Threadratings for Metafilter? April 8, 2004 5:16 PM Subscribe
With all the huff and puff about quality, how about a facility in the blue for viewers of threads to rate them? This would have the benefits of indicating examples of quality (to newbies, oldbies with bad memories, etc..) and perhaps the possibility of searching for only threads rated over 7.0 or something. Whaddayasay?
Agreed, but not a huge discussion, and the need to recognise good posts and good posters seems to be important at the moment.
posted by boneybaloney at 5:50 PM on April 8, 2004
posted by boneybaloney at 5:50 PM on April 8, 2004
Agreed, but not a huge discussion, and the need to recognise good posts and good posters seems to be important at the moment.
because self filtering is so damn hard!
i must click on every link! I CANNOT THINK ON MY OWN!
posted by Stynxno at 5:54 PM on April 8, 2004
because self filtering is so damn hard!
i must click on every link! I CANNOT THINK ON MY OWN!
posted by Stynxno at 5:54 PM on April 8, 2004
What i_cola said.
posted by languagehat at 6:09 PM on April 8, 2004
posted by languagehat at 6:09 PM on April 8, 2004
because self filtering is so damn hard!
Self-filtering isn't the problem. It's the feedback effect that's the problem, and the idea boneybaloney presents would be one way to address it -- and I think it's a good one. The problem may be that it runs counter to two core philosphies to which mathowie seems to subscribe:
(1) Don't (in general) make technical solutions to social problems.
(2) Don't let the site become an all consuming time-sucking vacuum.
These are also good ideas.
posted by namespan at 6:09 PM on April 8, 2004
Self-filtering isn't the problem. It's the feedback effect that's the problem, and the idea boneybaloney presents would be one way to address it -- and I think it's a good one. The problem may be that it runs counter to two core philosphies to which mathowie seems to subscribe:
(1) Don't (in general) make technical solutions to social problems.
(2) Don't let the site become an all consuming time-sucking vacuum.
These are also good ideas.
posted by namespan at 6:09 PM on April 8, 2004
What ashbury said.
posted by languagehat at 6:09 PM on April 8, 2004
posted by languagehat at 6:09 PM on April 8, 2004
Whaddayasay?
I say present how you would design it, implement it and keep it from being a drag on the server. This isn't even a pony request. It's like the supercars my friends and I used to draw in sixth grade: they seemed awesome to us, but they were impractical and wouldn't have gone anywhere.
posted by yerfatma at 6:10 PM on April 8, 2004
I say present how you would design it, implement it and keep it from being a drag on the server. This isn't even a pony request. It's like the supercars my friends and I used to draw in sixth grade: they seemed awesome to us, but they were impractical and wouldn't have gone anywhere.
posted by yerfatma at 6:10 PM on April 8, 2004
Damn you, namespan, you interrupted my performance art. Philistine!
posted by languagehat at 6:10 PM on April 8, 2004
posted by languagehat at 6:10 PM on April 8, 2004
I think the principle that people might be dissuaded from twattiness by having a lowered average for their FPPs might have great positive effects.
Back to you languagehat.
posted by boneybaloney at 6:15 PM on April 8, 2004
Back to you languagehat.
posted by boneybaloney at 6:15 PM on April 8, 2004
Don't forget that bad posts sometimes become good threads. A ratings system would prevent that from ever happening. And with all the bitchiness (twattiness?!?) here, everyone would downrate the people they don't like, or have on a list or something.
posted by amberglow at 6:21 PM on April 8, 2004
posted by amberglow at 6:21 PM on April 8, 2004
Fearless Leader was planning something along these lines about a year ago. I liked the idea back then, and was sorry to see it go unimplemented.
posted by Johnny Assay at 6:22 PM on April 8, 2004
posted by Johnny Assay at 6:22 PM on April 8, 2004
I like the concept, not the details.
