Please confine your AskMe answers to answers. August 27, 2005 12:28 AM Subscribe
Here's an excellent example of people pulling AskMe answers out of their asses. If you don't know Latin, don't answer.
For the record, the comparitive form (yes, that's what the asker was looking for) generally has an "-ior" suffix. So why don't any of the answers?
And the use of "conjegation" is especially delicious, seeing as how it's both misspelled and misused, as it is applied to verbs.
Sincerely,
Mayor Curley
President Emeritus of the Maine Junior Classical League (1992-1993)
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:35 AM on August 27, 2005
And the use of "conjegation" is especially delicious, seeing as how it's both misspelled and misused, as it is applied to verbs.
Sincerely,
Mayor Curley
President Emeritus of the Maine Junior Classical League (1992-1993)
posted by Mayor Curley at 12:35 AM on August 27, 2005
So why don't any of the answers?
Because they're adverbs, just like the Olympic motto.
posted by oaf at 12:40 AM on August 27, 2005
Because they're adverbs, just like the Olympic motto.
posted by oaf at 12:40 AM on August 27, 2005
Here's a little background on the motto of the Olympic games.
Here's a (brief) backgrounder on latin comparatives, from Wheelock's (widely recognized as the authority on this sort of thing).
Of course if you have the answer, have at it...
Sincerely,
CleverShark,
Philology minor, 1995.
posted by clevershark at 12:44 AM on August 27, 2005
Here's a (brief) backgrounder on latin comparatives, from Wheelock's (widely recognized as the authority on this sort of thing).
Of course if you have the answer, have at it...
Sincerely,
CleverShark,
Philology minor, 1995.
posted by clevershark at 12:44 AM on August 27, 2005
Klangston will pull it out of his ass until Christmas if you wish it.
posted by Wolof at 12:58 AM on August 27, 2005
posted by Wolof at 12:58 AM on August 27, 2005
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. MetaTalk, too, is dangerous terrain.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:56 AM on August 27, 2005
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:56 AM on August 27, 2005
Wow, someone didn't get laid this friday night.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:50 AM on August 27, 2005
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:50 AM on August 27, 2005
Is there a point to this, other than bitching?
Yes. I propose that the warning at the bottom of the page be amended to "Ask Metafilter is as useful as you make it. Making shit up doesn't help people find answers. Thanks."
People often answer with 30 seconds of googling to get some terms and then pretend that they have actual prior experience with the topic.
I haven't a clue about how to translate something into, say, Georgian. If someone used their question to ask for a Georgian translation, anyone could find an english-to-georgian dictionary on-line and look up some vocab. But I'd be a right prick if I pretended to know grammar and idiom and gave a confident answer because I wanted to appear to be an expert.
People pretend to give answers with authority because they skimmed some search results. When their honest answer should be "I watched Matlock in a bar last night. The sound wasn't on, but I think I got the gist of it."
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:57 AM on August 27, 2005
Yes. I propose that the warning at the bottom of the page be amended to "Ask Metafilter is as useful as you make it. Making shit up doesn't help people find answers. Thanks."
People often answer with 30 seconds of googling to get some terms and then pretend that they have actual prior experience with the topic.
I haven't a clue about how to translate something into, say, Georgian. If someone used their question to ask for a Georgian translation, anyone could find an english-to-georgian dictionary on-line and look up some vocab. But I'd be a right prick if I pretended to know grammar and idiom and gave a confident answer because I wanted to appear to be an expert.
People pretend to give answers with authority because they skimmed some search results. When their honest answer should be "I watched Matlock in a bar last night. The sound wasn't on, but I think I got the gist of it."
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:57 AM on August 27, 2005
One wonders if there may be some correlation between latin scholarship and not-getting-laidness.
That said, I agree that pulling answers of your butt, at least in cases where there can be a clear-cut answer, is doubleplusunfelicitous.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:58 AM on August 27, 2005
That said, I agree that pulling answers of your butt, at least in cases where there can be a clear-cut answer, is doubleplusunfelicitous.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:58 AM on August 27, 2005
Wow, someone didn't get laid this friday night.
I don't know to whom you're referring, but it's definitely not your sister.
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:58 AM on August 27, 2005
I don't know to whom you're referring, but it's definitely not your sister.
posted by Mayor Curley at 2:58 AM on August 27, 2005
*gets the popcorn*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:59 AM on August 27, 2005
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:59 AM on August 27, 2005
hee hee.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 3:00 AM on August 27, 2005
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 3:00 AM on August 27, 2005
I think "Ask Metafilter is as useful as you make it. Making shit up doesn't help people find answers. Thanks." would look great on the AskMe page. I'm not sure it'll help though, people don't seem to read (and understand) much these days.
posted by dabitch at 3:30 AM on August 27, 2005
posted by dabitch at 3:30 AM on August 27, 2005
I only had to scroll through but a tiny bit of MC's AskMe answers to find this:
"In HS physics, we were taught that electrons have no mass. Is this absolutely true, or is it an oversimplification like so many things I learned in high school?"
Shut. The. Fuck. Up. You. Hypocritical. Twit.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:38 AM on August 27, 2005
"In HS physics, we were taught that electrons have no mass. Is this absolutely true, or is it an oversimplification like so many things I learned in high school?"
Shut. The. Fuck. Up. You. Hypocritical. Twit.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:38 AM on August 27, 2005
EB, I don't see the hypocrisy here. The Mayor seems to be incensed about semi-ignorant answers where the answerer presents the data as authoritative fact. Your Mayoral example is rather well qualified.
But perhaps I'm missing something.
posted by catachresoid at 3:58 AM on August 27, 2005
But perhaps I'm missing something.
posted by catachresoid at 3:58 AM on August 27, 2005
EB, I don't get it. Are you suggesting that one shouldn't ask questions? Because I was sneaking in a question. As in, I was looking for an answer, not pretending that I knew anything. You know that, but you were hoping that your closing would convince skimmers.
You're getting nuttier and it's fascinating. You give off this vibe now like you're spending one third of your time fighting your "enemies" on the internet, one third writing your manifesto and one third masturbating to depraved stuff. Of course, I have nothing substantive to prove this, but that didn't stop you just now when you called me a hypocrite.
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:02 AM on August 27, 2005
You're getting nuttier and it's fascinating. You give off this vibe now like you're spending one third of your time fighting your "enemies" on the internet, one third writing your manifesto and one third masturbating to depraved stuff. Of course, I have nothing substantive to prove this, but that didn't stop you just now when you called me a hypocrite.
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:02 AM on August 27, 2005
Bligh, how does the Mayor's question make him a hypocrite? His argument here is that people are giving answers on things they don't know about. His earlier question is couched in an admission that he doesn't know the answer to the question he is asking.
Are you saying that in order to point out ignorance, one must be all-knowing?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:06 AM on August 27, 2005
Are you saying that in order to point out ignorance, one must be all-knowing?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:06 AM on August 27, 2005
I think this is silly, but I can dig the fight for accuracy.
