I AM PMS-ing February 12, 2005 3:27 PM   Subscribe

Snark/non helpful alert. And we wonder why folks think this is a boyzone? Am I pms'ing? Yes. Overreacting? Possibly. Does not calling it out = acceptance, joking or not?
posted by yoga to Etiquette/Policy at 3:27 PM (66 comments total)

Yeah, that comment should be deleted.
posted by driveler at 3:39 PM on February 12, 2005


grow some skin.

good callout, wrong reasoning.
posted by quonsar at 3:43 PM on February 12, 2005


As they say, wisecracks don't help people find answers and it should be deleted on those grounds. (Personally I think we could take a few more jokes in the green but Dear Leader says no.)

Other than that I don't see how calling attention to the fact that the question is a gynozone is any more offensive than you pointing out that Mefi can be somewhat of a boyzone.
posted by grouse at 3:47 PM on February 12, 2005


Definitely, definitely NEVER snark in a chatfilter thread.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:53 PM on February 12, 2005


For the record:

GynoFilter
posted by Napierzaza at 10:21 AM PST on February 12


Sure to be deleted.

Does not calling it out = acceptance, joking or not?

I genuinely don't understand what you mean here. Can you explain/rephrase?

That's not a nice comment. Not helpful. Eminently deletable.

I do hope it takes more than user 19-something's bad judgment to make you feel this is a boyzone, though. We have lots of extreme and offensive POVs expressed here from time to time. I know that there is a large, widespread pattern of male entitlement here. I know. But don't make jackass comments like this the defining moment.
posted by scarabic at 4:05 PM on February 12, 2005


I deleted it. Feel free to email or AIM me or mathowie when those stupid types of posts rear their ugly heads in AskMe.
posted by jessamyn at 4:17 PM on February 12, 2005


I also deleted your response, yoga, since it didn't make any sense without the original dumb post, fyi. Since it's included here, people will know what's being talked about. I was pleasantly surprised that that post stayed on-topic and free of snark for so long, I think that's a sign of a step in the right direction actually.
posted by jessamyn at 4:20 PM on February 12, 2005


So it's gynofilter for a single thread? Why not?

The snarker - napierzaza - would be better dealt with by a cold shoulder or even a shrug, instead of rewarded with negative attention. His ego may be as thin all month as yours is today.

quonsar has it right: we all need to grow a bit more skin, drop all the petty callouts and allow people their pathetic little opinions.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:24 PM on February 12, 2005


Mmm... I think jessamyn has it right, actually.
posted by scarabic at 4:28 PM on February 12, 2005


Not to defend the lame snark, but it was a pretty pathetic polling question.
posted by CunningLinguist at 4:33 PM on February 12, 2005


I'm with dash on this one. The more you MeTa snarks, the more powerful they become. Just ignore it and move on, or give a terse scolding in-thread and move on. Either way, move on.

If the snarker decides to make an issue of it, then bring it into the Grey. Otherwise, bone up on your coping skills.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:04 PM on February 12, 2005


Thirding Dash. Mellow out, people. You'll never rid the world of idiots.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:08 PM on February 12, 2005


Now, can somebody explain to me why I have cravings for chocolate right after the first of the month?

Good call, jess. And yes, the worst of the snarks actually seem to be popping up less often. See, we can be taught.

Still, I'm glad this showed up in MeTa, 'cause I'd have never had the gonads to make that comment in the AskMe thread.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go register gynofilter.com.
posted by wendell at 5:29 PM on February 12, 2005


Does not calling it out = acceptance, joking or not?

I genuinely don't understand what you mean here. Can you explain/rephrase?


My dilemma with bringing it to MeTa was, if we tolerate posts like that, does it empower more folks to continue posting them? If I called it out, I'd have people telling me to chill / grow some skin / quit being a feminist, etc. If I didn't call it out, & maybe Jessamyn would have deleted it anyway, are we (the female MeFi contingent) saying, have at it, perpetuate the "ewww it's girl stuff!" attitude?