Instead of having ratings per se, let's just have a "promote this thread" and "demote this thread" buttons. Threads with a minimum number of votes, having secured a certain net score, get added to the roster. Of course, the scores or total votes aren't displayed publicly.
posted by Gyan at 6:25 PM on April 8, 2004
Instead of having ratings per se, let's just have a "promote this thread" and "demote this thread" buttons. Threads with a minimum number of votes, having secured a certain net score, get added to the roster. Of course, the scores or total votes aren't displayed publicly.
posted by Gyan at 6:25 PM on April 8, 2004
Perhaps a [this is good] without a bad vote option would work reasonably well and avoid a few of the aforementioned pitfalls.
posted by boneybaloney at 6:28 PM on April 8, 2004
posted by boneybaloney at 6:28 PM on April 8, 2004
Perhaps a [this is good] without a bad vote option would work
Also, it could fit in with my aforementioned philosophy #1 somewhat -- as long as you didn't let people filter by the best posts, but left it as an indicator only.
Right now the only indication of feedback you get from people is the number of comments. But number of comments on a post is a terrible metric of how good it is. A pot-stirring topic will often elicit huge numbers of comments, while a thought-provoking, amusing link might only generate a few [this is good]s. A [this is good] button would provide a way of amplifying the right feedback from the community. In that sense it's a technical solution, but it's not a constraining one... just a communications aide, like the rest of the site.
Of course, it may just reveal that the majority of MeFites consider something "signal" that a minority consider "noise", too.
Also, sorry languagehat. I hereby commit myself not to comment for at least 15 minutes. The stage is yours. :)
posted by namespan at 6:36 PM on April 8, 2004
Also, it could fit in with my aforementioned philosophy #1 somewhat -- as long as you didn't let people filter by the best posts, but left it as an indicator only.
Right now the only indication of feedback you get from people is the number of comments. But number of comments on a post is a terrible metric of how good it is. A pot-stirring topic will often elicit huge numbers of comments, while a thought-provoking, amusing link might only generate a few [this is good]s. A [this is good] button would provide a way of amplifying the right feedback from the community. In that sense it's a technical solution, but it's not a constraining one... just a communications aide, like the rest of the site.
Of course, it may just reveal that the majority of MeFites consider something "signal" that a minority consider "noise", too.
Also, sorry languagehat. I hereby commit myself not to comment for at least 15 minutes. The stage is yours. :)
posted by namespan at 6:36 PM on April 8, 2004
boneybaloney: A problem I see with that is that's a very rough indicator. If I assume that a good post on, say, AI should appeal to the general public and not just the AI pros and enthusiasts, then your method would push such a post up, by virtue of the AI pros who vote it up. An effort should be made to recognize posts that are appreciated by a sizeable audience. So the "demote" option ought to be there.
posted by Gyan at 6:42 PM on April 8, 2004
posted by Gyan at 6:42 PM on April 8, 2004
Yeah, I've been wanting to do this for ages but just don't have the time to program it. A rough indicator is better than none at all.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 7:02 PM on April 8, 2004
posted by mathowie (staff) at 7:02 PM on April 8, 2004
Yes!
posted by Quartermass at 7:45 PM on April 8, 2004
posted by Quartermass at 7:45 PM on April 8, 2004
I'll just say it's a good thing Matt is too busy to do this.
posted by amberglow at 7:47 PM on April 8, 2004
posted by amberglow at 7:47 PM on April 8, 2004
Voting encourages a repellently Heatheresque hierarchy. No & no & no. & nay.
posted by naxosaxur at 8:27 PM on April 8, 2004
posted by naxosaxur at 8:27 PM on April 8, 2004
No: to infinity .... and beyond!
The neat thing about having studied math is that you can totally pull out higher cardinal infinities and win past this point. Choke on my omega subscripts, fool!
Unfortunately, everyone thinks you're a nerd at this point and you still lose.
posted by weston at 9:38 PM on April 8, 2004
The neat thing about having studied math is that you can totally pull out higher cardinal infinities and win past this point. Choke on my omega subscripts, fool!
