Civilization Vs. The Middle Ages August 24, 2006 3:27 AM Subscribe
Civilisation Vs. The Middle Ages. This has got to be a self link. A single link to a 'framing' post on a blog with two posts and a miss-spelled title (and you know it's bad if I notice something being misspelled), all by someone who posted a handful of comments from over a year ago wherein he called for the execution of both Hugo Chavez and Cindy Sheehan.
Zagzman speaks. Just as, if not more interesting than the content of his FPP, are the responses from others on Metafilter who are cheering his message.
posted by sour cream at 3:37 AM on August 24, 2006
posted by sour cream at 3:37 AM on August 24, 2006
I spell Civilisation that way too. You septics and your kooky take on English...
posted by brautigan at 3:41 AM on August 24, 2006
posted by brautigan at 3:41 AM on August 24, 2006
sour - even a stopped clock give the right time twice a day.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 3:45 AM on August 24, 2006
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 3:45 AM on August 24, 2006
"gives"
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 4:01 AM on August 24, 2006
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 4:01 AM on August 24, 2006
His flurry of comments last November resulted in a MeTa thread, too.
posted by mediareport at 4:15 AM on August 24, 2006
posted by mediareport at 4:15 AM on August 24, 2006
Actually, "civilisation" is incorrect. As a condition of America winning the Cold War, England was forced to sign the so-called 'Treaty of Colors and Neighbors' which deprecated British English and recognized American English as the superior and more popular language. While "civilisation" and others are quaint, they are mispellings.
posted by nixerman at 4:16 AM on August 24, 2006
posted by nixerman at 4:16 AM on August 24, 2006
Isn't the post a double anyhow? I agree it looks fishy otherwise as well, but seems like there are other reasons to remove it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:30 AM on August 24, 2006
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:30 AM on August 24, 2006
The online Oxford dictionary suggests "Civilization" when one searches for "Civilisation", even in the UK view. In the "civilization" entry, "civilisation" is included as an alternate spelling. The online Oxford Dictionary does not have an entry for "civilisation". Who's kooky now, brautigan?
;-)
posted by syzygy at 4:35 AM on August 24, 2006
;-)
posted by syzygy at 4:35 AM on August 24, 2006
You've both misspelt misspelled.
posted by strawberryviagra at 5:08 AM on August 24, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by strawberryviagra at 5:08 AM on August 24, 2006 [1 favorite]
The Compact OED is the arbiter of precizely silch.
posted by riotgrrl69 at 6:01 AM on August 24, 2006
posted by riotgrrl69 at 6:01 AM on August 24, 2006
You septics and your kooky take on English...
Was this to be a play on sceptic/skeptic or is delmoi ill?
posted by yerfatma at 6:43 AM on August 24, 2006
Was this to be a play on sceptic/skeptic or is delmoi ill?
posted by yerfatma at 6:43 AM on August 24, 2006
Yet another case of metafilter provincialism.
posted by crunchland at 6:45 AM on August 24, 2006
posted by crunchland at 6:45 AM on August 24, 2006
I believe that septic is Anitpodean slang for American, though I thought is was "seppie." Apparently it evolved from an Australian schoolboy rhyme of the WW2 era: "Yank, Yank, septic tank."
Is that right?
posted by LarryC at 7:04 AM on August 24, 2006
Is that right?
posted by LarryC at 7:04 AM on August 24, 2006
Was this to be a play on sceptic/skeptic or is delmoi ill?
No, "septic" is an old anti-American bit of Brit slang from the 1700s, playing of the perception of the Colonies as a nature-damned, undeveloped place to live. Stuck out in the woods, as it were, where there was basically nothing "'cept ticks".
Goddam Brits.
posted by cortex at 7:05 AM on August 24, 2006
No, "septic" is an old anti-American bit of Brit slang from the 1700s, playing of the perception of the Colonies as a nature-damned, undeveloped place to live. Stuck out in the woods, as it were, where there was basically nothing "'cept ticks".
Goddam Brits.
posted by cortex at 7:05 AM on August 24, 2006
I would have thought it came from "seperation" but that's an interesting derivation also.
posted by RustyBrooks at 7:07 AM on August 24, 2006
posted by RustyBrooks at 7:07 AM on August 24, 2006
Wait, Aussies were making fun of Americans for being in the middle of nowhere?
posted by dame at 7:57 AM on August 24, 2006
posted by dame at 7:57 AM on August 24, 2006
all by someone who posted a handful of comments from over a year ago wherein he called for the execution of both Hugo Chavez and Cindy Sheehan.
posted by delmoi to etiquette/policy at 5:27 AM CST (17 comments total)
What does that have to do with your comment about a double post?
Is his post somehow more egregious because he called for the execution of Chavez and Sheehan? Is he somehow deserving of more attention/less slack?