Sincerely,
Dean Keaton
Professor of Drinkin'
1999-2003
posted by Dean Keaton at 4:11 AM on August 27, 2005
Sincerely,
Dean Keaton
Professor of Drinkin'
1999-2003
posted by Dean Keaton at 4:11 AM on August 27, 2005
Of course 'pulling answers out of your butt', is what I meant to say. Man, I hate when that happens.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:14 AM on August 27, 2005
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:14 AM on August 27, 2005
Mayor Curly: Don't take this the wrong way... but you are beginning to come off like you actually did not in fact get laid this friday's evening. Simmer down.
posted by Dean Keaton at 4:17 AM on August 27, 2005
posted by Dean Keaton at 4:17 AM on August 27, 2005
Can we assume then , that matt got laid this friday ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:21 AM on August 27, 2005
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:21 AM on August 27, 2005
but it's definitely not your sister
OH NO YOU DIN"T.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:21 AM on August 27, 2005
OH NO YOU DIN"T.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:21 AM on August 27, 2005
MC's right....in the general sense that people ought to qualify their answers. I also don't get any hypocrisy EB, in fact the quote you pulled is more exemplary of what MC is calling for.
posted by peacay at 4:54 AM on August 27, 2005
posted by peacay at 4:54 AM on August 27, 2005
Someone Asks: Does the Earth take about 365 days to revolve around the Sun?
Mayor Curley: In high school physics, I was taught that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Was this, as so many other things I learned there, an oversimplification?
This exemplifies the behavior of the sort of person who is far too eager to demonstrate what he thinks he knows when, in fact, he knows much less than he thinks. (Not to mention the further error of ridiculing someone's misspelling while doing the same.)
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:15 AM on August 27, 2005
Mayor Curley: In high school physics, I was taught that the Sun revolves around the Earth. Was this, as so many other things I learned there, an oversimplification?
This exemplifies the behavior of the sort of person who is far too eager to demonstrate what he thinks he knows when, in fact, he knows much less than he thinks. (Not to mention the further error of ridiculing someone's misspelling while doing the same.)
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:15 AM on August 27, 2005
I agree with MC, but (as usual) he had to wrap his opinion up in a porcupine.
posted by sic at 5:52 AM on August 27, 2005
posted by sic at 5:52 AM on August 27, 2005
This exemplifies the behavior of the sort of person who is far too eager to demonstrate what he thinks he knows when, in fact, he knows much less than he thinks.
Keep reaching (for that rainbow).
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:57 AM on August 27, 2005
Keep reaching (for that rainbow).
posted by Mayor Curley at 5:57 AM on August 27, 2005
meh.
Moonbird,
One time mayoral candidate,
Fondue fetishist, adjective whore, 1972-2005.
posted by moonbird at 6:12 AM on August 27, 2005
Moonbird,
One time mayoral candidate,
Fondue fetishist, adjective whore, 1972-2005.
posted by moonbird at 6:12 AM on August 27, 2005
Instead of a Metatalk post, this could have gone to email. Most of us have been insulted on mefi for one reason or another, wether out of intellectual discourse or outright insinuation and accusation, but when EB and MC fall into a "You threw mud at me! Fine, here's some mud right back!" thought process it's insulting to the whole community. Switch those acronyms for any other one and it would be the same.
posted by Dean Keaton at 6:26 AM on August 27, 2005
posted by Dean Keaton at 6:26 AM on August 27, 2005
EB, as pissed as I've gotten at the Mayor in the past (and doubtless will again in the future), you've chosen a lousy example to attack him with (not to mention that your rhetoric was over the top even had it been a better example, but of course the Mayor shouldn't have a problem with that). He was not pulling an answer out of his ass, he was, as he said, sneaking in a question. I've done it too. It may be a bad thing, but it has nothing to do with what he's complaining about, something I myself have complained about till I'm sick of hearing the sound of my own voice (as it were; no actual voices involved): people "answering" AskMe questions when they don't know what the fuck they're talking about. Man, that pisses me off. I don't mean when they think they know the answer but they're wrong; that can happen to all of us. I mean when somebody asks how to say something in Italian and somebody else says "Well, I took Italian for three months in high school/ had a girlfriend whose name ended in a vowel/ watched a Fellini movie once, and my guess is..." You don't know Italian (or physics or whatever the question calls for) but you're feeling chatty and want to "contribute," so you babble away. Knock it off! Go babble in MetaChat or talk to your cat or something! Because you're wasting everybody's time and possibly misleading someone who wants and deserves an actual answer from somebody who knows what the fuck they're talking about!
Grr.
posted by languagehat at 6:28 AM on August 27, 2005
Grr.
posted by languagehat at 6:28 AM on August 27, 2005
"...deserves an actual answer from somebody who knows what the fuck they're talking about!"
There are very, very few matters on which any one of us can speak with justified authoritative confidence. You, me, Mayor Curley, and pretty much everyone else here all speak with an assumed authority on a great number of matters where, I assure you, in each case there is one or more truly knowledgeable readers out there in lurkerdom shaking their heads in dismay at our profound display of willful ignorance. But this sort of foolishness is nearly universal and essentially unavoidable. Much less forgiveable is the fool who is loudly contemptuous of all the rest of the world's fools.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:21 AM on August 27, 2005
There are very, very few matters on which any one of us can speak with justified authoritative confidence. You, me, Mayor Curley, and pretty much everyone else here all speak with an assumed authority on a great number of matters where, I assure you, in each case there is one or more truly knowledgeable readers out there in lurkerdom shaking their heads in dismay at our profound display of willful ignorance. But this sort of foolishness is nearly universal and essentially unavoidable. Much less forgiveable is the fool who is loudly contemptuous of all the rest of the world's fools.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:21 AM on August 27, 2005
There are very, very few matters on which any one of us can speak with justified authoritative confidence.
And maybe, just maybe, that's why MC linked to this AskMeFi thread where there is an justified level of authoritative confidence. LH mentions people who don't have authority; hopefully you can see there is a level of knowledge for people to have a reasonable authority to answer a question about Latin. If not, you are pulling this out of your ass and need to get laid. Maybe with MC.
posted by jmd82 at 7:42 AM on August 27, 2005
And maybe, just maybe, that's why MC linked to this AskMeFi thread where there is an justified level of authoritative confidence. LH mentions people who don't have authority; hopefully you can see there is a level of knowledge for people to have a reasonable authority to answer a question about Latin. If not, you are pulling this out of your ass and need to get laid. Maybe with MC.
posted by jmd82 at 7:42 AM on August 27, 2005
Shut. The. Fuck. Up. You.
coming from the man who buries MetaFilter under an avalanche of endless paragraphs, this is a pretty ironic statement.
anyway, back to more serious topics: languagehat's right again -- often, people here try to be helpful and (in good faith, I am sure) kind of pull answers out of their asses. some AskMe questions, unfortunately, are too narrow or technical for that. the Mayor has a good point.
posted by matteo at 7:46 AM on August 27, 2005
coming from the man who buries MetaFilter under an avalanche of endless paragraphs, this is a pretty ironic statement.
anyway, back to more serious topics: languagehat's right again -- often, people here try to be helpful and (in good faith, I am sure) kind of pull answers out of their asses. some AskMe questions, unfortunately, are too narrow or technical for that. the Mayor has a good point.
posted by matteo at 7:46 AM on August 27, 2005
There are very, very few matters on which any one of us can speak with justified authoritative confidence...