I think we're all trying to find our feet with new adjustments around here. I opted for the "self-policing" route, which I don't think encourages the snark. Are there people here who like being called out? And if so, are they the ones we want here? Hope that helps, scarabic. Sorry to be such a grouch.
posted by yoga at 5:40 PM on February 12, 2005


yoga: I think you were right to call it out. But it's nice to know that jess and matt accept AIMs about bad comments.
That should please everyone: no visible callout, and the stupids get deleted before they can have any fun.
posted by nprigoda at 5:52 PM on February 12, 2005


My dilemma with bringing it to MeTa was, if we tolerate posts like that, does it empower more folks to continue posting them? If I called it out, I'd have people telling me to chill / grow some skin / quit being a feminist, etc. If I didn't call it out, & maybe Jessamyn would have deleted it anyway, are we (the female MeFi contingent) saying, have at it, perpetuate the "ewww it's girl stuff!" attitude?

Look, here's the problem. The post was a bad one. It didn't follow AskMe rules. It was pointless. And stupid.

But. You will find comments like that (at least the pointless and stupid) in just about every single FPP. I think it's fair to say that community stardards dictate that "ew it's girl stuff!" attitudes are neither offensive nor hate speech. They are just stupid and immature. And we certainly don't police garden-variety immaturity around here. So ultimately when it ends up being couched as you have, it reeks of the same old MeFiFem axe grinding and wringing of hands.
posted by drpynchon at 6:00 PM on February 12, 2005


I don't know if I need to point this out but, when the post that prompted this thread is deleted, anyone else who joins the party a little late finds this whole thread rather confusing.
After the initial post is deleted, maybe you should do the same to the MeTa thread? I dunno, but it leaves me wondering which threads are worth even opening if I can't at least read what has caused the controversy it in the first place.
posted by qwerty155 at 6:41 PM on February 12, 2005


qwerty, scarabic quoted the comment in question above, which I've suggested before might be the best thing to do in the case of comments that are likely to be deleted. Read the thread.

You will find comments like that (at least the pointless and stupid) in just about every single FPP.

And I reckon we should actively be trying shame and drive away the dolts who post them.

Anyway, speaking of pointless and stupid: can this thread now be about how much I hate Xfilter leadoffs to AskMe questions?

Headphonesfilter
RIAA-filter
ObscureMacGameFilter
BlockbusterPseudoTheftFilter
TeaFilter
ShoeFilter
Gynofilter (as a freakin' snark)
...in just the last couple of days! Picture me, scowling.

No? Ah well.

I'm still going to call 'Metafilter projects' or whatever Matt decides on TellMe, so I can't really complain, I guess.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:56 PM on February 12, 2005


No, stavros, this thread has to be about how much I hate MeFiFems to describe women here, as opposed to giants selling magic beans.

(But I'll share with you, just because you are an excellent Dolt-shamer, something I aspire to, as it's several notches above the less sexy village trades of Axe-grinder and Hand-wringer.)
posted by melissa may at 7:08 PM on February 12, 2005


melissa may: no less obnoxious than boyzone for example.
posted by drpynchon at 7:37 PM on February 12, 2005


And I reckon we should actively be trying shame and drive away the dolts who post them.

Unfortunately those who's comments are nothing other than derails tend not to read MetaTalk, and chiding them within a post serves only to distract readers from the post's content.

The best solution is simply, as jessamyn has noted, to contact the staff and have it removed.
posted by drpynchon at 7:44 PM on February 12, 2005


Unfortunately those who's comments are nothing other than derails tend not to read MetaTalk

People repeat this claim as if it were gospel truth. I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever to support it.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:51 PM on February 12, 2005


stavrosthewonderchickenFilter!
posted by quonsar at 7:55 PM on February 12, 2005


The best solution is simply, as jessamyn has noted, to contact the staff and have it removed.
posted by drpynchon at 7:44 PM PST on February 12


Clearly there is room for dispute on that. If members are offended by innocuous jibes which they cannot ignore - as opposed to real hatred, incitement to assaults, promoting discrimination in real life - and get them deleted by private, hidden means (as jessamyn encourages above), them Mefi is changing rapidly. Which is a shame.
posted by dash_slot- at 7:57 PM on February 12, 2005


At first, I thought the snark was the polling question. But, then I came to realization that it was serious. Does that make me a bad person?
posted by Arch Stanton at 8:09 PM on February 12, 2005


*smacks quonsar with pantsfish*

Mefi is changing rapidly.

This is true. How much for better and how much for worse, only time will tell.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:13 PM on February 12, 2005


C'mon dash, ultimately for all the talk about community, the staff here are the final arbiters of good taste. And it's always been that way, because Matt's been the one with the power to delete or ban or whatever... Dropping them a line to let 'em know something's fishy doesn't mean a coment will necessarily get tossed; it might just make things run more smoothly.

