason at 6:36 AM on July 7, 2005

I thought quonsar's comment should have stayed, as well, if only for everyone to see and remind him of, the next time he says something really foolish.
posted by Rothko at 6:36 AM on July 7, 2005

found missing, jessamyn left a link to quonsar's comment in that thread.
posted by peacay at 6:36 AM on July 7, 2005

ParisParamus should be banned forever for the crap he pulled in that thread. It was inappropriate and disgusting.

Actually, his two comments were really pretty mild, compared with what others have said in politically contentious newsfilter posts about Reagan, Pope John Paul, Schiavo etc. Just flag 'em and move on.
posted by Rothko at 6:43 AM on July 7, 2005

Those of you calling for banning ParisParamus are shooting yourselves in the foot. You only think he's offensive because you disagree with him. Censorship is the worst form of bias.

And I don't agree with his views, but I'll waste time here on Metatalk defending his right to post comments here.

For those of you who know q, you already know that his comment was intended as shock sarcasm for the Americacentric fox news types that view all world events through the lens of 9/11. Be offended as you may, but recognize the nuance. He's a clever comedian and an asshole rolled into one.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 6:46 AM on July 7, 2005

PP's being inappropriate, quick to judgement and uncaring, but what's new?
Allow the community to rebuke, as is usual, but the hammer shouldn't really be the weapon of choice, should it? Freedom of expression, etc.
posted by NinjaPirate at 6:53 AM on July 7, 2005

Paris apologized for his (minor) snark, and nothing else he said is even remotely worthy of censure.

quonsar's comment was well-done sarcasm.

The decision to yank q's comment and the calls for Paris' head are both misguided.
posted by trharlan at 6:55 AM on July 7, 2005

What do Paris Hilton and ParisParamus have in common?

They're both attention whores.


Can we ignore them now please.
posted by dodgygeezer at 7:03 AM on July 7, 2005

Wait, what did ParisParamus say that was remotely ban-worthy? I disagree vehemently with almost everything he says (and certainly don't feel that that thread was the time for Iraq War cheerleading [or racism, for that matter]), but people shouldn't be banned for expressing numbskull opinions.
posted by Marquis at 7:06 AM on July 7, 2005

He's a clever comedian and an asshole rolled into one.

If calling a thread about a bomb attack a "circlejerk" is clever or nuanced, I just missed the subtlety, I guess.
posted by Rothko at 7:06 AM on July 7, 2005

The calls for banning PP are vastly overblown. Ignore him and move on.
posted by OmieWise at 7:08 AM on July 7, 2005

Yanking Quonsar's comment sucks, especially when leaving comments by everyone who called him on it.
posted by Goofyy at 7:13 AM on July 7, 2005

I agree with the above comments about PP. He was being rude by being provocative; but he was being provocative in a way that, were the politics reversed, few here would object. Calling for him to be banned shows very poor judgment and a strong bias.

In contrast, quonsar was being much more rude, even if his comment was incisive sarcasm. If it wasn't, it surely is a bannable comment if there ever was one; and if it was, it was still in poor taste and demonstrates poor judgment and inevitably was going to hurt people's feelings. So why in the world is no one calling for quonsar to be banned, but some are calling for PP to be banned? That just doesn't make sense.

As I posted in the thread, I think that all those who have some personal emotional stake in this matter should be allowed to have their strong reactions, whatever they may be (for the most part). Everyone else should be extremely respectful and considerate. quonsar's and PP's and some other people's comments were out-of-line.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:18 AM on July 7, 2005

I think that all those who have some personal emotional stake in this matter should be allowed to have their strong reactions, whatever they may be (for the most part). Everyone else should be extremely respectful and considerate.

That seems a bit too formal for my taste, EB. How does one define "personal emotional stake," for instance? Answer: you don't, so stating a formal either/or rule like the above seems a bit silly.
posted by mediareport at 7:26 AM on July 7, 2005

Just to be clear, by "you don't," I mean "one doesn't," or better, "one can't."
posted by mediareport at 7:27 AM on July 7, 2005

q's comment was flagged more than I've seen almost any comment get flagged, much more than the PP comments. The "well-done sarcasm" clearly went above the head of many, if not most, people in that thread.
posted by jessamyn at 7:33 AM on July 7, 2005

Pulling Quonsar's comment was a service to Quonsar alone. He should have to live with that in his posting history. I don't understand why it was pulled.

As for the defenders rushing in with cries of "mere sarcasm" -- get real. Read what he wrote. "Enjoy your own private little 9/11 thread" was not a joke.
posted by Mid at 7:34 AM on July 7, 2005

This is what happens when people like Q have a lot of people fawning over them. They get emboldened and then they start to say anything because so many times in the past they've said stuff that was questionable and a sizeable group giggles at his brand of humour.

I am in no way surprised by what Q said. All of his other comments were a prelude to this one.
posted by Dagobert at 7:51 AM on July 7, 2005

Wow... the kind of shit I heard from people, from whenever, when 9-11 happened, pales in comparison to any of the comments made by PP or even Quonsar. Get over it.
posted by Necker at 7:58 AM on July 7, 2005

Mid, those of us who read q's comment as sarcasm probably (my view of it anyway) saw the "enjoy your own little 9/11 thread" directed towards zonker. Anyway, it was definitely indelicate. Another example of the difficulties of reading the tone of what is typed. I didn't have a problem with the LJ link - but they should have noted it was a selflink. PP wasn't over the top, just a bit untimely and silly if anything.
posted by peacay at 8:14 AM on July 7, 2005

If calling a thread about a bomb attack a "circlejerk" is clever or nuanced, I just missed the subtlety, I guess.

what else could you POSSIBLY call it?

the fact that my comment was so heavily flagged is proof - it's a terrorism mania mob mentality run rampant. quite disgusting.

eponymous blargh's blathering above about what constitutes "bannable comment" is fucking HI-LARIOUS! what a rational, deliberative liberal he is!

anyway, someone in that thread is going to get hurt by all the jerking knees.

i pray all our friends in london are well.
posted by quonsar at 8:43 AM on July 7, 2005

At 450+ comments, how could it be anything else but a circlejerk?
posted by mischief at 9:07 AM on July 7, 2005

circlejerk? It's a lot of people exchanging information and speculating on the news.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:12 AM on July 7, 2005

Rather than be OT in the blue:

quonsar: yet you mostly ignore bigger, more deadly incidents on a daily basis.

How the fuck would you know what anyone besides yourself ignores? Project much?
posted by dobbs at 9:12 AM on July 7, 2005

quonsar writes "the fact that my comment was so heavily flagged is proof - it's a terrorism mania mob mentality run rampant"

No. Occam's razor. People care. Your remarks were taken by many as offensive to their feelings. Not by me, but I easily understand why they see it that way.

Many of us have connections to London or are there. There were small elements of blame in the thread, but mostly people wanted to either share their feelings, obtain links to up to date information or hear current reports. I understand the view that this is just another event and obviously, like 9-11, some of the feelings will subside, but right now people are affected by, connected to and concerned with the London bombings. It's not mob mentality run rampant IMHO.

You're defending yourself on 3 threads at 2 sites. Confucius said something about a hole and a shovel and a time to stop digging.
posted by peacay at 9:13 AM on July 7, 2005

*hammers personal emotional stake into quonsar's chest*
posted by Floydd at 9:14 AM on July 7, 2005

circlejerk? It's a lot of people exchanging information and speculating on the news.
Well, obviously they're not exchanging the right information or speculating on it from a properly detached, ironic, snarky perspective. So it may as well just be an LGF circlejerk, you know? Because caring is uncool.
posted by darukaru at 9:20 AM on July 7, 2005

Confucius said something about a hole and a shovel and a time to stop digging.

but then i'd never get to china to see confucius.
posted by quonsar at 9:26 AM on July 7, 2005

Pantywads.
posted by ColdChef at 9:31 AM on July 7, 2005

quonsar's comment was well-done sarcasm.

Nope, atypically, it was poorly done sarcasm - I'm usually a fan of the well-placed quonsar barb, but that comment read as straightforward 'my terrorist attack is bigger than your terrorist attack' nastiness.

(It should've remained in the thread, though, I think.)
posted by jack_mo at 9:38 AM on July 7, 2005

You know, in the Bali thread I remember (and I could be remembering this incorrectly) Australians saying all kinds of stuff, like that they should bomb indonesia (!?).

On the other hand, the Londoners on this MeFi thread seem to be talking about how they're not going to be hateful, and how the attacks won't shake their tolerance, that sort of thing.

