Too stupid for askme? April 16, 2004 10:42 AM Subscribe
How do you decide if you askmefi question is too stupid? [more inside]
Not that this would ever happen
It will never happen, thus the question is moot from the get go. I vote too stupid since it doesn't matter what the answer is.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:52 AM on April 16, 2004
It will never happen, thus the question is moot from the get go. I vote too stupid since it doesn't matter what the answer is.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:52 AM on April 16, 2004
...And, are we supposed to decide for you if this question is too stupid or answer it? Or am I being too stupid now?
posted by jmd82 at 10:53 AM on April 16, 2004
posted by jmd82 at 10:53 AM on April 16, 2004
drezdn, I was always under the impression that zombies were pretty easy to fight off - nothing like a werewolf or a vampire, for example. Should I be more worried than I am? I have absolutely no zombie preparedness structures in place.
posted by taz at 10:56 AM on April 16, 2004
posted by taz at 10:56 AM on April 16, 2004
I vote too stupid since it doesn't matter what the answer is.
Put the question in the context of, "I'm writing a novel, and am trying to figure out how to..."
Would that be a more legitimate question?
posted by o2b at 10:58 AM on April 16, 2004
Put the question in the context of, "I'm writing a novel, and am trying to figure out how to..."
Would that be a more legitimate question?
posted by o2b at 10:58 AM on April 16, 2004
it's been bothering me all day
::blinks::
Wow, you've got a lot of time to waste.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 11:00 AM on April 16, 2004
::blinks::
Wow, you've got a lot of time to waste.
posted by GhostintheMachine at 11:00 AM on April 16, 2004
I'm curious as to what people think would be the best way to survive a zombie attack . . .
So am I.
It really depends. If they're traditional slow zombies, you just stay calm and walk right through them, occasionally dispatching one with a well placed kick, or blow to the head, or round of ammo. Panicking and overreacting will only get you a death that is ironic in proportion to your hysteria. Reference: Patricia Tallman in the remake of Dawn of the Dead (not as artsy as the original, but superior in certain ways, in my opinion.)
If they're fast zombies, like in the new Night of the Living Dead remake . . . well, then you're pretty much screwed, aren't you?
It will never happen, thus the question is moot from the get go.
What if the question were posed by a writer looking for advice/ideas? [On preview: o2b!]
posted by Shane at 11:02 AM on April 16, 2004
So am I.
It really depends. If they're traditional slow zombies, you just stay calm and walk right through them, occasionally dispatching one with a well placed kick, or blow to the head, or round of ammo. Panicking and overreacting will only get you a death that is ironic in proportion to your hysteria. Reference: Patricia Tallman in the remake of Dawn of the Dead (not as artsy as the original, but superior in certain ways, in my opinion.)
If they're fast zombies, like in the new Night of the Living Dead remake . . . well, then you're pretty much screwed, aren't you?
It will never happen, thus the question is moot from the get go.
What if the question were posed by a writer looking for advice/ideas? [On preview: o2b!]
posted by Shane at 11:02 AM on April 16, 2004
There have been a bunch of "this is making me crazy" questions recently. This one is a good example. The names of the Gilligan's Island characters and the whats-that-tune-all-the-kids-are-singing question was the same. I think you guys are all experiencing some kind of obssessive panic, akin to what one feels when a word is on the tip of the tongue but won't come to mind. This emotion is not to be confused with a burning need to know, and I get a little weary of seeing "this has been making be crazy all day" as some kind of qualification for the question.
posted by scarabic at 11:18 AM on April 16, 2004
posted by scarabic at 11:18 AM on April 16, 2004
This is bizarre. First you ask us how to decide if a question is too stupid for AskMe. Here's my answer - If you're worried about it, then the question IS probably too stupid to ask... or at least it's not so critical that you can probably skip it.
Then, you post the first comment with the actual question. So not only have we skipped the original point of the thread, but now the thread is out of place and should be in AskMe, even though it is too stupid to ask. O2b makes a very good suggestion though.
And now for my Zombie answer (because how can one resist). :)
Zombies are notoriuosly slow. So I can't see how someone couldn't just outrun them... outspeed-walk for that matter. Unless you're literally surrounded by zombies, then avoiding conflict with them is painfully easy. But if I had to choose a hand-weapon to fight them with, I'd choose a chainsaw. It's messy and efficient and they can't really grab it. My second choice would be a vehicle of some sort. Driving full bore through posse of zombies would be fun and exciting.
posted by Witty at 11:24 AM on April 16, 2004
Then, you post the first comment with the actual question. So not only have we skipped the original point of the thread, but now the thread is out of place and should be in AskMe, even though it is too stupid to ask. O2b makes a very good suggestion though.
And now for my Zombie answer (because how can one resist). :)
Zombies are notoriuosly slow. So I can't see how someone couldn't just outrun them... outspeed-walk for that matter. Unless you're literally surrounded by zombies, then avoiding conflict with them is painfully easy. But if I had to choose a hand-weapon to fight them with, I'd choose a chainsaw. It's messy and efficient and they can't really grab it. My second choice would be a vehicle of some sort. Driving full bore through posse of zombies would be fun and exciting.
posted by Witty at 11:24 AM on April 16, 2004
This is obviously a roundabout way of going ahead and asking a very stupid open-ended slow day question that would be otherwise nixed from askmefi. As such, this whole thread springs from either an act of malice or stupidity. If you really must have an answer, I recommend the ask section from bizarre magazine (www.bizarremag.com), since not even outlandish/what if musings such as yours seem too extreme for them.
posted by 111 at 11:28 AM on April 16, 2004
posted by 111 at 11:28 AM on April 16, 2004
if i would post it to one of the various email lists of friends i'm on, just to make conversation, i wouldn't post it to ask.metafilter. (this particular question has been fodder for those lists before; my answers: the no-touch jacket, heavy clothes and the home-made flamethrowers we made in college, as well as a pick-axe. i'm just not that good a shot.)
if i have done a quick search of the usual internet suspects, and asked the aforementioned lists for answers, and still don't have a good lead, then i'd ask.me.
but that's just my policy.
posted by crush-onastick at 11:42 AM on April 16, 2004
if i have done a quick search of the usual internet suspects, and asked the aforementioned lists for answers, and still don't have a good lead, then i'd ask.me.
but that's just my policy.
posted by crush-onastick at 11:42 AM on April 16, 2004
...the home-made flamethrowers we made in college...