Surely you're not making the amateur rhetorical argument that because perfect answers rarely exist, then no "reasonable" answers can exist?
posted by vacapinta at 7:51 AM on August 27, 2005
Surely you're not making the amateur rhetorical argument that because perfect answers rarely exist, then no "reasonable" answers can exist?
posted by vacapinta at 7:51 AM on August 27, 2005
Wait, so you try to call out Hizzoner for being a hypocrite and, when that Hindenburged in 15 seconds, your new position is that no-one should be answering in AskMe? I'll admit that would make for a cool project, questions sitting out there waiting for an answer that never comes, but it's unrealistically strict. There are any number of topics where we can find a reasonable authority in a pool of 5,000 - 10,000 people picked at random on the Internet. I'd think Latin translation wouldn't be too high a bar for the group.
Private to matt in Oregon: high school snark will not save you here.
posted by yerfatma at 8:16 AM on August 27, 2005
Private to matt in Oregon: high school snark will not save you here.
posted by yerfatma at 8:16 AM on August 27, 2005
Can I just say that the site is Ask Metafilter implying that Metafilter as a whole will respond? With bunnies, pancakes, democrats and republicans responding. It's not Ask only the people that know what they're talking about at Metafilter. Ergo you'll get all kinds of wackiness. I personally consider that the main selling point of Ask Metafilter, but that's just me.
posted by blue_beetle at 8:36 AM on August 27, 2005
posted by blue_beetle at 8:36 AM on August 27, 2005
There are any number of topics where we can find a reasonable authority in a pool of 5,000 - 10,000 people picked at random on the Internet.
yerfatma, do you think over 5K logged in unique members view askme over 48 hours (the time it takes for a question to scroll off a page)? I wondered this myself - I'd guess it's less than 1K...
posted by jonson at 9:03 AM on August 27, 2005
yerfatma, do you think over 5K logged in unique members view askme over 48 hours (the time it takes for a question to scroll off a page)? I wondered this myself - I'd guess it's less than 1K...
posted by jonson at 9:03 AM on August 27, 2005
"Wait, so you try to call out Hizzoner for being a hypocrite and, when that Hindenburged in 15 seconds, your new position is that no-one should be answering in AskMe?"
No.
My position is that a competency level as a bar to entry for answering askme questions that would merit the level of contempt the Curley and LH display against those they believe do not meet it would disqualify almost everyone from answering askme questions and, in particular, would frequently disqualify even themselves from answering.
What does it mean to "know" Latin? There is probably an answer to Tawita's question that a group of credentialed Latin scholars would agree upon. Either Curley's answer is that answer, or it is not. If it is not, then by what standard might we judge Curley as having sufficient competency to attempt an answer? That he has college credit in it? High school credit? Studied it formally? Informally? Isn't it awfully damn convenient that, almost invariably, for the Curleys and Languagehats of the world, the threshold dividing competency from incompetency in any given subject is the line they find themselves in the direction of virtue and others, vice? Ah, if only the world's fools had such discretion—they'd no longer be fools!
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:08 AM on August 27, 2005
No.
My position is that a competency level as a bar to entry for answering askme questions that would merit the level of contempt the Curley and LH display against those they believe do not meet it would disqualify almost everyone from answering askme questions and, in particular, would frequently disqualify even themselves from answering.
What does it mean to "know" Latin? There is probably an answer to Tawita's question that a group of credentialed Latin scholars would agree upon. Either Curley's answer is that answer, or it is not. If it is not, then by what standard might we judge Curley as having sufficient competency to attempt an answer? That he has college credit in it? High school credit? Studied it formally? Informally? Isn't it awfully damn convenient that, almost invariably, for the Curleys and Languagehats of the world, the threshold dividing competency from incompetency in any given subject is the line they find themselves in the direction of virtue and others, vice? Ah, if only the world's fools had such discretion—they'd no longer be fools!
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:08 AM on August 27, 2005
Huh. A little surprised at EB here. Mayor Curley, while he gives off this vibe like he's spending one third of his time fighting his "enemies" on the internet, one third picking his nose, and one third masturbating to depraved stuff, didn't do anything hypocritical in the post you quoted. He didn't pull an answer out of his ass, he slipped in a question.
And, as languagehat points out, the issue isn't whether one is or is not an authority, but if one believes that one knows the answer. You could always answer something with confidence which turns out to be wrong. It's unfortunate, but there's no way to prevent that without preventing (as you point out) all answers. However, MC's issue isn't with people who answer despite not having justified authoritative confidence, but with people who answer despite not having confidence period.
In other words:
And, as languagehat points out, the issue isn't whether one is or is not an authority, but if one believes that one knows the answer. You could always answer something with confidence which turns out to be wrong. It's unfortunate, but there's no way to prevent that without preventing (as you point out) all answers. However, MC's issue isn't with people who answer despite not having justified authoritative confidence, but with people who answer despite not having confidence period.
In other words:
- If you think you know the answer, answer. You may be wrong, and that would suck, but oh well.
- If you don't think you know the answer, don't answer!
I coulda swore that there was a FPP on Male Answer Syndrome recently. I'm tempted to think that EB is responding in the way he is because MAS is a mindset he has trouble grokking.
And, once more, bugbread enables my laziness by swiping most of the things I'd say. Good on ya.
posted by catachresoid at 9:38 AM on August 27, 2005
And, once more, bugbread enables my laziness by swiping most of the things I'd say. Good on ya.
posted by catachresoid at 9:38 AM on August 27, 2005
"However, MC's issue isn't with people who answer despite not having justified authoritative confidence, but with people who answer despite not having confidence period.
[...]
If you don't think you know the answer, don't answer!"
Ah, well, that's a good point and a different matter. But looking at the thread in question, I'm not seeing people that clearly thought they had nothing to offer whatsoever. Rather, in both MC's and LH's cases in general, what I see is, at least, the assumption that said commenters know (or should know) that they are too ignorant to answer the question. But I can take a similarly ungenerous point-of-view with regard to every example of Curley or LH answering an AskMe question where I happen to know that their answers are wrong. Which does happen from time to time.
And, by the way, I'm doubly suspicious of anyone who makes these sorts of contemptuous attacks on AskMe answerers who are themselves frequent AskMe answerers.