Someone who is both a Londoner and a MeFite you would expect to be pretty liberal. And it's easy to see why they would be upset with comments like those from Paris, who's not even in London. It's in very poor taste to say something offensive to someone while their city is under attack and they are frantically trying to get a hold of their family members.

Quonsor's comments are pretty assholish as well. Attacking someone for being upset that their city was just bombed? What would you expect?

At 450+ comments, how could it be anything else but a circlejerk?

A lot of people are talking about their personal experiances in London. How is that a circle jerk? Did you even read the thread?
posted by delmoi at 9:46 AM on July 7, 2005

quonsar, the fact that you make such a big fuss over your mother getting run over by a truck shows what a pathetic masturbatory fool you are. Mothers and even fathers get run over by much bigger trucks all over the world and all you can do is go "my mother this, my mother that." Shut the fuck up about your mother and go read a newspaper before your dick comes off from all the tugging.

Oh, and I pray that your mother's OK.

I sure hope you're drunk or something.
posted by languagehat at 9:48 AM on July 7, 2005

that comment read as straightforward 'my terrorist attack is bigger than your terrorist attack'

yeah. an unfortunate lack of self-editing, that.

anyway, thank you all for making me the star of today's show. i haven't had this much fun on mefi in months. john lennon must have felt just like this after he said the beatles were more popular than christ.
posted by quonsar at 9:54 AM on July 7, 2005

Oh, silly me -- I just happened to make a totally over-the-top inflammatory statement in an emotional thread and, oh dear, somehow I'm the center of attention. I just hate being the center of attention.

Also, defenders: note that Q isn't really pushing the sarcasm defense very hard. Time to switch to the "he's a jerk, but a lovable jerk" defense. That one works great.
posted by Mid at 10:07 AM on July 7, 2005

delmoi writes "You know, in the Bali thread I remember (and I could be remembering this incorrectly) Australians saying all kinds of stuff, like that they should bomb indonesia (!?)."
Oh dear gawd they're probably the same fucktards who want to stop tsunami aid because of the Corby-somebody-filled-my-bag-with-dope saga. Get me on a plane to NZ.
posted by peacay at 10:11 AM on July 7, 2005

I wouldn't want quonsar or PP banned at all, but I also think quonsar's comment should have stayed. He made a dick of himself, got called on it, and the evidence should have been left. I really can't tell you, quonsar, how inappropriate I find comments such "i haven't had this much fun on mefi in months", but it's mefi and no one should be banned for something like that.

And just to let you know I still have no word from my missing friend. I am, of course though, much much more concerned about malaria.
posted by ciderwoman at 10:38 AM on July 7, 2005

I think quonsar's first post, as he's said, was just not written/read the way he intended. His subsequent posts have been much more appropriate for the emotional level of the thread. I think he has realized that sarcasm does not play as well to people in emotional situations, though, of course part of his point has been that people are only emotionally raw because of cable-news-itis.

Second to this point has been that death and disaster are part of our world every day. true as that may be, I would buy the tone of that statement if its author had a history of proactively working to combat or inform of these issues on this site rather than simply concocting (usually very appropriately biting) snarks on those who choose not to focus their attentions on more mundane subjects.

Now, granted trying to redirect people's energies from the TomKat story could arguably be a method of helping the cause, but shouldn't you then provide a new direction towards which to focus our attentions?

People are stupid, quonsar, you of all folks should know that. Don't just show us where we're stupid, show us where we can correct our stupidity.

With that said, snark on quonsar.

I've been burned by his snarks before, but I know that his aim is usually dead accurate to the hidden truth. Anything he's ever said to/about me has been right on the money (I actually stopped coming here for a while to reevaluate afterwards). Some people call his honesty rude and it certainly doesn't feel good when its aimed at you, but rarely have I seen quonsar completely miss the mark (be misunderstood, sure).
posted by Pollomacho at 10:43 AM on July 7, 2005

Oh, and PS, please don't read that I feel the London attacks are mundane or comparable to the TomKat story in any way nor do I think Quonsar has done that either.
posted by Pollomacho at 10:46 AM on July 7, 2005

Strong emotional reactions about strong emotional reactions about strong emotional reactions are rather redolent of that telescoping picture of Hasselhoff-in-his-underwear animation.
posted by y2karl at 10:55 AM on July 7, 2005

If people were upset by the comment, I think it's right for Jessamyn to have pulled it. There seems to be a curious tug for people who hated it between wanting comments like that to go away (ie, not have been made at all), and wanting them to live in infamy. I don't think one can have both. If the point is to let the thread stand as memorial, or even just relatively calm space, then pull the comment and get on with it. If the point is to pile on quonsar, let the comment stand, start a MeTa post about it and get to it.
posted by OmieWise at 10:58 AM on July 7, 2005

Being the Socratic Asshole is an overused device.
posted by atchafalaya at 10:59 AM on July 7, 2005

This is partly what is wrong with "flag and move on". After deletion, the rest of us didn't get a chance to see what a complete dick quonsar can be. Not that I don't appreciate a good hit of sarcasm... time and place. Let's not forget the (all-too) extended period of sanctity that followed 9/11 (and virtual non-criticism of the admin, for extra laughs).

Yeah, I also remember the "bomb Indonesia" yahoos. Fucktards.
posted by dreamsign at 11:00 AM on July 7, 2005

Strong emotional reactions about strong emotional reactions about strong emotional reactions are rather redolent of that telescoping picture of Hasselhoff-in-his-underwear animation.

Anything that's redolent of Hasselhoff in his underwear is tops in my book! They should bottle that stuff! It'd sell like hotcakes in Germany!
posted by Pollomacho at 11:16 AM on July 7, 2005

"How is that a circle jerk? Did you even read the thread?"

Fuck no! ... and I'll bet it's full of those ridiculous dots as well. ;-P
posted by mischief at 11:34 AM on July 7, 2005

Threnace.
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 11:35 AM on July 7, 2005

Marquis writes "but people shouldn't be banned for expressing numbskull opinions."

It's not about the opinions its about the constant noise he spouts. Quonsar is at least occasionally funny, PP is just an ass everytime he sits at a keyboard and I don't think we need that here.

mischief writes "I'll bet it's full of those ridiculous dots as well."

You lose.
posted by Mitheral at 11:39 AM on July 7, 2005

What Pollomacho said.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:37 PM on July 7, 2005

In contrast, quonsar was being much more rude, even if his comment was incisive sarcasm. If it wasn't, it surely is a bannable comment if there ever was one; and if it was, it was still in poor taste and demonstrates poor judgment and inevitably was going to hurt people's feelings. So why in the world is no one calling for quonsar to be banned, but some are calling for PP to be banned? That just doesn't make sense.

Why should anyone else call for his banning? Your one-man I-hate-quonsar campaign (in every single damn thread I've read this month) drowns out all other voices.

I disagree with banning either quonsar or PP; I also disagree with deleting q's comment -- we need to know what where the outrage is coming from, no? Oh, and I still think that PP is a COWARD for not enlisting in the army and fighting "evil" in Iraq. *rolls eyes right out of head*
posted by sic at 12:46 PM on July 7, 2005

but rarely have I seen quonsar completely miss the mark

PolloMacho, I believe your comment reveals more about the value of your judgement than it does the validity of quonsar's comments. Running into a burning building and yelling, "Ha, I saw a bigger fire last week in another town!" is ridiculous, insensitive, unnecessary, and arrogant. And anyone who disagrees is welcome to do so, but be prepared to be dismissed outright by people who have lost loved ones in similar tragedies. This is a sad day for London; save the snarking for the Friday morning quarterbacking we'll see tomorrow.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 12:50 PM on July 7, 2005

Why should anyone else call for his banning? Your one-man I-hate-quonsar campaign

FWIW, I get a couple emails a month asking me to ban quonsar, and mentioning how his antics have led them away from participating any longer. There's been a gradual turn away from q adding anything constructive or amusing to just pissing all over the site over the past few months and I've long considered when the time would come that people would discuss it. I don't mean to turn this thread into a "should he be banned or not" thread, but there's much more than one person asking for it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:57 PM on July 7, 2005

Being the Socratic Asshole is an overused device.

Especially on MetaFilter.

On preview: What happened to those one-week timeouts that used to keep him reasonably 'umble?
posted by languagehat at 1:00 PM on July 7, 2005

There's been a gradual turn away from q adding anything constructive or amusing to just pissing all over the site over the past few months and I've long considered when the time would come that people would discuss it.

I've been wondering when it was coming too...the last few months, he's been rather snarky on the way the site is moderated, the errors we're getting and generally just sniping at people when he gets the chance.

