ParisParamus callout.
July 7, 2005 2:12 PM   Subscribe

ParisParamus. [mi]
posted by mosch to Etiquette/Policy at 2:12 PM (275 comments total)

implies that all muslims condone terrorism.
derails into ideology
wants us to shut up
thinks we're depraved and arrogant
insults users
makes absurd commentary
tells those who disagree to "go fuck off"
posts flamebait
thinks we're "pathologically liberal"

Something needs to be done.
posted by mosch at 2:12 PM on July 7, 2005


You have my sword.
posted by Jairus at 2:13 PM on July 7, 2005


Nothing's done about others who behave in a similar manner; why is this different?
posted by Rothko at 2:17 PM on July 7, 2005


"This that a large portion of Metafilter contributors have the wisdom of college students." "Or high school seniors."
posted by ParisParamus at 2:21 PM on July 7, 2005


(thinks that...)
posted by ParisParamus at 2:21 PM on July 7, 2005


ParisParamus
makes absurd commentary
wants us to shut up

derails into
ideology, thinks we're
depraved/arrogant
posted by Saucy Intruder at 2:22 PM on July 7, 2005


Is he irritating? Yes, in political threads.
Is he even remotely aware of the mile-high irony when he talks about idiots fighting bogeymen and complains about people being deluded? Probably not, unless there's a very deep sense of humor hidden underneath the spurts.
Does he add anything? Not when the ax-grinding starts, although he frequently comes across as a decent guy in nonpolitical threads.
What's to be done? Not much. If you get irritated, take the high road and bite your tongue. When you get really, really irritated and can't tongue-bite without inflicting damage, express your frustration as tactfully as possible. Some people who piss off large segments of the community will change if pressed; paris doesn't seem to be one of them.
posted by COBRA! at 2:26 PM on July 7, 2005


He's more than earned a ban, many times over.
posted by Zonker at 2:33 PM on July 7, 2005


Nothing's done about others who behave in a similar manner; why is this different?

ParisParamus has a long history of skipping the discussion of the topic at hand, and moving to offensive personal attacks.

What good does it do to condone personal attacks and bigoted statements that all muslims condone terrorism? I believe the discussions could be far more interesting if the disagreements could be kept to the topic at hand.

I have no problem with ParisParamus's political beliefs, and believe he could make some excellent contributions with his differing viewpoints. The issue is that he nearly always resorts to profanities and insults, which serve only to derail any possible discussion and ruin threads.

This is far more unacceptable than a user who simply posts a divisive opinion.
posted by mosch at 2:34 PM on July 7, 2005


Paris is kind of like the weedy liberal dude they have on Fox News to make it look like they're balanced. By keeping him around it makes it look like we're more diverse than we are but thankfully the guy's a moron so we don't have to try too hard countering his arguments.

And that's why we like having him here.

* pats Paris on the head, gives him a biscuit *
posted by dodgygeezer at 2:38 PM on July 7, 2005


speaking of insults, he's the equivalent of a ParasitePeranus
posted by Hat Maui at 2:39 PM on July 7, 2005


Some people who piss off large segments of the community will change if pressed; paris doesn't seem to be one of them.

Otherwise unacceptable behaviour is acceptable if you have a large number of posts, and refuse to change?

ParisParamus has a long history of making personal slights (continued into this thread) rather than engaging in discussion on any topic for which he's passionate. I fail to see the logic behind granting him a free pass.
posted by mosch at 2:39 PM on July 7, 2005


I think every forum has a poster who has an unlimited 'get out of jail free' card that they play, just because people say: "Oh that's just the way he is...."

It seems to me that PP is one of those posters.
posted by Navek Rednam at 2:41 PM on July 7, 2005


So...ParisParamus is Bill O'Reilly... or...?

Seriously - my favoriite thing ParisParamus said was, and I'm paraphrasing here, that he comes to metafilter in order to occupy our liberal time in order to prevent us from doing useful things elsewhere. It's such a cute delusion of grandeur, as if he's actually, you know, part of "the grand solution" as a whole. Amazing, really.

Frightening, yes, but amazing all the same. Does he have serious character flaws? Sure... but what are you actually proposing be done?

Also, while he's here, what's the deal with the username "parisparamus"? I understand the Paramus part, as perhaps where you're from/living/near, but what about Paris?
posted by odinsdream at 2:44 PM on July 7, 2005


Saucy: Haiku?
posted by klangklangston at 2:45 PM on July 7, 2005


Odins: He said it was a movie that he either worked on or fantasized about at some point (I am unclear as to which, but that's probably my memory and not to be blamed on him).
posted by klangklangston at 2:47 PM on July 7, 2005


This is stoopid, leave him be, he's harmless. Sometimes good for a laugh.
posted by gsb at 2:53 PM on July 7, 2005


"Something needs to be done."

You're right, something should be done.

Good job, Paris!

heheh
posted by mischief at 2:55 PM on July 7, 2005


Paris is a classic neocon; a typical Bush-hating elitist New York liberal whose whole world view apparently changed after 9/11. As such, he's in the uncomfortable position of having gotten in bed with a bunch of loathesome wingnuts, fundie nutjobs and other assorted scumbags based on the single issue upon which they happen to agree. This relationship is probably difficult enough to maintain without making him feel worse.

Oh, and of course:
If WMDs are not found in Iraq, and in large quantity (or at least objective evidence that they were destroyed), then, in terms of American politics, the war was a sham, and the President should be indicted.

posted by ParisParamus at 11:57 AM EST on April 29
Paris has no credibility. Stop trying to wrestle the pig.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:55 PM on July 7, 2005


It's that attack poodle thang he got goin' on... He packs a mean widdle tube of lipstick, that Cockapoo Paramus. Yap yap yappity yap yap yap.
posted by y2karl at 2:56 PM on July 7, 2005


Armitage said it but it bears repeating. He has absolutely zero credibility. He hasn't made a worthwhile comment in about two years. You can safely ignore everything that comes out of him. Ignore him.
posted by nixerman at 3:09 PM on July 7, 2005


The london thread would've been better if he hadn't posted to it. Does anyone dispute that?
posted by smackfu at 3:17 PM on July 7, 2005


what are you actually proposing be done?

If the behaviour continues unabated, I'd suggest a ban. Why should we all be forced to ignore an abusive user, just because he has tenure?
posted by mosch at 3:22 PM on July 7, 2005


I don't think he deserves banning, but I do think he deserves ignoring when he makes the kind of comments pointed out here. People say horrible shit on this site all the time, much worse than PP, and they don't necessarily get called out.

smackfu writes "The london thread would've been better if he hadn't posted to it. Does anyone dispute that?"

I agree, but that isn't reason enough to ban him.
posted by OmieWise at 3:27 PM on July 7, 2005


i wonder if amberglow would quit over an arbitrary PP banning?
posted by quonsar at 3:29 PM on July 7, 2005


smackfu, it's a bit more complex than that. The London thread would've been better if a few people hadn't posted to it. PP is a troll--nobody will dispute that. Comments like this are just pure garbage designed to derail the thread. He should be given a long timeout. Still, his provocationstrolling is so obvious, and so cliche, I'm more pissed at the people who respond to him. If people did ignore him, he'd go away. He's not even worth a thread in the gray.
posted by nixerman at 3:30 PM on July 7, 2005


Why should we all be forced to ignore an abusive user, just because he has tenure?
Why not? It's the universal suggestion for the amberglows and quonsars and troutfishings and foldys and Cardosos and everyone else that historically gets called out for similar or identical discussion tactics. Either ban all abusive users or none, or just give up and admit that you think moderation should be based on a popularity contest.
posted by darukaru at 3:32 PM on July 7, 2005


mosch writes "Why should we all be forced to ignore an abusive user, just because he has tenure?"

Do we get tenure here? By years, number of comments, number of FPPs or meta-threads we caused?

I agree with Armitage, nixerman. No ban needed, just ignore him, flag if you must and move on. Or answer to him (but knowingly and at your own peril). On preview, I agree with darukaru, also.
posted by nkyad at 3:34 PM on July 7, 2005


Done yet?
posted by ParisParamus at 3:34 PM on July 7, 2005


Done yet?

At least you're consistent.
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 3:38 PM on July 7, 2005


darukaru, I don't see how you could possibly equate any of those in your list to PP, especially in light of the comments highlighted by mosch. PP is not an "abusive user" or even a "controversial user." He's a flat-out troll.
posted by nixerman at 3:39 PM on July 7, 2005


i wonder if amberglow would quit over an arbitrary PP banning?

why? did pp quit over an arbitrary amberglow banning?
confused.
posted by andrew cooke at 3:43 PM on July 7, 2005


I'm not suggesting he be immediately banned for past behaviour. I believe that he should be banned if he continues engaging in inappropriate behaviour in most every thread that involves foreign relations.

If "America sucks more every day" gets an administrative smackdown, surely ParisParamus deserves the same as a minimum.
posted by mosch at 3:43 PM on July 7, 2005


nixerman: "Armitage said it but it bears repeating. He has absolutely zerocredibility. He hasn't made a worthwhile comment in about two years.You can safely ignore everything that comes out of him. Ignore him."


He's been nice in AskMe.
posted by kenko at 3:44 PM on July 7, 2005


Update: actually, I do think he should be banned immediately.

(reason: "Done yet?")
posted by mosch at 3:46 PM on July 7, 2005


why? did pp quit over an arbitrary amberglow banning?

no, but amberglow is authentic. and consistent. he hates mob "justice" in all forms. he quit #mefi over a ban. amberglow can be counted on to support the underdog. it's why i love him. in a totally platonic manner of speaking.
posted by quonsar at 3:49 PM on July 7, 2005


I have no problem with ParisParamus's political beliefs, and believe he could make some excellent contributions with his differing viewpoints.

Nah he couldn't. He's proven he can't. The arsehole isn't even sure how to spell islamofascism, which suggests a low level of literacy, maybe too many hours sitting infront of cable news. Admittedly, "islamofascism" is a completely made-up word whose sole purpose to try and shame socialists into the same kind of bigoted, one-eyed, racist psychosis on which insecure nutters like PP survive.

Make no mistake, another time, another place, he'd proudly strap semtex to himself.

...Or maybe not, given his cowardly efforts to avoid any actual physicial involvement in the conflicts he gets all high-and-mighty about.
posted by Jimbob at 3:50 PM on July 7, 2005


Fuckoff PP you egocentric fearmongering insensitive hatefilled douchebag.
posted by peacay


Did you miss that comment mosch? Is that not a personal attack? Or are peacay's politics inline with yours?

Did you miss quonsar's comments? Oh, that's right. Quonsar is a genius who's simply misunderstood.

Your bias is showing.
posted by justgary at 3:50 PM on July 7, 2005


Update: actually, I do think he should be banned immediately.

(reason: "Done yet?")


He should be banned because he thinks this discussion is pointless?
posted by 23skidoo at 3:51 PM on July 7, 2005


ParisParamus was not the only one being a fuckwit in the London thread. Sure, he makes a lot of comments that any sane adult can see are just the spewing of a person with the intelligence of a house brick, but he is as entitled to his opinion as the rest of us and I don't see him as particularly abusive or, at least, as any more abusive than many others here.

