Drunken posting October 30, 2001 2:59 PM Subscribe
What's the policy on posting while under the influence of alcohol? Drunken posts seem to have increased dramatically since September 11. I'm all in favour - it makes for great silliness and sincerity - but wonder if sober members find it as funny as I do. (Please don't flame; I paid yesterday!)
You can pretty much take it as a given that any time I'm posting, it's under the influence of alcohol.
I'm saving up for a replacement liver. Are you using yours, Miguel?
posted by Kafkaesque at 3:22 PM on October 30, 2001
I'm saving up for a replacement liver. Are you using yours, Miguel?
posted by Kafkaesque at 3:22 PM on October 30, 2001
You know summin Miguel? I mean, youshe my besht mate an all that but shometimesh I jush...nah, loogedme, Miguel, I'sh shpeakin to you...shometimesh I jusht wanna...yeah, I love you too mate, remember that night in Barshelona, what wash her name...Loopesh, Latisha...Lupita, yeah that wash it...where did we hide the body again...nah, anywaysh Miguel, I jusht wanted to shay that snnxxxzzzzzzzzxxzz....
posted by obiwanwasabi at 3:23 PM on October 30, 2001
posted by obiwanwasabi at 3:23 PM on October 30, 2001
Ladies and Gentlemen, the fabulous Foster Brooks!!!
posted by Kafkaesque at 3:36 PM on October 30, 2001
posted by Kafkaesque at 3:36 PM on October 30, 2001
Miguel?
Ummm...Were you drunk when you told me you loved me?
(you heartless Portuguese bastard! *sniff... sniff*)
posted by ColdChef at 3:43 PM on October 30, 2001
Ummm...Were you drunk when you told me you loved me?
(you heartless Portuguese bastard! *sniff... sniff*)
posted by ColdChef at 3:43 PM on October 30, 2001
well, what the fuck? i post on speed all the time. heheheheheheheheheheheheheheheh
eheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheh
heheheheheheheehehehehehehehehe
ehehehehehehe. really.
posted by moz at 4:27 PM on October 30, 2001
eheheheheheheheheheheheheheheheh
heheheheheheheehehehehehehehehe
ehehehehehehe. really.
posted by moz at 4:27 PM on October 30, 2001
Is this your subtle way of telling us something, Miguel?
posted by Doug at 5:22 PM on October 30, 2001
posted by Doug at 5:22 PM on October 30, 2001
(Please don't flame; I paid yesterday!)
But why do you not learn, MiguelCardoso? Why another limp thread about nothing? *peers into Miguel's skull in search of a brain cell*
posted by rodii at 5:48 PM on October 30, 2001
But why do you not learn, MiguelCardoso? Why another limp thread about nothing? *peers into Miguel's skull in search of a brain cell*
posted by rodii at 5:48 PM on October 30, 2001
Obligatory Family Guy reference, referencing Twilight Zone:
Last brain cell looks around -- all the other brain cells are gone. "Why... I have time to read all I want now... Time enough at last!" Leans over to pick up book, thick glasses fall off, break, very funny. Probably not Burgess Meredith, though.
Miguel, is your brain composed of Burgess Meredith?
posted by j.edwards at 6:23 PM on October 30, 2001
Last brain cell looks around -- all the other brain cells are gone. "Why... I have time to read all I want now... Time enough at last!" Leans over to pick up book, thick glasses fall off, break, very funny. Probably not Burgess Meredith, though.
Miguel, is your brain composed of Burgess Meredith?
posted by j.edwards at 6:23 PM on October 30, 2001
Hey! You are talking about the man I love!
or...
the man who loves me...
or...
you know...I could use a drink right now.
Who's buyin'?
posted by ColdChef at 6:33 PM on October 30, 2001
or...
the man who loves me...
or...
you know...I could use a drink right now.