I know it's q's way and he's really popular around here, but he's getting tiresome to have to sift through. If he contributed good comments to the site (I think the problem is that we all know he can) and his snarks, I'd have less of a desire to see him move on, but he hasn't for a while.
posted by dflemingdotorg at 1:04 PM on July 7, 2005

I had to go and read PP's comments and have to say that those were very tame compared to some of the bile that he's spewed forth in the past.

Inappropriate? Yeah, probably.
Insensitive? What else is new?
Bannable? Nope.
posted by fenriq at 1:10 PM on July 7, 2005

FWIW, I get a couple emails a month asking me to ban quonsar... there's much more than one person asking for it.

I wonder why said people can't air their complaints publicly, or "just scroll past it."
posted by trharlan at 1:18 PM on July 7, 2005

I honestly believe that banning quonsar permanently would be a huge mistake, if only because it would make him a martyr, which is precisely what he's after.

His supporters would drown this place with noise and he'd invariably come back under a new identity. Plus, it would serve to solidify his belief that you wield your power too often. He's like Castro; wait his dumb ass out. He's gotta get bored eventually.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 1:22 PM on July 7, 2005

Some many spineless people here. The point of Metafilter is to be provocative. Grow up--intellectually, I mean.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:43 PM on July 7, 2005

ParisParamus writes "The point of Metafilter is to be provocative."
What is it with you having to decree what happens at this site? If you regard patronizing or condescending comments as a sign of maturity then you could probably use some psychotherapysurgery.
posted by peacay at 1:53 PM on July 7, 2005

I have come full circle on quonsar. At first I thought his biting commentary was humorous and steered us to look away from the stupid horse shit of things like American Idol. Then I started finding his posts often inappropriate. I eventually found myself on the end of his comments. I was having a particularly bad day/week/whatever due to my personal life and was taking it out by being a jackass in threads here. Quonsar saw right through my commentary and called me out. I was offended, I was hurt. It took me a long time to come back, months. Finally, I realized, that truly, I wasn't a victim of an assault, I was an asshole and he saw right through me from the first second. I've now come to realize that he does this often and I'm back to square one.

What I can agree with is that his comments sometimes do lack tact. when this happens I think it might be better to calmly tell him. Quonsar's personality, from what I've seen, does not work well with knee-jerk reactions. I think if you point out, calmly that he lacks tact, he usually just stays out. If you scream that he's an ass that needs banning, he's going to scream right back, and from what I've seen, you do not want to trade snaps with this guy.

I don't think he's looking for martyrdom, I think he just doesn't take well to bullshit. Maybe a time out is a good idea, I don't know. Matt, it's your house. I do think he is a good contributor and I'm sure he does agree that today was a very sad day for London, it's just he made a dumb mistake in what he said. As often as he calls us on our dumb mistakes, I guess he's bound to get it back ten fold. Maybe that's the solution, if only we had another quonsar that could quonsar quonsar.
posted by Pollomacho at 1:56 PM on July 7, 2005

mathowie writes "I don't mean to turn this thread into a 'should he be banned or not' thread.." but you did anyway.
My vote is don't ban him. If you must, turf him for a week and have a more sensitive trigger finger subsequently.
posted by peacay at 1:57 PM on July 7, 2005

I do think he is a good contributor

to what?
posted by Quartermass at 2:00 PM on July 7, 2005

Some many spineless people here. The point of Metafilter is to be provocative. Grow up--intellectually, I mean.

Prick.
posted by dodgygeezer at 2:02 PM on July 7, 2005

Feel free to cite a "patronizing" or "condescending" comment made by me, particularly since my comments are not oriented exclusively to posters in a thread (but rather stupid people and stupid media in the larger world). What, there aren't idiots out there who will blame President Bush and Prime Minister Blair for these attacks? What, there isn't a dearth of criticism of Islamofascism(sp?) my Muslims outside the US and UK (especially outside the UK; the near silence is deafening in the US given the number of allies such outspoken Muslims would have).

And actually, that's beside the point. You have the option of ignoring my comments; or responding to them. But you, or those of your ilk, get off by creating and then attacking a bogey man. That's really cheap and sophomoric.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:03 PM on July 7, 2005

SeizeTheDay writes "He's like Castro; wait his dumb ass out. He's gotta get bored eventually."

If your funnily absurd comparison holds any water, I guess by 2035 we will see quonsar start to get bored. On the other hand, I haven't really read anything he wrote that would be worth such a harsh measure as a ban - but then maybe my skin is a little thicker than average. In the end, it is a discussion site, no need to get so angry or so sensitive about one or two inane comments. He is clearly not a troll and I've seem quonsar add to the discussion many more times than I've seem him derail it.
posted by nkyad at 2:04 PM on July 7, 2005

"of course part of his point has been that people are only emotionally raw because of cable-news-itis"

No -- it's cos some c*** tried to blow up the neighbours... if that makes me stupid and quonsar smart then please please please pass me the dunce cap: I'll wear it with pride.
posted by nthdegx at 2:06 PM on July 7, 2005

I agree with the deletion of q's comment, but disagree with banning him. For the most part q's comments are just noise and can safely be ignored. In this case, there was nothing "incisive" about it, he deliberately stated his comment in such a way to hurt and offend just about everybody. This isn't intellectual courage it's just trolling and such obviously trollish comments should be deleted. As for banning him, he's not worth it. For the most part, q doesn't set about trying to derail threads or attack others. Most of his comments are somewhat relevant if just silly. In the end he's just harmless noise.
posted by nixerman at 2:07 PM on July 7, 2005

That said I'd like to thank the MetaFilter community for that thread.
posted by nthdegx at 2:09 PM on July 7, 2005

There's been a gradual turn away from q adding anything constructive or amusing to just pissing all over the site over the past few months

oh, that's what you say every few months. :P
posted by quonsar at 2:12 PM on July 7, 2005

quonsar's quonsar.

Paris P is such a tiny tiny little man. Seriously what are you a little fucking bucket of bile and terrorshit with arms?

Don't ban either of them.
posted by Divine_Wino at 2:14 PM on July 7, 2005

And actually, that's beside the point. You have the option of ignoring my comments; or responding to them. But you, or those of your ilk, get off by creating and then attacking a bogey man. That's really cheap and sophomoric.

I'm sorry, sir. Were you speaking to me, or the strawman two houses down the street?
posted by Rothko at 2:23 PM on July 7, 2005

cite: ParisParamus writes "Some many spineless people here. The point of Metafilter is to be provocative. Grow up--intellectually, I mean."
condescend
v 1: behave in a patronizing and condescending manner 2: do something that one considers to be below one's dignity [syn: deign, descend] 3: debase oneself morally, act in an undignified, unworthy, or dishonorable way; "I won't stoop to reading other people's mail" [syn: stoop, lower oneself] 4: treat condescendingly [syn: patronize, patronise]

So I err on the side of tautology although I could argue that I was just making the meaning more accessible.

"my comments are not oriented exclusively to posters in a thread"

"spineless people here"
posted by peacay at 2:24 PM on July 7, 2005

I've been disappointed by a decline in the quality of quonsar's comments but I saw it as an understandable reaction to (briefly) heavy-handed moderation. Even so, metafilter is better with quonsar.

Matt, out of curiosity, how often do you get requests to ban ParisParamus? I can't quite bring myself to advocate banning him but I can't remember PP ever contributing anything useful. If there is anyone whose absence would improve metafilter . . .
posted by Zetetics at 2:28 PM on July 7, 2005

"The point of Metafilter is to be provocative. Grow up--intellectually, I mean."

You can't mean that. Or shouldn't. It is not intellectually mature to believe that the intellectual purpose of discussion is best served by being primarily provocative. If anything, that's a very immature point of view, very adolescent. Provocation has its place. It should not be primary, and it certainly isn't an end unto itself.

"Your one-man I-hate-quonsar campaign (in every single damn thread I've read this month) drowns out all other voices."

You've got to be kidding me. Actually do some research and see if your guesswork is correct. And be honest about how many threads you've read this month.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:29 PM on July 7, 2005

FWIW, I get a couple emails a month asking me to ban quonsar, and mentioning how his antics have led them away from participating any longer.

Yeah, maybe. But consider that the people attracted by the true personalities on this board probably don't email you to tell you that's why they tune in and contribute. I think of quonsar as the Barry Bonds of MF. Sure his brain has been somewhat shriveled by the steroids, and yes he used to be a much better player, but he's still the guy we loves to hate.
posted by found missing at 2:30 PM on July 7, 2005

Fuck quonsar. And I mean that in absolutely the nicest way possible.
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:33 PM on July 7, 2005

*swoons*
posted by quonsar at 2:42 PM on July 7, 2005

I don't think quonsar is being a prick. I put him in the same group as George Bush...
posted by languagehat at 2:43 PM on July 7, 2005

*stays the course*
posted by quonsar at 2:54 PM on July 7, 2005

"You lose."

