Blurb on Profiles March 3, 2006 9:40 AM Subscribe
What's the deal with your nickname? How did you get it? If your nickname is self-explanatory, then tell everyone when you first started using the internet, and what was the first thing that made you say "wow, this isn't just a place for freaks after all?" Was it a website? Was it an email from a long-lost friend? Go on, spill it.
Shouldn't this chatty blurb appear only on the new user info form?
Shouldn't this chatty blurb appear only on the new user info form?
Why not just have, "User notes" or something like that?
The chattiness has a friendly tone to it, which can be seen as inviting and encouraging to the new user (who is already, no doubt, greatly intimidated by MeFi in general). It has a "Welcome, tell us about yourself" tone to it, as opposed to a "You have joined the collective" tone.
posted by Gator at 9:50 AM on March 3, 2006
The chattiness has a friendly tone to it, which can be seen as inviting and encouraging to the new user (who is already, no doubt, greatly intimidated by MeFi in general). It has a "Welcome, tell us about yourself" tone to it, as opposed to a "You have joined the collective" tone.
posted by Gator at 9:50 AM on March 3, 2006
I think what squirrel is saying is that once the question is asked of the user, it doesn't need to be restated on the user page itself to introduce the reply. "User notes" could do that more easily. Not an issue for me, really, just hoping to clarify.
posted by soyjoy at 9:53 AM on March 3, 2006
posted by soyjoy at 9:53 AM on March 3, 2006
And practically speaking, the folks who've been here for a while don't even see that copy any more -- my eyes skip right past it, anyway.
posted by cortex at 10:02 AM on March 3, 2006
posted by cortex at 10:02 AM on March 3, 2006
What soyjoy said. I'm all for making the new user welcome and info page chatty and folksy.
And if Matt wants the user info page to retain that chattiness, then make the whole thing chatty. As it is now, there is a handful of tight, concise features and tools, and then this one chatty blurb. The inconsistency is what bothers me. I use the user pages a lot, and I just keep wondering why this series of questions and coaxings should appear here.
posted by squirrel at 10:03 AM on March 3, 2006
And if Matt wants the user info page to retain that chattiness, then make the whole thing chatty. As it is now, there is a handful of tight, concise features and tools, and then this one chatty blurb. The inconsistency is what bothers me. I use the user pages a lot, and I just keep wondering why this series of questions and coaxings should appear here.
posted by squirrel at 10:03 AM on March 3, 2006
The chattiness has a friendly tone to it
exactly. this isn't a friendly, chatty place. now it's time for the librarian to grimace, note that "we're done here now", and close the thread.
posted by quonsar at 10:03 AM on March 3, 2006
exactly. this isn't a friendly, chatty place. now it's time for the librarian to grimace, note that "we're done here now", and close the thread.
posted by quonsar at 10:03 AM on March 3, 2006
I could just change the text to "feel free to leave a bio here" but a lot of profiles directed at explaining users' names wouldn't make much sense.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:03 AM on March 3, 2006
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:03 AM on March 3, 2006
Matt, to my experience, people use that space for all sorts of different purposes, not just for explanation of their handle. The blurb seems strange if a user does anything other than explain their name.
Again, you should put whatever instructions you want in the account setup page--go chatty crazy--but just shorten it down in the output user info page. Again, the user info page is simple, elegant and tool-centered... except for the blurb.
posted by squirrel at 10:18 AM on March 3, 2006
Again, you should put whatever instructions you want in the account setup page--go chatty crazy--but just shorten it down in the output user info page. Again, the user info page is simple, elegant and tool-centered... except for the blurb.
posted by squirrel at 10:18 AM on March 3, 2006
I could just change the text to "feel free to leave a bio here" but a lot of profiles directed at explaining users' names wouldn't make much sense.
posted by mathowie at 1:03 PM EST on March 3 [!]
Maybe we need a Brand New Day of Bios.
posted by paulsc at 10:19 AM on March 3, 2006
posted by mathowie at 1:03 PM EST on March 3 [!]
Maybe we need a Brand New Day of Bios.
posted by paulsc at 10:19 AM on March 3, 2006
this isn't a friendly, chatty place. now it's time for the librarian to grimace...