Unfortunately, everyone thinks you're a nerd at this point and you still lose.
posted by weston at 9:38 PM on April 8, 2004
Weston: yeah, but namespan has already transcended all that "well-ordered" shit.
posted by Johnny Assay at 10:09 PM on April 8, 2004
posted by Johnny Assay at 10:09 PM on April 8, 2004
What Johnny said. And Matt. Darn that Matt with his practicality and time demands. Honestly. You'd think he had a life outside of us. ;)
posted by dejah420 at 10:10 PM on April 8, 2004
posted by dejah420 at 10:10 PM on April 8, 2004
yes johnny, I float above it like the stars above the see.
/assumes lotus position
posted by namespan at 11:06 PM on April 8, 2004
/assumes lotus position
posted by namespan at 11:06 PM on April 8, 2004
I always thought the anti-rating arguments were wierd, but I've come to buy into it. It's like having un-threaded discussions - at first it just seems limiting and old-school. But when you drink the cool-aid long enough - and see what happened at, say, K5 - it seems like one of the things that make MetaFilter so great. It's like that wierd pomo stuff about restrictions allowing freedom.
Here's an argument for the existing self-regulating system over community ratings: with ratings, you end up trying to post what will get rated well. So you self-censor anyhow, but for the wrong reasons.
Whatever, there's lots of reasons to do it too. But if nothing else, it's one of the things that makes this site different, and that should count for something right?
posted by freebird at 11:08 PM on April 8, 2004
Here's an argument for the existing self-regulating system over community ratings: with ratings, you end up trying to post what will get rated well. So you self-censor anyhow, but for the wrong reasons.
Whatever, there's lots of reasons to do it too. But if nothing else, it's one of the things that makes this site different, and that should count for something right?
posted by freebird at 11:08 PM on April 8, 2004
if you've never enjoyed, upon awakening, a full body massage performed with warm, firm, gently-applied and melting- butter-slathered pancakes swimming in pure, hot freshly produced natural maple syrup all delivered by the nude holographic image of your choice prancing upon a finely groomed and well oiled young equine, well all i can say is: you shoulda been around when matt actually had the time to build mefi ponies.
posted by quonsar at 12:25 AM on April 9, 2004
posted by quonsar at 12:25 AM on April 9, 2004
oh yes, the good ole days. i remember when quonsar was just a quon. back then if a family member (or significant enemy) had an ailment, you had to resort to quoning them. ahhh, those were the days.
posted by poopy at 1:22 AM on April 9, 2004
posted by poopy at 1:22 AM on April 9, 2004
Isn't the point of an FPP for you to decide yourself? There is a link, you click on it or you don't. Imagine if the first "voter" gave it 4/10. They've effectively killed the thread, as rating encourages the bad habit of skimming over anything under (max score - 2).
posted by SpaceCadet at 2:07 AM on April 9, 2004
posted by SpaceCadet at 2:07 AM on April 9, 2004
What languagehat said, maybe, unless not.
posted by The God Complex at 2:21 AM on April 9, 2004
posted by The God Complex at 2:21 AM on April 9, 2004
What SpaceCadet said, plus it would emphasise even further any dominating group characteristic. E.g. rightish, christianish threads getting a kicking off the bat, plus ratings given just to put the boot in on less popular members.
posted by biffa at 2:22 AM on April 9, 2004
posted by biffa at 2:22 AM on April 9, 2004
Language hat also made some good points, or was that Stella Artois? Maybe both.
posted by The God Complex at 2:27 AM on April 9, 2004
posted by The God Complex at 2:27 AM on April 9, 2004
That's why you wouldn't "rate" a thread -- you'd only get to express approval. You'd click [This is good] or you wouldn't. So next time someone (say, y2karl) posts something about Iraq, someone else (say, Seth) can't immediately bean his post -- because there's no beaning. Only approval.
posted by namespan at 2:29 AM on April 9, 2004
posted by namespan at 2:29 AM on April 9, 2004
[language hat is good]
posted by The God Complex at 2:34 AM on April 9, 2004
posted by The God Complex at 2:34 AM on April 9, 2004
can't immediately bean his post -- because there's no beaning.