I personally don't find it appropriate to publicly shame every stupid comment on MetaTalk, and feel as though that should be reserved for blatant violations of the rules, really idiotic FPPs, or truly offensive/hateful speech... But stavros, if you feel so inclined, go right ahead... quonsar's shaking in his boots, already.
posted by drpynchon at 8:16 PM on February 12, 2005


If members are offended by innocuous jibes which they cannot ignore - as opposed to real hatred, incitement to assaults, promoting discrimination in real life - and get them deleted by private, hidden means (as jessamyn encourages above), them Mefi is changing rapidly.

That would be true if it were happening on MeFi, but all I was talking about was AskMe which has always had a clearer and narrower mission than the rest of the site. Innocuous jibes, even non-innocuous jibes, generally stay up everyplace else. Wisecracks that don't help people find answers usually don't stay on AskMe.
posted by jessamyn at 8:45 PM on February 12, 2005


"stavrosthewonderchickenFilter!"

FuckingbeatmetoitFilter.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:45 PM on February 12, 2005


Sorry to be such a grouch.

Not at all. I'm with you on this one. And while I agree with folks that callouts are intrinsically cost-negative and should be reserved for worthy occasions, I do not agree that all callouts empower the offender. Not at all. The last time I dragged someone in here he was banned, and hasn't come back with a vengeance to date. If he does, guess what will happen? I think if the screwfuck in question is rubbing his palms together, reading this thread, it's comments like this that please him most:

The more you MeTa snarks, the more powerful they become.


Ooo! Powerful, is he? Frankly, I don't think so. I'm more of the:

we should actively be trying shame and drive away the dolts


school of thought, where callouts are so scathing as to be avoided at all costs. I'm frustrated by numerous people showing up to say "yeah, leave him alone." He probably thinks you're defending him.

Trolls are usually either A) encouraged with passionate opposition or B) completely ignored and left to do as they please. I think the best thing about MeFi, and what makes it better than par in this regard, is that we hold them to account for exactly what they say, without necessarily going either A or B route. Ultimately, ignoring a troll is part of shaming him/her, but before that happens, I think a few well-placed, well-phrased spanks are in order.

If the troll ever rears his head who can stand 3 rounds with the lot of us, he can have this place.
posted by scarabic at 8:49 PM on February 12, 2005


Trolls are purely and simply people one disagrees with. Notwithstanding your accurate description of our communal schizo attitude to provocative posters, scarabic, there is no consistent application of the term other than this, judging by its use here and elsewhere on the internets. Yes, I know that there have been attempts to define usage going back a long way: it just hasn't stuck. Every time I see the word, I realise that its just another disputant using labelling instead of argument.

Having said that, I accept jessamyn's assertion that her swift scissors of justice are reserved for AskMe. Sorry, jess, you have made that point before. I don't like innocuous comments being removed, for the reasons above, but if limited to just AskMe, due to its well-defined role, I can live with that.
posted by dash_slot- at 9:05 PM on February 12, 2005


The best remedy for bad speech is more speech.

And dash_slot hits it dead on: "Trolls are purely and simply people one disagrees with.... it[']s just another disputant using labelling instead of argument."

He's also right about the perniciousness of private complaints leading to deletions.
posted by orthogonality at 9:16 PM on February 12, 2005


is that we hold them to account for exactly what they say

"hold them to account" == "give them the attention they so childishly beg for"

Your call.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:41 PM on February 12, 2005


I'm not sure that question was as chatfilterish as it has been declared. Yes 'what yummy foods do you crave?' is chatfilter, but the second question is looking for a serious answer on how you keep from overeating during those hormonal times.
posted by jacquilynne at 10:23 PM on February 12, 2005


I just hate the use of the word "ladies", but that's just me. Was "gynofilter" used snarkily? I suppose it was, else why even write it?

I really don't like poll questions, but I have to admit this one was interesting.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:03 PM on February 12, 2005


no less obnoxious than boyzone for example.

I find it ironic that a callout for "gynofilter" uses the word "boyzone". Hypotheticalfilter: If I find "boyzone" offensive, do I make a callout about it? (I don't by the way) - or do I just let it slide? These days, it's possible to put a spin on any word to turn it into a pejorative, offensive remark. For example, it could be said that the word 'boyzone' describes a locker-room bozo-type attitude alluding to a lack of intelligence and sophistication, and in the context of this website, the word is offensive to the more sensitive, considered male posters here. As I said, I could care less about all of this (but not much less).