I heard you the first time, give it a rest.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:26 AM on March 3, 2006
I heard you the first time, give it a rest.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:26 AM on March 3, 2006
quonsar : the blunt force trauma of comedy.
posted by crunchland at 10:30 AM on March 3, 2006
posted by crunchland at 10:30 AM on March 3, 2006
So what is the deal with your nickname?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:40 AM on March 3, 2006
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:40 AM on March 3, 2006
I think each user should be forced to leave a detail explanation of their alias, which will then be reviewed by the community, and if approved will be premanently embedded into their userpage. In the event of non-approval, the user would be basnned for life, and any variations of the user name would be deleted.
posted by blue_beetle at 10:44 AM on March 3, 2006
posted by blue_beetle at 10:44 AM on March 3, 2006
I know there are a few people who are disinclined to update their user pages now that special features we used to enjoy are now filtered out. (Thanks again, PG.)
posted by crunchland at 10:54 AM on March 3, 2006
posted by crunchland at 10:54 AM on March 3, 2006
Would it really be so bad to open up user pages to personal modifcations again? I always liked them.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:57 AM on March 3, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:57 AM on March 3, 2006 [1 favorite]
I don't think PG was actually responsible for that feature going away. I think matt was just tying up loose ends security-wise. And no, css modification isn't coming back.
posted by puke & cry at 11:03 AM on March 3, 2006
posted by puke & cry at 11:03 AM on March 3, 2006
:-(
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:19 AM on March 3, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:19 AM on March 3, 2006 [1 favorite]
gnfti-Thanks for drawing my attention to that, I'd not seen his version of Great Leap Forward. I'm not gonna toot your horn more than the chicken already does.
posted by OmieWise at 11:36 AM on March 3, 2006
posted by OmieWise at 11:36 AM on March 3, 2006
And what's the deal with the Professor? He can make a radio out of a coconut, but he can't fix a hole in the damn boat! I mean, hey! And the Skipper and Gilligan, what is the deal there? Why don't they date Mary-Ann? I'm starting to wonder about that "Little Buddy" stuff!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:38 AM on March 3, 2006
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:38 AM on March 3, 2006
>>What's the deal with your nickname?
i dont mind in the question, but mathowie, you are dating yourself with the phrasing...
it's so 1990...and everytime i read it, i hear it in the grating seinfeld-esque voice like, 'hay guys, what's the deal with airline peanuts? and while we're at it, what's the deal with your nickname okay?'
/i request a revision. on preview, what IRFH says...
posted by naxosaxur at 11:50 AM on March 3, 2006
i dont mind in the question, but mathowie, you are dating yourself with the phrasing...
it's so 1990...and everytime i read it, i hear it in the grating seinfeld-esque voice like, 'hay guys, what's the deal with airline peanuts? and while we're at it, what's the deal with your nickname okay?'
/i request a revision. on preview, what IRFH says...
posted by naxosaxur at 11:50 AM on March 3, 2006
ok, fine, I'll just change it to some dry question about a bio or some such nonsense.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:03 PM on March 3, 2006
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:03 PM on March 3, 2006
That's too bad... actually, just last night I was wondering where people's nicknames came from. But before you can say "MeTa", I remembered we have that spot on the user page.
Not that I actually use it, mind you. But one day I'll get around to it...
posted by SuperNova at 12:07 PM on March 3, 2006
Not that I actually use it, mind you. But one day I'll get around to it...
posted by SuperNova at 12:07 PM on March 3, 2006
ok, fine, I'll just change it to some dry question about a bio or some such nonsense.
There shouldn't be a question at all on the user info page. The question should be (and already is) on the preferences page.
posted by event at 12:32 PM on March 3, 2006
There shouldn't be a question at all on the user info page. The question should be (and already is) on the preferences page.
posted by event at 12:32 PM on March 3, 2006
Please change it into something that does not contain the letter E.
posted by rxrfrx at 12:47 PM on March 3, 2006
posted by rxrfrx at 12:47 PM on March 3, 2006
Please change it into something that does not contain the letter E.