If I take the same ungenerous stance toward MC's physics comment I quote as he does the Latin comments he condemns, then the simple fact that he wrongly imagines that he was taught that electrons are massless (and that, if not, the error then was in his "oversimplified" high school education) represents necessarily a sufficient level of obvious confusion that should have prevented him from asserting that he was told something that he surely wasn't! If that sounds like a Catch-22, it is. It's the same Catch-22 that Curley is using to trap his victims.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:39 AM on August 27, 2005
[...]
If you don't think you know the answer, don't answer!"
Ah, well, that's a good point and a different matter. But looking at the thread in question, I'm not seeing people that clearly thought they had nothing to offer whatsoever. Rather, in both MC's and LH's cases in general, what I see is, at least, the assumption that said commenters know (or should know) that they are too ignorant to answer the question. But I can take a similarly ungenerous point-of-view with regard to every example of Curley or LH answering an AskMe question where I happen to know that their answers are wrong. Which does happen from time to time.
And, by the way, I'm doubly suspicious of anyone who makes these sorts of contemptuous attacks on AskMe answerers who are themselves frequent AskMe answerers.
If I take the same ungenerous stance toward MC's physics comment I quote as he does the Latin comments he condemns, then the simple fact that he wrongly imagines that he was taught that electrons are massless (and that, if not, the error then was in his "oversimplified" high school education) represents necessarily a sufficient level of obvious confusion that should have prevented him from asserting that he was told something that he surely wasn't! If that sounds like a Catch-22, it is. It's the same Catch-22 that Curley is using to trap his victims.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:39 AM on August 27, 2005
Okay, look: my point of view is that all of us, each of us--certainly including me--are wrong all the damn time and make fools of ourselves to those who know better all the damn time (and no mistake: there is always someone around who knows better) and that, this being the case, it is only those very few who habitually behave egregiously in this respect who deserve to be slapped around. And, even then, only with a certain degree of cautious self-awareness of one's own fallibility. I'm not seeing anything egregious in the linked thread...and almost by definition if it's the case that it's happening all the time on AskMe, then it's not egregious in that case, either.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:54 AM on August 27, 2005
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:54 AM on August 27, 2005
Wow, with this sort of snark about authority, I'm surprised I've ever attempted to answer anything on AskMe at all. I won't do it again, I promise. Sheesh.
Sincerely,
grapefruitmoon
Authority on nothing, not even longboats. (1981-2005)
posted by grapefruitmoon at 9:54 AM on August 27, 2005
Sincerely,
grapefruitmoon
Authority on nothing, not even longboats. (1981-2005)
posted by grapefruitmoon at 9:54 AM on August 27, 2005
I am an expert on many questions that start "Has this ever happened to you...?" or "I have to drive from New York City to Vermont..."
The fact that someone may know as much as me or more does not mean that I can't tell the difference between saying "I've heard that road is full of pirates and spiders..." [subjective, hearsay, of questionable accuracy based on real-life practical knowledge, maybe true, likely not] and "Last time I drove that way, we were eaten alive by bears." [personal account, could be right, could be wrong, subjective but not necessarily incorrect]. I should also know the difference between reading/interpreting these two statements. It behooves the questioner generally to assess critically and move forward accordingly, and sure it might be nice if the responders could couch their more subjective statements in more careful language. Sometimes it would also be good to know the background of the person answering your question, but if you need that level of service, maybe you need to go to a library or something [good luck on blowjob advice].
It's not a perfect world. AskMe isn't a substitute for good medical, legal, or relationship advice from people who actually know you, but it's often a good accessory.
Says,
Jessamyn
Semanticist, Librarian
1986-present
posted by jessamyn at 10:36 AM on August 27, 2005
The fact that someone may know as much as me or more does not mean that I can't tell the difference between saying "I've heard that road is full of pirates and spiders..." [subjective, hearsay, of questionable accuracy based on real-life practical knowledge, maybe true, likely not] and "Last time I drove that way, we were eaten alive by bears." [personal account, could be right, could be wrong, subjective but not necessarily incorrect]. I should also know the difference between reading/interpreting these two statements. It behooves the questioner generally to assess critically and move forward accordingly, and sure it might be nice if the responders could couch their more subjective statements in more careful language. Sometimes it would also be good to know the background of the person answering your question, but if you need that level of service, maybe you need to go to a library or something [good luck on blowjob advice].
It's not a perfect world. AskMe isn't a substitute for good medical, legal, or relationship advice from people who actually know you, but it's often a good accessory.
Says,
Jessamyn
Semanticist, Librarian
1986-present
posted by jessamyn at 10:36 AM on August 27, 2005
Excuse me, but did EB call languagehat a non-authority about 3 hours ago?
I suspect the delay in direct reply from the hatman is due to the laborious care he is taking in perfectly wording the verbal smackdown that will cause the already-Ethereal one to evaporate completely without a trace... I, for one, am getting a comfortable seat and making some popcorn...
posted by wendell at 11:03 AM on August 27, 2005
I suspect the delay in direct reply from the hatman is due to the laborious care he is taking in perfectly wording the verbal smackdown that will cause the already-Ethereal one to evaporate completely without a trace... I, for one, am getting a comfortable seat and making some popcorn...
posted by wendell at 11:03 AM on August 27, 2005
Y'know, I'd apologize but a) I feel like I did my best at sending the asker onto the right path, and b) I know that you spend your days in a bilious apoplexy, Mayor Curley, so I'm less inclined to listen to your seething rants than, say, Languagehat, who I can respect.
posted by klangklangston at 12:08 PM on August 27, 2005
posted by klangklangston at 12:08 PM on August 27, 2005
If a member-authority interested in contributing reads a thread and sees a lot of incorrect or incomplete responses, I don't think she/he will be dissuaded from answering because of that... and sometimes the other contributions are interesting, thought-provoking, and worthwhile.
Not always, granted; maybe not even often. Sometimes it really is just wankery, but there have been quite a few threads that I have read and enjoyed because of the creative conjecturing and educated pondering, so to me it's not so clear cut. I've read many threads wherein a different approach came through as by far the best solution, while never actually answering the initial question.
I liked reading this current thread (just from a quick scan of the current page), which, for a short thread, had some intelligent conjecture, and some good web fact-finding. I wouldn't have been nearly as interested if it were only "this-is-the-link. end-of-discussion".
posted by taz at 12:08 PM on August 27, 2005
Not always, granted; maybe not even often. Sometimes it really is just wankery, but there have been quite a few threads that I have read and enjoyed because of the creative conjecturing and educated pondering, so to me it's not so clear cut. I've read many threads wherein a different approach came through as by far the best solution, while never actually answering the initial question.
I liked reading this current thread (just from a quick scan of the current page), which, for a short thread, had some intelligent conjecture, and some good web fact-finding. I wouldn't have been nearly as interested if it were only "this-is-the-link. end-of-discussion".
posted by taz at 12:08 PM on August 27, 2005
I don't think anyone is going to get rid of me that easily.