I don't know if I need to point this out but, when the post that prompted this thread is deleted, anyone else who joins the party a little late finds this whole thread rather confusing.

qwerty, I agree - I think a callout for a comment/FPP that has a strong possibility of being deleted (well, it's kind of self-fulfilling if you make a Meta callout about it) should feature the copy-and-pasted offending word(s) so at least we all know what it's about.
posted by FieldingGoodney at 2:28 AM on February 13, 2005


Was "gynofilter" really snark? I mean, I've seen people use [whatever]filter in a non-snarky way before.

Either way, it probably deserved deletion due to non-helpfulnes, but was it really intended to be snarky?
posted by dirigibleman at 3:26 AM on February 13, 2005


The finest Peruvian mountain self-parody hand-woven from the crotch fur of the albino alpaca could not be any funnier than some of the comments in this thread.

I hate you all, but you make me laugh, so it's all good.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:54 AM on February 13, 2005


I'd just like to take this moment to confess that I was joking when I recommended Clifford Irving's authorized biography of Howard Hughes a few days ago.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:01 AM on February 13, 2005


I found the original question perplexing. The language employed is that of decades ago (ladies, time of the month). I was immediately irritated. Also, the questioner doesn't indicate his or her sex, nor why he or she is asking the question (personal advice, coping with someone else, to pass the time). AskMetafilter questions ought to include why the questioner wants to know.
posted by Carol Anne at 8:34 AM on February 13, 2005


The language employed is that of decades ago (ladies, time of the month).

"Time of the month" is decades old? What's the current polite phrase for menstruation, then?
posted by Bugbread at 8:37 AM on February 13, 2005


In my calender I mark it as "Orvar's Birthday"
posted by dabitch at 9:07 AM on February 13, 2005


Riding the cotton toboggan? Monsoon season? Surfing the crimson tide? Time to change the filter? The war has come to Virginia? Bleeding like a stuck pig? The redcoats have landed? Flushing out the love canal? Trouble in panty-land?

My name is MC Menses and my flow be fresh!
posted by naomi at 10:49 AM on February 13, 2005


In other news, I found some of these comments a little quick to blame the guy. There's something to be said for the whole "I don't think you can do anything" answer to an AskMe question, but PinkSuperHero seems to have a little bit of a chip on her shoulder for the guy who's got a problem with his girlfriend. So she chews with her mouth open, eh? WELL MAYBE SHE'S JUST SICK OF YOU CRITICIZING AND TRYING TO CHANGE HER. Whoa, people. I see her stated mission is to break up the He-Man Women Hater's Club, but seriously, who is this helping? You don't change a sexist culture by just walking around whacking peepees.
posted by scarabic at 10:54 AM on February 13, 2005


I have heard many more women use 'on the rag' than men.
posted by mischief at 11:12 AM on February 13, 2005


Trolls are purely and simply people one disagrees with.

That's false, because falsely espousing a controversial opinion for the sake of shit-stirring is also trolling. It is not genuine person-to-person disagreement that defines trolling, it's behavior.
posted by NortonDC at 11:22 AM on February 13, 2005


scarabic, do you really see that linked comment as anti-man? I assumed it was just a general expression of antipathy toward people who try to break their friends of bad habits. Opinion in that thread is pretty polarized, but it doesn't seem to split along gender lines.

Me, I'm still puzzling over the Asians, slurping their soup...
posted by naomi at 11:30 AM on February 13, 2005


No I didn't see the comment as incredibly anti-man. What seemed anti-man was the obvious bias against the questioner, who is clearly a man. Why tell someone who's looking for help with a problem that they should stop trying, and that perhaps their attempts are even offensive? Because you're biased against their point of view. One look at TPS's userpage was enough to cement, for me, that she does break issues along gender lines.
posted by scarabic at 11:44 AM on February 13, 2005


Hmm. But it's not clear that the questioner is a man. Are there really no lesbians in the house?
posted by naomi at 12:06 PM on February 13, 2005


scarabic, there's no way at all that anonymous in the thread you cited could be "clearly" considered a man short of a broad assumption either that the couple is heterosexual or that being annoyed at an open mouthed girlfriend is "something a man would do". You may have a beef with PSH's user page, but this is getting silly. People disagree with what people are trying to do in AskMe all the time, and for all sorts of reasons. Reading gender-bias into it is no more helpful than overuse of the boyzone moniker, unless you're trying to ironically prove a point, in which case, touché!
posted by jessamyn at 12:16 PM on February 13, 2005


NortonDC, I know what the classic definition is. I was talking about its common usage. The instances of trolling as you - and many others - describe it are fewer than the instances of the phrase being deployed. It isn't the falsely claiming of an opinion that many commenters here & elsewhere are accused of: it's simply uttering an opinion, or use of language that the accuser takes issue with.