This somewhat obscure bicycle magazine that I subscribe to once ran a contest where one had to re-write "The Raven" without using the letter E. Some of the entries were pretty good.
posted by fixedgear at 1:23 PM on March 3, 2006
This somewhat obscure bicycle magazine that I subscribe to once ran a contest where one had to re-write "The Raven" without using the letter E. Some of the entries were pretty good.
posted by fixedgear at 1:23 PM on March 3, 2006
The very informality of "Go on, spill it" has evoked some interesting responses, some of which might even be true.
Would "some dry question" bring better stories? I think not.
Does it sound like 1990s? Think of it as fashionably retro.
posted by Cranberry at 1:38 PM on March 3, 2006
Would "some dry question" bring better stories? I think not.
Does it sound like 1990s? Think of it as fashionably retro.
posted by Cranberry at 1:38 PM on March 3, 2006
It appears that my attempt to clarify did not succeed in the one arena where it mattered, which is Matt's brain. One More Time: I don't think anyone is objecting to the wording or tone for WHEN THE QUESTION IS ASKED. It's just that it doesn't need to then show up AFTERWARDS on the user page like that. There doesn't need to be a "dry" question on the user page - there doesn't need to be anything, in fact, other than the user's response.
Again, I could care less one way or another, just trying for the last time to make the question clear.
posted by soyjoy at 1:42 PM on March 3, 2006
Again, I could care less one way or another, just trying for the last time to make the question clear.
posted by soyjoy at 1:42 PM on March 3, 2006
But, soyjoy, a lot of the stories on people's userpages are framed with those words in mind, as they are answering the questions that those words ask. It might seem a bit disconnected if those words are removed from the userpage.
posted by Gator at 1:45 PM on March 3, 2006
posted by Gator at 1:45 PM on March 3, 2006
now it's time for the librarian to grimace, note that "we're done here now", and close the thread.
I hate it when she does that. Threads have been getting closed awfully quick recently. The criteria for closure has crept further and further....
The feature was built so that egregious 1000-comment Alex Reynolds blowouts could be capped at some point. Then it began to be used for any thread which was continuing past a perceived "point of productiveness." Then they started getting closed as soon as Matt himself commented, as if his "final word" could bring total closure to any issue. Now jessamyn is also closing threads, and while many useless bags of shit live on past 100 comments, others are mysteriously closed at 5 or 6 because someone didn't think there was anything to say on the subject. Not even "hey thanks for fixing that bug, Matt!"
The hair-trigger thread closure comes across as disdain for MetaTalk in general, to me. I can understand that, but why keep it up if you're not going to allow it to be used?
posted by scarabic at 1:53 PM on March 3, 2006
I hate it when she does that. Threads have been getting closed awfully quick recently. The criteria for closure has crept further and further....
The feature was built so that egregious 1000-comment Alex Reynolds blowouts could be capped at some point. Then it began to be used for any thread which was continuing past a perceived "point of productiveness." Then they started getting closed as soon as Matt himself commented, as if his "final word" could bring total closure to any issue. Now jessamyn is also closing threads, and while many useless bags of shit live on past 100 comments, others are mysteriously closed at 5 or 6 because someone didn't think there was anything to say on the subject. Not even "hey thanks for fixing that bug, Matt!"
The hair-trigger thread closure comes across as disdain for MetaTalk in general, to me. I can understand that, but why keep it up if you're not going to allow it to be used?
posted by scarabic at 1:53 PM on March 3, 2006
Vote for keeping the question.
posted by By The Grace of God at 2:35 PM on March 3, 2006
posted by By The Grace of God at 2:35 PM on March 3, 2006
The hair-trigger thread closure comes across as disdain for MetaTalk in general, to me. I can understand that, but why keep it up if you're not going to allow it to be used?
I'm the one that closes most threads and I have been hair-triggered about it lately and I'll tell you why. MetaTalk is a pretty big time-suck for me. If I'm explaining myself for the tenth time and having to re-explain every response and follow-up I post here, I end up spending my day doing nothing but tending metatalk. I'd rather spend my time programming new stuff and fixing old bugs. A long metatalk thread can quickly take an hour out of my day here and there and next thing you know my day is shot.