Oh well... heheh
posted by mischief at 3:08 PM on July 7, 2005

No -- it's cos some c*** tried to blow up the neighbors... if that makes me stupid and quonsar smart then please please please pass me the dunce cap: I'll wear it with pride.

Please, don't mistake me interpreting what I think quonsar said for total agreement with his point or that I think that those that felt emotional in the wake of the events of today are stupid.

Making a comment about not getting overly distraught over this particular event in the grand scheme of world tragedies was probably not the best thing to point out while body counts were still rolling in and certainly not in the way that quonsar first worded it. Perhaps a couple days from now when we are still getting 6 FPP's a day over this issue, as we probably will, that point would be better served, but hey, that's not his style.

Maybe it's not the style that is generally considered socially acceptable either, and maybe we need a line to be draw somewhere on tactful discourse. That's not really my call to make though.

I stand by my opinion that he is a good contributor, he ordinarily makes valid, pertinent points. I do think that sometimes his statements aren't prudent at certain emotional junctures. There are plenty of folks that provide input of far less value than quonsar. I say he doesn't gets to sit out 10 minutes at recess and we move on, it's the worthless contributors that need the boot.



Matt, please don't boot me.
posted by Pollomacho at 4:25 PM on July 7, 2005

I agree with Pollomancho that quonsar has only been tactless here. It was as though he came marching into a hospital emergency room where people were anxious and grieving and announced that there were bigger problems in the world than the ones with which we were currently preoccupied. His point is valid, but his mannery of delivery is horribly out of line.

Please don't ban him. His contributions to the site do outweigh his mistakes. I have many times howled with laughter over his wisecracks and been deeply impressed with his insight.
posted by orange swan at 5:07 PM on July 7, 2005

I first joined mefi in the days after 9/11, and was instantly impressed at the level of disussion here. While the worlds media went mad, I read some of the most rational and informed arguments here on the blue. What impressed me most was the way that people whose views I disagreed with presented their opinions in clear and concise postings, which were rebuffed / argued with in a simillar manner. And it's been pretty consistent ever since.

And this is what saddened me most about quonsars postings today. Do I think the media is unfairly weighted to events on their doorstep? Of course I do. I work in TV and find this a constant embarrasment, but quonsar's postings, along with the ever reliable PP, were just trolls of the lowest order, postings designed to bring attention not to the issue at hand, but to the poster themselves. There were big issues to discuss post 9/11, and I remember spending an age trying to correctly word my first ever post in a way that would continue the discussion whilst still being aware of the very real hurt that was being felt by people directly involved at the time. That was something quonsar and PP didn't think about this tiem round.

Today wasn't about some ego fuelled dick measuring constest, about whose suffering was the worst, it was about something very real that was happening to members of this community. Sadly, it also highlighted the trouble with the web, the annonimity of it all. It's all happening on a screen in front of you, it's not really real, so it's all too easy to make yourself the star of the show with a few sarcastic comments.

Well I think mefi is more than that, it's a community in the very real sense of the word. We may all be spread across the globe but being here I do feel part of a group, and sometimes, when something terrible happens to you, it's good to feel that. But more than just a set of friends, it's a community of well read and intelligent people, where the opposite view can be presented in a way that can make you think, and I am eternally thankful for that fact.

The fact that I have never, not once, agreed with PP is not a reason for him to be banned, rather it's the reason he should be here. I've always thought about his points, ended up thinking he's wrong, but at least thought about them. I've always, until today, enjoyed quonsar's posts, and as I said at the beginning of this ramble, I don't think he's that wrong. What he's been guilty of is being an internet blowhard today, showing off for his own enjoyment without thinking that at the other end fo that modem are real people going through real trouble. I would think much, much more of him if he were to apologise outright for being insensitive today, but whether he does this or not I would never advocate him being banned. Informed discussion (and friday flash fun) is what this site has always been about for me, and bannings are no way to further discussion. But to PP and quonsar I'd say please remember that we're not just logins, we're real people, and sometimes sensitivity must come before self agrandisment.
posted by ciderwoman at 5:14 PM on July 7, 2005

Well said, ciderwoman. While it is a tired and worn-out-from-overuse statement, many people here need to grow a few more layers of skin and have the courtesy to allow every person here the right to express their views, however unpopular they may be.

To be honest, quonsar's deleted comment was out of line in my opinion. It was also absolutely correct, which is often the case when quonsar speaks. The only thing he is guilty of is lack of sensitivity and who has not been guilty of that at least once a thousand times in their life?

As far as people e-mailing mathowie asking for quonsar to be banned - have the guts to speak your mind in public or shut the fuck up.
posted by dg at 5:34 PM on July 7, 2005

have the guts to speak your mind in public or shut the fuck up.

There are many ways to get one's goals accomplished, dg. If, for instance, I think I can get a raise by speaking to my boss directly, as opposed to discussing with my co-workers (who have absolutely no say), then I think I'll take my chances with my boss.

There are plenty of people here who probably could post much less and would not be missed, but happened to be very popular. I have a couple in mind as I say this. However, if I mentioned it in MeTa, my credibility here would take a severe hit and I probably wouldn't accomplish anything except piss people off. Therefore, I keep my mouth shut. Your username is everything here, especially when attempting to build a respectable image. Creating MeTa threads that out people you don't like does not build a community, nor does it make friends.

I don't think there's anything wrong with e-mailing the owner of the site and telling him what you think of the place every so often.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 5:48 PM on July 7, 2005

I'm actually just really confused about the whole thing. I don't really get what zonker said that inspired quonsar's reaction specifically to him...

I'm truly not joking when I say, is this something that one would need to be watching American TV to understand? Was there a lot of talk about "solidarity", etc. that might give one a strong feeling of excluding consideration of the plights of other countries, etc.?

/puzzled
posted by taz at 5:58 PM on July 7, 2005

The fact that I have never, not once, agreed with PP is not a reason for him to be banned, rather it's the reason he should be here.

I wish I could say "This is the true spirit of MeFi," but I can and will say this should be the spirit of MeFi. Well said, ciderwoman.

And Pollomacho, you're correct about quonsar but I don't think you need to fear his permanent banning. If Matt's pissed enough, he'll give him a week off, as he has many times before, and we'll all have the pleasure of seeing FREE QUONSAR! comments in random threads. Otherwise, the rogue elephant will continue to run free, pissing where he listeth.
posted by languagehat at 5:59 PM on July 7, 2005

To be honest, quonsar's deleted comment was out of line in my opinion. It was also absolutely correct, which is often the case when quonsar speaks....
posted by dg at 5:34 PM PST on July 7 [!]

My thoughts exactly. I understand why people were offended, but he did make a point of apologizing for the wording and clarifying what he meant. Those that think that q just "pisses all over the blue" don't get it.

Listen, I was a long time reader of MeFi before I joined, and I thought at first that he was a dick, and then I started seeing the way he thinks, as one does when conversing with someone over time. I began to see that he (generally) is pretty incisive with his comments, offensive at times, but usually dead accurate with an underlying truth.

And then he trolled me, within a day or so of joining. :)

Banning him would be a mistake; it wouldn't increase the quality of this place- He's our Feste. [or a rogue elephant]
posted by exlotuseater at 6:08 PM on July 7, 2005

Well, as this thread morphs into a rally by the faithful for PP and quonsar, I'll place my vote. I find that the "First Amendment"-style defense employed here is a waste. This site is not run by the government. It's a community, run by a person, and that community and its owners are permitted to have their patience wear thin.

The decision by the posters in this thread to hide the two "offenders" in a flag of morality and decency is ridiculous. It's the same flag that that they both so enjoy wiping their asses with. So my vote is for banning both of them.

Yes, I know I can ignore their comments and keep reading, but after doing it for five years, it's gotten tiresome. PP and quonsar should bear some of the responsibility for easing that burden - the effort shouldn't be foisted exclusively on us, the readers. It's a two-way street.

Finally, this idiocy about martyrdom and setting precedents and users complaining is just that - idiocy. They will soon be forgotten, and many will be the happier for it. And frankly, if MeFi is the bastion of liberalism that PP insists it is, one lone voice against 25k others is a waste anyway. And if MeFi's become as much of a shithole as q insists it's become, then so be it - he shouldn't miss it any more than I'll miss him.