I'd like to hear more about these. Should I AskMe?
posted by Shane at 11:46 AM on April 16, 2004
I'd like to hear more about these. Should I AskMe?
posted by Shane at 11:46 AM on April 16, 2004
I vote too stupid since it doesn't matter what the answer is.
Doesn't matter to whom? It doesn't matter to me (or to you, apparently), but then, neither do many of the answers to many AskMe questions. If it didn't matter to the person asking the question, would they have bothered to ask it? This seems a pretty poor criterion to use to assess a question's appropriateness to AskMe. If someone wants to know something, for whatever reasons of their own, is it really important that we judge their question using our own beliefs, interests, and preconceptions? Isn't that akin to telling them they have no business being curious or seeking answers on their topic of interest? Or is the old saying that "there's no such thing as a stupid question" simply false?
posted by rushmc at 11:52 AM on April 16, 2004
Doesn't matter to whom? It doesn't matter to me (or to you, apparently), but then, neither do many of the answers to many AskMe questions. If it didn't matter to the person asking the question, would they have bothered to ask it? This seems a pretty poor criterion to use to assess a question's appropriateness to AskMe. If someone wants to know something, for whatever reasons of their own, is it really important that we judge their question using our own beliefs, interests, and preconceptions? Isn't that akin to telling them they have no business being curious or seeking answers on their topic of interest? Or is the old saying that "there's no such thing as a stupid question" simply false?
posted by rushmc at 11:52 AM on April 16, 2004
Or is the old saying that "there's no such thing as a stupid question" simply false?
That saying only applies in context. In this specific context, I agree with others that it's a stupid question.
Are people running out of useful (read: practical, applicable in realistic situations) questions and now simply asking the first question that pops in their heads?
When I pee, should I hold my dick, or simply let it flail about? - joke
posted by BlueTrain at 12:01 PM on April 16, 2004
That saying only applies in context. In this specific context, I agree with others that it's a stupid question.
Are people running out of useful (read: practical, applicable in realistic situations) questions and now simply asking the first question that pops in their heads?
When I pee, should I hold my dick, or simply let it flail about? - joke
posted by BlueTrain at 12:01 PM on April 16, 2004
Like most problems in this world, zombie attacks are easily addressed by asking yourself, "What would Michael Jackson do?" Get your groove on, baby. Everyone knows zombies are unable to resist the lure of the group dance.
posted by Galvatron at 12:08 PM on April 16, 2004
posted by Galvatron at 12:08 PM on April 16, 2004
Or is the old saying that "there's no such thing as a stupid question" simply false?
It is, and with all due respect your own question posted above is proof. What you're implying is that anything goes as long as it is motivated by genuine curiosity.
This is mostly wrong because discourse, to be productive, is necessarily limited in scope and relevance, and the way I see it, there seems to be a clear policy for the ask section("Ask MetaFilter is a discussion area for sharing knowledge among members of MetaFilter") which automatically excludes some kinds of question.
The fact is that even the author of the question admitted he was unsure about the validity of consulting people on the vulnerabilities of the undead and so on. It reminded me of those prank letters people have sent to various prisons worldwide saying they were about to go to jail and asking why everybody kept warning him not to drop his soapbar etc etc.
posted by 111 at 12:15 PM on April 16, 2004
It is, and with all due respect your own question posted above is proof. What you're implying is that anything goes as long as it is motivated by genuine curiosity.
This is mostly wrong because discourse, to be productive, is necessarily limited in scope and relevance, and the way I see it, there seems to be a clear policy for the ask section("Ask MetaFilter is a discussion area for sharing knowledge among members of MetaFilter") which automatically excludes some kinds of question.
The fact is that even the author of the question admitted he was unsure about the validity of consulting people on the vulnerabilities of the undead and so on. It reminded me of those prank letters people have sent to various prisons worldwide saying they were about to go to jail and asking why everybody kept warning him not to drop his soapbar etc etc.
posted by 111 at 12:15 PM on April 16, 2004
rushmc just likes to argue. It's a stupid question, as written.
posted by Witty at 12:22 PM on April 16, 2004
posted by Witty at 12:22 PM on April 16, 2004
A MacGyver-style potato gun might be cool... if for nothing more than to bring in the unexpected.
posted by Witty at 12:31 PM on April 16, 2004
posted by Witty at 12:31 PM on April 16, 2004
rushmc - Unless you're scripting a movie or something, I cannot imagine the answer to this question matters to anyone. It deals with purely fantastic situations, and asks for some kind of "judgement call" about them. In other words, since there are no fucking zombies, anyone claiming to know the "best" way to fight them is just pulling the conversational pud. It doesn't even rise to the level of speculation.
As a writer, I can think of lots of fantastical questions to ask people, so as to gague audience reaction to something. For example: "What's the likeliest, most believeable way for a woman to kill a man in his sleep?" I might toss something like that up *if* I were actually writing it, so as to get suggestions on credibility. I would be actually trying to solve a problem. This question, as is, just lubes a mere wank with primordial sci fi ooze. It's as valid as asking "Who would win in a fight: Popeye or Shrek?" Who knows/cares?
I thought the saying was: "There are no stupid questions, only stupid people."
posted by scarabic at 12:32 PM on April 16, 2004
As a writer, I can think of lots of fantastical questions to ask people, so as to gague audience reaction to something. For example: "What's the likeliest, most believeable way for a woman to kill a man in his sleep?" I might toss something like that up *if* I were actually writing it, so as to get suggestions on credibility. I would be actually trying to solve a problem. This question, as is, just lubes a mere wank with primordial sci fi ooze. It's as valid as asking "Who would win in a fight: Popeye or Shrek?" Who knows/cares?