So why not just remove metatalk entirely then? Because I do get some benefit of people pointing out bugs or making feature requests. If you'll notice, I close stuff up the moment it is fixed (I don't need a thanks, it's fine really), and I close stuff up that could turn into endless discussions that are very specific (often someone is asking me a specific question) or very detailed (where people want to hear what I think, then debate what I think, then want to hear a followup, etc).
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:08 PM on March 3, 2006
I'm the one that closes most threads and I have been hair-triggered about it lately and I'll tell you why. MetaTalk is a pretty big time-suck for me. If I'm explaining myself for the tenth time and having to re-explain every response and follow-up I post here, I end up spending my day doing nothing but tending metatalk. I'd rather spend my time programming new stuff and fixing old bugs. A long metatalk thread can quickly take an hour out of my day here and there and next thing you know my day is shot.
So why not just remove metatalk entirely then? Because I do get some benefit of people pointing out bugs or making feature requests. If you'll notice, I close stuff up the moment it is fixed (I don't need a thanks, it's fine really), and I close stuff up that could turn into endless discussions that are very specific (often someone is asking me a specific question) or very detailed (where people want to hear what I think, then debate what I think, then want to hear a followup, etc).
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:08 PM on March 3, 2006
now it's time for the programmer to roll his eyes, explain himself one more time, and close the thread.
posted by carsonb at 3:44 PM on March 3, 2006
posted by carsonb at 3:44 PM on March 3, 2006
Please don't change it, Matt!
Rather, put in a big pop-up window that reminds people every time they log in that they haven't written theirs yet.
One thing I love about AskMe is seeing the many many cool usernames of people who don't post to gray or blue. Unfortunately, about 2/3 of them haven't answered this question. They must be punished!!
posted by Aknaton at 3:55 PM on March 3, 2006
Rather, put in a big pop-up window that reminds people every time they log in that they haven't written theirs yet.
One thing I love about AskMe is seeing the many many cool usernames of people who don't post to gray or blue. Unfortunately, about 2/3 of them haven't answered this question. They must be punished!!
posted by Aknaton at 3:55 PM on March 3, 2006
Thanks again soyjoy. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but we appear to be the only ones here who grasp the concept that the chatty question can (and should) remain in the user administration page while it can (and should) be removed from the user info page.
Two. Different. Pages. Folks. The first one prompts responses to questions; the second should pose no questions, since there's no way for a reader to answer them.
posted by squirrel at 5:02 PM on March 3, 2006
Two. Different. Pages. Folks. The first one prompts responses to questions; the second should pose no questions, since there's no way for a reader to answer them.
posted by squirrel at 5:02 PM on March 3, 2006
squirrel and soyjoy, does it not seem odd to have answers on a user page to a question that isn't stated? I kept it there because it looked weird without it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:05 PM on March 3, 2006
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:05 PM on March 3, 2006
I don't think PG was actually responsible for that feature going away...
Sure he was... I just heard he killed JFK. I wouldn't put anything past the man.
posted by cedar at 5:26 PM on March 3, 2006
Sure he was... I just heard he killed JFK. I wouldn't put anything past the man.
posted by cedar at 5:26 PM on March 3, 2006
ok, fine, I'll just change it to some dry question about a bio or some such nonsense.
Whoa. In my opinion, while squirrel raises a valid point, changing the question as it currently stands would be knee-jerk and ill-advised.
The original question is informal, personal and it helps make Metafilter the informal, personal place that it can be, that is not to mention the disjointed answers that will be the effect of this change. Brilliant little stories will be replaced by boring cold personalia.
I am, for the record, not a rigid, change-shy nostalgist. But please, if you're gonna kill your babies anyway, please, at least do marry your beautiful quirks.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 6:11 PM on March 3, 2006
Whoa. In my opinion, while squirrel raises a valid point, changing the question as it currently stands would be knee-jerk and ill-advised.
The original question is informal, personal and it helps make Metafilter the informal, personal place that it can be, that is not to mention the disjointed answers that will be the effect of this change. Brilliant little stories will be replaced by boring cold personalia.