P.S. Yes, quonsar, I know that you're going to make a hilarious ""wiping my ass on a 'morality and decency flag'" animated .gif. I'm sure it'll be, well, hilarious.
posted by Sinner at 6:33 PM on July 7, 2005

whoa.

q != PP. apples and oranges, my friend. One is a irreverent but clever poster and commenter, and the other is a partisan mouthpiece that trolls threads with no finesse.

One's a Jester, the other is just a clown.
posted by exlotuseater at 6:43 PM on July 7, 2005

May we have a color coded banning threat alert appended to MF user pages? That'd be super neat and useful.
Many thanks!
posted by Feisty at 6:47 PM on July 7, 2005

Yeah...the blue has taken a beating lately, and frankly, I've grown weary of the fighting...but I lurve me some Quonsar. Maybe it's because I read Blort, so I think I've got a handle on the weirdness that is the Turducken depths of his mind...but MeFi without Quonsar would be like egg fu young without the eggs. Just all young and phooey.
posted by dejah420 at 6:55 PM on July 7, 2005

I've been here a lot longer than you, exlotuseater, and that wins me points in one way only: I've likely read more content than you have and consequently have had to wade through more of quonsar's execrable "humor." Irreverent? I beg to differ. It's "comedy" of the lowest common denominator. "Clever?" Sorry, but in my mind, one liners and non-sequiters != clever.

It's arrogant, insulting and annoying as a rule, and of late, increasingly in lockstep with a host of bilious declarations about the degraded state of the site and insults towards its owner. Enough. Let him find some other place to drop his turds.
posted by Sinner at 6:57 PM on July 7, 2005

I work in TV

nuff said.
posted by quonsar at 7:07 PM on July 7, 2005 [1 favorite]

Lack of Tact is Not a Crime!

I am against banning quonsar or Paris P.
If they go, I go...
(kind of a dare...) 8=)
posted by Balisong at 7:09 PM on July 7, 2005

MeFi without Quonsar would be like egg fu young without the eggs. Just all young and phooey.

Awesome, dejah420!
posted by Balisong at 7:12 PM on July 7, 2005

Hmm...

From what I can tell, ParisParamus has taken the job of writing the same kind of peurile, knee-jerk stuff that is so popular in any discussions of politics or religion on MeFi. The big difference is that he's right-wing, and most of the jerks here are left-wing.

He's not being any more of an ass than a lot of the left-wing types, but he gets the flack just because people ignore assholishness from people they agree with. I don't think he should be banned, but I sure wish he'd go away, along with everyone else who throws in the random extremist barbs, regardless of their political orientation.

As for quonsar: well, as a long-time reader, I just don't get him. He says really obvious things in really insulting ways, and people support him for it. As the examples given above, he's like a person who runs into a burning building and points out that bigger buildings have burned, or who runs into an emergency ward and talks about how many more Rwandans have died than have your siblings. Yeah, sure, he's right, but unless you're an idiot, you already know that, so basically all he's bringing to the table is assholishnessity. I just don't see where all this quality quonsar brings is.

And, again, that said, I don't think he should be banned, but I sure wish he'd go away.
posted by Bugbread at 7:32 PM on July 7, 2005

And Pollomacho, you're correct about quonsar but I don't think you need to fear his permanent banning.

Yeah, I'm not scared. It would have happened by now if it was gonna. I don't think PP will either.

Incidentally is their a list of the MetaDamned, if you will? I'm just curious.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:35 PM on July 7, 2005

nuff said.

Wow quonsar, that's so incisive and spot on! People who work in TV are stupid! How original and daring! I hope I can be an ungrateful, self-absorbed asshole like you someday!

I agree with Sinner, if PP and q think that Matt and the people on this site are so worthless and beneath them, maybe they should just fuck off, and if they insist on sticking around and spewing crap where ever they are, just ban them.

quonsar has never been funny, just an attention whore with the added bonus of being incredibly self-righetous. If I believed for a minute he really gave a shit about people dying in Africa, then maybe he would've had a minor point, but the post was really about how much quonsar is better than you. For years, ParisParamus has gone on and on about the posters here are idiot childeren and the contempt he has for them, while rarely producing anything with actual content. The fact that he can, and most of the time, chooses not to, is just more damning. If they think they're such hot shit and the site is full of a bunch of droolers, well, then they won't miss this place, will they? They don't make Metafilter the worst it could be, but it would be better off without them.

On preview: bugbread, I can see what you're saying about PP, and there are several other posters who are near as bad, but on the left, and those people piss me off too, but I've never seen them (with the possible exception of fold_and_mutiliate) regularly express such utter contempt for most everyone here. I mean, I can understand argumentativeness and general jerkishness, especially in the fact that he is in the minority here, but he makes little effort to add something ti that, and combined with his general attitude about the other memebrs, makes him a more ban-worthy figure, then say, nofundy. There are plenty of people that get on my nerves here, and wouldn't mind seeing leave, but wouldn't want to see banned. PP and quonsar (definatly quonsar,) are exceptions.

I don't think they'll get banned either. They've been around so long, and quonsar has enough followers, that they've essentially been given license to do what they want, at least to my (and I think their) eyes.
posted by Snyder at 7:54 PM on July 7, 2005

Yeah, sure, he's right, but unless you're an idiot, you already know that, so basically all he's bringing to the table is assholishnessity. I just don't see where all this quality quonsar brings is.

Some people NEED that type of frying pan upside the head.
I work around many.
posted by Balisong at 7:57 PM on July 7, 2005

Oh enough. Consistent bad attitude isn't "cute". The accusations of old boy's club do hit home to some extent. I don't see PP and q as really being on par, I don't think either should be banned, but to consider one cute and the other a complete jackass is to play some pretty selective cards if you ask me, especially given recent behaviour.

Actually, the only reason I'm not completely outraged -- and I mean that without exaggeration -- by q's recent comment is that I really haven't stopped to think about it. And I'm going to stop. Right now.
But FUCK man.
posted by dreamsign at 8:08 PM on July 7, 2005

Like a skin melanoma, some users should be excised for the health of the community.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:09 PM on July 7, 2005

Quonsar saw right through my commentary and called me out.

Ok, so if likewise, his comment today was an insightful snarkism, then he must have been taking the piss out of someone, yes? So who was it? I don't recall the sentiment he was supposedly satirizing being expressed by anyone except him. If I am failing to remember some significant portion of the comments, please, do the linky-link.
posted by dreamsign at 8:13 PM on July 7, 2005

Troll: Please take the insightful snarkism and bring it to full glaring light!
(long live the troll!)
posted by Balisong at 8:27 PM on July 7, 2005

Seriously. Did a large group of people dump their 9/11 comparisons into that thread, and all get deleted before I got there, making q's "observation" edgy and insightful and oh so clever? Or are we just playing favorites, here?
posted by dreamsign at 8:41 PM on July 7, 2005

careful snyder, you'll hurt your knee.
posted by quonsar at 8:42 PM on July 7, 2005

This "quonsar speaks the truth but some people can't handle it" meme is so fucking tired. There was absolutely nothing insightful or witty about his comment: "time for me to exit this frenzied little circlejerk. enjoy your own private little 9/11 thread."
posted by Mid at 8:46 PM on July 7, 2005

dreamsign: apparently you lack context, rendering your observations moot. try to get to the party on time, willya?
posted by quonsar at 8:46 PM on July 7, 2005

Mid, today you're a Londoner.
posted by quonsar at 8:47 PM on July 7, 2005

"There was absolutely nothing insightful or witty about his comment"

That's the problem with stating the obvious. ;-P
posted by mischief at 9:00 PM on July 7, 2005

Mischief: your whole cool-guy-snark vibe is greatly undercut by your use of emoticons.
posted by Mid at 9:03 PM on July 7, 2005

Banning? Fuck no.

So someone's feelings were hurt and their skin is paper thin? I think their energy would be better spent writing a greasemonkey script which would block certain users and keep their delicate sensitivities intact.

Q is an insensitive jerk at times but the site would lose a lot of flavor if he vanished.

PP is annoying but considering the way the majority of posters treat conservative posters here (like Konolia or Midas), even when they post perfectly reasonable things, I'd don't blame him for being an asshole.
posted by pandaharma at 9:16 PM on July 7, 2005

Maybe banning ParisParamus would be hasty. On reconsideration, I don't think his posts have been worse than some others that don't get as much routine attention.
posted by Snyder at 9:44 PM on July 7, 2005

Mid: ;-P
posted by mischief at 9:49 PM on July 7, 2005

try to get to the party on time, willya?

Dude, I tried, but the *$&%^ liquor store closed early, and you know traffic on the Queensway.