Just because you don't agree with someone, doesn't make them any less important than you.
posted by dg at 3:52 PM on July 7, 2005


What dg said. PP isn't any more inflammatory than those on the other side.
posted by eyeballkid at 3:54 PM on July 7, 2005


*sing-songy* quonsar lo-oves amberglow! quonsar lo-oves amberglow! /schoolyardtaunt
posted by raedyn at 4:04 PM on July 7, 2005


in a totally platonic manner of speaking.

fisting is not platonic, q.
posted by matteo at 4:05 PM on July 7, 2005


leave him be, he's harmless

I can agree that he would be harmless if we consistently ignored him – but we don’t. There’s always someone willing to take his bait and respond to his nonsense. Has any other user derailed as many threads while contributing so little of value ?
How about considering a ban as a kind of lifetime achievement award ?
posted by Zetetics at 4:06 PM on July 7, 2005


PP isn't any more inflammatory than those on the other side.

you're of course free to back this up with actual quotes, with links, of lib'ruls who scream in all caps the equivalent of the racist, hateful, ignorant bullshit PeePee constantly does.

but I kind of like PeePee, the way you like your neighborhood's insane faeces-stained obsessed homeless person. he's part of the MeFi environment, like that barf stain on your favorite dive bar's carpet that reminds you of a really wild party you once went to
posted by matteo at 4:10 PM on July 7, 2005


DO NOT BAN

A post on a related issue is not a derail. There are quite a few passionate and caustic people that post here. Stop picking on PP just because you don't like his politics.
posted by Juicylicious at 4:11 PM on July 7, 2005


"which suggests a low level of literacy, maybe too many hours sitting infront of cable news. "

I haven't owned a television in about three years. However I do watch the Sunday morning news shows at the gym, and my mom's house when I visit. I find television too stupid to have one on site. But a plasma tv might be nice for films. Please e-mail me if you would like to make a donation to that fund.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:13 PM on July 7, 2005


Just because you don't agree with someone, doesn't make them any less important than you.

This has nothing to do with differing opinions.

The problem is that he routinely makes derogatory remarks about other users, and derails threads.

Acceptable discourse: "I think you are wrong, and that the following is true."

Unacceptable discourse: "Fuck off you uneducated and pathologically liberal assholes."
posted by mosch at 4:13 PM on July 7, 2005


The london thread would've been better if he hadn't posted to it. Does anyone dispute that?
posted by smackfu at 3:17 PM PST on July 7 [!]


Yes. Not that his post added anything, but because it was the idiots who kept responding to him that derailed things, not his actual posts.

He should be banned because he thinks this discussion is pointless?
posted by 23skidoo at 3:51 PM PST on July 7 [!]


I think a lot of people in this thread would have to be banned if that were the criteria. I'd be at the head of the line...
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 4:15 PM on July 7, 2005


I'm racist? Indicting a given culture for its passivity and/or backwardness and/or distance from democracy is not racist. There ain't a racist DNA strand in my body. Or brain.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:17 PM on July 7, 2005


Stop picking on PP just because you don't like his politics.

Repeat: This has NOTHING to do with his politics.

As I noted earlier in the thread, I believe that he could contribute constructively. I've enjoyed a number of his posts, even in political threads. The problem is that an enormous number of his discussions devolve into name-calling, where he attacks his opponents rather than their ideas.
posted by mosch at 4:22 PM on July 7, 2005


Acceptable discourse: "I think you are wrong, and that the following is true."

Compare to what peacay said, and ingore it like you've already done.
posted by justgary at 4:23 PM on July 7, 2005


Fuckoff PP you egocentric fearmongering insensitive hatefilled douchebag.
posted by peacay

Did you miss that comment mosch?


Yes, I did.

Is that not a personal attack?

Yes, it is. An extraordinarily rude and unacceptable one.

Or are peacay's politics inline with yours?

I have no idea, I'd have to read his old posts.

Did you miss quonsar's comments?

I saw them, and wasn't pleased. I was hoping to pick the best example. If ParisParamus could behave well, perhaps the others who behave badly would be more amenable to good behaviour as well.

Your bias is showing.

No, I honestly just missed that comment. I definitely would've quoted it as an example of attacking the person rather than their ideas.
posted by mosch at 4:27 PM on July 7, 2005


Actually... peacay's comment has been deleted, which explains why I didn't see it.

That seems like a perfectly reasonable administrative response to a post like the one peacay made.
posted by mosch at 4:30 PM on July 7, 2005


I can agree that he would be harmless if we consistently ignored him – but we don’t. There’s always someone willing to take his bait and respond to his nonsense.

Clearly the solution is to ignore Paris and ban people who respond to him.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 4:31 PM on July 7, 2005


you're of course free to back this up with actual quotes

I assume you're not serious, but here's a link anyway.
posted by eyeballkid at 4:32 PM on July 7, 2005


"This that a large portion of Metafilter contributors have the wisdom of college students." "Or high school seniors."

I find television too stupid to have one on site.

Does telling yourself that everything else is stupid make you feel more intelligent? At some point, it would be nice to see more than just, you know, blowing smoke and you telling us that you're smarter than us.

Seriously, if you can't own a TV and navigate yourself to programming which isn't stupid, you're incompetant. Perhaps you should sway yourself from the right-wing channels for a while...
posted by dflemingdotorg at 4:35 PM on July 7, 2005


This is nothing to do with his politics.
This is about his contempt for mefi, its users, and intellectually honest debate. He provokes and insults and never sticks around to discuss substantive issues. He degrades the quality of discussions in which he participates. He has admitted that he does not respect the members here and it shows in most of his comments.
I won’t seriously advocate banning but I would be content to see him leave or be ignored.

On preview: I can’t remember enjoying his posts, could you offer examples?

Clearly the solution is to ignore Paris and ban people who respond to him.
I could get behind that.
posted by Zetetics at 4:37 PM on July 7, 2005


This has nothing to do with differing opinions.

This is nothing to do with his politics.


False.
posted by jonson at 4:45 PM on July 7, 2005


Good argument. I’m persuaded.
posted by Zetetics at 4:48 PM on July 7, 2005


Zetetics: Thank you, you've nailed my complaint.

On preview: I can’t remember enjoying his posts, could you offer examples?

Here he gives the reasoning for his support of the Bolton nomination.

Here he explains the reasoning behind his position on the Kyoto Protocol.
posted by mosch at 4:49 PM on July 7, 2005


False.

Thank God you were here to clear that up.
posted by dflemingdotorg at 4:50 PM on July 7, 2005


I don't disagree too much with PP's college studen/high school senior statement. Since most of society speaks like a seventh or eighth grader, I think the community here should take that as a compliment since the only form of communication here is written.

This place would be much different and worse without PP. Metafilter needs the occasional person to fling the political circle jerk spew around. His opinion is important, he just needs to learn how to argue.
posted by Arch Stanton at 4:55 PM on July 7, 2005


Did you miss that comment mosch? Is that not a personal attack? Or are peacay's politics inline with yours?

justgary nails it!

I read plenty of noise on that thread. Yet all of the left-leaning noise and anti-PP noise went thru to the 'keeper.

All of it was rather annoying. I was reading the thread for the comments from Londoners who were amongst it. I wanted breaking info from a source I could trust - Mefites.

Way too early for political musings on either side of the political spectrum IMHO.




*went thru to the 'keeper = Oz / British slang :)
posted by uncanny hengeman at 5:05 PM on July 7, 2005


ParisParamus sucks more every day.
posted by wakko at 5:10 PM on July 7, 2005


I'm racist? Indicting a given culture for its passivity and/or backwardness and/or distance from democracy is not racist. There ain't a racist DNA strand in my body. Or brain.

The scary part is that you believe any of that stuff can apply to an entire culture. Surely you see the logical problem with making a blanket statement about "all christians" or "all jews," do you not?

You're probably thinking "But this is different! All muslims are anti-democratic! My opinion on this matter isn't incorrect!" ... which brings me back to "scary" and "delusional."
posted by odinsdream at 5:17 PM on July 7, 2005


Went through to the Keeper, huh?
posted by orange swan at 5:18 PM on July 7, 2005


Well he's certainly predicatable. The moment I saw the thread I thought to myself, we're going to see Paris again, and in prominence. Sure enough...
posted by juiceCake at 5:18 PM on July 7, 2005


justgary nails it!

Perhaps you missed my response, where I noted that I did not see the comment as it had been deleted. I assure you, I would've used it as an extreme example of the behaviour that I believe degrades Mefi.

Regarding that thread going political, Paris made what I believe was the second political comment of the thread. (Dodgygeezer had some commentary on Blair that wasn't paritcularly neccessary)

Paris's post was a claim that Muslims were not really condemning the attacks, but condoning them. It's hard to get more cleanly refined flamebait than that.

He followed up that derail with posts seemingly designed to further provoke those who disagree with them, then called anybody who didn't want political commentary in that thread "the biggest fools".

Despite the repeated accusations that this is a partisan witchhunt, it truly has nothing to do with politics. I made this complaint because ParisParamus went beyond making personal insults in political threads and instead hijacked a disaster thread, and used it as a platform to call people fools.
posted by mosch at 5:29 PM on July 7, 2005


fling the political circle jerk spew around

Colourful.
posted by uncanny hengeman at 5:30 PM on July 7, 2005


No, I honestly just missed that comment. I definitely would've quoted it as an example of attacking the person rather than their ideas.

Point taken.
posted by justgary at 5:32 PM on July 7, 2005


Keep him. While I get pissed off every now and then at his puerile and absurd provocations, I believe that the ideas that I have are strong enough to succeed when presented next to his, and that, indeed, they go stronger for having to overcome people like him.
(Granted, the most recent "examples" in which I accuse him of huffing gas aren't exactly the best from either of us).
He's not doing me any harm, he's not winning converts, and he's not even trying very hard. And, frankly, the liberal groupthink does need to be shaken every now and then. If not for PP, why would anyone bother to articulate an argument about John Bolton that didn't revolve around not confirming him because Bush likes him and Bolton has a dumb moustache.
Even if he's a smug retard, he at least makes us articulate things to him (and by being willfully obtuse, forces us to communicate in a way that is broad enough to reach nearly everyone. When we're not, you know, dripping with condescension).
posted by klangklangston at 5:38 PM on July 7, 2005


The scary part is that you believe any of that stuff can apply to an entire culture. Surely you see the logical problem with making a blanket statement about "all christians" or "all jews," do you not?

I never thought I'd be defending Paris, but first of all, he retracted his statement.

Second of all, a statement like "Arab Muslim culture is sexist/ undemocratic/ antimodernist," (not a statement PP made, but one he might have made) while certainly overbroad, vague, and debatable, isn't terribly different than a statement like "American culture is arrogant/ consumerist/ warmondering," and I'm pretty sure I've seen similar statements go by plenty of times without charges of culturism or racism.

In other words, one can rightly find faults with any culture (and many cultures consist primarily of people who belong to one race or religion), but to criticize a culture isn't necessarily to criticize all of its members.

On preview: didn't we decide that "retard" was a label we didn't want to use?
posted by Kwantsar at 5:41 PM on July 7, 2005


i wonder if amberglow would quit over an arbitrary PP banning?
Arbitrary, yes. For specific good reasons, never.

The biggest legacy of PP's insults and trolling is that he's made it acceptable to make vicious personal attacks here, and for that he should rot.

His unholy spawn (i'm looking at you, justgary and dios and others) are running wild in threads ignoring the topic of posts and attacking the posters. They don't get smacked down for it because in part Paris made it acceptable. That's a shame and it's wholly wrong. If I ever meet Paris (which won't happen because he's afraid to come to a meetup), he'll seriously regret it.
posted by amberglow at 5:58 PM on July 7, 2005


It's quite a legacy he has---i hope he's proud.
posted by amberglow at 5:59 PM on July 7, 2005


no, but amberglow is authentic. and consistent. he hates mob "justice" in all forms

Unless the mob is attacking jenleigh, of course.

On preview: or "justgary and dios and others."
posted by languagehat at 6:08 PM on July 7, 2005


The biggest legacy of PP's insults and trolling is that he's made it acceptable to make vicious personal attacks here, and for that he should rot.

An interesting statement, in light of your fondness for matteo.
posted by Kwantsar at 6:09 PM on July 7, 2005


Seriously, if you can't own a TV and navigate yourself to programming which isn't stupid, you're incompetant. Perhaps you should sway yourself from the right-wing channels for a while...

Oh, bullshit argument. It's not "can't", it's "don't". Put your strawman back.

TV programming is in very large majority stupid. Some of it is entertaining stupid (your milage may vary), a great lot of it is just plain stupid. Exceptions to be made? Sure. Here and there. That doesn't make regular at-home TV viewing an obligation or a sign of moral/intellectula superiority, however.