Who's buyin'?
posted by ColdChef at 6:33 PM on October 30, 2001
Miguel's posts = Generally happy, somewhat interesting, jocular little discussions that individuals are free to participate in, or ignore, as the spirit moves them.
"Anti-Miguel League" posts = Usually snide, insulting, and often downright mean.
Which of the above types of posts do more harm to the overall spirit of the site?
posted by Optamystic at 6:57 PM on October 30, 2001
"Anti-Miguel League" posts = Usually snide, insulting, and often downright mean.
Which of the above types of posts do more harm to the overall spirit of the site?
posted by Optamystic at 6:57 PM on October 30, 2001
posting while under the influence
Half the time I can't make a post when I'm on my perferred cocktail of drugs because the damn keys on the keyboard keep moving around.
Oh, and because of the Bats. Dammed leathery beasts! BACK! BACK I SAY!
posted by fuq at 7:11 PM on October 30, 2001
Half the time I can't make a post when I'm on my perferred cocktail of drugs because the damn keys on the keyboard keep moving around.
Oh, and because of the Bats. Dammed leathery beasts! BACK! BACK I SAY!
posted by fuq at 7:11 PM on October 30, 2001
ColdChef -- I'll buy, but you and B. Meredith are gonna try and see who can drink the other under the table. Game?
The drunk-typerey is so much worse on the laptop keyboard... Not to mention the drunken touchpad-using. Ack.
posted by j.edwards at 7:40 PM on October 30, 2001
The drunk-typerey is so much worse on the laptop keyboard... Not to mention the drunken touchpad-using. Ack.
posted by j.edwards at 7:40 PM on October 30, 2001
Which of the above types of posts do more harm to the overall spirit of the site?
1. Self-absorbed, self-motivated and self-obsessed posts about nothing by someone whose post rate is higher than most.
2. Keeping fingers off the post button until something important/useful comes along.
Which of the above does more harm to the overall spirit of the site?
posted by Neale at 8:04 PM on October 30, 2001
1. Self-absorbed, self-motivated and self-obsessed posts about nothing by someone whose post rate is higher than most.
2. Keeping fingers off the post button until something important/useful comes along.
Which of the above does more harm to the overall spirit of the site?
posted by Neale at 8:04 PM on October 30, 2001
Which of the above types of posts do more harm to the overall spirit of the site?
Do you mean the de facto spirit or the intended spirit?
If I post happy silly jocular posts to the front page of Mefi and MeTa with no links and no point every day, and so do twenty other members, would Mefi be a better place?
posted by daveadams at 8:13 PM on October 30, 2001
Do you mean the de facto spirit or the intended spirit?
If I post happy silly jocular posts to the front page of Mefi and MeTa with no links and no point every day, and so do twenty other members, would Mefi be a better place?
posted by daveadams at 8:13 PM on October 30, 2001
would Mefi be a better place?
And if not, do current members have a right to try to do something about it or should they just go with the flow?
posted by daveadams at 8:14 PM on October 30, 2001
And if not, do current members have a right to try to do something about it or should they just go with the flow?
posted by daveadams at 8:14 PM on October 30, 2001
Ummm...Neale? Are you really the one to make a point about
someone who posts obsessively?
Just asking...
posted by ColdChef at 8:15 PM on October 30, 2001
someone who posts obsessively?
Just asking...
posted by ColdChef at 8:15 PM on October 30, 2001
What's the policy on posting while under the influence of alcohol?
Despite gems like "do not appropriate MetaFilter as your own guestbook" and "don't troll", I can't find any mention of PUI (posting under the influence). My guesses are as follows:
• PUI is often indistinguishable from some members' sober behavior.
• PUI affects people differently. Some may become more gregarious, while others may be less likely to delete something that shouldn't be posted. (Caveat: PUI is often indistinguishable from some members' sober behavior.)
• Sometimes, PUI leave you with regrets; other times it may leave you with new friends. (Caveat: PUI is often indistinguishable from some members' sober behavior.)