I thought the saying was: "There are no stupid questions, only stupid people."
posted by scarabic at 12:32 PM on April 16, 2004
my own personal pet peeve du jour is the "what should i buy my ______ for ______ occasion?" question.
posted by judith at 12:43 PM on April 16, 2004
posted by judith at 12:43 PM on April 16, 2004
it's been bothering me all day
::blinks::
Wow, you've got a lot of time to waste.
either that, or zombies have actually been trying to break into his house, you cynical man
posted by matteo at 1:11 PM on April 16, 2004
::blinks::
Wow, you've got a lot of time to waste.
either that, or zombies have actually been trying to break into his house, you cynical man
posted by matteo at 1:11 PM on April 16, 2004
shane--
the anarchists cookbook or any "updated"/"the real"/"the modern"/"outlaw" boyscouts handbook has the step-by-step instructions. i'm sure they're out there on teh intarweb somewhere. aren't they mentioned in fight club the novel?
we used supersoakers, which melted pretty fast. i don't recommend it, but in the case of zombies, why not?
posted by crush-onastick at 1:26 PM on April 16, 2004
the anarchists cookbook or any "updated"/"the real"/"the modern"/"outlaw" boyscouts handbook has the step-by-step instructions. i'm sure they're out there on teh intarweb somewhere. aren't they mentioned in fight club the novel?
we used supersoakers, which melted pretty fast. i don't recommend it, but in the case of zombies, why not?
posted by crush-onastick at 1:26 PM on April 16, 2004
Had this question been honestly asked and answered on AskMe, the thread would've probably brightened my day considerably.
Instead, there's a thread with people falling all over themselves to denounce how stupid the question is, and showing off as much contempt and scorn as they can.
wanna take a guess at which one would make MeFi a better place?
posted by GeekAnimator at 1:26 PM on April 16, 2004
Instead, there's a thread with people falling all over themselves to denounce how stupid the question is, and showing off as much contempt and scorn as they can.
wanna take a guess at which one would make MeFi a better place?
posted by GeekAnimator at 1:26 PM on April 16, 2004
Had you ravaged your neighborhood and stolen car stereos, you'd possibly have had some fun.
Instead, there are cops falling over yourself to arrest you and make it clear that you've committed a crime.
Wanna take a guess at which one would make the world a better place?
Actually, what I sometimes detect here is that people will do their best to turn MeFi into a chatty/pally/cliquish place where folks of a common persuasion can show up and socialize with no fear of being challenged or contradicted. While the site belongs to the Haughey Corp., I see it rather as place to discuss and, with some luck, learn in an entertaining, engaging, intellectually stimulating way. As I said previously, questions like drezdn's are either self-servicing or disingenuous.
posted by 111 at 1:48 PM on April 16, 2004
Instead, there are cops falling over yourself to arrest you and make it clear that you've committed a crime.
Wanna take a guess at which one would make the world a better place?
Actually, what I sometimes detect here is that people will do their best to turn MeFi into a chatty/pally/cliquish place where folks of a common persuasion can show up and socialize with no fear of being challenged or contradicted. While the site belongs to the Haughey Corp., I see it rather as place to discuss and, with some luck, learn in an entertaining, engaging, intellectually stimulating way. As I said previously, questions like drezdn's are either self-servicing or disingenuous.
posted by 111 at 1:48 PM on April 16, 2004
Note: images are links to cross-sections of bullets fired into blocks of gelatin with the consistency of flesh, and may not be entirely safe for work or suitable for the squeamish. No blood or gore, though, I assure you.
Warning: I am an amateur enthusiast on this topic, for even better answers read anything by Dr. Martin L. Fackler
but it's been bothering me all day as to what the best anti-zombie weapon would be
There is actually something useful to be learned by this question as I will attempt to demonstrate. Modern wound theory tends to rest on an entirely different set of assumptions and goals than that of wound theory circa World War II. There is a definite answer to which version wound theory would be much more conducive to slaying any creature (fantastical or not) for whom bleeding, pain, shock from blood loss, and fear of death are not factors. In real life an army on sufficient stimulatory drugs may embody these characteristics - expect to see advancements along these lines in the next couple decades.
In modern wound theory, the objective is not to actually kill your opponent - you may think this spectacularly obtuse on the face of it, but consider - research by the US Armed Forces reveals that for every enemy injured, 2-3 people were effectively removed from active opposition in order to treat the injured person. However if you kill an opponent, you have only removed one person from the force actively opposing you.
With this change in philosophy came a revolution in which types of wounds were preferable - and thus which types of bullets were used. Whereas earlier in the era of WWII and before it was considered preferable to hit an opponent with a slower, heavier projectile - one where the term 'man-stopper' was as descriptive as it was accurate, this is no longer the case. Simply increasing kinetic energy transfer (it is rarely 100%) by using larger rounds is no longer enough - rather, a major goal is to maximize the internal surface area of the wound using the least wound volume. To that end, modern NATO rounds (5.56x45mm) fragment once they have penetrated 2-4 inches of flesh.
Velocity versus fragmentation in modern M855 (5.56x45mm for the M16A2, A3, and A4)
The rounds used in the early years of the Vietnam war and before - 7.62x51mm on the side of the WWII allies, and 7.92 for Germany - do not exhibit this behavior.
It's also worth noting some of the other changes that have been made - older wound theory did not account for the modern proliferation of ballistic (aka 'bulletproof') vests. Modern wound theory, if anything, is far too ready to assume the presence of such. This also changes the bullet being used - when it comes to penetration of anything there is one simple rule: velocity is nearly the only factor worth considering. Unfortunately this being reality, we are still bound by the rule that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction - and high mass + high velocity = way too much recoil for a soldier to handle on full auto, not to mention the tendency of said recoil to cause soldiers to develop nasty pre-firing flinches in their shooting cycles.
Thus the adoption of modern low-mass high-velocity and fragmenting bullets. More painful? Yes. More lethal? No.
Suffice it to say that any 'zombie' in the classical sense, or for our purposes a squad of soldiers amped on something along the lines of PCP (or for a real-life example, Somalian guerillas with their senses deadened by chewing khat all day), modern wound theory isn't very helpful.