If I did claim that LH is a "non-authority", I did only insofar as I claim that everyone is a non-authority on virtually every subject. I trust and respect LH more than most; but that doesn't mean that I don't realize that almost everything he says authoritatively--even on the subject of linguistics--almost certainly seems overweaning to someone out there much more knowledgable than he.
Claiming to know something, to be an authority on any subject, is foolish enough--in doing so we are invariably inviting the gods to provide us a lesson in humility. If you're paying attention, you'll notice they almost always oblige. Worse still and much less innocent is to be ungenerous and contemptuous of others when they, being human, think they might know something.
It's a sin of hypocrisy but, more importantly, it's unproductive. It's unproductive because successfully limning the boundaries of what we think we know and what we do not know is almost always a communal endeavor requiring good-faith, cooperation, and self-criticism. The contribution of the most ignorant is, in its own way, as necessary as the contribution of the most informed.
Again, I both respect and greatly like Steve and I am not eager to criticize him. But I include him in my rebuttal because it would be dishonest of me to fail to do so: his comment in this thread a bit of a rant, and this is not the first (or fifth) time it's appeared here. There is a world of difference between languagehat and Curley--where there is intolerance in LH there is reckless contempt in Curley. But even in LH's milder intolerance I see a degree of hypocrisy because I've seen, more than once, Steve innocently and off-handedly (just like everyone else!)offer some bit of half-baked speculation to a mefi or askme question where, by his own standards, he should have known to--supposedly--refrain from offering anything at all.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:18 PM on August 27, 2005
If I did claim that LH is a "non-authority", I did only insofar as I claim that everyone is a non-authority on virtually every subject. I trust and respect LH more than most; but that doesn't mean that I don't realize that almost everything he says authoritatively--even on the subject of linguistics--almost certainly seems overweaning to someone out there much more knowledgable than he.
Claiming to know something, to be an authority on any subject, is foolish enough--in doing so we are invariably inviting the gods to provide us a lesson in humility. If you're paying attention, you'll notice they almost always oblige. Worse still and much less innocent is to be ungenerous and contemptuous of others when they, being human, think they might know something.
It's a sin of hypocrisy but, more importantly, it's unproductive. It's unproductive because successfully limning the boundaries of what we think we know and what we do not know is almost always a communal endeavor requiring good-faith, cooperation, and self-criticism. The contribution of the most ignorant is, in its own way, as necessary as the contribution of the most informed.
Again, I both respect and greatly like Steve and I am not eager to criticize him. But I include him in my rebuttal because it would be dishonest of me to fail to do so: his comment in this thread a bit of a rant, and this is not the first (or fifth) time it's appeared here. There is a world of difference between languagehat and Curley--where there is intolerance in LH there is reckless contempt in Curley. But even in LH's milder intolerance I see a degree of hypocrisy because I've seen, more than once, Steve innocently and off-handedly (just like everyone else!)offer some bit of half-baked speculation to a mefi or askme question where, by his own standards, he should have known to--supposedly--refrain from offering anything at all.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:18 PM on August 27, 2005
Excuse me, but did EB call languagehat a non-authority about 3 hours ago?
EB is for some reason obsessed with the idea that I am pretending to an authority I do not possess; he's made the point on more than one occasion. Since 1) I have never argued from authority and 2) have never claimed to be omniscient about language, simply to know more about it than most people here, and cheerfully acknowledge it when I'm wrong, I've tried to disabuse him of this idea, but it seems to be dear to him so now I just smile wrily when he trots it out again. (If he's trying to insult me by babbling about "the Curleys and Languagehats of the world," he'll have to try harder.) I'll make the charitable assumption he got up on the wrong side of the bed, since he's generally a good fellow.
And, one more time, as bugbread said, it's not about whether you're objectively right or wrong, it's about whether you honestly think you know the answer. If you do, I don't fault you. What I object to is the people who openly say they don't really know what they're talking about but take a wild guess anyway.
posted by languagehat at 12:34 PM on August 27, 2005
EB is for some reason obsessed with the idea that I am pretending to an authority I do not possess; he's made the point on more than one occasion. Since 1) I have never argued from authority and 2) have never claimed to be omniscient about language, simply to know more about it than most people here, and cheerfully acknowledge it when I'm wrong, I've tried to disabuse him of this idea, but it seems to be dear to him so now I just smile wrily when he trots it out again. (If he's trying to insult me by babbling about "the Curleys and Languagehats of the world," he'll have to try harder.) I'll make the charitable assumption he got up on the wrong side of the bed, since he's generally a good fellow.
And, one more time, as bugbread said, it's not about whether you're objectively right or wrong, it's about whether you honestly think you know the answer. If you do, I don't fault you. What I object to is the people who openly say they don't really know what they're talking about but take a wild guess anyway.
posted by languagehat at 12:34 PM on August 27, 2005
On postview: Damn, got to write faster or use preview! I wouldn't have been so acerbic about EB if I'd known he was going to be so (relatively) nice to me. Oh well, it all comes out in the wash. And yes, I violate my own rules from time to time. What you don't see is me slapping myself on the wrist. Someday I'll set up a webcam for that purpose.
posted by languagehat at 12:37 PM on August 27, 2005
posted by languagehat at 12:37 PM on August 27, 2005
It's okay, you're right that I'm being very pissy. I just don't know what it means1, really, to be competent enough to be qualified to attempt to answer a question in good-faith. If we ever imagine ourselves to be competent--and most of us do from time to time--then it seems to me to be necessary that we give others the same benefit of the doubt and, when they nevertheless prove themselves incompetent as they often do, be forgiving of their ignorance. Because we are they.
1. EB-speak for "I don't know if it is meaningful to say..."
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:46 PM on August 27, 2005
1. EB-speak for "I don't know if it is meaningful to say..."
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:46 PM on August 27, 2005
languagehat: What I object to is the people who openly say they don't really know what they're talking about but take a wild guess anyway.
It's all in the timing.
posted by Chuckles at 1:23 PM on August 27, 2005
It's all in the timing.
posted by Chuckles at 1:23 PM on August 27, 2005
Metafilter: I don't think anyone is going to get rid of me that easily.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:40 PM on August 27, 2005
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:40 PM on August 27, 2005
Y'know, I'd apologize but a) I feel like I did my best at sending the asker onto the right path
Still not getting it.
posted by Wolof at 6:05 PM on August 27, 2005
Still not getting it.
posted by Wolof at 6:05 PM on August 27, 2005
languagehat nails this; and this is a legitimate complaint from MC. The last time this was discussed there was no distinction made between people being mistaken (understandable), and people adding wobbly guesses based on little to no substance. These guesses are even worse when the person tries to pass himself off as an authority on the subject.
The linked thread is an example of male answer syndrome. It's very annoying, especially when I realise I've done it myself.
posted by nthdegx at 1:35 AM on August 28, 2005
The linked thread is an example of male answer syndrome. It's very annoying, especially when I realise I've done it myself.
posted by nthdegx at 1:35 AM on August 28, 2005
Mea culpa. I saw an unanswered question and thought something was better than nothing (though I did check that -ius was right for comparative adverbs, and that those were the actual -ius forms of those words).