• When a user admits to PUI, it is impossible to determine the veracity of their statement. (i.e. PUI is often indistinguishable from some members' sober behavior.)
Therefore:
• It is almost impossible to determine whether PUI has occurred in any specific case, so no ruling can be made.
• PUI: YMMV.
posted by iceberg273 at 8:20 PM on October 30, 2001
Despite gems like "do not appropriate MetaFilter as your own guestbook" and "don't troll", I can't find any mention of PUI (posting under the influence). My guesses are as follows:
• PUI is often indistinguishable from some members' sober behavior.
• PUI affects people differently. Some may become more gregarious, while others may be less likely to delete something that shouldn't be posted. (Caveat: PUI is often indistinguishable from some members' sober behavior.)
• Sometimes, PUI leave you with regrets; other times it may leave you with new friends. (Caveat: PUI is often indistinguishable from some members' sober behavior.)
• When a user admits to PUI, it is impossible to determine the veracity of their statement. (i.e. PUI is often indistinguishable from some members' sober behavior.)
Therefore:
• It is almost impossible to determine whether PUI has occurred in any specific case, so no ruling can be made.
• PUI: YMMV.
posted by iceberg273 at 8:20 PM on October 30, 2001
To be fair, ColdChef, being silly, obsessive, and selfish in a thread (and an ooolllddd one at that) is a bit different than being silly, obsessive, and selfish with two entire websites.
posted by daveadams at 8:32 PM on October 30, 2001
posted by daveadams at 8:32 PM on October 30, 2001
This goes beyond simple hair splitting into something like writing Robert's Rules Of Order on the hair shaft.
And if I ever have to read another 'snarky' via link, let alone on a page, why I'll...
Snarky...Now I know there is no life after high school.
posted by y2karl at 8:33 PM on October 30, 2001
And if I ever have to read another 'snarky' via link, let alone on a page, why I'll...
Snarky...Now I know there is no life after high school.
posted by y2karl at 8:33 PM on October 30, 2001
To be fair, ColdChef, being silly, obsessive, and selfish in a thread (and an ooolllddd one at that) is a bit different than being silly, obsessive, and selfish with two entire websites.
Point taken. Let's kill Miguel.
posted by ColdChef at 8:37 PM on October 30, 2001
Point taken. Let's kill Miguel.
posted by ColdChef at 8:37 PM on October 30, 2001
*sharpens champagne sabre*
posted by obiwanwasabi at 8:49 PM on October 30, 2001
posted by obiwanwasabi at 8:49 PM on October 30, 2001
When a user admits to PUI, it is impossible to determine the veracity of their statement. (i.e. PUI is often indistinguishable from some members' sober behavior.)
To get back on track. My feeling is you can tell sober posters, who are probably at work, from PUI posters, who are probably at home. The former tend to be pithier and more to the point; the latter more expansive and tangential.
There might also be a strong element of fantasy but the alcohol culture here at MetaFilter does seem much stronger than the usual pothead stuff. Plus, consumption of alcohol in the U.S. has risen a lot since September 11. Does this reflect itself here? IMHO, it does.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:54 PM on October 30, 2001
To get back on track. My feeling is you can tell sober posters, who are probably at work, from PUI posters, who are probably at home. The former tend to be pithier and more to the point; the latter more expansive and tangential.
There might also be a strong element of fantasy but the alcohol culture here at MetaFilter does seem much stronger than the usual pothead stuff. Plus, consumption of alcohol in the U.S. has risen a lot since September 11. Does this reflect itself here? IMHO, it does.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:54 PM on October 30, 2001
My feeling is you can tell sober posters, who are probably at work, from PUI posters, who are probably at home.