What we want are rounds that provide maximum impact, lots of trauma via large cross-sections, and an effect known as hydrostatic shock. If memory serves (we are approaching the limits of my knowledge on this topic) hydrostatic shock is tissue trauma resulting from a bullet passing through flesh at velocities greater than the speed of sound through the medium of flesh (the speed of sound varies depending on the medium said sound is in). The resulting cavitation of flesh is brutal, violent, and altogether a nasty thing to experience first-hand by all accounts. Some of the highest-power rounds currently employed by the US military (the 30mm depleted uranium rounds fired by the A-10 Warthog) can kill you without even touching you simply by hydrostatic shock imparted by the shockwave in the bullet's wake.
So to finally answer your question: early Cold War pieces, select-fire shotguns, and extremely high-power weapons would be the order of the day.
(For those of you about to correct me on shotguns - bear in mind the Pancor Jackhammer and H&K CAWS were never actually mass-produced. Thanks.)
Hopefully this answers your question. I would have enjoyed commenting on this in AskMeFi, but I guess we'll never know now, will we?
posted by Ryvar at 2:01 PM on April 16, 2004 [2 favorites]
Warning: I am an amateur enthusiast on this topic, for even better answers read anything by Dr. Martin L. Fackler
but it's been bothering me all day as to what the best anti-zombie weapon would be
There is actually something useful to be learned by this question as I will attempt to demonstrate. Modern wound theory tends to rest on an entirely different set of assumptions and goals than that of wound theory circa World War II. There is a definite answer to which version wound theory would be much more conducive to slaying any creature (fantastical or not) for whom bleeding, pain, shock from blood loss, and fear of death are not factors. In real life an army on sufficient stimulatory drugs may embody these characteristics - expect to see advancements along these lines in the next couple decades.
In modern wound theory, the objective is not to actually kill your opponent - you may think this spectacularly obtuse on the face of it, but consider - research by the US Armed Forces reveals that for every enemy injured, 2-3 people were effectively removed from active opposition in order to treat the injured person. However if you kill an opponent, you have only removed one person from the force actively opposing you.
With this change in philosophy came a revolution in which types of wounds were preferable - and thus which types of bullets were used. Whereas earlier in the era of WWII and before it was considered preferable to hit an opponent with a slower, heavier projectile - one where the term 'man-stopper' was as descriptive as it was accurate, this is no longer the case. Simply increasing kinetic energy transfer (it is rarely 100%) by using larger rounds is no longer enough - rather, a major goal is to maximize the internal surface area of the wound using the least wound volume. To that end, modern NATO rounds (5.56x45mm) fragment once they have penetrated 2-4 inches of flesh.
Velocity versus fragmentation in modern M855 (5.56x45mm for the M16A2, A3, and A4)
The rounds used in the early years of the Vietnam war and before - 7.62x51mm on the side of the WWII allies, and 7.92 for Germany - do not exhibit this behavior.
It's also worth noting some of the other changes that have been made - older wound theory did not account for the modern proliferation of ballistic (aka 'bulletproof') vests. Modern wound theory, if anything, is far too ready to assume the presence of such. This also changes the bullet being used - when it comes to penetration of anything there is one simple rule: velocity is nearly the only factor worth considering. Unfortunately this being reality, we are still bound by the rule that for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction - and high mass + high velocity = way too much recoil for a soldier to handle on full auto, not to mention the tendency of said recoil to cause soldiers to develop nasty pre-firing flinches in their shooting cycles.
Thus the adoption of modern low-mass high-velocity and fragmenting bullets. More painful? Yes. More lethal? No.
Suffice it to say that any 'zombie' in the classical sense, or for our purposes a squad of soldiers amped on something along the lines of PCP (or for a real-life example, Somalian guerillas with their senses deadened by chewing khat all day), modern wound theory isn't very helpful.
What we want are rounds that provide maximum impact, lots of trauma via large cross-sections, and an effect known as hydrostatic shock. If memory serves (we are approaching the limits of my knowledge on this topic) hydrostatic shock is tissue trauma resulting from a bullet passing through flesh at velocities greater than the speed of sound through the medium of flesh (the speed of sound varies depending on the medium said sound is in). The resulting cavitation of flesh is brutal, violent, and altogether a nasty thing to experience first-hand by all accounts. Some of the highest-power rounds currently employed by the US military (the 30mm depleted uranium rounds fired by the A-10 Warthog) can kill you without even touching you simply by hydrostatic shock imparted by the shockwave in the bullet's wake.
So to finally answer your question: early Cold War pieces, select-fire shotguns, and extremely high-power weapons would be the order of the day.
(For those of you about to correct me on shotguns - bear in mind the Pancor Jackhammer and H&K CAWS were never actually mass-produced. Thanks.)
Hopefully this answers your question. I would have enjoyed commenting on this in AskMeFi, but I guess we'll never know now, will we?
posted by Ryvar at 2:01 PM on April 16, 2004 [2 favorites]
Just for the record I disagree with putting a question here ...
... but in order to get this straight, have we considered that these are presumably supernatural creatures, and while a spas-15 (as per ryvar's excellent links) may offer some relief, things like holy water or powder of ibn'gaza (substitute generic anti-zombie powder if not available) may be, in the long run, more efficient.
(also, I believe that survival research labs used to have hobbyist flamethrower plans on the web somewhere, I'll try to find them)
posted by milovoo at 2:39 PM on April 16, 2004
... but in order to get this straight, have we considered that these are presumably supernatural creatures, and while a spas-15 (as per ryvar's excellent links) may offer some relief, things like holy water or powder of ibn'gaza (substitute generic anti-zombie powder if not available) may be, in the long run, more efficient.
(also, I believe that survival research labs used to have hobbyist flamethrower plans on the web somewhere, I'll try to find them)
posted by milovoo at 2:39 PM on April 16, 2004
drezdn = clever MeFite who asks AskMe questions in MeTa.
posted by Shane at 2:52 PM on April 16, 2004
posted by Shane at 2:52 PM on April 16, 2004
For those of you pooh-poohing the pooh-poohing of this stupid question, he did ask whether it was stupid or not.
posted by scarabic at 2:58 PM on April 16, 2004
posted by scarabic at 2:58 PM on April 16, 2004
This is the kind of question best left for late nights of drinking and cards. There, your question would rouse much mirth and merriment, to the point where even the most cantankerous would delve deep into his stores of fantasical science-fiction knowledge, giving a unique and disturbingly well-planned plan in the event of a massive uprising of our dead.