In the future I'll hold back unless I know an answer from experience, not just by look-up.
posted by gubo at 7:32 AM on August 28, 2005
In the future I'll hold back unless I know an answer from experience, not just by look-up.
posted by gubo at 7:32 AM on August 28, 2005
Wolof: Curley commented too, and when the "Latinist" fininally came in with the correct answer, I had two out of the three correct and the third in proper form, whereas he had only managed to miss on every suggestion he offered (and in one of his suggestions, longius, it showed that he hadn't bothered to read the question).
But you're always free to blow me.
posted by klangklangston at 4:11 PM on August 28, 2005
But you're always free to blow me.
posted by klangklangston at 4:11 PM on August 28, 2005
Despite loving the concept, this is one of the primary reasons I stopped reading ask.me. There's a surprising number of people who just post lame guesses, stupid questions, and chatty answers to get attention, it's sad really.
posted by milovoo at 5:24 PM on August 28, 2005
posted by milovoo at 5:24 PM on August 28, 2005
FWIW, I'd rather have 15 well-intentioned attempts to answer my question than everyone hanging back waiting for the One True Scholar to step up.
I am not a child. I can weed out the offbeat answers on my own, and would rather have the benefit of a range of responses in case the One True Scholar never shows up. In addition, as taz suggests, even if a suggestion is decidedly wrong, it can be the springboard of discovery for the next suggestion which is right. And look at the thread in question: Mayor Curley was wrong, wrong, wrong, on basically everything he suggested in the thread, despite his pedigree.
Finally, I am annoyed that Curley's first move after his confessional metatalk thread is to bring people down again by pissing on a bunch of well intentioned AskMe responders.
Sincerely,
onlyconnect
Resistant to the Great AskMe Purge of Mayor Curley's inner Stalinist
posted by onlyconnect at 6:48 PM on August 28, 2005
I am not a child. I can weed out the offbeat answers on my own, and would rather have the benefit of a range of responses in case the One True Scholar never shows up. In addition, as taz suggests, even if a suggestion is decidedly wrong, it can be the springboard of discovery for the next suggestion which is right. And look at the thread in question: Mayor Curley was wrong, wrong, wrong, on basically everything he suggested in the thread, despite his pedigree.
Finally, I am annoyed that Curley's first move after his confessional metatalk thread is to bring people down again by pissing on a bunch of well intentioned AskMe responders.
Sincerely,
onlyconnect
Resistant to the Great AskMe Purge of Mayor Curley's inner Stalinist
posted by onlyconnect at 6:48 PM on August 28, 2005
Curley commented too, and when the "Latinist" fininally came in with the correct answer, I had two out of the three correct and the third in proper form, whereas he had only managed to miss on every suggestion he offered (and in one of his suggestions, longius, it showed that he hadn't bothered to read the question).
Right. I was totally wrong. Because when someone asks for a comparative, you think "adverbs."
Or are you saying that your guessing was a good idea and Ask Metafilter should just be directed at you? Because I'm pretty sure that you just said:
A. I (mayor curley) can't read a questioner's mind like you can and
B. You're admitting that you pulled it out of your ass, but that's fine because you were right 66% of the time.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:51 PM on August 28, 2005
Right. I was totally wrong. Because when someone asks for a comparative, you think "adverbs."
Or are you saying that your guessing was a good idea and Ask Metafilter should just be directed at you? Because I'm pretty sure that you just said:
A. I (mayor curley) can't read a questioner's mind like you can and
B. You're admitting that you pulled it out of your ass, but that's fine because you were right 66% of the time.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:51 PM on August 28, 2005
Mayor Curley was wrong, wrong, wrong, on basically everything he suggested in the thread, despite his pedigree.
Up yours. I was right, right, right. But I was referring to the diver instead of the act of diving. If the poster wanted to make it clear that they wanted a rip-off of the Olympic slogan, s/he shouldn't have included "veni, vidi, vici" in the question.
(except for "longus -a -um." Contextually that could be improved.)
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:56 PM on August 28, 2005
Up yours. I was right, right, right. But I was referring to the diver instead of the act of diving. If the poster wanted to make it clear that they wanted a rip-off of the Olympic slogan, s/he shouldn't have included "veni, vidi, vici" in the question.
(except for "longus -a -um." Contextually that could be improved.)
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:56 PM on August 28, 2005
I like the snarky little quotes around "Latinist", too. Real classy.
posted by Wolof at 9:31 PM on August 28, 2005
posted by Wolof at 9:31 PM on August 28, 2005
Up yours.
and, from Mayor Curley's posted mefi email address to mine:
hey lardo,
just a little note to let you know that I've always thought that you were a pretentious cunt.
Um. Whaaa? I've disagreed with you here, Mayor Curley, but I kept it above the belt and in the thread. So much for your supposed concern over spreading "negative energy."
posted by onlyconnect at 11:59 PM on August 28, 2005
and, from Mayor Curley's posted mefi email address to mine:
hey lardo,
just a little note to let you know that I've always thought that you were a pretentious cunt.
Um. Whaaa? I've disagreed with you here, Mayor Curley, but I kept it above the belt and in the thread. So much for your supposed concern over spreading "negative energy."
posted by onlyconnect at 11:59 PM on August 28, 2005
Wow. Normally, posting private emails is a Very Bad Thing. But in this case, I nevertheless approve. If it's really from him, of course. If so, doesn't it tell you everything you might ever need to know?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:40 AM on August 29, 2005
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:40 AM on August 29, 2005
bugbread : "Mayor Curley...gives off this vibe like he's spending one third of his time fighting his 'enemies' on the internet, one third picking his nose, and one third masturbating to depraved stuff"
Ok, I'll amend that to "Mayor Curley gives off this vibe like he's spending two thirds of his time fighting his 'enemies' on the internet, and one third masturbating to depraved stuff."
posted by Bugbread at 2:22 AM on August 29, 2005
Ok, I'll amend that to "Mayor Curley gives off this vibe like he's spending two thirds of his time fighting his 'enemies' on the internet, and one third masturbating to depraved stuff."
posted by Bugbread at 2:22 AM on August 29, 2005
For the record, I did not send that. I've never sent another member a negative email-- I don't initiate them and I don't respond to them if I get them.
And I would have used something sharper than "cunt." That's just lazy.
posted by Mayor Curley at 3:48 AM on August 29, 2005
And I would have used something sharper than "cunt." That's just lazy.
posted by Mayor Curley at 3:48 AM on August 29, 2005
That's weird, because it's from exactly the same gmail address as the one listed in your profile, Mayor Curley. Does someone else have access to your gmail account?