Please. I am posting, stone sober, as always, from home. I am pithy or expansive as the mood takes me, without any reference to my chemical state. You are building an argument on vacuum--you know *nothing* about what's really going on on the other end of that connection. You have *no* data about the rate of "drunken posting" before or after Septermber 11, much less any evidence of a significant shift. And in the unlikely event you're correct, so what?
posted by rodii at 9:13 PM on October 30, 2001
Please. I am posting, stone sober, as always, from home. I am pithy or expansive as the mood takes me, without any reference to my chemical state. You are building an argument on vacuum--you know *nothing* about what's really going on on the other end of that connection. You have *no* data about the rate of "drunken posting" before or after Septermber 11, much less any evidence of a significant shift. And in the unlikely event you're correct, so what?
posted by rodii at 9:13 PM on October 30, 2001
Plus, consumption of alcohol in the U.S. has risen a lot since September 11.
Where can we find numbers for that? If you could point that out to us, we could add it to the earlier posts on increases in sexual activity and posts on relief concerts.
This would add weight to the argument that one way to combat terrorism is through sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll.
posted by iceberg273 at 9:18 PM on October 30, 2001
Where can we find numbers for that? If you could point that out to us, we could add it to the earlier posts on increases in sexual activity and posts on relief concerts.
This would add weight to the argument that one way to combat terrorism is through sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll.
posted by iceberg273 at 9:18 PM on October 30, 2001
Is PUI pronounced "pooey," by the way?
Yes, but with more ooo.
posted by iceberg273 at 9:19 PM on October 30, 2001
Yes, but with more ooo.
posted by iceberg273 at 9:19 PM on October 30, 2001
iceberg273:
It's an impression formed by reading the New York press. I'll try to round up some references, though it'll mainly be column items. At a pinch this NYT article does seem to point in this direction, although there's only a small mention of alcohol.
rodii:
With all due respect, I don't think you're very interested in this topic or any other I might come up with. Surely we can both live with that and leave it at that.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:57 PM on October 30, 2001
It's an impression formed by reading the New York press. I'll try to round up some references, though it'll mainly be column items. At a pinch this NYT article does seem to point in this direction, although there's only a small mention of alcohol.
rodii:
With all due respect, I don't think you're very interested in this topic or any other I might come up with. Surely we can both live with that and leave it at that.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:57 PM on October 30, 2001
He's not a jerk, he's realistic.
He's not a pessimist, he's a realist.
He's not irritable, he's keeping it real.
...Although I would like to get some sources on those stats before I simply blindly believe them...
posted by j.edwards at 10:34 PM on October 30, 2001
He's not a pessimist, he's a realist.
He's not irritable, he's keeping it real.
...Although I would like to get some sources on those stats before I simply blindly believe them...
posted by j.edwards at 10:34 PM on October 30, 2001
j.edwards:
The thing is writing and drinking do tend to go together. There is a hell of a lot of research out there into the connection between creativity and writing. It is possible to, for instance, read Faulkner and tell which passages were written while drunk.
Many writers - and posters are writers too - need a drink or two to get going. My hunch is that this is on the increase here at MeFi. The quality of certain posts has certainly gone up. :-)
Here's a good newspaper story on a book written by the head of Kansas University's Psychiatry Dept which sums up the not-so-simple problems involved.
Quote:
(Donald W.)Goodwin looked at the seven Americans who have won the Nobel prize for literature and found that four of them--Sinclair Lewis, Eugene O'Neill, William Faulkner and Ernest Hemingway--were definitely alcoholic, while a fifth--John Steinbeck--drank to excess. The two Nobel winners who weren't alcoholics were Pearl Buck and Saul Bellow.
Goodwin also discusses the drinking lives of Edgar Allen Poe, Scott Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Steinbeck, Faulkner, O'Neill and Malcolm Lowry. He concludes that alcoholism is an epidemic among 20th-century writers.
If you took away the alcohol a lot of great literature would not have been written. Doesn't this apply here at MetaFilter too? I think it does and deserves discussing, along with all the other substances, of course...
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:46 PM on October 30, 2001
rodii, need you be such a jerk?
