"Pedophilia" comment in torture discussion December 30, 2005 7:12 AM   Subscribe


well, as long as he's bent over...
posted by mischief at 7:18 AM on December 30, 2005


For completeness: The sentence seems to be an answer to Rothko's "Joeforking, just curious, do you think pedophilia is a sexual orientation? Because you sound awfully familiar." (in answer to Joeforking's hippie bashing).
posted by nkyad at 7:22 AM on December 30, 2005


please...someone think of the children
posted by j.p. Hung at 7:28 AM on December 30, 2005


What's the point to this callout, orthogonality?
posted by mediareport at 7:28 AM on December 30, 2005


Quotes are missing.

As is context.

As is any fucking sense at all with these flailing argue-monkeys.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:37 AM on December 30, 2005


Rothko is trying to provoke joeforking to admit he is a sockpuppet (one belonging to an old adversary, i'd guess from the comment referenced by nkyad)

So: another Rothko thread/ another sockpuppet thread.

Great!
posted by dash_slot- at 7:40 AM on December 30, 2005


... one belonging to an old adversary ...

??

"So, we meet again, joeforking... or should I say... nkyad!?"
posted by odinsdream at 7:47 AM on December 30, 2005


odinsdream : "'So, we meet again, joeforking... or should I say... nkyad!?'"

Hey, leave me out of it, I was just supplying information.

and I don't have adversaries, just accidentally deceased former enemies - hehe
posted by nkyad at 7:51 AM on December 30, 2005


I'm confused. Oh yeah, happy new year.
posted by fixedgear at 7:52 AM on December 30, 2005


This is dull as fuck.
posted by selfnoise at 7:56 AM on December 30, 2005


I bow to your gnome-icity.
posted by Wolfdog at 7:59 AM on December 30, 2005


This reminds me of one of my favorite Far Side cartoons.
posted by Gator at 8:00 AM on December 30, 2005


Father! The pantsfish has awakened!

sips damn good coffee, and hot
posted by cortex at 8:01 AM on December 30, 2005


Wow that looks like such a fun thread.
Um..orthogonality, perhaps you might care to elaborate.
posted by peacay at 8:01 AM on December 30, 2005


ortho - What's your point? That it's a terrible comment? If that's it, then flag it and move on - that would be better than inviting more ugliness over here. If that's not your point then -- what?
posted by raedyn at 8:03 AM on December 30, 2005


Yes, if you agree with someone else, then you are that same someone else. There are only like 2 or 300 people in the world, the rest are just sockpuppets projected onto the astral plain!
posted by delmoi at 8:04 AM on December 30, 2005


[this callout sucks]
posted by delmoi at 8:05 AM on December 30, 2005


*crickets jump around on ortho's keyboard*
posted by mediareport at 8:13 AM on December 30, 2005


I still don't understand if this callout is a) because Joeforking was trolling, b) because Rothko was trolling, c) because both were trolling, d) because one, some or all of the above and Joeforking is a sockpuppet, e) something else.
posted by nkyad at 8:15 AM on December 30, 2005


delmoi: this callout sucks

Well, the upside is it moves the jonmc/s-o-l clusterfuck a little closer to scrolling off the page.
posted by cedar at 8:18 AM on December 30, 2005


Let's see, the initial question from Rothko is a reference to 111, if I remember correctly. So, he's suggesting that Joeforking is actually Witty, as at least one member has claimed that Witty and 111 were the same person, though I've never been clear on the evidence. So assuming Joeforking should be parsed as "Joe for king", that makes his name Joe Witty, who was a television weatherman once upon a time if memory serves.

I'm not sure what any of this means, but if it ends with me meeting Al Roker I'm all for it.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 8:19 AM on December 30, 2005


(E): This callout is something else.
posted by yhbc at 8:19 AM on December 30, 2005


I took it as in very poor taste, and possibly a bigoted allusion to Rothko being gay.

Yeah, perhaps Rothko invited it by presuming joeforking was a sock puppet, but it's still in terrible taste.
posted by orthogonality at 8:20 AM on December 30, 2005


Joeforking also insulted two other users in the same comment, then added his next comment, which consisted entirely of: "score!"