Here, however, you're just playing the fool, fool.
posted by The God Complex at 3:25 PM on April 16, 2004
Here, however, you're just playing the fool, fool.
posted by The God Complex at 3:25 PM on April 16, 2004
Sorry, I just wanted to say "well-planned plan" for some reason.
posted by The God Complex at 3:26 PM on April 16, 2004
posted by The God Complex at 3:26 PM on April 16, 2004
My underlying question, I suppose being, whether askmefi can be used to ask broad philosophical questions (say "if someone can see the future, does that mean there is no free will?"), or if it is only for questions of the "How do I unclog my drain?" sort.
posted by drezdn at 3:36 PM on April 16, 2004
posted by drezdn at 3:36 PM on April 16, 2004
that's still being debated, drezdn..most of us like all the differing types of questions, i think.
posted by amberglow at 3:48 PM on April 16, 2004
posted by amberglow at 3:48 PM on April 16, 2004
Bollocks to zombies, there must be a better way of defending a Blockade runner from ingress by storm troopers through a single entrance.
posted by biffa at 4:05 PM on April 16, 2004
posted by biffa at 4:05 PM on April 16, 2004
111, quit being such a dick, please; I'm beggin' your ass (since that tends to be where anything human about your personality resides). Yes this would have been a stupid question for AskMeFi. But just have some fun for once, won't you, please? And get offa' everybody else's back. You live in the same world we do; you just have to cope with the fact that most of us don't like you very much. You're really not very likable. That's not a point of honor for a social animal, it's a point of shame. That you don't get that is really very sad.
(Knowing full well that there will never be any understanding in the anal world of all primes, I have to wonder if 111 isn't one of us, but really a zombie, attempting to lull or misdirect our attention for his brain-munching pleasure. Beware people ... to him, you are soylent green!)
As to the question:
Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:06 PM on April 16, 2004
(Knowing full well that there will never be any understanding in the anal world of all primes, I have to wonder if 111 isn't one of us, but really a zombie, attempting to lull or misdirect our attention for his brain-munching pleasure. Beware people ... to him, you are soylent green!)
As to the question:
Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:06 PM on April 16, 2004
(Wulfgar! about 111) You're really not very likable. That's not a point of honor for a social animal, it's a point of shame. That you don't get that is really very sad.
Jeez Wulfgar!, in my world, I like people I meet face to face. I hate people I meet face to face. The internet is great for exchanging ideas and communicating with people from all over the world. It's interesting, fun, informative. However, I don't confuse my social life with using Metafilter. That is really very sad.
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:22 PM on April 16, 2004
Jeez Wulfgar!, in my world, I like people I meet face to face. I hate people I meet face to face. The internet is great for exchanging ideas and communicating with people from all over the world. It's interesting, fun, informative. However, I don't confuse my social life with using Metafilter. That is really very sad.
posted by SpaceCadet at 4:22 PM on April 16, 2004
"I don't confuse my social life with using Metafilter. That is really very sad."
*checks social calendar, finds it empty*
*checks posting history*
*kills himself*
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:32 PM on April 16, 2004
*checks social calendar, finds it empty*
*checks posting history*
*kills himself*
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:32 PM on April 16, 2004
I hate people I meet face to face.
I wonder if that has anything to do with your broad, sweeping hatred of women?
That is really very sad.
Juxtaposed against your previous comment, we find ourselves at an interesting place: do we laugh quietly or loudly?
posted by The God Complex at 4:39 PM on April 16, 2004
I wonder if that has anything to do with your broad, sweeping hatred of women?
That is really very sad.
Juxtaposed against your previous comment, we find ourselves at an interesting place: do we laugh quietly or loudly?
posted by The God Complex at 4:39 PM on April 16, 2004
However, I don't confuse my social life with using Metafilter.
SpaceCadet, I proclaim (with a few derisive chuckles) that if you look at my history here, you'll find that I've learned not to confuse my dealings on MetaFilter with anything in my real life, save what nuggets of knowledge can be gleaned. This isn't emotional for me, though I think that much of it is for you (especially as regards your opinions of the fairer sex). Which is why I have no difficulty whatsoever in asking 111 to lighten up on the assumptions and condescension. 111 wants this to be all about reason and the little rooms he constructs in his head. No thank you. Sometimes, this place will be silly and out of place.
I've no difficulty with that. I guess that just makes me a very poor member of the Mefi police force. So I will try to improve. Damn you, damn you Drezdn. Damn you straight to hell, you zombie worried freak. Damn your waste of everybody's bandwidth. Damn your stupid and silly questions. Damn your refusal to follow the herd, and fall in line, and listen to the collective. No assimilation for you until you do as the "WE" wish. Damn you.
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:07 PM on April 16, 2004
SpaceCadet, I proclaim (with a few derisive chuckles) that if you look at my history here, you'll find that I've learned not to confuse my dealings on MetaFilter with anything in my real life, save what nuggets of knowledge can be gleaned. This isn't emotional for me, though I think that much of it is for you (especially as regards your opinions of the fairer sex). Which is why I have no difficulty whatsoever in asking 111 to lighten up on the assumptions and condescension. 111 wants this to be all about reason and the little rooms he constructs in his head. No thank you. Sometimes, this place will be silly and out of place.
I've no difficulty with that. I guess that just makes me a very poor member of the Mefi police force. So I will try to improve. Damn you, damn you Drezdn. Damn you straight to hell, you zombie worried freak. Damn your waste of everybody's bandwidth. Damn your stupid and silly questions. Damn your refusal to follow the herd, and fall in line, and listen to the collective. No assimilation for you until you do as the "WE" wish. Damn you.
posted by Wulfgar! at 5:07 PM on April 16, 2004
Wulfgar, honestly, I kind of like you, you know? I suppose you people (you know who you are) daydream about lecturing me on the joys of having "fun". As a matter of fact, I do think casual chit-chat has a place: it belongs on #mefi or even general message boards. I Love Everything is a great example of a site where people are civil, conversational and do not take things very seriously.