Shall I call you incomptent if you don't subcribe to and dialy read a local newspaper composed of 99% crap? Is USA Today mandatory literature for the competent citizen?
posted by cortex at 6:09 PM on July 7, 2005


His unholy spawn (i'm looking at you, justgary and dios and others) are running wild in threads ignoring the topic of posts and attacking the posters. They don't get smacked down for it because in part Paris made it acceptable. That's a shame and it's wholly wrong.

If PP gets the hammer, any enforcement should be equally applied to his ogrish brood. That would only be fair.
posted by Rothko at 6:14 PM on July 7, 2005 [1 favorite]


An interesting statement, in light of your fondness for matteo.
Show me one vicious personal attack from matteo that wasn't in response to an ethnic slur or other vile insult first. That's what you don't understand--it's not a contest, and we're not 5 years old. "He said something mean too!" doesn't cut it in a site devoted to conversing about links and stuff, nor does a personal attack, especially if you don't like the topic of a post or the poster's politics.
posted by amberglow at 6:15 PM on July 7, 2005


If I ever meet Paris (which won't happen because he's afraid to come to a meetup), he'll seriously regret it.

...

That is sad, amberglow.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 6:16 PM on July 7, 2005


I agree with amberglow that this has gone on long enough to make any stop to it now arbitrary if not enforced across the board. Habitual attackers should be the cutoff point of acceptable discourse for a site that wishes to have reasoned debate, but I have my doubts on enforcement.

I'd like to think that certain users will eventually be seen as the pool peeing pests they are and that their removal from the site will encourage those that have been reluctant to contribute to threads saturated in piss, but I think many of them have fled the site a long time ago.
posted by john at 6:20 PM on July 7, 2005


Not at all. It's far less sad than PP's continually abusive behavior here at Mefi. That's what happens when you continually insult and slur people. I'm not going to be an ass like he is here--insulting and making personal attacks in threads. I can wait to meet him f2f.
posted by amberglow at 6:21 PM on July 7, 2005


(that was for Seize)
posted by amberglow at 6:21 PM on July 7, 2005


"reason: "Done yet?"

Nice shooting, mosch. You hit yourself squarely in the foot. ;-P
posted by mischief at 6:23 PM on July 7, 2005


Oh, Christ. Keep him, ignore him and send him to his local armed forces recruiter so he can show all us left-knee-jerking, limp-wristed-hand-wringing, commie-loving, Chomsky-humping, liberal appeasement monkeys what it means not to be a coward in the face of terrorism and evil.
posted by RakDaddy at 6:23 PM on July 7, 2005


His unholy spawn (i'm looking at you, justgary and dios and others)

Seriously? This is how you justify a call for a member's removal, with the next few names on the list? It'd only be fair that someone like Foldy go if you all insist on running off Paris.
posted by yerfatma at 6:26 PM on July 7, 2005


Kwantsar: (I meant to reply to the email, by the way. I guess I was too flattered). I didn't get the memo on not calling people retarded. It just sounds so much more precise than "dumbass."
posted by klangklangston at 6:30 PM on July 7, 2005


Without a stone upon which to sharpen your blade, your weapons become dull and useless.

I love disagreement. It keeps things interesting. Bonus points acrue for cleverness and playfulness, good-heartedness and strongly-held beliefs well-defended, of course, and it's a shame when some or all of those are absent. Which may or may not be the case with PP or any of the other Big Bad Fishermen (and -women?) which get people so wound up about.

The only thing I regret is that a thread that could have been so powerfully positive and communitarian got shitted up. (I took the first wee dump, even if I did quickly recant, I know) Whether that was any individual's fault as opposed to the tenor of the 'filter in general, I don't rightly know.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:33 PM on July 7, 2005


Speaking up for peacay: he is actually in the UK, and worried about his family and friends who are in the area, and still is as far as I know. That makes his spot of temper far more understandable and forgiveable. Many wonderful people from this community are there, and we don't know if all are safe, or those they love. How happy I was when plep piped up, and others in London whom I've grown to respect and admire as well. Please, let's not use them as fodder for petty grudges.

The only thing I regret is that a thread that could have been so powerfully positive and communitarian got shitted up.

(Thanks, stavros, for using that sharp blade of yours to cut to the quick of what I think.)
posted by melissa may at 6:39 PM on July 7, 2005


It's sad because you're implicitly threatening someone you've never met, whose voice you've never heard, and who probably doesn't even know anyone you know. It's sad because considering how big NYC is, this will probably remain true forever. It's sad because you've allowed text on a screen to seriously pervert your thinking.

As an old timer (briank, I believe) once said, "It's only a website."

And the fact that you'd use your vendetta against ParisParamus and his poor history as a representation of dios and justgary is juvenile and pathetic. Look at dios's comments in the latest WIFI thread as an example that he's an intelligent poster. This isn't your website, amberglow. Despite your prolific postings here, you are ONE MEMBER. Out of a growing population. And your aspirations to be as loved as Miguel once was are blatant and impossible. He had the foresight to stay out of political threads.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 6:40 PM on July 7, 2005


This is really bullshit in a "glass houses/throw stones" sense. Some of those piling on PP would be well served to take a stroll thru some of their old comments/posts. You may not match up to PP regarding consistency but you've definitely engaged in some of the same sort of behavior at one point or another.
posted by Carbolic at 6:42 PM on July 7, 2005


Just to clarify, I don't think banning will work at this point. Good debate can be had here only by those that are willing to ignore certain kinds of comments. That gets hard when insults move from clever cutdowns to particularly personal and vile attacks.
posted by john at 6:43 PM on July 7, 2005


PP is like a little dog that wanders into a thread, snuffles around, shits on the floor, wanders to the couch, pees on the leg, then waits five minutes and pees on the carpet a second time. Then he wanders out. That's pretty much it.

He's really harmless; it's just that when that happens, people evidently feel the need to engage- just stop it. It's partisan bullshit- you KNOW he's going to say the same things over and over, and 90% of the time he's just doing it to get a rise out of y'all. He's unfortunately mostly successful. But that's only because people bite.

This is not to say that he doesn't contribute; his "contributions" are sometimes well-reasoned, but when faced with the opposing (and I'm sure we agree the "majority" here is left-of-center) viewpoint, the dialogue degenerates into namecalling and crap-throwing.

And agreed, he's okay in the green, it's just the political nonsense.

Don't ban him; ostracize him.
posted by exlotuseater at 6:50 PM on July 7, 2005


Come on folks, PP does enough attention whoring personally, there's no need to have others do it for him by proxy -- which is pretty much all this Meta is accomplishing.

Don't like him? Ignore him... and the rest of the 101st Keyboardists while you're at it (I was going to list them, but I think everyone's figured out who they are by now).
posted by clevershark at 6:53 PM on July 7, 2005


Why not? It's the universal suggestion for the amberglows and quonsars and troutfishings and foldys and Cardosos and everyone else that historically gets called out for similar or identical discussion tactics. Either ban all abusive users or none, or just give up and admit that you think moderation should be based on a popularity contest.
posted by darukaru at 3:32 PM PST on July 7


Heh.

Methinks "darukaru" has never fully recovered from the little personal callout he had to endure when he behaved a lot like PP. Still smarts, obviously. Still attacking (along with several others here, including PP, yerfatma, etc.) your ideological enemies personally because you can't touch their ideas.

Sad. But predictable. It's that yap dog around the ankles thingie.

I say leave PP alone. I think he represents the right wing quite well.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 7:02 PM on July 7, 2005


and the rest of the 101st Keyboardists while you're at it (I was going to list them, but I think everyone's figured out who they are by now).

Oooh! Can we list "libruls who got each other's backs no matter what" next?
posted by Cyrano at 7:03 PM on July 7, 2005


If I ever meet Paris (which won't happen because he's afraid to come to a meetup), he'll seriously regret it.

This is either phrased really poorly or is one of the most absurd things I've read on Mefi. You're going to beat him up or something?

Come on now, I'd like to think that almost any 2 people could find a way to get along well enough to enjoy a beer or two.
posted by mosch at 7:08 PM on July 7, 2005


Cyrano writes "Can we list 'libruls who got each other's backs no matter what' next?"

Well, it's a free web site (relatively speaking). Of course I didn't actually list anything. Or endorse banning anyone here.
posted by clevershark at 7:09 PM on July 7, 2005


Ooh, I'd like a list, clevershark. I already know there are at least some names on it that I can and do read and enjoy, such as justgary and yourself. A list of hundred-and-firsters would be nice, yes....as a reminder you're not all insane.

On preview, yerfatma and foldy are ideological enemies? Huh.
Yeah, uh, forget the list....it would be a drop in the bucket of confusion and chewbacky spit of anyone setting the lineups around here.

posted by If I Had An Anus at 7:10 PM on July 7, 2005


uh, I'm an idiot.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 7:11 PM on July 7, 2005


well, just the scratch the "and yourself"...I didn't think it sounded right but I submitted it anyway.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 7:12 PM on July 7, 2005


At this point I would gladly pay for program guide. Can't tell the playa's without one.
posted by arse_hat at 7:15 PM on July 7, 2005


I appreciate, as does stavros, argument because without it you'll find yourself in a position where you get called on your biases and completely forget why you had them in the first place. Going one step further I even appreciate viciousness because it so often leads to comedy (ie someone seriously saying they'll "make him regret it" because of something said on the Internet).

However, what bugs me about Paris isn't the personal attacks or vicious nature at all. It's the intellectual dishonesty when confronted. By my ethics, that's grounds for banning.
posted by Ryvar at 7:16 PM on July 7, 2005


Come on now, I'd like to think that almost any 2 people could find a way to get along well enough to enjoy a beer or two.

I have actually enjoyed a beer with PP. He was a perfectly personable guy, his comments notwithstanding
posted by jonmc at 7:21 PM on July 7, 2005


At this point I would gladly pay for program guide. Can't tell the playa's without one.

Didn't jonson try and start this on his page?
posted by Pollomacho at 7:24 PM on July 7, 2005


Pollomacho writes "Didn't jonson try and start this on his page?"

I'm not even on that thing! [cries quietly]
posted by clevershark at 7:28 PM on July 7, 2005


Yeah, but mine's from 2002, and misses a number of fantastic quotes. I wish I had, for example, EB's infamous quote about being straight but enjoying the feel of a cock in his mouth. Or several of the batshit crazy things dios has said, or some funny quotes by any number of people added in the last few years. Sadly, it's just too much trouble to maintain...
posted by jonson at 7:29 PM on July 7, 2005


for example, clevershark.
posted by jonson at 7:30 PM on July 7, 2005


Of course I didn't actually list anything. Or endorse banning anyone here.

Maybe because listing all of the "101st keyboardists" would be just as obvious as listing the "libruls who got each other's backs" (most of whom I doubt are taking the same extreme steps in service of their causes as they would demand those with different views. Maybe we should start calling them "the Peace Corps lefties" or something similar.) You don't have to. We all know (most of) who you would list anyway.

Kudos for not calling for the banhammer, though.

And I'm sure I'm not the first to ever say this, but I *hate* the phrase "101st keyboardists" and all its variations. Not because of the sentiment that it conveys, which is toally valid, but because it uses those who were willing to make the sacrifice to slam those who aren't. Yeah, I get the point. But don't use those men to make it. It's crass.
posted by Cyrano at 7:30 PM on July 7, 2005


I just don't believe in "bannination" (yes, I'm a Fark refugee), except in the most extreme cases, such as using racial epithets in an offensive way, making threats, or posting *that* picture (or the tubgirl one).
posted by clevershark at 7:39 PM on July 7, 2005


Is there any history of banishment here? And if so, what happened to cause a banishment? In all my years of visiting, I have never read about an actual occurance.
posted by snsranch at 7:46 PM on July 7, 2005


and the rest of the 101st Keyboardists while you're at it

How do you earn those jump wings?

*Hums The Ballard of the Green Beret*
posted by mlis at 7:47 PM on July 7, 2005


How do you earn those jump wings?