I am, for the record, not a rigid, change-shy nostalgist. But please, if you're gonna kill your babies anyway, please, at least do marry your beautiful quirks.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 6:11 PM on March 3, 2006
Dude, I don't know about this. Changing the heading on that field will not reflect well on me . . .
Metafilter: "Welcome to Metafilter!"
Ryvar: "Hi! I'm Ryvar."
Metafilter: "Please enter your bio here:"
Ryvar: "IT RHYMES WITH GUY BAR!"
Metafilter: ". . . What? Are you okay?"
Ryvar: [shrieking] "IT RHYMES WITH FLY BAR!!!"
See? It makes me come off like a bit of a spazz.
posted by Ryvar at 7:35 PM on March 3, 2006
Metafilter: "Welcome to Metafilter!"
Ryvar: "Hi! I'm Ryvar."
Metafilter: "Please enter your bio here:"
Ryvar: "IT RHYMES WITH GUY BAR!"
Metafilter: ". . . What? Are you okay?"
Ryvar: [shrieking] "IT RHYMES WITH FLY BAR!!!"
See? It makes me come off like a bit of a spazz.
posted by Ryvar at 7:35 PM on March 3, 2006
If I'm explaining myself for the tenth time and having to re-explain every response and follow-up I post here, I end up spending my day doing nothing but tending metatalk. I'd rather spend my time programming
Perhaps some sort of Frequently Asked Questions page to which you can link might be in order in such situations. Radical idea, I know, but...
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:57 PM on March 3, 2006
Perhaps some sort of Frequently Asked Questions page to which you can link might be in order in such situations. Radical idea, I know, but...
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:57 PM on March 3, 2006
Ryvar, maybe it wouldn't make you look like a spazz if you didn't capitalize your shrieking.
posted by Balisong at 7:58 PM on March 3, 2006
posted by Balisong at 7:58 PM on March 3, 2006
Ryvar notwithstanding, no, I don't think it would look that odd to have the answer without the question. For one thing, to anyone who mattered (i.e. members), we would know what the question was. For another, it's an open-ended question designed to get people to start talking. It's not as if the question was "how old are you?" and then on the page it says nothing but "42." SeewhaImsayin?
posted by soyjoy at 8:28 PM on March 3, 2006
posted by soyjoy at 8:28 PM on March 3, 2006
Perhaps some sort of Frequently Asked Questions page
ESS EMM ARR TEE!
posted by quonsar at 8:44 PM on March 3, 2006
ESS EMM ARR TEE!
posted by quonsar at 8:44 PM on March 3, 2006
Perhaps some sort of Frequently Asked Questions page
Of course the irony is that I have one half done, but haven't gotten the time to finish it this week. Jessamyn and I are loading it with questions and answers and will eventually be taking questions from members and displaying the faq alongside MetaTalk.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:16 PM on March 3, 2006
Of course the irony is that I have one half done, but haven't gotten the time to finish it this week. Jessamyn and I are loading it with questions and answers and will eventually be taking questions from members and displaying the faq alongside MetaTalk.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:16 PM on March 3, 2006
Ryvar, I didn't know it was possible to have chocolate come out of your nose, but that's exactly what you made me do with your hysterical shrieking.
posted by Iamtherealme at 11:43 PM on March 3, 2006
posted by Iamtherealme at 11:43 PM on March 3, 2006
A magical chocolate nose-fountain. Will wonders never cease?
posted by cali at 12:40 AM on March 4, 2006
posted by cali at 12:40 AM on March 4, 2006
squirrel and soyjoy, does it not seem odd to have answers on a user page to a question that isn't stated? I kept it there because it looked weird without it.
I see your point, Matt. Still, this assumes that answering the origin of username question is the only thing that users do with that bit of expressive space. Au contraire, people make all sorts of creative use of that space, such as lists of links, pictures, enemies lists, and so forth. That's as it should be. I think that most MeFites would agree that this space ought not be restricted to only answering one question.