Please try to understand why some people on MeFi are upset about the kinds of threads that have been started in the past months (although this all seems to be coming to a head now). Metafilter has changed a lot in the past two years. The focus of this site used to be sweet, sweet linkage, and not much discussion. Then we got to the point where there was quite a bit (but not too much) of both. Those were heady days, when you could keep track of threads easily and when good links appeared with regularity (or so it seems in my old age). Then, everything changed. Some blame popularity, others blame the 2000 election. Whatever the reason, discussion seemed to take over. Some long time contributers got frustrated and left. Others threatened to do so. Still others, addicted to the sweet, sweet linkage, stayed around, but were constantly frustrated at the difficulty encountered in obtaining the information and links that they joined Metafilter for. O course, you probably know all this already.
MetaTalk used to be a board for posting problems with MeFi, and general weblog things. It was frequented by a small group of people who checked in regularly, tried to help with problems and suggestions, and constantly worked toward making this a better site. So there was a necessary comraderie that grew up among those who frequented MeTa. Now MeTa has turned into a water cooler of sorts instead of a help desk. This was probably unavoidable, as MeTa has always tended more to hijinks than MeFi because the people who frequent MeTa are more familiar with each other. I admit to being involved with silliness a time or two myself. However, the comraderie and joking used to be confined to threads once problems were solved. Now, it is often solicited from the front page (or at least is preceived that way). This frustrates some people.
I have seen some very good things happening in the last few days on MeFi. There have been some great links posted recently that I would not have found otherwise (yay!) - which is, of course, MeFi's stated purpose. More people seem to be taking care with the front page posts that they craft. (Huzzah!) And we almost escaped the 30th with nary a new MeTa post. (Hoo- . . . oh.)
What may seem like hostility on the part of some people is probably the result of frustration. Frustration with what? Well, Matt has always trusted the users of this site to know what was appropriate, how far to push things, and when to quit. Sometimes PUI occurs (the influence may vary), but the community usually points out the wrong. However, when a number of people who have contributed significantly to MeFi and MeTa in the past (and who continue to do so) ask for specific behavior to cease (with good reason), and it continues unabated, there will be some unhappy responses.
A secret: I highlighted certain parts of the MeFi guidelines above for a reason.
posted by iceberg273 at 10:57 PM on October 30, 2001
Please try to understand why some people on MeFi are upset about the kinds of threads that have been started in the past months (although this all seems to be coming to a head now). Metafilter has changed a lot in the past two years. The focus of this site used to be sweet, sweet linkage, and not much discussion. Then we got to the point where there was quite a bit (but not too much) of both. Those were heady days, when you could keep track of threads easily and when good links appeared with regularity (or so it seems in my old age). Then, everything changed. Some blame popularity, others blame the 2000 election. Whatever the reason, discussion seemed to take over. Some long time contributers got frustrated and left. Others threatened to do so. Still others, addicted to the sweet, sweet linkage, stayed around, but were constantly frustrated at the difficulty encountered in obtaining the information and links that they joined Metafilter for. O course, you probably know all this already.
MetaTalk used to be a board for posting problems with MeFi, and general weblog things. It was frequented by a small group of people who checked in regularly, tried to help with problems and suggestions, and constantly worked toward making this a better site. So there was a necessary comraderie that grew up among those who frequented MeTa. Now MeTa has turned into a water cooler of sorts instead of a help desk. This was probably unavoidable, as MeTa has always tended more to hijinks than MeFi because the people who frequent MeTa are more familiar with each other. I admit to being involved with silliness a time or two myself. However, the comraderie and joking used to be confined to threads once problems were solved. Now, it is often solicited from the front page (or at least is preceived that way). This frustrates some people.
I have seen some very good things happening in the last few days on MeFi. There have been some great links posted recently that I would not have found otherwise (yay!) - which is, of course, MeFi's stated purpose. More people seem to be taking care with the front page posts that they craft. (Huzzah!) And we almost escaped the 30th with nary a new MeTa post. (Hoo- . . . oh.)