We could, theoretically, still teabag the post though, right?
posted by yerfatma at 4:01 AM on April 9, 2004
We could, theoretically, still teabag the post though, right?
posted by yerfatma at 4:01 AM on April 9, 2004
Even think about it and I'll gut you from crotch to sternum like a trout.
Or not. I'm easy.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:04 AM on April 9, 2004
Or not. I'm easy.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:04 AM on April 9, 2004
Even think about it and I'll gut you from crotch to sternum like a trout.
Or not. I'm easy.
This confuses me a great deal, although trouts are delicious creatures and I hope you save some for me.
posted by The God Complex at 4:43 AM on April 9, 2004
Or not. I'm easy.
This confuses me a great deal, although trouts are delicious creatures and I hope you save some for me.
posted by The God Complex at 4:43 AM on April 9, 2004
I just don't understand the need to tinker with something that works as well as anything is going to work in this imperfect world. It's like my job: suddenly one day somebody decided things needed to be shaken up, we'd been using the same boring old-fashioned management structure (= hardly any management) for too long, and we needed a new layer of supervisors. So they promoted some editors to Supervisory Editors and brought in an outsider at the same level. Immediate result: everyone resented both the outsider and the promoted editors. Short-term result: confusion, unnecessary meetings, wasted time, hurt feelings. Long-term result: everything goes pretty much as before, except less efficiently and with extra resentment. (And of course the salaries for the unnecessary level of hierarchy means less money for the rest of us.) And that was a good outcome, compared to the range of possibilities.
Moral: Don't Fuck with MeFi!
The God Complex: Your reverence is appreciated. I appoint you Chief Hierarch of my cult. Sorry, wendell, I'm forced to withdraw from yours by popular demand.
posted by languagehat at 7:56 AM on April 9, 2004
Moral: Don't Fuck with MeFi!
The God Complex: Your reverence is appreciated. I appoint you Chief Hierarch of my cult. Sorry, wendell, I'm forced to withdraw from yours by popular demand.
posted by languagehat at 7:56 AM on April 9, 2004
you know, i thought my YetAnotherNewPonyRequest comment was, if not a classic, at least rated up there in terms of effort: gently and good-naturedly chiding the poster without casting aspersions on the suggestion. yet this morning i find a complete non-sequiter which is either unfathomable noodleheaded claptrap, some sidelong reference to trepanning, or perchance the medieval medical uses of leeches, possibly even a sequence of really lame (explained, no less) puns based on an ignorant but excusable pronunciation of my nick. how uh, poopy. but hey, like witty, it's probably his surname so we should wedge him some slack due to the primary school terrors he must have endured.
we now return to our ongoing reruns of the dissection of a malnourished but seemingly intact specimen of Ricus Condoleezium.
posted by quonsar at 8:07 AM on April 9, 2004
we now return to our ongoing reruns of the dissection of a malnourished but seemingly intact specimen of Ricus Condoleezium.
posted by quonsar at 8:07 AM on April 9, 2004
Nicht, nein, no, nope, no reason, no point, no guru, no method, no teacher.