As for those users who simply answer the question, let them change their entries so as to form whole sentences. As in "I chose the name Ryvar because..." The question can remain the same in the info admin page, preferably with some extra wording that encourages users to write whatever they want within a character limit.
In any case, I think the issue has seen enough of my input. Thanks to those who weighed-in with their thoughts on the matter, and thanks to Matt for his consideration.
posted by squirrel at 8:01 AM on March 4, 2006
I see your point, Matt. Still, this assumes that answering the origin of username question is the only thing that users do with that bit of expressive space. Au contraire, people make all sorts of creative use of that space, such as lists of links, pictures, enemies lists, and so forth. That's as it should be. I think that most MeFites would agree that this space ought not be restricted to only answering one question.
As for those users who simply answer the question, let them change their entries so as to form whole sentences. As in "I chose the name Ryvar because..." The question can remain the same in the info admin page, preferably with some extra wording that encourages users to write whatever they want within a character limit.
In any case, I think the issue has seen enough of my input. Thanks to those who weighed-in with their thoughts on the matter, and thanks to Matt for his consideration.
posted by squirrel at 8:01 AM on March 4, 2006
"this isn't a friendly, chatty place. now it's time for the librarian to grimace...
I heard you the first time, give it a rest."
quonsar, shush!
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:24 AM on March 4, 2006
I heard you the first time, give it a rest."
quonsar, shush!
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:24 AM on March 4, 2006
hm... I don't really see why MetaTalk needs administering. It's a shit-catch, right? Designed to deflect crap from the Blue? So if it gets shitty in here, it's no surprise.
I guess we're not pretending to "self-policing" anymore. If you want to do self-policing then you need to provide a place where the community can work shit out, and you need to step away and let them work it out.
I'm not saying that was working. Just that we're further from self-policing than we've ever been. It's interesting that you also have more admin work than ever. Connection?
posted by scarabic at 9:29 AM on March 4, 2006
I guess we're not pretending to "self-policing" anymore. If you want to do self-policing then you need to provide a place where the community can work shit out, and you need to step away and let them work it out.
I'm not saying that was working. Just that we're further from self-policing than we've ever been. It's interesting that you also have more admin work than ever. Connection?
posted by scarabic at 9:29 AM on March 4, 2006
It'd be odd if the questions were removed. My answer, for example, includes this:
As for the internet thing, I've used it for years, and I'm not entirely convinced it isn't just a place for freaks. It's probably a good thing I'm reasonably fond of freaks.
It's a direct response to one of the questions in the list. It would be out of place and non-sequitor without questions that it was a response to. Sure, I could change it, if I know user pages are changing layout, but I'd rather not, and most people wouldn't know user pages were changing layout.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:49 AM on March 4, 2006
As for the internet thing, I've used it for years, and I'm not entirely convinced it isn't just a place for freaks. It's probably a good thing I'm reasonably fond of freaks.
It's a direct response to one of the questions in the list. It would be out of place and non-sequitor without questions that it was a response to. Sure, I could change it, if I know user pages are changing layout, but I'd rather not, and most people wouldn't know user pages were changing layout.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:49 AM on March 4, 2006
I guess we're not pretending to "self-policing" anymore. If you want to do self-policing then you need to provide a place where the community can work shit out, and you need to step away and let them work it out.
I'm not saying that was working. Just that we're further from self-policing than we've ever been. It's interesting that you also have more admin work than ever. Connection?
Well spotted. The elephant in the room, of course, is the more than 10,000 (raw number, no idea because Matt hasn't told us) new usernames since the doors reopened on a cash basis.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:00 PM on March 4, 2006
I'm not saying that was working. Just that we're further from self-policing than we've ever been. It's interesting that you also have more admin work than ever. Connection?
Well spotted. The elephant in the room, of course, is the more than 10,000 (raw number, no idea because Matt hasn't told us) new usernames since the doors reopened on a cash basis.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:00 PM on March 4, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
This blurb is the only appearance of this chatty voice on a page that is otherwise dedicated to concise, user-directed and user-specific content. No, it's not a big deal, but it gets under my skin. Why not just have, "User notes" or something like that?
posted by squirrel at 9:42 AM on March 3, 2006