Still waiting for that context, though. 30 minutes or it's free.
posted by dreamsign at 9:51 PM on July 7, 2005

What makes evaluating quonsar's behavior difficult is that he is both what his supports say he is and what his detractors say he is. The ratio of one to the other changes over time. Two questions must be answered: does the former redeem the latter? And should the latter be tolerated at all?

Is there any doubt that if someone new came along and behaved as quonsar behaves, there'd be an outcry of calls for banning? And even assuming what he does is positive in some sense, is it so hard, or brave, to do what he does? I think the answer is "no" and "no" and for that reason the sense that quonsar is laudable baffles me. Anyone can sit in the bleachers and throw peanuts at people they think deserve to have peanuts thrown at them.

On the other hand, there's a reason why the institution of court jester makes some sense to most of us. In that case, we might ask: how good at it is he, really? He sure as hell is no kibo.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:27 PM on July 7, 2005

Look - there are two competing stands of argument here:

(1) MeFi is a community, and people like myself whom have had to deal with worrying about people we care about being hurt or my city getting blown away don't need additional hurt from the likes of you-know-who.

(2) MeFi is a place for sharing opinions and commentary, as opposed as we personally might be to it.

For myself, I recommend that we stick to having freedom to offend people. Censorship is a slippery slope although mathowie has to have a say, it is his website in any case.

And the mind truly reels that there have been about a million posts about the comments of you-know-who in the last 24 hours.

Anyway, I have proposed a London meetup in another thread once this mess gets sorted out. A better day for all of you today.
posted by keijo at 10:57 PM on July 7, 2005

As has been noted, quonsar's "won't someone please think of the Africans" line would smell distinctly less suspicious if he a) talked about the issue more often and b) didn't have a history of attempting to drop a controversy stink-bomb in any thread that has a remotely emotive issue. The fact that, at the right time or place the whole damn community agrees with his actual point here renders this little gem all the more misplaced, misjudged and irrelevant. He's the guy that cried wolf -- the point made doesn't matter -- he doesn't mean it any way -- it's a seminar in style over substance. The only knee-jerk reaction I can see is not the circle-jerk induced spasm but quonsar's Must. Shit. In. That. Thread. And. Fast.

I like quonsar a lot when he's funny, but when he isn't funny (and I'm not sure he has been for a while) then what the fuck is the point?
posted by nthdegx at 12:19 AM on July 8, 2005

you're a total drama king, q
posted by matteo at 12:49 AM on July 8, 2005

nthdegx writes "'won't someone please think of the Africans'"

Actually, there was an enlightening and very sad FPP about the plight of some Africans yesterday. I guess not so many people saw it I suppose because they were concentrating on the London bombing news. Otherwise I'm sure it will have been crowded with interested and empathetic members.
posted by peacay at 1:25 AM on July 8, 2005

Err, quoting me slightly out of context there, peacay...
posted by nthdegx at 4:30 AM on July 8, 2005

yeah..metafilthy. I should have just left the 'quote' without attribution. Nothing against you of course. Just highlighting irony.
posted by peacay at 5:02 AM on July 8, 2005

Very late to this lynching:
I get a couple emails a month asking me to ban quonsar... there's much more than one person asking for it. There are many other people who could be disappeared and no one would particularily miss them.
Leave Q + PP alone, and when they are out of order let mefites give them a good kicking.
Maybe Matt should consider soccer style yellow and red cards. (25c)
posted by adamvasco at 5:45 AM on July 8, 2005

time out for quonsar who is periodically amusing and not a full blown troll, ban PP and mischief, neither who have added anything to this site ever

all, in my opinion, of course.
posted by johnny novak at 6:05 AM on July 8, 2005

FWIW, I get a couple emails a month asking me to ban quonsar, and mentioning how his antics have led them away from participating any longer. There's been a gradual turn away from q adding anything constructive or amusing to just pissing all over the site over the past few months and I've long considered when the time would come that people would discuss it. I don't mean to turn this thread into a "should he be banned or not" thread, but there's much more than one person asking for it.
posted by mathowie at 12:57 PM PST on July 7 [!]


Well then ban him, just get EB to stop going on and on about how he doesn't like quonsar. Don't get me wrong, I like EB, I think he is a good person, but he can be so damn annoying when he doesn't control himself. More annoying than quonsar and PP put together in fact.
posted by sic at 6:06 AM on July 8, 2005

"ban ... mischief"

That's a first. heheh
posted by mischief at 6:43 AM on July 8, 2005

quonsar has never been funny

Translation: "I have no sense of humor."

"ban ... mischief"
That's a first. heheh

Yeah, I don't think I've seen calls for the banning of mischief before, which is telling. mischief is like a mosquito: he buzzes around and is annoying without contributing anything, but compared to the larger insects who can actually cause painful welts, he doesn't rate more than an occasional lazy swat. I can't think of any users (no, not even [YOUR FAVORITE TROLL HERE]) who I actually want to see banned, but sometimes the thought occurs to me when they're being particularly nasty; not, however, with mischief. I do wish he'd lay off the emoticons, though.

And EB, you really should recuse yourself from discussions of quonsar. However painfully well reasoned your paragraphs, they will inevitably be seen as animated by, well, animus, and I fear that will be correct. Everyone knows you just plain don't like quonsar (and, obviously, vice versa), so you might as well just take your vote as counted in advance.
posted by languagehat at 7:06 AM on July 8, 2005

I just hate bannings generally, except for egregious self-linking, malicious links, and stalker/threat/maniac stuff. Time-outs have been useful, though, I think.
posted by taz at 7:33 AM on July 8, 2005

taz: I just hate bannings generally, except for egregious self-linking, malicious links, and stalker/threat/maniac stuff. Time-outs have been useful, though, I think.

Of course, they have had no effect on PP or on quonsar, hence, the need to throw in the towel, ban them and let the community move on. It's not just their comments that are burdensome, it's also the unheeded attempts to "get them back in line," the frequent commments, emails and threads asking for them to be banned and the inevitable circling-of-wagons to defend them, too.

This is not a democracy - Matt can ban whomever he likes for the good of the community (or otherwise), and while some users (inexplicably, to me) want them to stay, a growing percentage wants them gone (while the rest has to wade through all this neverending discussion). Precedents exist for banning users and these two shouldn't remain insulated forever. They are a nuisance, or a pair of nuisances, plain and simple.
posted by Sinner at 9:06 AM on July 8, 2005

I propose the Sinner be banned. His constant calls for banning are irritating and he is becoming a nuisance.
posted by found missing at 9:46 AM on July 8, 2005

*inserts thumbs in ears, waggles fingers, puts out tongue at Sinner*
posted by quonsar at 9:49 AM on July 8, 2005

Ban everyone and start fresh. At least then we might be able to go a week without someone trying to get someone else kicked off the island.

MetaTalk: We're all in this together.
posted by absalom at 9:50 AM on July 8, 2005

found missing: I propose the Sinner be banned. His constant calls for banning are irritating and he is becoming a nuisance.

Though I am keenly aware of the incredibly subtle, almost - dare I say it? - quonsarian wit underlying the text of this, I'll pretend it's a legitimate call for banning me and respond as such:

1. To to my recollection I've made two such calls for banning, both in this thread and never sent an email before yesterday, despite the fact that quonsar and PP have seemed intolerable to me for years. Hardly a nuisance and entirely in keeping with the intentions of the site, with metatalk in general and with the thread in specific. Furthermore, I'm writing what I'm writing instead of just sending an anonymous email to Matt because I do think that quonsar and PP deserve to hear me "call them out," (even though they certainly won't care).

2. You do not constitute a significant proportion of the community here, and even if your views were representative, I haven't received the initial rebukes nor the multiple second, third and fourth chances and gracious consideration that both of them have.

3. I have never criticized Matt, how he runs this site, the community herein, or the site itself, in a manner remotely
similar to PP and quonsar.

4. If I were banned, I can say without any hesitation that I would not create sock puppet accounts to further vent my spleen nor mount some ridiculous blog/emailed posthumous PR campaign trying to mount support for my reinstatement. Meanwhile, I'm reasonably certain that the chances that the two users I'm suggesting be banned would mount such a campaign of idiocy (although I think only quonsar might have a chance at succeeding) are much higher.
posted by Sinner at 10:48 AM on July 8, 2005

quonsar: *inserts thumbs in ears, waggles fingers, puts out tongue at Sinner*

Is this really the best you've got? This is why people think you're not as funny as you used to be. (Of course, this is just about as funny as I've ever found you to be.)

What's amazing is that you're effectively proving my point: you're not even enough of a grown-up to defend yourself rationally. Or do you simply acknowledge that there really is no rational reason for your continued presence here?
posted by Sinner at 10:52 AM on July 8, 2005

absalom: MetaTalk: We're all in this together.