I think you get those after you make a certain number of insultingly out-of-context references to September 11th in order to push a political agenda.
posted by clevershark at 7:58 PM on July 7, 2005


Welcome to the real world. People disagree. People are abusive. And precious few of those people reside here. Think of it like freedom of speech in the real world. It's kinda good to have these guys ranting on. It's a reminder that a (far more sizable) population that thinks this way is out there.

Plus, it sounds like he's quite reasonable in other contexts (can't say, myself), which brings along another lesson we don't like being reminded of: some of the people who hold very different opinions, so different that you swear they must be accompanied by a completely unlikeable person, are in fact held by likeable people. Messes with your head, no?
posted by dreamsign at 7:59 PM on July 7, 2005


Is there any history of banishment here? And if so, what happened to cause a banishment? In all my years of visiting, I have never read about an actual occurance.

quonsar has been temp-banned roughly one billion times for various offences. Several other people have been permanently or temporarily banned for just about every reason under the sun. Except in quonsar's case, Matt has always been really good about not banning people without just cause.

Put another way: yes, but they all deserved it. Except quonsar (sometimes).
posted by Ryvar at 8:04 PM on July 7, 2005


keyser soze.
posted by exlotuseater at 8:10 PM on July 7, 2005


Could you all just, at least use the full "ParisParamus" if you're going to dis me?!

Also, stop dis'ing me. I'f you have any, *any* sense, you should realize that minorities need to shout louder and be more creative to get heard.

Also, stop accusing me of things I've never said or done--there's enough you probably find offensive--"I really like President Bush!"--that I have said to keep you busy.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:20 PM on July 7, 2005


Many of the posts in this thread are examples of the very behavior for which you demand PP's banishment. Yet most aren't called out on them. Thus, I stand by my original statement that you simply don't like PP's political stance. Hypocrites.

I agree, this is *just* a website. Why give faceless people so much control over your own emotions? I've been attacked by several of the more prolific posters. I have never called anyone out for it or demanded that they be banished. Jonmc has been attacked by many of us and as far as I know he's never resorted to such childish it's my way or the highway behavior either.

I am confident that Matt's levelhead and spirit of fairness will prevail and PP will remain as he should.
posted by Juicylicious at 8:20 PM on July 7, 2005


I still say PeePee has gay porn starring Matt.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 8:23 PM on July 7, 2005


Could you all just, at least use the full "ParisParamus" if you're going to dis me?!

I wasn't dis'n you, but I stand corrected anyway ParisParamus.
posted by Juicylicious at 8:23 PM on July 7, 2005


Jesus Christ. 120+ posts because some pantywaist tattletale can't stomach ideological opposition, complete with researched "evidence" and discussion escalating to a proposed blacklist and a challenge to a playground fistfight.

What a bunch of fucking losers. Grow up. Get a life. Etc.
posted by cribcage at 8:29 PM on July 7, 2005


implies that all muslims condone terrorism.
derails into ideology
wants us to shut up
thinks we're depraved and arrogant
insults users
makes absurd commentary
tells those who disagree to "go fuck off"
posts flamebait
thinks we're "pathologically liberal


Mosch, thanks for a pretty good ParisParamus Sampler. I think most or all of those remarks stand on their own as quality responses to the Leftist non-thought that dwells on Metafilter.

Actually, one point: I insulted FFF is response to his "kind" words towards me. FFF's mode of discourse is particularly vile--why not ban or ignore him?
posted by ParisParamus at 8:30 PM on July 7, 2005


Show me one vicious personal attack from matteo that wasn't in response to an ethnic slur or other vile insult first.

Does "kkkrlson" count?

Really, it's great that you call for the ban of justgary and dios, while giving matteo and nofundy a pass.
Of course, you'll probably deny (again) that ideology has anything to do with it.
posted by Kwantsar at 8:34 PM on July 7, 2005


What a bunch of fucking losers. Grow up. Get a life. Etc.

cribcage: After your moralizing answer here and related MeTa callout post here I don't think you have anything to say on this topic. In fact, you should shut the fuck up for a while.
posted by mlis at 8:42 PM on July 7, 2005


I'm not sure what part of "no finger-pointing" is difficult for you to understand. I'm also not sure why you think accusing me of "moralizing" constitutes an insult. Next you'll call me "judgmental." I don't know when liberals adopted the idea that possessing morality and exercising judgment was bad. But it makes you look damn foolish.
posted by cribcage at 8:53 PM on July 7, 2005


Krrrlson, why do you bother with the Kwantsar sockpuppet anymore ? We all know it's you... and that your grudge match beef with matteo is a MetaFilter institution.
posted by y2karl at 9:00 PM on July 7, 2005


Armitage Shanks is my God

(at least for the next five minutes)

Holy shit. Well said, my Lord.
posted by scarabic at 9:04 PM on July 7, 2005


Paris, you presume to sink to the level of the tepid liberals among you so as to alternatingly rouse them out of the throes of ignorance or blast their stupidity straight from the face of the earth. This is, of course, either for our own good or the good of the world. Have you ever considered that the thought "everyone else is wrong and I am right" is the sign of an addled mind?

IMHO everyone else here is more or less normal, ranging across quite a spectrum of intelligence levels and points of view. You, however, are a tireless caricature of yourself, bringing mere amusement (eventually boredom) to the ranks you routinely mischaracterize and attempt to lampoon. I've never seen someone cling to a community he holds such blanket contempt for. What is your problem?

Is it at all clear to you now that you're drunk, doing the watusi in nothing but a feather boa in the middle of the party, calling everyone "squares" and that when you finally sober up you're going to feel like a ragingly red baboon's ass?
posted by scarabic at 9:12 PM on July 7, 2005


cribcage writes "I'm also not sure why you think accusing me of 'moralizing' constitutes an insult"

I think he meant "moralizing in the green", specially because I am quite sure null terminated was being sarcastic (after all, the question was pretty lame). So, there was no reason for your attempt derail. But please note that "moralizing" and "possessing morality" are two completely different things, I he accused you of the former, not the later.
posted by nkyad at 9:14 PM on July 7, 2005


thanks for a pretty good ParisParamus Sampler. I think most or all of those remarks stand on their own as quality responses to the Leftist non-thought that dwells on Metafilter.

"Leftist non-thought"

And once again ParisParamus slips in a jab to insult not only the beliefs of those who disagree, but the intelligence of the people who hold those opposing beliefs.

ParisParamus doesn't get it. Failure to take action against him at this point is a green light for everybody to fill their posts with insults that get in the way of a real discussion.

What does MetaFilter want to be? A place where rational people with differing opinions can discuss things? Or a place where veteran users have the right to hijack any thread (even a tragedy thread) and turn it into a series of stump speeches and personal attacks?
posted by mosch at 9:20 PM on July 7, 2005


Krrrlson... I feel like Cthulu has just been awoken. Shut up, you fools!

My god. My dog just started growling, then.
posted by dreamsign at 9:34 PM on July 7, 2005


Krrrlson, why do you bother with the Kwantsar sockpuppet anymore ? We all know it's you... and that your grudge match beef with matteo is a MetaFilter institution.
posted by y2karl at 9:00 PM PST on July 7 [!]



Hahah... you couldn't be more wrong.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:39 PM on July 7, 2005


Would I have an easier time here if I became ParamusParis? I'm more Route 17 than Departemental 17....
posted by ParisParamus at 9:39 PM on July 7, 2005


I'm going to start calling out every single poster who insult not only the beliefs of those who disagree, but the intelligence of the people who hold those opposing beliefs.
posted by Juicylicious at 9:40 PM on July 7, 2005


Also: Since when can we just demand that someone else get banned around here? Did I miss that memo? Because if that is the case, I've got a list....
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:40 PM on July 7, 2005


mosch writes "And once again ParisParamus slips in a jab to insult not only the beliefs of those who disagree, but the intelligence of the people who hold those opposing beliefs."

Oh come on man, you can't pretend you weren't expecting that sort of thing from him, especially since you started this thread to say that this sort of thing is something he does all the time.
posted by clevershark at 9:43 PM on July 7, 2005


"And once again ParisParamus slips in a jab to insult not only the beliefs of those who disagree, but the intelligence of the people who hold those opposing beliefs."

Good lord, that describes every other comment here on metafilter!

What seems revealing to me is that even if PP's past behavior has been very bad, this callout was motivated by behavior that, if we take off our politically-tinted sunglasses (pick your flavor), is normal around here. People try to score cheap political points from personal issues every day. People try to score cheap political points in any conversation, in response to anything. And PP is not alone in that thread in his attempts to make cheap political points.

I am absolutely certain that a significant portion of the supposedly unbiased complaints against PP are not "unbiased", but are very much politically motivated.

Is he trollish in that he's really not interested in productive discussion but just to be provocative? Maybe so--but then that also describes a whole hell of a lot of people.

I dunno. Maybe taking some long-term, cumulative view of his participation here will reveal a strong argument for his behavior to be regulated in some way. But just based upon the London thread and the callout here, I don't see it.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:14 PM on July 7, 2005


Why can't we lose the insults altogether and join hands in rational, objective discussion?

"Metafilter is never wholly herself unless she is engaged in high moral principle. We as a people have such a purpose today. It is to make kinder the face of the Blue and gentler the face of the Green. My friends, we have work to do. There are the rabid, lost and foaming. There are the children who have nothing, no love, no normalcy. There are those who cannot free themselves of enslavement to whatever addiction—drugs, welfare, slashdot. There is crime to be conquered, the rough crime of copyright violation.
The old solution, the old way, was to think that banning alone could end these problems. But we have learned that is not so. And in any case, our patience is low. We will make hard choices, looking at what we have and perhaps allocating it differently, making our decisions based on honest need and prudent safety. And then we will do the wisest thing of all: We will turn to the only resource we have that in times of need always grows—the goodness and the courage of the Metafilter people."

- circa 1989
posted by cyphill at 10:18 PM on July 7, 2005


cyphill writes "Why can't we lose the insults altogether and join hands in rational, objective discussion?"

Well, I suppose there is a first time for everything...
posted by clevershark at 10:24 PM on July 7, 2005


*He's loving this. Stupid callout.*
posted by bardic at 10:29 PM on July 7, 2005


EB, if you actually bothered to read the comments that mosch gathered from PP's comment history it'd be blindingly clear that we're not talking about comments that are made everyday or even comments that are made "sometimes." PP's comments are consistently beyond the pale. For fuck's sake, the guy is actually going into threads now and just shouting trollish statements in all caps that have nothing to do with the thread topic (see here). Anybody who thinks this level of idiocy is also employed by "the other side" is an idiot--not just because such a notion is so clearly false (even nofundy on his worse days wouldn't shitbomb threads) but because this is also clearly not an excuse. On review, amberglow's right. PP, and so many others with him, aren't harmless because they actively and consistently lower the level of discourse which hurts everybody. For his sake and ours he could probably do with a good long timeout.
posted by nixerman at 11:21 PM on July 7, 2005


(i'm looking at you, justgary and dios and others) are running wild in threads ignoring the topic of posts and attacking the posters.

Amberglow, once again, I couldn't care less what you think of me. Running wild? With all of 600 comments, huh?

If you want me banned, ban me at metachat. That'll get it out of your system.

If I ever meet Paris (which won't happen because he's afraid to come to a meetup), he'll seriously regret it.