/dismounts
posted by dash_slot- at 12:31 PM on February 13, 2005


Hmm. But it's not clear that the questioner is a man. Are there really no lesbians in the house?

All right. Fair enough. Over and out.
posted by scarabic at 12:33 PM on February 13, 2005


As far as "gynofilter" being snark -- when I went back to tag my first metafilter post ever, I noticed that such a comment is now gone. Basically, I posted about unethical gynecologists and got a "quimfilter" as the third comment. At the time it really did make me feel uncomfortable and unwanted. (Fortuneatly, the rest of the discussion was fine.) It was a tiny thing, but just the fact that I remember it so clearly two years later says something about how something as little as that can be problematic.
posted by Karmakaze at 7:25 PM on February 13, 2005


You don't change a sexist culture by just walking around whacking peepees.

And here I thought I was changing the world with my peepee whacking. I am an army of one!
posted by squirrel at 7:31 PM on February 13, 2005


Er...I've received plenty of suggestions about impolite ways to say menstruation, but can anyone point out what the current polite way to say it is? Or am I just to assume that Carol Anne was just being very wrong when she said "that time of the month" was decades old? Or do people just walk around saying "She's got blood spraying out of her cunt" in polite company?

Something's telling me that "that time of the month" is not actually decades old, Carol Anne is just trying to show off how hip and modern she is. But I'm quite willing to be proven wrong on this issue, and if there's a new, commonly used, polite expression, by all means I'd like to know what it is.
posted by Bugbread at 8:00 PM on February 13, 2005


What's wrong with "menstruation"? Why must a perfectly normal, natural, regular thing in a woman's life must be coded in order to make discussion of it acceptable?

Go right ahead and "assume that Carol Anne was just being very wrong," though. You dismiss her remarks on this subject, although you offer no more than a feeling you have, whereas Carol Anne (I admit, I'm guessing) has actually been hearing and talking about menstrual periods for many years. She describes herself as a red-diaper baby on her profile page, so maybe the "decades" remark is from personal experience. Since you already deprecate her as a source, however, I'll point out that commercial tampon packaging from the 1930s used the term "time of the month" to refer to the menstrual period.

The fact checking I offer above was accomplished with a quick check of Carol Anne's web page and minimal web searching.
posted by caitlinb at 9:08 PM on February 13, 2005


Caitlinb: There's nothing "wrong" with the word "menstruation", in my personal opinion. I'm not talking about my opinion, though, I'm talking about society's opinion. As far as I know, it's still considered a bit too direct for polite conversation. I wish it weren't so, but from what I can tell, it is.

I'd love to believe that Carol's right, and there's a different, socially acceptable word to use in mixed company, but nobody has provided me any (lots of silly ones, which are also fine, but not what I'm looking for).

I'm not trying to deprecate her for the sake of deprecating her. I'm just saying that, unless someone can provide evidence that there's a newer, more socially acceptable phrase, the evidence is against her.

Please, prove me wrong. I don't want to be right. I don't want to be saying that she's wrong and pushing an agenda or anything. I want to know if there's a new, polite phrase that I should be using. If there is one, why the damn secrecy. Somebody TELL ME.
posted by Bugbread at 1:22 AM on February 14, 2005


On reflection:

Actually, if I take your phrasing a different way, it would seem that you are suggesting that "she's menstruating" is now considered a polite way to say it. I took "What's wrong with 'menstruation'?" to mean "Why can't we say 'menstruation'?", not as "We say 'menstruation' now. What is your problem with it?".

If you meant interpretation B, thanks for the answer. I'm a little surprised, but I've been living overseas for about a decade now, and language changes.