Tell that to 111, Keyser Soze and insomnyuk, among many others. Hell, tell it to ParisParamus and quonsar, who more than most anyone else demonstrate an utter disregard for the other users here.
posted by Sinner at 10:57 AM on July 8, 2005

I am never comfortable when posters, like quonsar, criticize mathowie's operation of this site. That's because I'm simply grateful to mathowie for the time and effort he puts into this place, and I'm willing to take the good with the bad. But, I admire greatly his willingness to put up with public criticism, as much as it must bug him.

If I were banned, I can say without any hesitation that I would not create sock puppet accounts to further vent my spleen nor mount some ridiculous blog/emailed posthumous PR campaign trying to mount support for my reinstatement.

So, one of your four arguments about why you should not be banned is that you would behave well when banned? That just seems counterproductive. We should only ban people who *will* behave well when banned. That would be much easier on everyone.
posted by found missing at 11:05 AM on July 8, 2005

foundmissing:

I don't have a ton of time that I can spend on furthering this discussion right now, but since you responded respectfully, I'll do the same.

I am never comfortable when posters, like quonsar, criticize mathowie's operation of this site.

I agree. And I don't think you'll find many who do it more or with less discretion than quonsar. I'm speaking from memory alone, not research - feel free to look through his posting history to prove me wrong.

That's because I'm simply grateful to mathowie for the time and effort he puts into this place, and I'm willing to take the good with the bad. But, I admire greatly his willingness to put up with public criticism, as much as it must bug him.


Well, we remain in agreement thus far.

So, one of your four arguments about why you should not be banned is that you would behave well when banned?

Yes. Because I respect Matt, this site and this community as a whole enough that I would honor that decision. I think both PP and quonsar have made it evident that they do not share that respect by sticking to their guns in spite of the numerous call-outs, time-outs and other admonishments they've received.

That just seems counterproductive. We should only ban people who *will* behave well when banned. That would be much easier on everyone.

Conversely, any time we run across someone who would act like an asshole if banned, we should make sure to keep them around? You're not much of a believer in deterrence, are you?

My points are all about respect for others, which seems to be something you also value. I don't quite see what I did to deserve your initial snark/insult/comment.
posted by Sinner at 11:22 AM on July 8, 2005

Sorry, I'm just sick of the banophiles, and you were the most recent. Oh, and you left out the most important part of my post, about how I admire mathowie for letting people say what they have to say, even harsh critiques.
posted by found missing at 11:31 AM on July 8, 2005

found missing:

The omission was for "brevity" not to try and paint your post as anything different than what it was. I'm not sure if you were actually apologizing to me or not, but I'll assume the best and accept it. Regardless, what you'd said wouldn't have had me putting you on my "to-be-banned" list any time soon.
posted by Sinner at 11:39 AM on July 8, 2005

ParisParamus writes "Some many spineless people here. The point of Metafilter is to be provocative"

I will not take the thing from your hand.

mischief writes "Oh well... heheh"

Sorry man, on review my comment seems a little harsh. It was pretty amazing in it's lack of "."
posted by Mitheral at 12:05 PM on July 8, 2005

there really is no rational reason for your continued presence here?

none whatsoever, logicboy.
posted by quonsar at 12:09 PM on July 8, 2005

Mithreal: 's ok.
- luv m
posted by mischief at 12:12 PM on July 8, 2005

I find it useful to judge people as an inverse function of the wit and charm of their harshest critics. When assessed by this method quonsar approaches godhood.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:25 PM on July 8, 2005

lh: "lay off the emoticons"

I can be bribed. I'll even sweeten the deal and lay off the 'heheh's! - luv m
posted by mischief at 12:34 PM on July 8, 2005

George_Spiggott: I find it useful to judge people as an inverse function of the wit and charm of their harshest critics. When assessed by this method quonsar approaches godhood.

Yes, MetaTalk, and specifically this/these call out threads are of course where people should be at their wittiest and most charming, not making attempts at reasoned discussion. Good call. I'll be sure to return to you when I need counsel on how to judge other things. Like melons, perhaps.
posted by Sinner at 1:05 PM on July 8, 2005

quonsar: there really is no rational reason for your continued presence here?

So why do you stay?

none whatsoever, logicboy.

The infantilization is, of course, appreciated and your incredible comedic gifts are yet again on display for all to gaze upon with wonder.

Nevertheless, it's misplaced: only one of us is acting like a child here and elsewhere on the site (hint: it's not me).
posted by Sinner at 1:08 PM on July 8, 2005

Hi. I'm still here.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:31 PM on July 8, 2005

Hi. I'm still here.

It's just that kind of comment that will get you banned, mister.
posted by found missing at 1:39 PM on July 8, 2005

quonsar has never been funny

Translation: "I have no sense of humor."

In all seriousness, please, please find something that quonsar wrote that was funny, and point it out to me. I've said it before, people who think quonsar is funny have seriously different senses of humor. Sorry, I just don't buy me not having a sense of humor because I think q is belabored, unoriginal and obvious.
posted by Snyder at 1:49 PM on July 8, 2005

the perfect mirror, in other words.
posted by quonsar at 1:58 PM on July 8, 2005

So why do you stay?

it bothers you.

The infantilization is, of course, appreciated and your incredible comedic gifts are yet again on display for all to gaze upon with wonder.

the overstuffed verbal pomposity is the veritable apex of risibility as yet again you deign to bedazzle via faux linguistic sophistication (lest we miss your trenchant urbanity.)
posted by quonsar at 2:07 PM on July 8, 2005

Something just struck me, even many of q's defenders say that he has been getting worse for awhile now. Since enough posters think he has been a disruption for even longer, and he has gotten multiple timeouts before, couldn't it be possible that timeouts don't actually have an effect on him, except making him worse? I mean, is anyone going to defend "i know you are but what am i dur hur dur," as incisive saracasm or gut-bustingly funny? Maybe he'll bring up that he has a fish! In his pants! For the thousandth time! Wacky!
posted by Snyder at 2:12 PM on July 8, 2005

i have a fish. in my pants.
posted by quonsar at 2:17 PM on July 8, 2005

dur hur dur.
posted by quonsar at 2:22 PM on July 8, 2005

Seriously, Sinner, you do sound like a pompous ass. Not that I think you should be banned for it, but if I had to choose which to keep around, you or quonsar, well, I'm afraid my fear of boredom would prove decisive...
posted by languagehat at 3:31 PM on July 8, 2005

Sinner: So why do you stay?

quonsar: it bothers you.

And that is why you should be banned. (Single syllable words, just for you.)
posted by Sinner at 4:00 PM on July 8, 2005

(Not counting "syllable," of course, since my money says that pointing that out would be your next bit of genius-to-follow.)
posted by Sinner at 4:02 PM on July 8, 2005

Did you mean one syllable words?
posted by yhbc at 4:09 PM on July 8, 2005

languagehat: Hard to defend oneself against accusations of pomposity, but I'll bite. Piling on me me for that (orfor the language I'm using) is kind of silly since I'm just trying to speak in neutral language so as to being accused of being partisan or of making ad hominem attacks.

But if you did have to choose between quonsar and me (and I'm pretty sure it'll never come to that), I don't think you'd have to worry about being bored by me. I post to the site relatively infrequently, but read constantly. I'm pretty content with the knowledge that there are many, many other people who make more interesting comments than me on a regular basis. I don't feel the need to constantly remind everyone of my presence here. My existence, sad to say, goes on without the attention of the Me* world. The same goes for most all of us, by the way - I'm not trying to pretend that this is unique to me.
posted by Sinner at 4:11 PM on July 8, 2005

yhbc: pwnt
posted by Sinner at 4:18 PM on July 8, 2005

Sinner: So why do you stay?

quonsar: it bothers you.

Oh, yeah. Quonsar = definitely an asset to this community. [/sarcasm so thick it's almost congealed]
posted by Bugbread at 4:59 PM on July 8, 2005

it bothers you
posted by quonsar at 2:07 PM PST on July 8 [!]

I can just picture quonsar typing this in, then looking up at his collection of Bill Hicks DVDs, and trying to persuade himself that he really does like Jack Daniels neat.
posted by ciderwoman at 5:04 PM on July 8, 2005

it bothers you.

so basically, what he's saying is that he only offers a negative aspect to the site, namely, obthering people. Hm. Or maybe he's being sarcastic, and thinks he does stick around for other reasons, but just chooses not deal with criticism directly, because he knows that whatever he does, there will be people who love him for it, and he won't suffer any consequences, like being banned. So why should he bother with the community's so-called self-policing if there isn't any onus on him to respect it?
posted by Snyder at 5:25 PM on July 8, 2005

i have a fish. in my pants.