Pure class. You never disappoint.
posted by justgary at 11:24 PM on July 7, 2005


And also, PP, you can drop the "I have to shout since I'm a minority" line. It's pathetic. Most of the time you have no point or argument to make. You've established a clear modus operandi of dropping into a thread, letting loose completely inane, "provocative" (read: troll) statements and then disappearing when prompted by others to provide a reasonable defense for your statements. (This is of course when you're not just out and out shitting on the thread). You're not a minority, you're a coward. You know this of course, but it should be stated clearly.
posted by nixerman at 11:29 PM on July 7, 2005 [1 favorite]


.
posted by juiceCake at 11:48 PM on July 7, 2005


Anybody who thinks this level of idiocy is also employed by "the other side" is an idiot--not just because such a notion is so clearly false (even nofundy on his worse days wouldn't shitbomb threads)

nixerman, you're mistaken, metafilter voices from the left side of the political spectrum (frequently asshats like nofundy & fold_and_mutilate) show up in non-political threads all the time, nearly daily, and chime in with a jab at the current government. Make no mistake, from what I can tell, my personal politics mirror those of amberglow, nofundy, etc, but I'm not so blinded in my hatred of people like Paris, dios, justgary, etc as to think that the majority of the hatespeech that goes on here isn't actually left-wing hatespeech, directed primarily at the small, very vocal (and tragically mistaken) minority of right wing members who for whatever reason still have the desire to come here, even though it means putting up with massive pile ons, callouts, personal grudges, ad hominem attacks, and more.
posted by jonson at 12:10 AM on July 8, 2005


Fuckoff PP you egocentric fearmongering insensitive hatefilled douchebag.
posted by peacay

melissa may was a little inaccurate when she kindly attempted to defend me. First, I'm in Australia. My neice is in London and I've now heard that she ended up pulling a 12hr shift at Kings College Hospital nursing both the wounded and her hangover from the olympic announcement.

It was late at night when I posted that comment but although the events in London were shocking I don't think it would be fair to characterize it as having been strictly as a result of being overwrought with worry. It was reactionary certainly and the comment is still there, so I don't know why people think it was deleted?. But I apologize to ParisParamus for having said it. Were I to craft it over, I would leave the 'insensitive' in, however.

In what was a real time disseminating of facts about a devastating event, ParisParamus was asserting that the thread should have been a "forum to ferret-out those in denial" and involve polititical discourse. I still disagree with his preaching as to what discussions should or should not have occurred but I've reread his whole comment and see that his arguments are not trolling per se but were insensitive in that, as someone here or there has already pointed out, they were voiced during the event, when a proper analysis couldn't really occur until afterwards.

Don't ban him.
posted by peacay at 12:39 AM on July 8, 2005


But if we ban ParisParamus, we'd have to ban dios, and then what would we do?

And what's with all the banhammer-request Meta threads and comments lately?

I say again: Grow a hide.
posted by loquacious at 1:55 AM on July 8, 2005


Out of all the things that happened yesterday - and I'm grateful to Whoever that I wasn't directly involved and that all my friends who did pass through the area missed it - the only thing that made me angry was PPs comments. Anger isn't a useful response to this sort of thing for me - I learned that back when the IRA were bombing London. You can end up being angry and afraid all the time, and that isn't useful.

So, a lot of deep breathing.

The only thing that made me angry was PP.

That may signify that I have a curious set of priorities, but there it is. Perhaps I do.

Since this is the ParisParamus thread, I'd like to take the opportunity to point out that, although I'm sure he thinks of himself as a really great guy and a killer disputant, all I ever see is someone who gets pleasure out of hurting and upsetting people and disrupting their conversations. Because I disagree with him on some point or other, even if I say nothing (which is almost all the time), suddenly I am implicated in this stream of abuse that he lets rip whenever he appears. He's someone who regularly abuses people like me that not only does he not know but of whose existence he is probably unaware. Because we don't share his specific eccentric world-view.

What he posts is all that most of the people who read this site know about him.

The persona ParisParamus that intermittently appears on Metafilter is simply someone who isn't very nice. In fact, come to think of it, someone who's explicitly cruel and hurtful, callous, thoughtless, self-centred and vain. And because he's happy to represent himself that way, I can only assume that, to some extent, that is who he is. I'm sure he doesn't think of himself that way, but perhaps he'd like to consider how people, particularly those who come from different countries from himself, view him. I suppose if he's OK with total strangers thinking he's an unpleasant person, that's fine.

I can't help wishing he'd just go away, though.
posted by Grangousier at 1:59 AM on July 8, 2005


Well once again you MORANS are all gibbering meaningless inanities while the rancid drool of ignorance drips from your hateful mouths down over your prejudiced chin-stubble and pools menacingly around your discriminatory leg-stumps.

Before you all pick a fight with ParisPumpernickle, need I remind you that he's a 25th-level Metafilter User - with, like, a THOUSAND hit points or something?

I may be a nubian around here or whatever, but I'm not looking forward to ol' PeePee lifting up his +3 chainmail and telling me to suck his "magic missle". NO THANKS.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 2:48 AM on July 8, 2005


/me attacks the darkness.
posted by loquacious at 3:22 AM on July 8, 2005


Gotta kick at the darkness until it bleeds daylight.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:28 AM on July 8, 2005


I think most or all of those remarks stand on their own as quality responses to the Leftist non-thought that dwells on Metafilter

The thing is, PP doesn't do anything to better the non-thought of derailed posts or political debates. He actually, ironically, encourages even more non-thought because afterward liberals are like creatures with their navigation systems turned off, flailing about madly, spouting obscene half-sentence tirades about the crazy right. The greatest disservice that he does, and the people he stirs up on the other side do, is that they make every goddamn single argument here into some retarded, simplified, either-or argument, from which there is no possible safe or intelligent sortie.

He's made a bunch of references to France and he has an international law degree so I'm assuming he's lived (or lives) in France. I can understand his frustrations with the bureaucracies, but his anti-France/Europe tropes, again, make him not more trustworthy or intelligent, but like an American LePen. I could care less if he stays, but can't we have a more intelligent debate than the one he proposes?
posted by faux ami at 3:34 AM on July 8, 2005


stavrosthewundachica: What the hell do you think I'm doing awake at 3:50 in the morning? Biting the wax tadpole? ;)
posted by loquacious at 3:52 AM on July 8, 2005


At least some of ParisParamus' attitude is fostered by the dismissive abuse he receives on entering any thread. So the guy's wound tight and flails when opposed; I suspect most of the beef that members have with him is that he's a vociferous Bush-boy.

It's now cooler to sling a "fuck off P2" than to engage with him, because once the first shot is fired that's what's going to happen anyway - just get your jab in first. It's far more acceptable to the masses than trying to understand the standpoint he's representing. I realise how much work it would take to understand some of his more blinkered opinions, but it's so rarely attempted.

I suppose I'm just trying to propose a limp-wristed, pseudo-buddhist, mom-says "Can't we all just get along?". We stomp less and maybe he stomps less.
But I think I know the answer.
Hand gestures are easier than conversation.
posted by NinjaPirate at 3:57 AM on July 8, 2005


Foldy nails it. Asshole? Yes. Ban him? Nah, we need the laughs, and it's nice to see the right revealed in such idiotic clarity.
posted by tr33hggr at 4:27 AM on July 8, 2005


and it's nice to see the right revealed in such idiotic clarity.

Blargh. As has been said, we need cogent right-wing viewpoints expressed at MetaFilter -- they are in short supply. I'm all for celebrating glorious idiocy, but not whilst simultaneously tarring millions with the same brush.
posted by nthdegx at 4:33 AM on July 8, 2005


Armitage Shanks is my God (at least for the next five minutes) Holy shit. Well said, my Lord.

If we could ban people for being wrong, the entire right-wing constiuancy of MeFi would be gone, which would be a tragic loss.

Here's another off the top of my head: pardonyou? on WMD.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:07 AM on July 8, 2005


He intentionally disrupts the conversation on this site, again and again. He has nothing but contempt for the entire idea of civil discourse, and he's shown that again and again.

It's long past the time that he should have been banned for good. Let him piss in someone else's sandbox for a change.
posted by Zonker at 5:08 AM on July 8, 2005


I had a really good grilled cheese sandwich yesterday.
posted by sciurus at 5:21 AM on July 8, 2005


" Most of the time you have no point or argument to make. "

Wrong. I regret you're not able to discern the "point" or "argument" trying to be made. The default setting for such is that the Leftist/pacifist/I Hate Evil George Bush/The Palestinians are being treated by the Jews like the Nazis claim(s) being made in a given thread is wrong, often so wrong that it's disturbing that no one else is saying so. Pointing that out isn't a full-fledged argument or plan of action, but it's a start, with intrinsic value in itself. Sometimes I go further and explain why, sometimes not because I don't have the time (I have things to do in life other than Metafilter; hope you do, too).

Again, this thread is about double standards for a minority. Many of you should be ashamed of yourself, either because you're serious, or because you're making a big joke out of censuring people who disagree with you.

posted by ParisParamus at 5:31 AM on July 8, 2005


As has been said, we need cogent right-wing viewpoints expressed at MetaFilter -- they are in short supply. I'm all for celebrating glorious idiocy, but not whilst simultaneously tarring millions with the same brush.

I completely agree; I was just speaking to the matter at hand, and admittedly being a little snarky. Seems fashionable these days, round these parts at least.
posted by tr33hggr at 5:33 AM on July 8, 2005


this thread is about double standards for a minority

But, but, I thought you had a mandate?

/see how easy it is?
posted by tr33hggr at 5:35 AM on July 8, 2005


" Most of the time you have no point or argument to make. "

Wrong. I regret you're not able to discern the "point" or "argument" trying to be made. The default setting for such is that the Leftist/pacifist/I Hate Evil George Bush/The Palestinians are being treated by the Jews like the Nazis claim(s) being made in a given thread is wrong, often so wrong that it's disturbing that no one else is saying so.

Pointing that out isn't a full-fledged argument or plan of action, but it's a start, with intrinsic value in itself. Sometimes I go further and explain why, sometimes not because I don't have the time (I have things to do in life other than Metafilter; hope you do, too).

Again, this thread is about double standards for a minority. Many of you should be ashamed of yourself, either because you're serious, or because you're making a big joke out of censuring people who disagree with you.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:35 AM on July 8, 2005


oops. New to trackpads.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:36 AM on July 8, 2005


Right-wing? How about just plain moderate, centrist. I am so NOT Right-wing.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:37 AM on July 8, 2005


Again, this thread is about double standards for a minority.

A minority of ONE, mothafondlers!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:02 AM on July 8, 2005


Personally I think it's just rather sad that you can have a more substantiative and reasoned debate on the fucking Something Awful forums at this point.

Seriously, choose any thread there and compare it to a thread about the same topic here. Why is this? Because there are solid ground rules, abusive users frequently get their asses kicked, and there's a community tradition of not taking things so goddamn seriously.

And fold, you and I and anyone who's ever read a medical thread here all know that your whole "Crusader for Truth" persona is a gimmick and you're entirely capable of having a civil conversation whenever you want, without scare-quoting people's usernames or throwing in little ~guffaws~ or any of the usual crap. What seems worst to me is someone who obviously knows better, can behave better, and still resorts to the same tired old cliches. What is it, just some way of blowing off steam at other people's expense?
posted by darukaru at 6:07 AM on July 8, 2005


If WMDs are not found in Iraq, and in large quantity (or at least objective evidence that they were destroyed), then, in terms of American politics, the war was a sham, and the President should be indicted.

posted by ParisParamus at 11:57 AM EST on April 29

posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:13 AM on July 8, 2005


I wonder if ParisParamus still feels that way about the war.

Ah, sometimes I crack me up.
posted by clevershark at 6:39 AM on July 8, 2005


Again, this thread is about double standards for a minority.

Once upon a time I might have agreed with you, but there are conservative posters (MattD, davidmsc, justgary, swerdloff) who manage to state their opinions without being beligerent or insulting. They may have me occasionally clutching my head in confusion, but they're rarely less than gentlemen about it.
posted by jonmc at 6:43 AM on July 8, 2005


Clearly we need more gentlemen. Top hats and monocles all around, eh wot?
posted by darukaru at 6:59 AM on July 8, 2005


I shall continue as I have, with absolutely no change in my approach to responding to Leftish, pacifist, Euro-weasle-ish trains of thought.

Over and out.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:02 AM on July 8, 2005


PP is a dick, but he's a harmless dick. A soft little dick lost in a sea of raging hard-ons, if you will.