I like the whole "make-up-your-own-mind" thing, and really, there aren't enough FPPs to make this a huge issue. Matt, if you want to play with something and see if it helps, well, I trust your judgement and all, but I just don't think it's needed.
posted by chicobangs at 8:16 AM on April 9, 2004
I like the whole "make-up-your-own-mind" thing, and really, there aren't enough FPPs to make this a huge issue. Matt, if you want to play with something and see if it helps, well, I trust your judgement and all, but I just don't think it's needed.
posted by chicobangs at 8:16 AM on April 9, 2004
Also, what i_cola, languagehat, and two thirds of the rest of the thread said.
posted by chicobangs at 8:17 AM on April 9, 2004
posted by chicobangs at 8:17 AM on April 9, 2004
I'm sick and tired of Seth and Albert Belle ruining Metatalk with their one-sided, axe-grinding, political, op/ed FPPs.
posted by Kwantsar at 8:18 AM on April 9, 2004
posted by Kwantsar at 8:18 AM on April 9, 2004
i don't know about a ratings system. seems to work well enough on its own so far. do we really want the slashdot-style "there are X FPPs below your current level of filter" on the page? and wouldn't that increase drain on an already straining server?
sounds like some of us want some kind of a meta-metafilter. y'know, filter out all the bad newbie posts, etc. and just get the juicy bits.
perhaps some kind of a classification for FPPs instead - if anything at all is actually needed - would be better. drop-down menu on the post page (hey, i haven't even seen what the post page looks like, so ignore me if there's one there) with some standard categories - NSFW, friday flash fun, politics, culture, photoshopped politicians, pepsi blue, and delete this thread immediately. who knows. then people interested in only subject X will be able to quickly screen out the politics ones, or the flash ones, or some such.
but i still think it's fine as-is. often by clicking i find a useful somethin'-or-other that i wouldn't have found otherwise. and my own personal filter seems to be nickname + previous post quality. that works pretty darn well on it's own, generally.
posted by caution live frogs at 8:43 AM on April 9, 2004
sounds like some of us want some kind of a meta-metafilter. y'know, filter out all the bad newbie posts, etc. and just get the juicy bits.
perhaps some kind of a classification for FPPs instead - if anything at all is actually needed - would be better. drop-down menu on the post page (hey, i haven't even seen what the post page looks like, so ignore me if there's one there) with some standard categories - NSFW, friday flash fun, politics, culture, photoshopped politicians, pepsi blue, and delete this thread immediately. who knows. then people interested in only subject X will be able to quickly screen out the politics ones, or the flash ones, or some such.
but i still think it's fine as-is. often by clicking i find a useful somethin'-or-other that i wouldn't have found otherwise. and my own personal filter seems to be nickname + previous post quality. that works pretty darn well on it's own, generally.
posted by caution live frogs at 8:43 AM on April 9, 2004
please mod parent down.
Hah! Exactly. Assuming you're agreeing with me. Otherwise, what a silly thing to say - I don't get it.
posted by freebird at 8:55 AM on April 9, 2004
Hah! Exactly. Assuming you're agreeing with me. Otherwise, what a silly thing to say - I don't get it.
posted by freebird at 8:55 AM on April 9, 2004
quonsar, I think Kwantsar is paying homage to you with his moniker. Isn't that sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet! I think you should publicly flog him for capitalizing it, tho; I'm sure he would appreciate it.
posted by ashbury at 9:12 AM on April 9, 2004
posted by ashbury at 9:12 AM on April 9, 2004
languagehat: I just don't understand the need to tinker with something that works as well as anything is going to work in this imperfect world.
I agree with the 'imperfect world' part. I don't get how you know that this is as good as it gets. I've lurked since mid-2002, and I don't remember ever there being formal devices being implemented, as is being suggested right now. I can only assume that you're superimposing outcomes from elsewhere. But Metafilter is a group blog with a large active population and a unique sense of community. Frankly, it's better to have a fixed test run than resignation. The ratings idea, as in scores (4/10), seems a bad idea, but a simple net hidden score, that simply helps suggest that these are the agreed-upon best posts, sounds a good idea.
posted by Gyan at 9:14 AM on April 9, 2004
I agree with the 'imperfect world' part. I don't get how you know that this is as good as it gets. I've lurked since mid-2002, and I don't remember ever there being formal devices being implemented, as is being suggested right now. I can only assume that you're superimposing outcomes from elsewhere. But Metafilter is a group blog with a large active population and a unique sense of community. Frankly, it's better to have a fixed test run than resignation. The ratings idea, as in scores (4/10), seems a bad idea, but a simple net hidden score, that simply helps suggest that these are the agreed-upon best posts, sounds a good idea.