On the other hand, I think there is an ongoing attempt, if I may use your comparison, to turn all users of MeFi into mindless zombies who say absolutely the same things and possess the same left of center/homosexual worldview. In my mind, some of you look like gay zombies with a "Kerry 2004" t-shirt.
You live in the same world we do
Je ne crois pas.
you just have to cope with the fact that most of us don't like you very much
But what makes you think I don't cope with it? If there is one single thing anyone can safely assume about me is that I care more for what I consider to be the truth than for people's reactions to it. Your remark is yet another ad hominem attack that fails to see the obvious.
You're really not very likable. That's not a point of honor for a social animal, it's a point of shame.
Not really. I'm a political animal, not a social animal. You want to be popular among people whose opinion you respect. If, say, a radical feminist disagrees with me, do you really think I'm disappointed? Consider the famous Woody Allen saying: "whenever some critics praise one of my movies, I wonder where did I go wrong."
It's amazing how you're willing to derail the entire thread and apparently absolve an idiotic question just to ramble on how 111 is unlikable etc etc. How hard is it for you to simply ignore me?
posted by 111 at 5:09 PM on April 16, 2004
On the other hand, I think there is an ongoing attempt, if I may use your comparison, to turn all users of MeFi into mindless zombies who say absolutely the same things and possess the same left of center/homosexual worldview. In my mind, some of you look like gay zombies with a "Kerry 2004" t-shirt.
You live in the same world we do
Je ne crois pas.
you just have to cope with the fact that most of us don't like you very much
But what makes you think I don't cope with it? If there is one single thing anyone can safely assume about me is that I care more for what I consider to be the truth than for people's reactions to it. Your remark is yet another ad hominem attack that fails to see the obvious.
You're really not very likable. That's not a point of honor for a social animal, it's a point of shame.
Not really. I'm a political animal, not a social animal. You want to be popular among people whose opinion you respect. If, say, a radical feminist disagrees with me, do you really think I'm disappointed? Consider the famous Woody Allen saying: "whenever some critics praise one of my movies, I wonder where did I go wrong."
It's amazing how you're willing to derail the entire thread and apparently absolve an idiotic question just to ramble on how 111 is unlikable etc etc. How hard is it for you to simply ignore me?
posted by 111 at 5:09 PM on April 16, 2004
My underlying question, I suppose being, whether askmefi can be used to ask broad philosophical questions ... or if it is only for questions of the "How do I unclog my drain?" sort.
The implication being that "what people think would be the best way to survive a zombie attack" is a broad philosophical question?
*brain explodes before zombies can get it*
posted by languagehat at 5:51 PM on April 16, 2004
The implication being that "what people think would be the best way to survive a zombie attack" is a broad philosophical question?
*brain explodes before zombies can get it*
posted by languagehat at 5:51 PM on April 16, 2004
How hard is it for you to simply ignore me?
Considering my disclaimers, that's an oddly hypocritical question. *chuckle*
If you buy into Aristotilian definitions at all, Mr. Political Animal, than you know that acquiescence is purchased with camaraderie of well spoken experience. That's not being sheep, that's being what you also are ... a social animal.
If you'll take a look, I never asked you to attempt to be popular, I asked you to quit being a dick, which I'm sure most of us here understand. I'm sorry that you don't. Maybe modern science can come up with a med for that. However, it might turn you into a zombie, so think twice about taking it. Then we'd have to stop you, and gee, wouldn't it be nice if we knew how? Thanks, Drezdn! You've pointed out the integral weakness of our defense against 111.
I'm also sorry that we're all trying so hard to convert you to our homolefty democratic wingbat viewpoint. I understand that that's why you can't understand the difference between being civil and being a dick. I didn't understand either until I took the big hard up the rectum. But now that I have, I understand that homothink is the right mindset, and we should all just have fun, and furthermore, I need to convert 111 to the homoway of leftythink. Join us, join us. Are you hypnotized to our leftyhomothink yet? 'Cause this is hard, the whole converting you and all. And I really just want to have immoral fun, and derail this thread and call people names. Just because I like the words ad hominem, you know, I like to do that, even though, you know, an ad hominem is a fallacy that you don't seem to understand at all.
You see, you said that the zombie question was stupid for AskMefi. I agreed. But I called you a dick. Therefore I was obviously arguing against your righteous dictate. I'm sorry. I should have known better than to state that your opinion about Mefi's homoleftiness was above derisive approach. I shouldn't have pointed out that your opinion came from your arrogant and oppressive (not to mention completely full of shit) nature. That was ad hominem, and wasn't moral. I was so wrong that I will now agree with you stridently. MeFi is a homolefty playground and you people should just agree with the insults leveled against you from 111. You Homos! You Leftys! You people who don't see that you've been attacked ad "homo"minem because you just want to attack 111 ad hominem. How dare you? You homoleftys!
Homoleftys!
There, 111, do you see that I've come to our point of view? You've won me over. We must insult to succeed. And we must not derail the thread that says that homolefties aren't allowed to have fun when we're trying to be oh so serious here. In fact, I am so seduced by your charms that I want you. I want you now. Please take your throbbing member and put it up my homolefty bum that I may be your sheep instead of a member of the Metafilter flock.
Jesus Christ, dude. Could you be more full of shit?
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:35 PM on April 16, 2004
Considering my disclaimers, that's an oddly hypocritical question. *chuckle*
If you buy into Aristotilian definitions at all, Mr. Political Animal, than you know that acquiescence is purchased with camaraderie of well spoken experience. That's not being sheep, that's being what you also are ... a social animal.
If you'll take a look, I never asked you to attempt to be popular, I asked you to quit being a dick, which I'm sure most of us here understand. I'm sorry that you don't. Maybe modern science can come up with a med for that. However, it might turn you into a zombie, so think twice about taking it. Then we'd have to stop you, and gee, wouldn't it be nice if we knew how? Thanks, Drezdn! You've pointed out the integral weakness of our defense against 111.