Please don't ban him, it would set a bad precedent. However, I do agree that those that respond to him should be banned. Go figure.

On preview: what a surprise peepee!
posted by sic at 7:07 AM on July 8, 2005


Euro-weasle? I think I saw one of those at the Bronx Zoo. Furry little fucker was sitting on a stump smoking a clove cigarette, sipping an espresso and idly thumbing through Corriere Della Serra.
posted by jonmc at 7:09 AM on July 8, 2005


If WMDs are not found in Iraq, and in large quantity (or at least objective evidence that they were destroyed), then, in terms of American politics, the war was a sham, and the President should be indicted.

posted by ParisParamus at 11:57 AM EST on April 29

You have zero credibility.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 7:11 AM on July 8, 2005


Clearly we need more gentlemen. Top hats and monocles all around, eh wot?
posted by darukaru at 6:59 AM PST on July 8 [!]


I think we have our solution. Anyone for polo and a hot toddy?
posted by COBRA! at 7:17 AM on July 8, 2005


MeFi is the new FYAD.
posted by keswick at 7:18 AM on July 8, 2005


How much is zero crediblity?
posted by ParisParamus at 7:19 AM on July 8, 2005


I have actually enjoyed a beer with PP. He was a perfectly personable guy, his comments notwithstanding.

And there you have the difference between jonmc and amberglow; jonmc can see past politics.

All this talk about banning PP is silly, but it has brought out some classic MeFi rhetoric too rarely seen these days. And by that I mean talk about grilled cheese sandwiches.

On preview: ParisParamus! You're back!
posted by languagehat at 7:21 AM on July 8, 2005


MeFi is the new FYAD.
Needs more gross pictures to break up the monotony of the flamewars.
posted by darukaru at 7:22 AM on July 8, 2005


You know who Metafilter really needs?

Cleve Blakemore.
posted by selfnoise at 7:23 AM on July 8, 2005


Ah foldy, you misunderstand. My point is there are shrill voices on both sides. And you seem to be one (to me). I think you'd be hard-pressed to line my politics up with those of your enemies. Personally I'd prefer it if everyone's ax, mine own included, grew a little duller for the sake of acting like reasonable human beings (since we seem to spend so much time debating over the right way to act as reasonable human beings on a larger scale). A crap tautology, a lazy, lachrymose worthless statement, but my point in more words than it deserves.

"mothafondlers" sounds so much dirtier than the now-neutered-by-overuse motherfuckers.
posted by yerfatma at 7:29 AM on July 8, 2005


That's a triple-post, now, Armitage. We get the message.
posted by Kwantsar at 7:31 AM on July 8, 2005


I'm not talking about politics at all, languagehat--i'm talking about continued personal attacks, and have been all along. If jon had been repeatedly called the names many of us have been, he'd be whistling a different tune, believe me.
posted by amberglow at 7:33 AM on July 8, 2005


If jon had been repeatedly called the names many of us have been,

I've been called everything from a socialist to a sociopath on these pages, my freind. People can have the same experiences and come to different conclusions.
posted by jonmc at 7:36 AM on July 8, 2005


Glad to see you back ParisParamus. (Did you ever really leave?) Have you heard from David Dark? He doesn't appear to have come around here since the day after the election.
posted by caddis at 7:38 AM on July 8, 2005


If jon had been repeatedly called the names many of us have been...

You haven't been paying attention, I see.
posted by languagehat at 7:52 AM on July 8, 2005


"Euro-weasle-ish"

I see where you're coming from, ParisParamus.
posted by gsb at 7:54 AM on July 8, 2005


I shall continue as I have, with absolutely no change in my approach

Anyway, this is the core problem. It perfectly encapsulates the opt-in nature of MeTa justice. If you don't care what other people think about you, or you get your kicks from being hated, then you get carte blanche to act however you please. Being able to stigmatize the people who think you've gone over the line is just a bonus.
And this particular mode of expression crosses all ideological boundaries: the fundie who dismisses his opponents as hellbound, the ideologue who dismisses his as delusional or stupid, the internet tough guy who says his are lacking in testicular fortitude. They're all sides of the same 27-dimensional coin.
posted by darukaru at 8:03 AM on July 8, 2005


There are disciplinary options other than banning.

If one of the admins could publicly step up and say "this type of behaviour is wrong", and privately tell him to tone done the rhetoric or face future consequence, perhaps his behaviour, and that of other disruptive users, could be kept somewhat in check.

This line of action has been taken before. Not taking it against ParisParamus is not equality, it's overprotecting an abusive minority.

It's unfortunate that ParisParamus and many others are taking this as a political attack rather than what it is... an attack on vulgarity.
posted by mosch at 8:08 AM on July 8, 2005


cheez whiz crosses all ideological boundaries and builds testicular fortitude. and you can't say fortitude without saying tit.
posted by quonsar at 8:18 AM on July 8, 2005


If one of the admins could publicly step up and say "this type of behaviour is wrong"

The problem is that there is a vocal minority of users who rabidly oppose any restrictions on behavior, or even some explicit guidelines for things to avoid (the "scroll past it if you don't like it" crew), just as they oppose any attempt for #1 to exercise any control over his readership. For some crazy reason he listens to them, which is why these threads crop up again and again and again and again.

and you can't say fortitude without saying tit.
boobs lol
posted by darukaru at 8:21 AM on July 8, 2005


david dark? no idea where he's gone. I do remember his cleverness, however...
posted by ParisParamus at 8:31 AM on July 8, 2005


Or, we could take the approach that the Amish do: "I will not take the thing from your hand." Don't engage him until he's rational, but don't ignore him. Simply say that you're not going to take the thing from his hand, and leave it at that. If he replies again, repeat it back to him.
posted by klangklangston at 8:32 AM on July 8, 2005 [4 favorites]


(Oh, and Jonmc wouldn't get called names if he'd just admit that Mountain had, like, one good song and a lot of crap. Well, called names by me...)
posted by klangklangston at 8:33 AM on July 8, 2005



The problem is that there is a vocal minority of users who rabidly oppose any restrictions on behavior, or even some explicit guidelines for things to avoid (the "scroll past it if you don't like it" crew), just as they oppose any attempt for #1 to exercise any control over his readership.


Recently a new user was publicly and privately called out by #2 for saying "America sucks more every day". It was repetitive and bothered some users, but it was a political opinion not a personal insult.

Quonsar has been temp-banned repeatedly.

This would not be an unprecedented action.
posted by mosch at 8:34 AM on July 8, 2005


pp has many of you trained rather well ... and some of the more mediocre around here do exhibit a certain group-think that is easy for him to exploit

but if he were to leave, you would simply find someone else to be self-righteous about ... he's much more intelligent and cunning than some here believe ... and he's much more intelligent and cunning than some of you believe you are

he should not be banned
posted by pyramid termite at 8:50 AM on July 8, 2005


Or, we could take the approach that the Amish do: "I will not take the thing from your hand."

Hey, we could start a new practice - the MeFi Shunning.
posted by orange swan at 9:01 AM on July 8, 2005


MeFi Shunning? There's gotta be a more eloquent way to put that MeSh? MeShun? ShunFilter?
(How long before a CafePress shirt sez: "Shunned on MeFi; All I got was stupid shirt."?)
posted by klangklangston at 9:44 AM on July 8, 2005


I certainly wouldn't take that thing from quonsar's hand. Ew! What is it?
posted by languagehat at 9:46 AM on July 8, 2005


we could wear special mefi underwear. or not.
posted by quonsar at 9:46 AM on July 8, 2005


Actually, one point: I insulted FFF is response to his "kind" words towards me. FFF's mode of discourse is particularly vile--why not ban or ignore him?
posted by ParisParamus at 8:30 PM PST on July 7 [!]


Your performance in the London bombing thread was sickening and ensured your top rank as the greatest Santorum-seeping asshole on MeFi.

You are an active agent of harm to MeFi, and you should be removed from the system.

Why not ban me? Because compared to you at your best, me at my most foul-mouthed, arrogant, and intolerant worst is still leagues and miles better than you, and always will be.

There is nothing worse on MeFi than you.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:51 AM on July 8, 2005


This issue - dealing with a disagreeable poster - has been around on the internet since USENET, and I've never seen an online community deal with it satisfactorily. The responses always seem to center around, "Just ignore him/her" versus "Moderator - do something!" The former never works because there's always some people who don't ignore the poster, and the second never seems to work because if there's a ban, someone else comes along to post disagreeably and/or the moderator gets burned out because he/she has to now spend all his/her time dealing with offensive/offended people.

Has anyone ever seen this kind of thing dealt with in some other way? If the Metafilter community could solve this, we'd be the first ever, AFAIK.
posted by jasper411 at 9:54 AM on July 8, 2005


Metafilter: There is nothing worse on MeFi than you
posted by found missing at 9:55 AM on July 8, 2005


[takes found missing's tagline personally, weeps]
posted by orange swan at 10:00 AM on July 8, 2005


jaspar411: I'm a member of a number of communities that do just fine with judicious moderation and the ability to block a particular user's posts. Basically, USENET got it right... moderate the worst of it, and let users killfile the grey areas as they see fit.
posted by mosch at 10:02 AM on July 8, 2005


mosch - I've left USENET so long ago I had forgotten all about killfiles. They were definitely a techno response to a community problem that made it possible for me to hang around some newsgroups at least a bit longer than I otherwise would have. After a while, though, the noise to signal ratio got just too high and I lost interest.

I have no idea how that would work in the www. world, but, if there was some kind of Metafilter killfile capacity available (i.e., posts by those users would just not appear on your browser), would you put ParisParismus in your killfile? Would that be a solution from your perspective?
posted by jasper411 at 10:14 AM on July 8, 2005


"If you don't care what other people think about you, or you get your kicks from being hated, then you get carte blanche to act however you please. Being able to stigmatize the people who think you've gone over the line is just a bonus."

Boy, is that true. But that's still a relatively small minority, 5% or less? The much bigger problem are the people who think of conversation as primarily about dominance and conflict, and that includes the idea of conversation as witty repartee of the one-upmanship and put-down variety.

It seems like there are two dominant modes of discourse. Abstracted and conflict-laden; and specific, personal, and communal. For whatever reasons, the former is primarily masculine and the latter primarily feminine. Politics is nothing if not abstracted and conflict laden and so any forum that is substantially political attracts that personality type. Because of that, it's typically predominantly male.

A forum that is much less political and much more personal attracts those with a more intimate style of discourse. Because of that, it's typically predominantly female.

It's completely irrelevant to my point here to speculate about why this is the case, especially the gender correlations, or even to argue the relative merits of the two discursive styles. My point is that this is the reality we pretty much have to deal with. As long as mefi has the character that it has, it will always be a boyzone because participants are self-selecting.

What would be wonderful is if a substantial number of people make a conscious effort to embrace a different paradigm than the two we are normally offered.

I think I'm very often misunderstood here and elsewhere because my personal style of discourse very strongly combines both sensibilities. I am often (as I am now) personal and anecdotal which, to the masculine sensibility, is trivial, digressive, obnoxiously self-involved, and uninteresting. But I am also usually abstract and intellectual, which to the feminine sensibility is ostentatious, self-important, contentious, and uninteresting. So I rub most everyone the wrong way.

But, frankly, I think my sensibilities are "right" and the dominant sensibilities are "wrong". I think conversation should be productive (which itself is an abstraction-oriented priority) and that dominance conflict is counter-productive. I think that abstraction is important and necessary, but that it should always be connected to the specific and, more importantly, the personal. Personal anecdotes are important--mine and yours--because they are the pieces which make up the whole.

There is a subset of participants on the abstracted side that I think of as having a discursive style which is ulta-masculine. ParisParamus is one, I think. His world is a world in which large ideas are in conflict, sort of a Hobbesian intellectual world. The personal is always subordinate to the abstract, and that includes sensitivity to other people's feelings. You're not going to convince him to be nice, because being "nice" is either irrelevant or even counter-productive. There's a large number of people here on metafilter for whom the word "nice" evokes contempt and represents weakness.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:15 AM on July 8, 2005


Wow. And here I was thinking that he was just an asshole.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:23 AM on July 8, 2005


I went about 4 pages into Parisparamus's posting history in the blue. I regularly skip his and other people's comments so I wanted to see what the fuss is about.