(It is also signed with a first, middle, and last name, but I didn't post those. I am not making this up, and will forward the email to anyone who wants it to prove it.)
posted by onlyconnect at 4:01 AM on August 29, 2005
(It is also signed with a first, middle, and last name, but I didn't post those. I am not making this up, and will forward the email to anyone who wants it to prove it.)
posted by onlyconnect at 4:01 AM on August 29, 2005
That's weird, because it's from exactly the same gmail address
Big deal. More interesting if it's from exactly the same server as one of Google's. I used to send my wife emails purporting to be from the president of the public company she works for demanding she get her tail into my office.
Can you post the relevant headers?
posted by yerfatma at 4:49 AM on August 29, 2005
Big deal. More interesting if it's from exactly the same server as one of Google's. I used to send my wife emails purporting to be from the president of the public company she works for demanding she get her tail into my office.
Can you post the relevant headers?
posted by yerfatma at 4:49 AM on August 29, 2005
It is also signed with a first, middle, and last name
I assure you that I wouldn't do that-- I don't want your goons meeting me in a dark alley. Or maybe that's exactly why I signed it-- a double bluff!
Actually, further discussion of it rewards the person who did send you an email (assuming that anyone did). So I will state for the record that I am absolutely fine with you thinking that I sent it. No one will care in a day or so anyway.
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:51 AM on August 29, 2005
I assure you that I wouldn't do that-- I don't want your goons meeting me in a dark alley. Or maybe that's exactly why I signed it-- a double bluff!
Actually, further discussion of it rewards the person who did send you an email (assuming that anyone did). So I will state for the record that I am absolutely fine with you thinking that I sent it. No one will care in a day or so anyway.
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:51 AM on August 29, 2005
As always, the headers will reveal the truth. But I'm inclined to believe MC if for no other reason than the email was much worse than I'd ever expect of him. On the other hand, I have a really, really hard time believing that people send these nasty spoofed emails in the first place. That's just weird and creepy.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:14 AM on August 29, 2005
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:14 AM on August 29, 2005
onlyconnect (and anyone else), it's really, really easy to forge a "from" line of an email. What's much harder to forge are the "received" headers, which show the IP addresses of the originating computer, intermediate servers, etc. When anything is in doubt, never trust the "from" line, always look at the received headers. If you're using Outlook, you can find them with "View | Options".
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:19 AM on August 29, 2005
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:19 AM on August 29, 2005
yerfatma, I forwarded it to the address in your profile. I am not sure what headers are in the context of email. When I right click on "properties" on the email address of the email sent to me, it says, under address: http://mail.google.com/mail/?&ik=800fbc8c81&view=cv&search=inbox&th=106021bb9dcb7b0e
I can also get a notepad doc when I right click on "view source," but I'm not sure what part of that doc is relevant, if any.
I have emailed it to the address in Mayor Curley's profile and gotten an email back from Mayor Curley at a different email addy saying convincingly that he did not send it. I don't know what to think at this point, but I've got to get back to work.
posted by onlyconnect at 6:23 AM on August 29, 2005
I can also get a notepad doc when I right click on "view source," but I'm not sure what part of that doc is relevant, if any.
I have emailed it to the address in Mayor Curley's profile and gotten an email back from Mayor Curley at a different email addy saying convincingly that he did not send it. I don't know what to think at this point, but I've got to get back to work.
posted by onlyconnect at 6:23 AM on August 29, 2005
In Gmail, Hit "More Options" on the right, then hit "Show Original" in the grey box above the email. That'd provide the headers.
posted by yerfatma at 10:35 AM on August 29, 2005
posted by yerfatma at 10:35 AM on August 29, 2005
Mayor Curley to Ethereal Bigh: "You give off this vibe now like you're spending one third of your time fighting your 'enemies' on the internet, one third writing your manifesto and one third masturbating to depraved stuff."
Which is of course MY shtick, and I wonder how many keystroke recorders and secreted webcams it took you to learn that, you evil CIA agent you. (Ain't I right, Agent Scarabic?)
[Now this by the way is an example of how one modestly dramaqueenizes one's self; it need not be accurate or witty, as long as one refrains from, oh, starting a Metatalk thread with it.]
posted by davy at 10:39 AM on August 29, 2005
Which is of course MY shtick, and I wonder how many keystroke recorders and secreted webcams it took you to learn that, you evil CIA agent you. (Ain't I right, Agent Scarabic?)
[Now this by the way is an example of how one modestly dramaqueenizes one's self; it need not be accurate or witty, as long as one refrains from, oh, starting a Metatalk thread with it.]
posted by davy at 10:39 AM on August 29, 2005
Metatalk: in order to point out ignorance, one must be all-knowing. [(C) 2005 Kirth Gerson and Davy.]
posted by davy at 10:43 AM on August 29, 2005
posted by davy at 10:43 AM on August 29, 2005
Bligh blighed: " Much less forgiveable is the fool who is loudly contemptuous of all the rest of the world's fools."
Such as you yourself, no doubt, as exemplified in that example.
Anyway EB, Curley's right and you're wrong -- but don't take that as siding with him against you forever. (Lots of people do here in the 7th grade.) Fact is you're two of the most entertaining pompous asses around here; sometimes I even get more of a kick out of y'all than I do from my own "dry wit", and I don't take definite sides between net.goofs unless I'm paid for it.
posted by davy at 10:51 AM on August 29, 2005
Such as you yourself, no doubt, as exemplified in that example.
Anyway EB, Curley's right and you're wrong -- but don't take that as siding with him against you forever. (Lots of people do here in the 7th grade.) Fact is you're two of the most entertaining pompous asses around here; sometimes I even get more of a kick out of y'all than I do from my own "dry wit", and I don't take definite sides between net.goofs unless I'm paid for it.
posted by davy at 10:51 AM on August 29, 2005
Alright Bligh, alright, now that you put it that way I agree with you in many cases. The problem is that you go too far: when somebody clearly is yanking a pseudoanswer out of their arse just to seem helpful and/or smart then the very act of posting that crap entitles them to get told what crap that is. (As with any other kind of crap anybody posts anywhere around here.)
I think Curley is being polite by starting a Metatalk thread about it instead of going on about it in the AskMe thread, and furthermore this was a Metatalk callout that, and I don't know how many people missed this, did not pick on any one person in particular (nor even 'y'all Metaheathers' etc.).
I appreciate your egalitarianism, as one should expect from somebody who preaches about it often, but equal worth does not mean equal competence or even equal immunity from being corrected when one is mistaken about a factual matter.
Personally I think youse two ought to kiss and make up. On a live webcam.
posted by davy at 11:18 AM on August 29, 2005
I think Curley is being polite by starting a Metatalk thread about it instead of going on about it in the AskMe thread, and furthermore this was a Metatalk callout that, and I don't know how many people missed this, did not pick on any one person in particular (nor even 'y'all Metaheathers' etc.).
I appreciate your egalitarianism, as one should expect from somebody who preaches about it often, but equal worth does not mean equal competence or even equal immunity from being corrected when one is mistaken about a factual matter.