I'm also sorry that we're all trying so hard to convert you to our homolefty democratic wingbat viewpoint. I understand that that's why you can't understand the difference between being civil and being a dick. I didn't understand either until I took the big hard up the rectum. But now that I have, I understand that homothink is the right mindset, and we should all just have fun, and furthermore, I need to convert 111 to the homoway of leftythink. Join us, join us. Are you hypnotized to our leftyhomothink yet? 'Cause this is hard, the whole converting you and all. And I really just want to have immoral fun, and derail this thread and call people names. Just because I like the words ad hominem, you know, I like to do that, even though, you know, an ad hominem is a fallacy that you don't seem to understand at all.
You see, you said that the zombie question was stupid for AskMefi. I agreed. But I called you a dick. Therefore I was obviously arguing against your righteous dictate. I'm sorry. I should have known better than to state that your opinion about Mefi's homoleftiness was above derisive approach. I shouldn't have pointed out that your opinion came from your arrogant and oppressive (not to mention completely full of shit) nature. That was ad hominem, and wasn't moral. I was so wrong that I will now agree with you stridently. MeFi is a homolefty playground and you people should just agree with the insults leveled against you from 111. You Homos! You Leftys! You people who don't see that you've been attacked ad "homo"minem because you just want to attack 111 ad hominem. How dare you? You homoleftys!
Homoleftys!
There, 111, do you see that I've come to our point of view? You've won me over. We must insult to succeed. And we must not derail the thread that says that homolefties aren't allowed to have fun when we're trying to be oh so serious here. In fact, I am so seduced by your charms that I want you. I want you now. Please take your throbbing member and put it up my homolefty bum that I may be your sheep instead of a member of the Metafilter flock.
Jesus Christ, dude. Could you be more full of shit?
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:35 PM on April 16, 2004
This is just the ol' IsThisPostGoodEnoughForAnFPP? back-door Metatalk post trick tarted up for Saturday night in a red AskMe dress and heels. Yawn.
posted by crunchburger at 7:35 PM on April 16, 2004
posted by crunchburger at 7:35 PM on April 16, 2004
Dawn of the Dead/Night of the Living Dead
Oops, I totally switched the titles of those two movies in that comment.
Shane!
Well, no, no, it's: Shane! So there. Once again, 111 raises the level of intellectual discourse on MeFi. ;-)
posted by Shane at 8:56 PM on April 16, 2004
Oops, I totally switched the titles of those two movies in that comment.
Shane!
Well, no, no, it's: Shane! So there. Once again, 111 raises the level of intellectual discourse on MeFi. ;-)
posted by Shane at 8:56 PM on April 16, 2004
TGC, you know I did this deliberately:-
I like people I meet face to face. I hate people I meet face to face.
....to see if anyone would quote me out of context....and guess what?! So have you never, ever have hated anyone you met face to face TGC? I described the nature of like/hate, but you decided to take 50% of this quote to take it out of context.....hmmmm, ****yawn****I bet you're an interesting, fun person to be around
I wonder if that has anything to do with your broad, sweeping hatred of women?
This backs up my point: that you cannot know someone in a virtual sense. I've also pointed this out several times before: confusing criticism of feminism to misogyny is just dumb.
posted by SpaceCadet at 2:56 AM on April 17, 2004
I like people I meet face to face. I hate people I meet face to face.
....to see if anyone would quote me out of context....and guess what?! So have you never, ever have hated anyone you met face to face TGC? I described the nature of like/hate, but you decided to take 50% of this quote to take it out of context.....hmmmm, ****yawn****I bet you're an interesting, fun person to be around
I wonder if that has anything to do with your broad, sweeping hatred of women?
This backs up my point: that you cannot know someone in a virtual sense. I've also pointed this out several times before: confusing criticism of feminism to misogyny is just dumb.
posted by SpaceCadet at 2:56 AM on April 17, 2004
For the love of god, the madness must end. I recently got in trouble for angrily denouning a stupid Ask question.. but I have to say:
1. The zombie question is stupid.
2. If you are not sure whether it is a stupid question or not: IT IS A STUPID QUESTION (and yes, there is such a thing as stupid questions)
3. Both practical items and broad philosophical questions are OK - however, your zombie crap is neither.
4. This is not a real Question, just some vague, aimless, impractical hypothesizing about a totally fantastical situation. Please, just because you have no real questions but still feel a desire to post something, don't do it.
5. And don't start a metatalk thread about it. If its too stupid, don't post it. If it's not, just post and be done with it.
6. Looking back at your earlier questions, I see a few good, practical/technical things. However the hoagie "question" - that was simply moronic. Again, not at all a "question" but rather a broad, time wasting query. What regional expressions do you have?? Just at all? I mean, come on.
Ask Mefi is at a crossroads.. cmon people.
posted by ac at 5:36 AM on April 17, 2004
1. The zombie question is stupid.
2. If you are not sure whether it is a stupid question or not: IT IS A STUPID QUESTION (and yes, there is such a thing as stupid questions)
3. Both practical items and broad philosophical questions are OK - however, your zombie crap is neither.
4. This is not a real Question, just some vague, aimless, impractical hypothesizing about a totally fantastical situation. Please, just because you have no real questions but still feel a desire to post something, don't do it.
5. And don't start a metatalk thread about it. If its too stupid, don't post it. If it's not, just post and be done with it.
6. Looking back at your earlier questions, I see a few good, practical/technical things. However the hoagie "question" - that was simply moronic. Again, not at all a "question" but rather a broad, time wasting query. What regional expressions do you have?? Just at all? I mean, come on.