What may seem like hostility on the part of some people is probably the result of frustration. Frustration with what? Well, Matt has always trusted the users of this site to know what was appropriate, how far to push things, and when to quit. Sometimes PUI occurs (the influence may vary), but the community usually points out the wrong. However, when a number of people who have contributed significantly to MeFi and MeTa in the past (and who continue to do so) ask for specific behavior to cease (with good reason), and it continues unabated, there will be some unhappy responses.
A secret: I highlighted certain parts of the MeFi guidelines above for a reason.
posted by iceberg273 at 10:57 PM on October 30, 2001
With all due respect, I don't think you're very interested in this topic or any other I might come up with. Surely we can both live with that and leave it at that.
I am interested, really, especially about the changes in alcohol consumption since 9/11. I just disagree with you about its application to MeFi.
rodii, need you be such a jerk?
Marquis, I take your point. I'm honestly not trying to be a jerk. There are two things happening here, though, and it's hard to keep them separate.
One is this thread on alcohol. I think Miguel is making silly, baseless claims, and I'm disputing them, but I mean no disrespect to him by doing so. In fact--though you might suspect otherwise given the last couple days--I like Miguel and think he has great things to say in threads that are about something, which includes this one, sort of, though as I say, I think he's off base.
The other is the ongoing issue of Miguel's use of this site. I won't belabor it here. I think I've made my position (admittedly, somewhat obnoxiously) clear. But it isn't just vituperation on my part. I think there's a problem and I'm not the only one. I've bit my tongue in the past, because I honestly don't like making people feel bad, but I didn't bite hard enough the last couple days.
The problem comes when every reaction I have to Miguel is perceived as piling on. It's clear Miguel thinks that's what's going on here, that I have some sort of vendetta against him. I honestly, sincerely, don't. I just object to the way he's using MetaTalk. But I haven't done a good job of keeping the two kinds of disagreement separate, and I apologize for that.
...and now that I've reviewed I see there's a whole lot of new stuff in the discussion, but I won't even try to respond to it. I think I'll be a little quieter for a while.
posted by rodii at 10:59 PM on October 30, 2001
I am interested, really, especially about the changes in alcohol consumption since 9/11. I just disagree with you about its application to MeFi.
rodii, need you be such a jerk?
Marquis, I take your point. I'm honestly not trying to be a jerk. There are two things happening here, though, and it's hard to keep them separate.
One is this thread on alcohol. I think Miguel is making silly, baseless claims, and I'm disputing them, but I mean no disrespect to him by doing so. In fact--though you might suspect otherwise given the last couple days--I like Miguel and think he has great things to say in threads that are about something, which includes this one, sort of, though as I say, I think he's off base.
The other is the ongoing issue of Miguel's use of this site. I won't belabor it here. I think I've made my position (admittedly, somewhat obnoxiously) clear. But it isn't just vituperation on my part. I think there's a problem and I'm not the only one. I've bit my tongue in the past, because I honestly don't like making people feel bad, but I didn't bite hard enough the last couple days.
The problem comes when every reaction I have to Miguel is perceived as piling on. It's clear Miguel thinks that's what's going on here, that I have some sort of vendetta against him. I honestly, sincerely, don't. I just object to the way he's using MetaTalk. But I haven't done a good job of keeping the two kinds of disagreement separate, and I apologize for that.
...and now that I've reviewed I see there's a whole lot of new stuff in the discussion, but I won't even try to respond to it. I think I'll be a little quieter for a while.
posted by rodii at 10:59 PM on October 30, 2001
rodii, need you be such a jerk?
If we assume, for the sake of argument, that Rodii is being a jerk (and, for the record, I don't think he is), then, yes, his level of jerkishness may very well be required here. Everything short of outright jerkishness has failed utterly to tame the beast that is Miguel Cardoso on MetaTalk.