Personally I think youse two ought to kiss and make up. On a live webcam.
posted by davy at 11:18 AM on August 29, 2005
Here is the header info, with email addresses removed:
X-Gmail-Received: e65261220173cc8e1cae9a13722af84c53966b70
Delivered-To: [onlyconnect's email]
Received: by 10.38.59.44 with SMTP id h44cs6593rna;
Sun, 28 Aug 2005 19:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.54.63.12 with SMTP id l12mr5967677wra;
Sun, 28 Aug 2005 19:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.54.159.6 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Aug 2005 19:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5 fe114f70508281901150679d0@mail.gmail.com>
Mayor Curley (the real Mayor Curley), I apologize to you for posting this to MeTa and insulting you if, as I believe from your behavior and email, you didn't really send it. Carry on.
posted by onlyconnect at 11:35 AM on August 29, 2005
X-Gmail-Received: e65261220173cc8e1cae9a13722af84c53966b70
Delivered-To: [onlyconnect's email]
Received: by 10.38.59.44 with SMTP id h44cs6593rna;
Sun, 28 Aug 2005 19:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.54.63.12 with SMTP id l12mr5967677wra;
Sun, 28 Aug 2005 19:01:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.54.159.6 with HTTP; Sun, 28 Aug 2005 19:01:31 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5 fe114f70508281901150679d0@mail.gmail.com>
Mayor Curley (the real Mayor Curley), I apologize to you for posting this to MeTa and insulting you if, as I believe from your behavior and email, you didn't really send it. Carry on.
posted by onlyconnect at 11:35 AM on August 29, 2005
by "this," I meant the original email text, not the header info above.
posted by onlyconnect at 11:37 AM on August 29, 2005
posted by onlyconnect at 11:37 AM on August 29, 2005
So did anybody find out whether that nasty email was really from Curley (as I suspect it was not), and if not who did send it? Not that it matters much, I'm just curious.
On preview: onlyconnect, I can't make much sense of those headers without the hostnames, and it's kinda mean to expect yer av'rage netter to do a whois on a slew of IP addresses. I, however, don't have to pee THAT bad yet.
Anyway, I'm not that kind of geek: did somebody from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority really call onlyconnect a cunt in email from a work server? If so, wow, how unprofessional: canst thou not reach hotmail or use telnet?
posted by davy at 11:54 AM on August 29, 2005
On preview: onlyconnect, I can't make much sense of those headers without the hostnames, and it's kinda mean to expect yer av'rage netter to do a whois on a slew of IP addresses. I, however, don't have to pee THAT bad yet.
Anyway, I'm not that kind of geek: did somebody from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority really call onlyconnect a cunt in email from a work server? If so, wow, how unprofessional: canst thou not reach hotmail or use telnet?
posted by davy at 11:54 AM on August 29, 2005
Those are private addresses (you're probably more familiar with the ranges 192.168.0.0. and 172.16.0.0), so they're not telling us anything useful. I don't see the gmail server there and how it saw the box that handed the message to it which would be the helpful line.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:46 PM on August 29, 2005
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:46 PM on August 29, 2005
By the way, the reason that the "from" line is trivially easy to forve is because the Simple Mail Transfer Protocol simply has the client (the machine sending the mail) tell the server (the machine handling the mail, which may be the machine that is the ultimate destination) what to use on the "from" line. There is no verification of this in any way. Think of it like the "subject" line—the user can put whatever he/she likes. Most email apps aren't written to allow this, but some are.
However, SMTP does specify (I believe) that the IP address of the remote machine be recorded in the headers. This address is available and is usually trustworthy because part of the basic structure of the way that Internet computers talk to each other is that the IP addresses are included in each "packet" (small amount of information) sent between two machines. Even so, with the right tools, you can change this.
Don't trust the "from" line. People fake this for a variety of reasons. Here we've seen one of them. Spammers have another motive. And yet another is when Internet worms propogate themselves via email—they'll often fake the "from" header, using some random email address they've found on the infected computer. Sending off a "you're infected with XYZ worm!" to someone you've gotten a worm email from may only confuse them terribly, since it may not have actually come from them. Look at the headers, and you can tell.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:03 PM on August 29, 2005
However, SMTP does specify (I believe) that the IP address of the remote machine be recorded in the headers. This address is available and is usually trustworthy because part of the basic structure of the way that Internet computers talk to each other is that the IP addresses are included in each "packet" (small amount of information) sent between two machines. Even so, with the right tools, you can change this.
Don't trust the "from" line. People fake this for a variety of reasons. Here we've seen one of them. Spammers have another motive. And yet another is when Internet worms propogate themselves via email—they'll often fake the "from" header, using some random email address they've found on the infected computer. Sending off a "you're infected with XYZ worm!" to someone you've gotten a worm email from may only confuse them terribly, since it may not have actually come from them. Look at the headers, and you can tell.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:03 PM on August 29, 2005
I am talking out of my ass, but:
While I'm not sure if SMTP by its very nature doesn't confirm the From line, or if it's just frequently configured to not confirm the From line, I can say from experience that some ISPs are configured to check (whether it's by SMTP or some other sort of middleware between oneself and the SMTP server) the From line for accuracy. I know this because I used to send emails from president@whitehouse.gov to friends, and when I changed ISPs, I no longer could, even though I was using the same software configured the same way.
None of which in any way contradicts the central point that one shouldn't trust the "from" line. When ISPs don't check, it's crazy easy to use a fake From (no hacking or high-level skills involved at all).
posted by Bugbread at 6:06 PM on August 29, 2005
While I'm not sure if SMTP by its very nature doesn't confirm the From line, or if it's just frequently configured to not confirm the From line, I can say from experience that some ISPs are configured to check (whether it's by SMTP or some other sort of middleware between oneself and the SMTP server) the From line for accuracy. I know this because I used to send emails from president@whitehouse.gov to friends, and when I changed ISPs, I no longer could, even though I was using the same software configured the same way.
None of which in any way contradicts the central point that one shouldn't trust the "from" line. When ISPs don't check, it's crazy easy to use a fake From (no hacking or high-level skills involved at all).
posted by Bugbread at 6:06 PM on August 29, 2005
I've received threatening e-mails from MeFi people using throwaway accounts, which is why I removed my contact information from my profile.
In nearly twenty years of participating in discussion groups online, only a handful of times have I ever been harassed or threatened by e-mail. Only once has this come from someone who could be identified by their e-mail.
So I'd put money on it not being Curley. He's too much of a self-righteous blowhard to ever take a discussion private, anyway. It's almost certainly a spoof from someone who's even more of an goof.
posted by solid-one-love at 4:28 PM on September 11, 2005
In nearly twenty years of participating in discussion groups online, only a handful of times have I ever been harassed or threatened by e-mail. Only once has this come from someone who could be identified by their e-mail.
So I'd put money on it not being Curley. He's too much of a self-righteous blowhard to ever take a discussion private, anyway. It's almost certainly a spoof from someone who's even more of an goof.
posted by solid-one-love at 4:28 PM on September 11, 2005
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by clevershark at 12:34 AM on August 27, 2005