That's just bad form.
posted by orthogonality at 8:23 AM on December 30, 2005


I think "score" was just a correction to "core" in his previous comment. He had meant to say "45 is the score to beat," referring of course to jonmc.
posted by Gator at 8:25 AM on December 30, 2005


So now we're bringing every instance of poor taste to MetaTalk? Jesus, ortho, are you *trying* to kill the usefulness of this part of the site?
posted by mediareport at 8:27 AM on December 30, 2005


No, but I believe that backing up fellow political buddies is par for the course here, mediareport.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 8:33 AM on December 30, 2005


Rothko is making no sense. The account isn't a sockpuppet. I can't see it being tied to anyone. Rothko brought up pedophillia out of the blue (in reference to what or who, I have no idea).

joeforking responded poorly by taking the bait that should have never been offered in the first place.

I guess my question is why Rothko has to start it all by attacking other users he disagrees with?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:35 AM on December 30, 2005


but it's still in terrible taste.
posted by orthogonality at 8:20 AM PST on December 30


...and the first ref. to paedophilia was by Rothko, in a thread about torture.

Who was in poor taste and off-topic, again?
posted by dash_slot- at 8:40 AM on December 30, 2005


Er, yeah, what he said.
posted by dash_slot- at 8:41 AM on December 30, 2005


joeforking probably had no idea wtf rothko was talking about (I certanly didn't), and assumed he was in some way calling him a pedophile for whatever reason.
posted by delmoi at 8:41 AM on December 30, 2005


I always parsed it as "Joe Forking". Like Joe was, I dunno, eating with a fork. Or maybe coming the bifurcation of a path in the woods. Huh.
posted by cortex at 8:46 AM on December 30, 2005


coming to

score!
posted by cortex at 8:46 AM on December 30, 2005


Y'all crazy.

On another tip, what's with all this noise all over the pages? MeTa's new header's ugly as sin and too bulky, and the footer stuff (while filling a functional need) is also clumsy.

I'm not saying that it wasn't a good notion, Matt, but I am sayin' that it's not very pretty...
posted by klangklangston at 9:06 AM on December 30, 2005


Uh... why are you guys responding to orthogonality? Your comments should be directed to "the real author."
posted by Krrrlson at 9:17 AM on December 30, 2005


These last few callouts have me totally confused. Is there a point to any of this or is this actually an exploded spleen all over my screen?

Sheesh.
posted by leftcoastbob at 9:30 AM on December 30, 2005


I can't wait for the holidays to be over and for people to have real work to preoccupy their minds with, me included. Anyone else off until the 9th?
posted by furtive at 9:31 AM on December 30, 2005


Krrrlson, that was uncalled for.
posted by raedyn at 9:31 AM on December 30, 2005


I'm hitting myself with a plastic hammer! I'm hitting myself with a plastic hammer!
posted by OmieWise at 9:45 AM on December 30, 2005


Actually, I was standing in the distance, calling for it. I'm a son of a bitch that way.
posted by cortex at 9:45 AM on December 30, 2005


Anyone else off until the 9th?

*commits violence against furtive*
posted by cortex at 9:46 AM on December 30, 2005


AskMe questions should have a purpose, goal, or problem to be solved.

Could we perhaps consider extending the same criteria to MetaTalk callouts, and start culling those that don't equally strictly? Or failing that, require the original poster to at least attempt to explain wtf they've got their underwear in a commotion about?
posted by normy at 9:51 AM on December 30, 2005


MetaTalk: Don't equally strictly!
posted by mischief at 9:58 AM on December 30, 2005


I guess my question is why Rothko has to start it all by attacking other users he disagrees with?

Huh? He's Rothko.
posted by xmutex at 9:59 AM on December 30, 2005


Krrrlson, that was uncalled for.

Correct (in a literal sense) but more of a little jab than a heinous slur.
posted by Kwantsar at 10:21 AM on December 30, 2005


MetaTalk: Don't equally strictly!
What? Another rule! Can we have some consistency here?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:27 AM on December 30, 2005


so, rothko lurvs little girls?
posted by quonsar at 10:44 AM on December 30, 2005


He lurves them long time.
posted by fandango_matt at 10:51 AM on December 30, 2005


« Older Anonymous Posting   |   SF New Year's Meetup Newer »

This thread is closed to new comments.