If you were viewing this post all by itself, without any context, then you could just dismiss it as harmless silliness. It's stupid, of course. The proportion of people who post on MeFi while they're drinking is almost certainly negligible, and when someone does post drunk, no one really cares.
But MetaTalk is a context, and in that context, this is one more ridiculous post in a series of ridiculous posts. Yes, we could ignore it, but it still takes up space on the MeTa front page, making it harder to see other things.
It frustrates me when someone tries to preempt criticism as in: (Please don't flame; I paid yesterday!) When you post here, you know this is a critical site. And if you want to avoid people taking shots at you, then find some real content. Stop doing the same stupid things over and over again and expecting a different outcome.
People are going to continue to grow increasingly blunt until the problem gets better.
posted by anapestic at 5:10 AM on October 31, 2001
If we assume, for the sake of argument, that Rodii is being a jerk (and, for the record, I don't think he is), then, yes, his level of jerkishness may very well be required here. Everything short of outright jerkishness has failed utterly to tame the beast that is Miguel Cardoso on MetaTalk.
If you were viewing this post all by itself, without any context, then you could just dismiss it as harmless silliness. It's stupid, of course. The proportion of people who post on MeFi while they're drinking is almost certainly negligible, and when someone does post drunk, no one really cares.
But MetaTalk is a context, and in that context, this is one more ridiculous post in a series of ridiculous posts. Yes, we could ignore it, but it still takes up space on the MeTa front page, making it harder to see other things.
It frustrates me when someone tries to preempt criticism as in: (Please don't flame; I paid yesterday!) When you post here, you know this is a critical site. And if you want to avoid people taking shots at you, then find some real content. Stop doing the same stupid things over and over again and expecting a different outcome.
People are going to continue to grow increasingly blunt until the problem gets better.
posted by anapestic at 5:10 AM on October 31, 2001
::: continues scribbling in his little notebook...looks up, reads another passage, shakes his head and laughs uproariously...scribbles... :::
posted by rushmc at 5:39 AM on October 31, 2001
posted by rushmc at 5:39 AM on October 31, 2001
Thanks for that response, rodii. It wasn't jerk-ish at all.
As for those who tried to further explain his actions for him:
I understand why people are frustrated with Miguel; I understand (and agree with some of) the criticism that's being given here. My bone isn't with this, it's with some people's need to couch such criticism in needlessly vitreolic attacks. Granted, there are some emotions involved, but just as you're encouraged not to post to MeFi in anger - as such ad hominem-y things dilute arguments and breed a negative atmosphere - the same should be recommended here at MeTa. People can and will disagree, but I have little patience for those who don't pay others enough respect to even behave towards them in a decent manner.
What it comes down to is that I don't like mean people, and mean people are bad for MeFi. So, rather than encouraging an atmosphere of cruelty, please everyone try to hold off from, yeah, being jerks.
posted by Marquis at 8:37 AM on October 31, 2001
As for those who tried to further explain his actions for him:
I understand why people are frustrated with Miguel; I understand (and agree with some of) the criticism that's being given here. My bone isn't with this, it's with some people's need to couch such criticism in needlessly vitreolic attacks. Granted, there are some emotions involved, but just as you're encouraged not to post to MeFi in anger - as such ad hominem-y things dilute arguments and breed a negative atmosphere - the same should be recommended here at MeTa. People can and will disagree, but I have little patience for those who don't pay others enough respect to even behave towards them in a decent manner.
What it comes down to is that I don't like mean people, and mean people are bad for MeFi. So, rather than encouraging an atmosphere of cruelty, please everyone try to hold off from, yeah, being jerks.
posted by Marquis at 8:37 AM on October 31, 2001
Sweet Jebus, I need a drink.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:27 AM on November 1, 2001
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:27 AM on November 1, 2001
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
The references to nose-splurging, too, increasingly mention alcoholic drinks; not to mention day-after apologies and online outright confessions of imbibing. What's up?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:18 PM on October 30, 2001