Wow. Everyone that has leapt to your defense, quonsar, has said how respectable your opinion is that we should remember all the suffering in the world, and put the London bombings into some perspective. Let's just not forget here that this point was attempt number 2, after considerable backtracking after your initial point which seemed to be that 9/11 is sooooo much cooler than yesterday, and that anyone involved in the conversation was engaging in back-slapping reassurning 9/11 penis-envy. Ever since all you've had to offer are you acidic one-liners that, I admit, in the right frame of mind are funny. Seriously, though. Do you want to admit you fucked up royally this time, quonsar? Do you have anything of any substance to add?

I had a suspension recently for voicing objection to what I thought was a scare-mongering bird-flu post. I was a dick in several response and I'm not going to object. This is a private site and we're all guests. Personally, I don't think I was close to your complete knob-jockery in the London bombing thread (back-tracking aside). I don't really care if mathowie thinks you are cooler than me. I really hope you listen to me (and I'd add the caveat that I really hope you come back as someone that just re-reads what they've typed before hitting post) when I say, quonsar: fuck the fuck off.
posted by nthdegx at 5:27 PM on July 8, 2005

Sinner: Sorry, that was unfair of me. But I'm really getting bummed out by the over-the-top hostility directed towards quonsar and others, who have done nothing worthy of it unless one is confusing typing words on a screen with real life. If quonsar rapes your dog, call the cops, but if he posts "I rape your dog!" how can you get upset? (Invented example, obviously; quonsar is much more inventive.) If quonsar's snarking annoys you, snark back; issuing long, serious-minded appeals for his banning just makes you look, well, pompous. Even if you're not, really. Know what I mean?
posted by languagehat at 5:50 PM on July 8, 2005

No, I don't know what you mean, languagehat. Because I think I know you pretty well, and I am certain that a newcomer acting as quonsar acts would have you pretty damn annoyed at him/her. For whatever reason, quonsar is held by a number of people to a much more lenient standard than everyone else. For the people who don't, that those who do is deeply baffling.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:07 PM on July 8, 2005

quonsar: living rent-free in your heads.

think about it.
posted by quonsar at 6:48 PM on July 8, 2005

1/10. Not worthy. Go watch the videos again.
posted by ciderwoman at 7:10 PM on July 8, 2005

languagehat: I do know what you mean. And with all due respect to him, I can't say I'm terribly happy about finding myself more or less in lockstep with EB, because his also-lengthy monologues nipping at quonsar's heels are only mildly less annoying to me than quonsar himself (though the fact remains that getting rid of quonsar would solve that problem, too, for the most part).

Anyway, at the end of the day, which it literally is, you're simply against banning anybody at all. That's fine, and without question, you're entitled to your point of view (as you surely don't need me to tell you). However, this site does have a precedent for occasional bannings (again, 111, Keyser Soze, insomnyuk and kinda-sorta bunnyfire stick out in my mind). And as EB points out, much of what quonsar does would have had him kicked out a long time ago if he were someone else (and in fact has had him kicked out in the past only to return, apparently emboldened by his triumphant return(s)).

Personally, I think the same holds true for PP.

If this site didn't have that precedent I'd have a harder time pleading my case, but you'd be hard-pressed to find two users with less respect for the site, the community as a whole, other members or "protocol" than these two. If bans don't exist, these two don't deserve them. But they do exist, and to a lot of people, these two deserve them more than most anyone else.

Finally, as to snarking back to quonsar, I can do it. I have on occasion done it. Rarely is it worth it, and it's been pretty well-established that that's really not what people are supposed to do here anyway. In either case, at a certain point it just becomes a waste of time. He doesn't give a shit and has no interest in modifying his behavior (and Paris, well, not like he's really looking for insight, either).
posted by Sinner at 7:34 PM on July 8, 2005

"to a lot of people, these two deserve them more than most anyone else"

The MeFi police state draws ever nearer.
posted by mischief at 8:02 PM on July 8, 2005

The police state asked me to tell you guys to STFU.
posted by Mid at 9:56 PM on July 8, 2005

The MeFi police state draws ever nearer.

Wow! Another frighteningly insightful aphorism, there. Amazing that the whole situation can be summed up succinctly in six little words. Except these bears no resemblence to reality because no matter how many people call for bannings (and I am not one of them), it doesn't mean for a moment that any are going to come about. People call for an end to snarking, but actually this sort of thing in the gray is rather handy if it keeps it out of the blue. I would love, however, for every single piece of fortune-cookie wisdom that gets thrown into every last damn thread to magically disappear. If only the was a bullshit detector built into the spell check.
posted by nthdegx at 12:50 AM on July 9, 2005

Hi. I'm still here.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:31 PM PST on July 8 [!]


We know peepee, we know.

*Pats him on the head*


Now, more about quonsar!
posted by sic at 2:11 AM on July 9, 2005 [1 favorite]

I am certain that a newcomer acting as quonsar acts would have you pretty damn annoyed at him/her

When I was a newcomer myself, I was pretty damn annoyed at him. Then I learned to appreciate him. This is a common learning curve. It doesn't bother me that people are annoyed at him, but calling repeatedly, seriously, and with fervor for his banning is way over the top. IMHO.

Also, please read madamjujujive's hearfelt brief for the defense from a couple of years ago.
posted by languagehat at 6:36 AM on July 9, 2005

Well, I lurked mefi for a couple of years before I joined, and I've been here now for a year-and-a-half. So, you know, quonsar isn't new to me. Other people have made the same point, so it's not my imagination, but I think that the ratio of positive to negative in q's participation has diminished in the last year. If you look at my past comments about quonsar, you'll see that although our "feud" has been going on since I joined, there was a good period of time after I joined that I defended him for exactly the same reasons people today are defending him. So I honestly don't think that past impassioned defenses of quonsar are as relevant as they might otherwise be.

Anyway, it's unambiguously a misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of my view on the matter to say that I'm among the group of people who are repeatedly and fervently calling for his banning. In this thread, I raised the issue in comparison to the calls for banning PP. I don't, in fact, feel strongly that he should be banned; actually I'm uncertain on the matter. But I do think the possibility should be discussed.

I'm not an absolutist on either side of the "should there be moderation" issue. The absolutist (or near-absolutist) position against moderation exemplified by ryvar seems to me to fetishize free speech. But I agree that heavy moderation is extremely stifling and a Bad Thing.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:28 AM on July 9, 2005

it's unambiguously a misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of my view on the matter to say that I'm among the group of people who are repeatedly and fervently calling for his banning.

It certainly would be; fortunately, I didn't say that. (Wasn't talking about you.) And I agree with your conclusion.
posted by languagehat at 9:42 AM on July 9, 2005

nthdegx: Take a valium. tsk tsk
posted by mischief at 10:15 AM on July 9, 2005

When I was a newcomer myself, I was pretty damn annoyed at him. Then I learned to appreciate him. This is a common learning curve.

So do please clear this up, languagehat: is this "learning curve" indicative of a jekyll-hyde personality with droplets of wisdom outweighing the occasional shit in a thread, or did you learn to see wisdom in what looked like shit? Because if it's the latter, I'd like you to explain to me what was valuable in his comment in the London thread.

No one has said a thing yet to convince me that this is anything other than a personality contest.
posted by dreamsign at 10:59 AM on July 9, 2005

Of course it's a personality contest, for some of you anyway. ;-P
posted by mischief at 11:23 AM on July 9, 2005

dreamsign, I'm not defending his comment in the London thread. Hardly anyone is, as far as I can see, except for those who say "I can see what he means, although I wish he hadn't put it that way or said it in that context." I'm saying quonsar is a valuable contributor who sometimes goes over the edge, which he himself recognizes (he has publicly said he deserved at least one of Matt's timeouts). We've all made mistakes, and some of the most valuable MeFites have made a lot of them. Let he who is without sin, &c &c.
posted by languagehat at 11:46 AM on July 9, 2005

...cast the first banhammer.
posted by found missing at 11:58 AM on July 9, 2005

From an essay on the footnote:

Elsewhere, [Gibbon] jabs at his friend Voltaire: "M. de Voltaire, unsupported by either fact or probability, has generously bestowed the Canary Islands on the Roman empire." The last note is classic Gibbon: accurate, acerbic and informative.

At his best, quonsar is MeFi's very own Gibbon, by gum!*

*Humorous exaggeration, not to be taken literally but containing nevertheless a grain of truth.
posted by languagehat at 12:53 PM on July 9, 2005

So Jekyll and Hyde, then. Very well.
posted by dreamsign at 1:56 PM on July 9, 2005