He hates Europeans (because socialism makes them stupid) and anyone left of center.

He thinks the "only difference between those who, from the outset, opposed the War, and those who supported it, was courage and cowardess." So pacifists are cowards by definition, which reminds me of a certain Big Lebowski quote.

He claims Democrats and the left have "fantasies of fascism" and when confronted disappears from thread.

Not a Fan of Gays.
"."-Moreover, I invite anyone seeking a sperm donation to specifically chose a gay donor--it's a free country.

PS: another reason to avoid gay donations is to minimize the risk that one's child will be gay--and that's a perfectly reasonable aspiration.
"

OR the UN. It blends with the Euro-hate.

Claims to be moderate often and offers "Ick scale of proof" However, his comments in this thread make this hard to believe.

His support of the war is often the source of arguments here and it comes down to what may be a selective filtering of news and facts to support his worldview, which happens to people on all sides. Illustrated in this quote: "I think Iraq is a huge, fantastic success; you think the opposite, despite the evidence." The difficulty in constructing undisputed factual narrative so we don't spin in circles is something that I long for.

People love to pull out this quote of his:

"If WMDs are not found in Iraq, and in large quantity (or at least objective evidence that they were destroyed), then, in terms of American politics, the war was a sham, and the President should be indicted."

But he tries to defend it here. An interesting post to curtail the WMD definition is not met with any further response.

He claims that the reason no WMDs were found was, "...much of the shit was move with Russian assistance to Syria." He also believes that they were found in Iraq. Neither answer has been accepted by those that pull out this quote to this day, but I haven't found the counters to his two claims (not that I believe them) or a real good reason why this one comment is dragged out like the dead horse that it is.

I did find a couple examples of insults to members in the somewhat general sense and at a specific member. They are hardly worthy of banning or any bother at all.

It seems that his mission is what drives people to hate him and want him banned more than personal attacks. If he is guilty of vicious attacks, then they either got deleted or are from 2004 or earlier.

I don't share his views, but he is right about the circle of whiners that have rallied against him for his views and for being an asshole (of which he has ample company). I don't think that being an asshole is something that is worth a ban. It would be nice to always have constructive talks and not have to sift through ignorant, hateful, etc. views, but that is the price of freedom and worth it in my opinion.
posted by john at 10:33 AM on July 8, 2005 [1 favorite]


"I've left USENET so long ago I had forgotten all about killfiles."

I was never that happy with killfiles on USENET, and I tended to the unmoderated groups. I spent a lot of time on a.f.u, which is one of the notably long-standing and cohesive communities. It always seemed to me that peer-pressure, in the long run, was the best regulator of behavior. Of course, you still have to deal with the new miscreants cycling in and out.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:33 AM on July 8, 2005


At least ParisParamus makes points concerning the thread. There are other users that just throw up onto everything, senselessly. Asking for a ban on the PP is just stifling debate.

Time for the John Stuart Mill quote of the day:

"All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility."
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:57 AM on July 8, 2005


Euro-weasle? I think I saw one of those at the Bronx Zoo. Furry little fucker was sitting on a stump smoking a clove cigarette, sipping an espresso and idly thumbing through Corriere Della Serra.

*giggles*
posted by scody at 10:57 AM on July 8, 2005


[deleted]
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:59 AM on July 8, 2005


See? That sucked.
posted by The Jesse Helms at 10:59 AM on July 8, 2005


NinjaPirate: I suppose I'm just trying to propose a limp-wristed, pseudo-buddhist, mom-says "Can't we all just get along?". We stomp less and maybe he stomps less.

I've been posting feverishly over in the London MeTa thread calling for the dismissals of both quonsar and PP and wanted to make one additional note in this thread, since it seems appropriate. Why does the entire community of 20k+ need to "stomp less" in the vain hope that PP (or quonsar) decides to deign to also "stomp less." First, it won't happen, second, isn't it easier to get rid of the wrench in the works than it is to reconfigure the works around the wrench?

This condescending idea that PP reveals the idiocy of the right is laughable at best. If you really want that, watch Fox News. I come here, as I think most do, for a respite from that - for intelligent conversation, not baiting and vituperation. As I said in the other thread, if PP hates this site and its users so much, he won't even miss it when he's gone. Nor I him.
posted by Sinner at 11:08 AM on July 8, 2005


"I have here in my hand a list of 205 people that were known to Matt Haughey as being members of the Republican Party, and who, nevertheless, are still posting and commenting at MetaFilter."
posted by kindall at 11:13 AM on July 8, 2005


I come here, as I think most do, for a respite from that - for intelligent conversation, not baiting and vituperation. As I said in the other thread, if PP hates this site and its users so much, he won't even miss it when he's gone. Nor I him.

Although I don't like banning, I guess I have to agree with you on this one. Some users just enjoy being hated and dedicate all of their energies into getting you to hate them. It's one of the reasons I rarely get involved in MetaFilter discussions anymore.
posted by sic at 11:21 AM on July 8, 2005


gsb writes "This is stoopid, leave him be, he's harmless"

He's not harmless, he's constantly derailing threads. I don't buy the "everyone should just ignore him" tack. When you've got a dog peeing on your furniture you don't just ignore them.

nixerman writes "He's a flat-out troll."

True.

SeizeTheDay writes "Look at dios's comments in the latest WIFI thread as an example that he's an intelligent poster."

Well he can parrot a point over and over anyways.

klangklangston writes "Or, we could take the approach that the Amish do: 'I will not take the thing from your hand.' Don't engage him until he's rational, but don't ignore him. Simply say that you're not going to take the thing from his hand, and leave it at that."

You know this is a fabulous idea. I'm going to start doing this as sometimes I can't let his BS trolls stand.

jasper411 writes "Has anyone ever seen this kind of thing dealt with in some other way? If the Metafilter community could solve this, we'd be the first ever, AFAIK."

Best way: prevent exponential growth. I fear we have went too far down that path since membership was flung wide open.
posted by Mitheral at 11:33 AM on July 8, 2005


That's a triple-post, now, Armitage. We get the message.

Too bad PP didn't. He's just keeps talking while bits of egg flake off his face. It's disguisting. Wipe your mouth, dammit!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:28 PM on July 8, 2005


I've been posting feverishly over in the London MeTa thread calling for the dismissals of both quonsar and PP and wanted to make one additional note in this thread...

Son, you're losing it. Back away from the computer and go outside. Come back when you've remembered the distinction between pixels on a screen and something important.
posted by languagehat at 3:36 PM on July 8, 2005


Mitheral: Go for it. Maybe it'll meme, and we can get a fancy image of Amish shunning...
posted by klangklangston at 4:00 PM on July 8, 2005


languagehat: Son, you're losing it. Back away from the computer and go outside. Come back when you've remembered the distinction between pixels on a screen and something important.

Thanks, but I'm pretty sure I'm doing just fine. Noting that I had been "posting feverishly" was a dig at myself for having posted so frequently. It just so happened that I had some spare time today when I'd thought I'd be busier.

Regardless, I feel strongly about these two topics and I don't really see any reason that I shouldn't comment while a thread is open. Whatever your opinion of them both and whatever the results of these threads, would you prefer that I post within the existing threads or start another anti-quonsar or anti-PP thread at a later date?
posted by Sinner at 4:16 PM on July 8, 2005


We can't ban PP because he's a Mac user.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 4:45 PM on July 8, 2005


He's a Mac user? Brother!
posted by ColdChef at 5:11 PM on July 8, 2005


We'll always have Paris.

(I can't believe nobody said that already.)
posted by dejah420 at 5:36 PM on July 8, 2005


I am so NOT Right-wing.

I'll accept that, inasmuch as I have to be fair and admit that anti-Arab racism isn't right-wing, it's just plain evil and stupid.

It's actually to your benefit, PP, that folks attribute your attitude to the Right. When I stop to think about it I realize you're little more than a crank and a sociopath. To have your contributions categorized as Rightist is a boon to you. I mean... the Right... dude, at least it's an ethos.

BAN him? Of course not. There's nothing in the rules that says you can't be a moron and an asshole.
posted by scarabic at 6:30 PM on July 8, 2005


Gee, I was really hoping for a 500-post thread....
posted by ParisParamus at 7:12 PM on July 8, 2005


Hopeless.
posted by amberglow at 8:07 PM on July 8, 2005


No, I think he was hopeful.
posted by ColdChef at 8:14 PM on July 8, 2005


Amazing the vulgarity of language used by so many to police my supposed over-the-top comments. Hey, wanna meet me? Mefi Meetup at the big Tea Lounge in Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY, USA. It's a perfect place; it even has WiFi....
posted by ParisParamus at 8:33 PM on July 8, 2005


ParisParamus has as much right to voice his opinions as I do mine (which is considerable). Admit that your objection is that you disagree with what he says: if he was telling you what you want to hear you'd be praising him as "forthright" and "perceptive".

I disagree with a lot of what Paris says; in fact I can't think of much he has said on political and social issues that I don't think is wrong and backward. But by the stated criteria for "doing something", at least half the most interesting posters of all shades of opinion would fall under that ban.

All you'd have left would be twits like scarabic.
posted by davy at 9:27 PM on July 8, 2005


Hey, wanna meet me? Mefi Meetup at the big Tea Lounge in Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY, USA

It's the opportunity you've been waiting for, Amberglow, go kick his ass!!
posted by jonson at 9:43 PM on July 8, 2005


FIGHT! FIGHT! FIGHT!

(I'm calling a teacher!)
posted by ColdChef at 10:26 PM on July 8, 2005


Poor ParisParamus. It must kill him a little every day to live in an area that voted for Kerry in such overwhelming numbers...
posted by clevershark at 10:41 PM on July 8, 2005


If I ever meet Paris (which won't happen because he's afraid to come to a meetup), he'll seriously regret it. -amberglow

Hey, wanna meet me? Mefi Meetup at the big Tea Lounge in Park Slope, Brooklyn, NY, USA. It's a perfect place; it even has WiFi....

But does it have a boxing ring?

PP, think twice. It's a setup, I can feel it. Amberglow's gonna throw down.
posted by justgary at 10:47 PM on July 8, 2005


clevershark, probably no more than it kills me to live in an area (the U.S.) that voted for President Jackass in such (marginally close but still numerically more than half) numbers...
posted by jonson at 10:52 PM on July 8, 2005


True, but in NYC the tally was something like 79-21. Maybe that's why he likes to come on so strong -- it's a strategy to mask his inner loneliness and feelings of vulnerability, or something like that.
posted by clevershark at 11:11 PM on July 8, 2005


It just wouldnt be the same without 'ole PP to stir up the shit. I never much liked arguments where everyone agreed.
posted by sophist at 11:51 PM on July 8, 2005


Something needs to be done? Oooh. Ooooooooh. Yes. something must be done. Let me see. What should it be? Hmmm. My my, it's a toughie. Parisparamus. What to do?

I HAVE IT! I'll call him a prick on the thread where he acts like a prick and then move on!

God, I'm a genius.
posted by Decani at 5:45 AM on July 9, 2005


ParisParamus has as much right to voice his opinions as I do mine (which is considerable). Admit that your objection is that you disagree with what he says: if he was telling you what you want to hear you'd be praising him as "forthright" and "perceptive".

Bingo.
posted by languagehat at 6:40 AM on July 9, 2005


Of course it's that I disagree with what he has to say. Oh, and that I find what he has to say absolutely disgusting. And then there's the bit about his passive/aggressive love/hate relationship with this community. I suppose his martyr complex and tendency to blanket insult the entire membership deserves a mention. Top it off with a racist attitude and... well... yeah I DISAGREE WITH WHAT HE SAYS.

I never said ban him. I'm happy to continue bitch slapping him here till the cows come home.