If you did mean interpretation A, then, please, somebody help an expat out and tell me the normal, polite way to say that someone is menstruating. I don't want to go back to America and say "It's that time of the month" and sound like someone talking about "colored" people, but I don't want to go back to America and say "She's menstruating" and have people look at me like I said "She's bleeding out her vagina" either.
posted by Bugbread at 1:39 AM on February 14, 2005


In my experience, "having your period" is the least marked way of talking about it, but I certainly hear young, non-backward people refer to "that time of the month," too. It's a little bit coy sounding, but not bizarre.
posted by redfoxtail at 5:02 AM on February 14, 2005


In my experience, I'd say 'period' and 'time of the month' are tied about 50-50 for ways to refer to menstruation. I don't know anybody who refers to it as menstruating, though I think that's less because the word is offensive and more because the word is long and pretentious sounding. It would be like saying 'engaged in intercourse' instead of 'had sex'. Not more offensive, probably less, but still stupid sounding.
posted by jacquilynne at 5:44 AM on February 14, 2005


I find the phrase "that time of the month" either condescending or coy, depending on who says it and why. (It is better than "the curse" or "my little friend," both of which make me shudder. Euphemisms are not my cup of Starbucks.) Also, my impression is that most women these days greatly dislike being addressed as "ladies."

So, I began menstruating in 1955 at the age of 9 years and 10 months, several years before the average then. I used to walk to a neighborhood drugstore to buy sanitary napkins; these were sold in huge boxes, which the clerk wrapped up in brown paper. I was certain that all the world could tell--and was snickering at--what I carried home from the drugstore.

Do "hip and modern" people really discuss menstruation in mixed company these days? I see why couples--lesbian or straight--or groups of women might talk about it, but is it now (say) dinner conversation? If so, why?
posted by Carol Anne at 5:57 AM on February 14, 2005


I don't think it's dinner conversation, but I'm certainly not ashamed of it, nor am I ashamed of buying sanitary pads, etc. It happens once a month, everyone knows it does, and since I'm female, it happens to me too. Shrug. Facts of life and all.

I don't think any bodily function talk is acceptable at the dinner table.
posted by agregoli at 8:03 AM on February 14, 2005


Yeah, seriously bugbread, if you're at the point where you're mentioning menstruation, you're probably in a group of people around whom you don't have to be that polite. I can't really imagine any situation in which a guy would say, "She's having her period" or "she's menstruating" that wouldn't be either (a) WAAAAY too much info or (b) hugely condescending.

I don't expect that you're trying for either of those, so why the concern?
posted by occhiblu at 8:11 AM on February 14, 2005


I actually do use most of the jokey terms I listed, but only with close friends and family. Many women and most men seem to think that overt references to menstruation are always impolite even if intended as humor.

When the topic comes up in general company, I say "my period." But other women here in Tennessee almost always use "that time of month." And "on the rag" is not unusual at all, nor is the ironical-like version: "OTR." I have also heard "my monthly" and "lady days," as well as "a visit from my friend."

Menstruation is not an appropriate topic for dinner conversation unless you're having steak tartare.
posted by naomi at 8:14 AM on February 14, 2005


Occhiblu: Good point. It doesn't come up much, if ever, in a situation where I'd really have to walk on egg-shells as far as how to say it. However, "that time of the month" has always been tucked in my mind as "the phrase to use in the extremely rare event you need to use it". It would still be awkward, of course, since the kind of company you need to walk on eggshells on just to say "that time of the month" is the kind of company where discussion of anything vaginal, penile, or excretory is a no-no. But I've had the phrase tucked away for the extremely improbably but nonetheless possible occasion where it had to be used. Hence my big confusion in this thread (and thanks for the clarification, folks). I didn't want to have tucked away in my mind an expression that was no longer used, and possibly offensive.

And I wasn't so much imagining a dinner conversation, but discussion with a boss, friend of parents, etc. (i.e. social superior), in a situation where being vague doesn't communicate. Can't think of any good examples off-hand, unfortunately. As I say, I know it would be a rare utterance in any case.

Actually, on reflection, I can vaguely remember one time where this situation came up: explaining why my girlfriend wouldn't get in the pool. I think I used the phrase "that time" (not "that time of the month").
posted by Bugbread at 8:41 AM on February 14, 2005


You know you are in a long-term relationship when your girlfriend sends you out for tampons.
posted by mischief at 9:04 AM on February 14, 2005


« Older MetaFilter Quoted in the Press re: BBC "Office"   |   World of Warfare Guild? Newer »

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