posted by Gyan at 9:14 AM on April 9, 2004
Every post is sacred
Every post is great
If a post is rated
We get quite irate
posted by darukaru at 10:05 AM on April 9, 2004
Every post is great
If a post is rated
We get quite irate
posted by darukaru at 10:05 AM on April 9, 2004
…some standard categories - NSFW, friday flash fun, politics, culture, photoshopped politicians, pepsi blue, and delete this thread immediately.
And it should default to "delete this thread immediately" the way MetaTalk defaults to "bugs".
posted by timeistight at 10:16 AM on April 9, 2004
And it should default to "delete this thread immediately" the way MetaTalk defaults to "bugs".
posted by timeistight at 10:16 AM on April 9, 2004
Hi, long time reader, first time MetaTalker. Is there any validity to the idea of showing whether or not a thread is referenced in MetaTalk along with the "posted by..." stats on an FPP? This would probably help direct comments as to the merits of a thread to MetaTalk, could be made retroactive to all threads, and might be of use to prospective FPPers if they could look for threads referenced in MetaTalk given a search term relevant to the FPP they want to post. It might require some fine-tuning, i.e. only MetaTalk FPPs that reference the FPP itself would count, to prevent catfights from besmirching the honor of good threads. Any thoughts?
[Yes, I know I have 0 FPPs to my name]
posted by alphanerd at 10:30 AM on April 9, 2004
[Yes, I know I have 0 FPPs to my name]
posted by alphanerd at 10:30 AM on April 9, 2004
This is actually a reasonable use for the (temporarily offline) trackback technology. A very simple implementation: one more field on the MetaTalk posting page, named "Is this about a certain MetaFilter thread?", with a form input box into which you can put the thread number(s) you're complaining talking about. Then the fact that a thread has been cited in a MetaTalk thread could magically appear in the thread itself (with the rest of the trackbacks, or somewhere else).
Also, alphanerd: it would be nice, in my opinion (rarely-stated, oft-ignored), if the acronym "FPP" were deprecated. It's opaque, nondescriptive, and jingoistic. Plus, Matt's asked us not to use it.
posted by gleuschk at 11:30 AM on April 9, 2004
Also, alphanerd: it would be nice, in my opinion (rarely-stated, oft-ignored), if the acronym "FPP" were deprecated. It's opaque, nondescriptive, and jingoistic. Plus, Matt's asked us not to use it.
posted by gleuschk at 11:30 AM on April 9, 2004
quonsar, I think Kwantsar is paying homage
oh, im sure he is ashbury! and truly i love him for it. but what l has that got to do with poopy's comment?
posted by quonsar at 12:04 PM on April 9, 2004
oh, im sure he is ashbury! and truly i love him for it. but what l has that got to do with poopy's comment?
posted by quonsar at 12:04 PM on April 9, 2004
If the rating system is for poster feedback, shouldn't only the poster be able to see the result? Does a reader really need to see what other people think of an FPP? (I know I don't).
posted by Blue Stone at 12:19 PM on April 9, 2004
Thanks languagehat. I was just picking up the performance art trail where you were forced from the path, bravely fighting the forces of sobriety. If I'm going to head up your cult, however, you need to understand that I'll be acting in decidedly sneaky ways in order to turn you into a crazy liberal like myself.
I look forward to working/marching/killing the capitalist dogs with you.
-----
Oh, Quonsar was responding to something. I couldn't figure that comment out for the life of me, but only because I was trying to figure out when Ex-Cleveland Indian Albert Belle joined the fray.
posted by The God Complex at 12:21 PM on April 9, 2004
I look forward to working/marching/killing the capitalist dogs with you.