I'd like to point out that this thread is still open.
posted by scarabic at 8:53 AM on July 9, 2005


davy: Well, for my part, it's far more how he what he says - and how evident his disdain is for the community here - than what he says. So for me, no matter what his politics were, it'd be pretty hard for me to construe him (or them) as "forthright" or "perceptive."

scarabic:
You're right, it is still open. What is that supposed to indicate? And exactly what benefit has your "bitch-slapping" caused? It doesn't seem to have changed his habits one iota.

scarabic and decani: So is it as simple as eye for an eye? Isn't the end result of these repeated "you're a prick, no YOU'RE a prick" threads just more threads full of argument - not debate, argument - and more hostility? If all of that could be eliminated in advance, wouldn't that be a better thing (a better thing still would be if PP (and quonsar) decided to show a little more respect and stop (IMHO) earning the bans under discussion, but they've had ample opportunities to do so and have chosen repeatedly not to).
posted by Sinner at 9:07 AM on July 9, 2005


You harbor so much hate, scarabic. tsk tsk
posted by mischief at 10:12 AM on July 9, 2005


scarabic dear, I love the way your Star-Sneetch Gatekeeper Complex pops up every chance it gets. When were you elected Spokemodel for the Mefi Community? You're embarrassing the Liberal Elite.

Don't be whiny babies, people; ParisParamis et al. ain't exactly "rabid pitbulls". I can't even use them as an example of "Life is hard!" because they're not.
posted by davy at 12:41 PM on July 9, 2005


So is it as simple as eye for an eye? Isn't the end result of these repeated "you're a prick, no YOU'RE a prick" threads just more threads full of argument - not debate, argument - and more hostility?

Well, it can be, certainly. This is a web forum, not the bloody UN, you know? And besides, I think "You're a prick, no you're a prick" is oversimplifying what actually tends to go on in these threads. Sometimes it's down at that level; more often someone says something which gets someone else's goat and the result is an often entertaining mixture of creative insult and debate. Arguments are raised amidst the vituperation and epithet-hurling.

Come on, let's be honest here: many, many MeFites relish the explosive threads a hell of a lot and those threads frequently contain a goodly measure of wit and cleverness amidst the snarking and spitting. ParisParamus is a comedy right-wing nutball and it's great that we have a few of those here. They're always good for a laugh or a poke or a flameout, depending on mood.

It gets really tiresome to see these endless call-outs in the grey. Why? Because it's like Mary Whitehouse whining endlessly to the Beeb when she saw a tit or heard a "shit" on the telly. Same deal: you don't like that stuff? Don't stick around in those threads. There are plenty of benign threads elsewhere. Let the people who get a good old guffaw out of flaming and flak enjoy it. Or, go fling bloody bananas and play OMG PEOPLE ARE BEING NASTY I MUST POST A KITTY PICTURE AT ONCE over at Monkeyfilter.

This stuff has always gone on here as far as I can tell and I see no reason whatsoever to think it will ever stop anymore than people whingeing about it will. I mean, I hate that shit but I deal with it by spending a very limited amount of time in the grey. Because I know I find the protocol nazis and call-out police as tiresome as a bunch of old biddies wittering on about kids today, no respect, not like in my day...
posted by Decani at 12:51 PM on July 9, 2005


"Let the people who get a good old guffaw out of flaming and flak enjoy it."

As a rule, I strongly resist in myself contempt for others. But among all possible personality defects, this adolescent indulgence in trangression and provocation, this sensibility that makes of these things virtues, inspires in me the very deepest contempt and disdain I ever feel.

Seeing this vice in others usually overwhelms any favorable impression I might otherwise have. It's not at all that this is a personality which is an evil to be feared, but rather something more like dogshit you scrape from the sole of your shoe with a stick. It astonishes me that anyone can make it past the age of sixteen and still have this attitude. There's just something rotten in their core; death from some ugly, horrifying cancer is perfectly appropriate--if I believed in karma, I would expect it.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:36 PM on July 9, 2005


Milquetoast.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:51 PM on July 9, 2005


"Milquetoast"? I'm so wounded. Really, I doubt I'll be able to look myself in the mirror. And how pussified is it to call someone a "milquetoast", anyway? Just knowing and using the word is an embarrassment.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:14 PM on July 9, 2005


now give us 4 obese paragraphs on the pussification of "milquetoast", willya blargh?
posted by quonsar at 3:45 PM on July 9, 2005


"It astonishes me that anyone can make it past the age of sixteen and still have this attitude."

You have a lot yet to learn, boy.
posted by mischief at 3:58 PM on July 9, 2005


*pours glaz of milque, dips toast*

I fail to see the appeal.
posted by jonmc at 5:24 PM on July 9, 2005


Ali, oui.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:29 PM on July 9, 2005


now give us 4 obese paragraphs on the pussification of "milquetoast", willya blargh?

Oh, you just say that kind of stuff to impress the ladies, doncha q ?

Jeeeez, he just gave you three sentences that were to the point, Mr. Mefi-personality superstar. He can't win for losing with you. The guy keeps it to the point for once and you take a shot at him for being long winded when he's not being long winded. You need a trip back down to the minors until you can start getting them over the plate.
posted by y2karl at 7:40 PM on July 9, 2005


"Now pitching for Springfield, quonsar. Bill, quonsar's got to be itching to get back to MetaFilter; just look at the expression on his face as he takes his warmup pitches. With that windup you don't know where the ball's going to... Oh Jesus, LOOK OUT!"
posted by languagehat at 8:11 PM on July 9, 2005


Every conservative who, by choice or circumstance, finds himself in an overwhelmingly liberal environment, knows how to conduct himself amicably.

I'm a modestly high-profile MeFi right-winger (more right than ParisParamus on most issues, I'm sure), but, more importantly, I'm the token conservative among (most of) my friends and family and not only do they not mind, I think they actually like it -- consensus is the enemy of good thinking, and, moreover, they can see how a politics they don't like grows out of many of the same virtues and interests which they do like.

What's troubling about ParisParamus is that there can be virtually no doubt that a guy who lives in Park Slope and practices law in Brooklyn courts knows perfectly well how to manifest that kind of amicable dissent, and probably does so on a daily basis.

On MeFi, however, he just chooses not to do so, because he doesn't like the people in the community and he doesn't think they're important enough to him to justify a strategic politesse. Everytime he shows up he's just rubbing in what a low opinion of us he has.

Now, does this justify banning? Nope. Making himself spending time with people he doesn't like and respect, asking for their attention and only getting their scorn, that's more than enough of its own punishment.
posted by MattD at 9:28 PM on July 9, 2005


Out of curiousity, what is a "conservative"? What makes you a conservative, Matt?
posted by five fresh fish at 9:48 PM on July 9, 2005


Hating minorities. I thought that was understood.
posted by jonson at 10:09 PM on July 9, 2005


you sure are full of yourself, there, MattD.

care to hold forth on anything else? you know you want to.
posted by Hat Maui at 1:19 AM on July 10, 2005


As a rule, I strongly resist in myself contempt for others. But among all possible personality defects, this adolescent indulgence in trangression and provocation, this sensibility that makes of these things virtues, inspires in me the very deepest contempt and disdain I ever feel.

Aww, poor bunny. Well, never mind. One of the things I value about a site like this is the disparity of views and personality types. Different strokes, you know? For instance, being such a goddamn renaissance man I manage to enjoy both serious debate and "adolescent transgressions and provocation". Whereas pompous, supercilious, toffee-nosed whiners with a rod up their arse really get on my tits, you know? Variety is the spice, and all that.
posted by Decani at 5:02 AM on July 10, 2005


*falls off stool*
posted by quonsar at 7:11 AM on July 10, 2005


you sure are full of yourself, there, MattD.
care to hold forth on anything else? you know you want to.


Yup, conservatives are treated with just as much respect as anybody else here, yessirree. With the minor caveat that if they're polite they're mocked for being "full of themselves" and if they're not they're mocked for being jerks. But otherwise, roll out the welcome wagon!

Well said, MattD, and I wish PP would pay some attention.
posted by languagehat at 8:53 AM on July 10, 2005


I'm with you, senor chapeau. MattD, while I've founs myself reacting to some of his opinions by clutching my head in disbelief, has rarely been anything less than a class act about it. The people who have to slot all conservatives as either crazed spewers or "full of themselves," must be afraid somehow of having to deal with people who hold different worldviews not as cartoons but as (gasp) humans.

I remember a poster named aaron we used to have here back in the day. An arch-conservative he was, but a very likable and articulate guy. Somebody once responded to what he said by saying "That's was wonderfully written and a pleasure to read. And I completely disagree. Here's why..."

That's what us old timers are talking about when we say we miss the good old days.
posted by jonmc at 9:35 AM on July 10, 2005


Well said, MattD. And your comment was perfectly fine and was not "full of yourself".
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:25 AM on July 10, 2005


This is a very long thread.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 12:15 PM on July 10, 2005


jonmc writes "Somebody once responded to what he said by saying 'That's was wonderfully written and a pleasure to read. And I completely disagree. Here's why..."

I see that currently from time to time. Maybe not in political threads as much but I tend not to spend toooo much time in them. That attitude hasn't gone though. There's eminently sensible discourse from disparate viewpoints in many a thread. Perhaps I'm taking that comment out of its political context but I like this place because some different thinking big brains weigh in, often pleasantly.
posted by peacay at 12:56 AM on July 11, 2005


I just want to add to the WTF on suggesting MattD was full of himself. Is this another one of those feuds with roots to some other thread?

Also, Decani nails it. How one could have the "very deepest contempt and disdain" for such a trivial thing? One's priorities seem out of wack.
posted by john at 4:33 PM on July 11, 2005


MattD, that was spot-on reasoning. You're probably right--his lack of civility only reflects his lack of respect for most of the posters around here. I've seen several excellent PP posts on AskMe, which further bolsters this theory.

I don't understand Hat Maui's belligerence, except maybe if he was drunk, in which case I understand it completely.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:15 PM on July 11, 2005


That makes no sense. Assuming I have no respect for "them," why would I have respect for the same people in Ask Metafilter? Huh? Huh?
posted by ParisParamus at 9:37 PM on July 11, 2005


Because when them are asking innocuous questions in the Green, you're more likely to give a civil response than a politically-charged post in the Blue.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:17 AM on July 12, 2005


Civil, where's the problem in that?
posted by ParisParamus at 7:44 PM on July 12, 2005


I guess it's a matter of degree, which isn't slight in your case: I've seen some extremely well-intentioned, well-reasoned suggestions from you in AskMe, and then will simultaneously see what look like clusterbombs of goading, dismissive, inciteful one- or two-liners scattered across the Blue.

Though to be fair, what usually happens is that, like a comedian, it takes you a couple of one- or two-liners to get warmed up (and similarly, get the crowd into a frothing frenzy) before continuing with a smattering of honest responses, then invariably some "sworn enemies" will come along to heckle and jeer, causing you to either respond in (un)kind, retreat back into one liners, or leave entirely.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:04 AM on July 13, 2005


ParisParamus,

Perhaps it would be better to focus more on the things that we have in common than go for throat on that which creates hatred. There are certainly a lot of folks here that contribute little more than fervent anti-Bush, etc. statements and it's well within your right to match them toe-to-toe to kept them busy. There are quite a few of us on here that don't have any allegiance to a particular political ideology and actively seek solutions to today's problems such as finding a more effective use of force that minimizes the possibility of blowback.

As a conservative you do get more flak than you deserve here and that's probably why there are few actively conservative commentators here that use moderate tones (many of the ones that I remember have left). Of course, I might be missing a lot since I haven't really been paying attention to you for a long time so I could be just wasting my time typing this.
posted by john at 11:14 AM on July 13, 2005


John, I'm not that conservative. And I do contribute to non-political threads. But I do feel a special obligation to call BS and lies what it is.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:55 PM on July 13, 2005


« Older How many MetaFilter Users does...  |  Is there any history of banish... Newer »

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