Ask Mefi is at a crossroads.. cmon people.
posted by ac at 5:36 AM on April 17, 2004
well, although the question sounded kind of dumb, the answer ryvar provided actually made it extremely interesting and even quite relevant, so just goes to show that the way the question is taken and responded to is often more important than the question itself. Maybe instead of bashing dumb questions, we should either let them lie there ignored, or find ways to interpret them that make them interesting.
on the other hand, a question like this could also just end up with a long thread of "I'd use a a buzz-saw", "I'd use a flame-thrower", "well I'd try to bore them to death with old zombie movies..." type of stuff, so maybe some restraint is a good idea.
posted by mdn at 8:41 AM on April 17, 2004
on the other hand, a question like this could also just end up with a long thread of "I'd use a a buzz-saw", "I'd use a flame-thrower", "well I'd try to bore them to death with old zombie movies..." type of stuff, so maybe some restraint is a good idea.
posted by mdn at 8:41 AM on April 17, 2004
I think this was a fantastic question, which I would've very much enjoyed discussing on AskMe. The fact that it's theoretical doesn't make it any less valid than theory-based questions on religion, science fiction, predicted technologies, or anything else.
There is a very large, very real number of 'zombie enthusiasts', for lack of a better term, and if the purpose of AskMe is to 'share knowledge', then it shouldn't be limited to knowledge of the practical and mundane.
There's a lot of literature and film history behind any answers to this question, and the discussion would've made AskMe a better place for it, IMHO.
posted by Jairus at 8:49 AM on April 17, 2004
There is a very large, very real number of 'zombie enthusiasts', for lack of a better term, and if the purpose of AskMe is to 'share knowledge', then it shouldn't be limited to knowledge of the practical and mundane.
There's a lot of literature and film history behind any answers to this question, and the discussion would've made AskMe a better place for it, IMHO.
posted by Jairus at 8:49 AM on April 17, 2004
the way I see it, there seems to be a clear policy for the ask section("Ask MetaFilter is a discussion area for sharing knowledge among members of MetaFilter") which automatically excludes some kinds of question.
It seems to me that you are defining "knowledge" very narrowly.
rushmc - Unless you're scripting a movie or something, I cannot imagine the answer to this question matters to anyone.
Just because you cannot imagine it doesnt mean it isnt possible. Since someone asked the question, it is only reasonable to assume that it does matter to at least one person.
There is actually something useful to be learned by this question as I will attempt to demonstrate.
Well done, Ryvar!
In my mind, some of you look like gay zombies with a "Kerry 2004" t-shirt.
I must say, in all seriousness, that I think that says a great deal more about your mind than it does about the Metafilter community.
The fact that it's theoretical doesn't make it any less valid than theory-based questions on religion, science fiction, predicted technologies, or anything else.
My point exactly. The fact that it isnt ones cup of tea doesnt make it "stupid."
posted by rushmc at 9:19 AM on April 17, 2004
It seems to me that you are defining "knowledge" very narrowly.
rushmc - Unless you're scripting a movie or something, I cannot imagine the answer to this question matters to anyone.
Just because you cannot imagine it doesnt mean it isnt possible. Since someone asked the question, it is only reasonable to assume that it does matter to at least one person.
There is actually something useful to be learned by this question as I will attempt to demonstrate.
Well done, Ryvar!
In my mind, some of you look like gay zombies with a "Kerry 2004" t-shirt.
I must say, in all seriousness, that I think that says a great deal more about your mind than it does about the Metafilter community.
The fact that it's theoretical doesn't make it any less valid than theory-based questions on religion, science fiction, predicted technologies, or anything else.
My point exactly. The fact that it isnt ones cup of tea doesnt make it "stupid."
posted by rushmc at 9:19 AM on April 17, 2004
In my mind, some of you look like gay zombies with a "Kerry 2004" t-shirt.
So instead of "BRAAAAINNS" they moan "COOOCCCKKK"?
posted by jonmc at 10:15 AM on April 17, 2004
So instead of "BRAAAAINNS" they moan "COOOCCCKKK"?
posted by jonmc at 10:15 AM on April 17, 2004
I see zombies. WD 40 works to defeat their attempts to suck the life blood out of things. Just spray the wheels of your car and the hinges of your door. You have to this every night in Grand Rapids.
posted by JohnR at 11:21 AM on April 17, 2004
posted by JohnR at 11:21 AM on April 17, 2004
Is it still Spring Break?
posted by inpHilltr8r at 5:21 PM on April 17, 2004
posted by inpHilltr8r at 5:21 PM on April 17, 2004
If memory serves (we are approaching the limits of my knowledge on this topic) hydrostatic shock is tissue trauma resulting from a bullet passing through flesh at velocities greater than the speed of sound through the medium of flesh (the speed of sound varies depending on the medium said sound is in). The resulting cavitation of flesh is brutal, violent, and altogether a nasty thing to experience first-hand by all accounts.
In William Gibson's Neuromancer, hydrostatic shock is used to describe the effects of tossing a grenade into a pool of assassination targets.
posted by mecran01 at 10:29 AM on April 19, 2004
In William Gibson's Neuromancer, hydrostatic shock is used to describe the effects of tossing a grenade into a pool of assassination targets.
posted by mecran01 at 10:29 AM on April 19, 2004
In William Gibson's Neuromancer, hydrostatic shock is used to describe the effects of tossing a grenade into a pool of assassination targets.
Hydrostatic shock most generally refers to shock passed through a liquid medium. In Gibson's case, the grenade passes the shockwave through the H2O of the swimming pool to the assassins. In the case of a bullet, it refers to the idea that the shockwave passed from the bullet through the liquids of the body to surrounding tissue and organs may do as much or more damage than the impact of the bullet itself.
(Good reference though, mecran01. Neuromancer is one of my all-time fave books.)
posted by Shane at 11:10 AM on April 19, 2004
Hydrostatic shock most generally refers to shock passed through a liquid medium. In Gibson's case, the grenade passes the shockwave through the H2O of the swimming pool to the assassins. In the case of a bullet, it refers to the idea that the shockwave passed from the bullet through the liquids of the body to surrounding tissue and organs may do as much or more damage than the impact of the bullet itself.
(Good reference though, mecran01. Neuromancer is one of my all-time fave books.)
posted by Shane at 11:10 AM on April 19, 2004
Who would win in a fight between Superman and the Hulk?
posted by Miles Long at 1:10 PM on April 19, 2004
posted by Miles Long at 1:10 PM on April 19, 2004
« Older How many hits does a front-page MeFi link give the... | Blog Justice on the Wild Web Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Yes, I'm familar with the book on the subject.
posted by drezdn at 10:46 AM on April 16, 2004