-----
Oh, Quonsar was responding to something. I couldn't figure that comment out for the life of me, but only because I was trying to figure out when Ex-Cleveland Indian Albert Belle joined the fray.
posted by The God Complex at 12:21 PM on April 9, 2004
Yeah, I was going to say something about corked bats, but it didn't fit with my artistic vision. But you read my mind and made an appropriate remark in my stead, like the excellent Hierarch I knew you'd be.
posted by languagehat at 5:08 PM on April 9, 2004
posted by languagehat at 5:08 PM on April 9, 2004
If the rating system is for poster feedback, shouldn't only the poster be able to see the result? Does a reader really need to see what other people think of an FPP? (I know I don't).
The goal isn't just to give warm fuzzies (or not) to the poster. The goal is to accurately amplify the community's signal about what a good post is... to everyone.
Letting only the poster see it *does* have a good point -- you can't post for the pride of getting a good score. But it would also make it so that those who post more rarely in the community wouldn't get the idea of what made a good post.
posted by namespan at 6:49 PM on April 9, 2004
The goal isn't just to give warm fuzzies (or not) to the poster. The goal is to accurately amplify the community's signal about what a good post is... to everyone.
Letting only the poster see it *does* have a good point -- you can't post for the pride of getting a good score. But it would also make it so that those who post more rarely in the community wouldn't get the idea of what made a good post.
posted by namespan at 6:49 PM on April 9, 2004
Instead of rating individual posts, can we rate days? Because today Metafilter is kicking all kinds of ass.
posted by furiousthought at 9:48 PM on April 9, 2004
posted by furiousthought at 9:48 PM on April 9, 2004
quonsar, absolutely nothing, as I didn't even see. You had me scratching my head and saying, "Poopy, now don't I know a Poopy from somewhere?" Then a brainstorm hit me and I looked upthread, and lo! there he was. It still made no sense, but I think he was being derogatory towards you and you should have Kwantsar kill him. Kwantsar should be eager to complete this task for you.
posted by ashbury at 10:46 PM on April 9, 2004
posted by ashbury at 10:46 PM on April 9, 2004
Kwantsar, there's really no need to be rude - I'm not trying to be mean to you or anything, I'm just saying that you might be willing to do such a thing for quonsar. And you get points for ass-berry, I haven't heard that one before and I like its lip-puckering attitude.
posted by ashbury at 11:08 PM on April 9, 2004
posted by ashbury at 11:08 PM on April 9, 2004
You've never been called ass-berry? That's strange... must've been in a really cool school as a kid; my last name Wittler was alternately turned into Hitler, Witless and Shittler more times than I can count. And, yes I've heard "whine-dull" too. (But if anybody else can come up with a genuinely new one, I'll sit back and take it like the dork that I am...)
posted by wendell at 12:30 PM on April 10, 2004
posted by wendell at 12:30 PM on April 10, 2004
Well, wendell, my last name isn't ashbury and the only place I use the name is here. I don't tend to piss people off and therefore rare is the opportunity to insultingly change the name around. I once was sarcastically (sp?) called "ashy", tho, and let me tell you, the mockery really hurt. I like this assberry, however. Now you know, shittler. :) Wendell, do you think I should be worried about Kwantsar's death threat? The way he said it, it just sounds so . . . serious and threatening or something.
posted by ashbury at 7:31 PM on April 10, 2004
posted by ashbury at 7:31 PM on April 10, 2004
ass-berry,
My serious threats are not spent on Canadians.
This "Witty" chap, on the other hand...
posted by Kwantsar at 8:32 PM on April 10, 2004
My serious threats are not spent on Canadians.
This "Witty" chap, on the other hand...
posted by Kwantsar at 8:32 PM on April 10, 2004
Indeed, if witty is somebody you need to go after, don't let little old me stop you. Go nuts.
posted by ashbury at 7:39 PM on April 11, 2004
posted by ashbury at 7:39 PM on April 11, 2004
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by trondant at 5:38 PM on April 8, 2004