Are you suggesting that calling for someone to be put to death is "uncivilized"? Surely the objection is not to wishing harm upon your enemies, for how many times do we see people posting about killing Bush or Cheney or Pat Robertson or whomever? Or is it a reasonable thing to say when referencing those people, but somehow unreasonable when referring to Chavez or Sheehan?
Either his post was a double or self-link or it wasn't. I find the referencing to his former comments to be, quite simply, McCarthyism in that by signaling the other comments, our reaction to him is somehow supposed to change because of the content of his views.
posted by dios at 8:16 AM on August 24, 2006
posted by delmoi to etiquette/policy at 5:27 AM CST (17 comments total)
What does that have to do with your comment about a double post?
Is his post somehow more egregious because he called for the execution of Chavez and Sheehan? Is he somehow deserving of more attention/less slack?
Are you suggesting that calling for someone to be put to death is "uncivilized"? Surely the objection is not to wishing harm upon your enemies, for how many times do we see people posting about killing Bush or Cheney or Pat Robertson or whomever? Or is it a reasonable thing to say when referencing those people, but somehow unreasonable when referring to Chavez or Sheehan?
Either his post was a double or self-link or it wasn't. I find the referencing to his former comments to be, quite simply, McCarthyism in that by signaling the other comments, our reaction to him is somehow supposed to change because of the content of his views.
posted by dios at 8:16 AM on August 24, 2006
I find the referencing to his former comments to be, quite simply, McCarthyism...
Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the hyperbolic party?
posted by kosem at 8:29 AM on August 24, 2006
Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the hyperbolic party?
posted by kosem at 8:29 AM on August 24, 2006
Wait, Aussies were making fun of Americans for being in the middle of nowhere?
Of course not. Australians make fun of Americans for being in the middle of nowhere and acting like they're at the centre of everything.
posted by bunglin jones at 8:32 AM on August 24, 2006 [1 favorite]
Of course not. Australians make fun of Americans for being in the middle of nowhere and acting like they're at the centre of everything.
posted by bunglin jones at 8:32 AM on August 24, 2006 [1 favorite]
What does that have to do with your comment about a double post?
Eh, I think he's just pointing out that the guy's a lousy poster and an asshole.
posted by interrobang at 8:42 AM on August 24, 2006
Eh, I think he's just pointing out that the guy's a lousy poster and an asshole.
posted by interrobang at 8:42 AM on August 24, 2006
What is weird is that typepad site only has 2 entries and I can't seem to find any references to it except a bunch of ads. So it could be a selflink, but there really isn't any evidence of that.
Also, stop being such a fucking drama queen, dios. "McCarthyism" - geez.
posted by bob sarabia at 8:43 AM on August 24, 2006
Also, stop being such a fucking drama queen, dios. "McCarthyism" - geez.
posted by bob sarabia at 8:43 AM on August 24, 2006
for how many times do we see people posting about killing Bush or Cheney or Pat Robertson or whomever?
Links, please.
posted by interrobang at 8:43 AM on August 24, 2006
Links, please.
posted by interrobang at 8:43 AM on August 24, 2006
Wow, people are regularly calling for Bush to be killed? dios, are we reading the same site? I mean, this is a good question. How many times has this happened?
posted by nixerman at 8:45 AM on August 24, 2006
posted by nixerman at 8:45 AM on August 24, 2006
Well, it did happen a couple times, I think. There was that great big metatalk thread about the FBI coming down on Matt if a "kill bush" post or comment was left standing, I recall.
But, yeah, seems we go more for vituperation and wishes of harm or ceased existence more than actual deathwishes most of the time.
posted by cortex at 8:51 AM on August 24, 2006
But, yeah, seems we go more for vituperation and wishes of harm or ceased existence more than actual deathwishes most of the time.
posted by cortex at 8:51 AM on August 24, 2006
Surely the objection is not to wishing harm upon your enemies, for how many times do we see people posting about killing Bush or Cheney or Pat Robertson or whomever?
back that up with links or shut the fuck up for once
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:52 AM on August 24, 2006
back that up with links or shut the fuck up for once
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:52 AM on August 24, 2006
Oh, hey, and didn't Pat Robertson advocate capping Chavez? Wasn't that a thread (and no doubt a real keeper) on the blue, a while back? Maybe dios confused the blue with the 700 club? It all runs together, sometimes.
posted by cortex at 8:52 AM on August 24, 2006
posted by cortex at 8:52 AM on August 24, 2006
Here's what the complete online OED says for 'civilization':
1. Law. ‘A law, act of justice, or judgement, which renders a criminal process civil; which is performed by turning an information into an inquest, or the contrary’ (Harris, quoted by J.) The assimilation of Common Law to the Civil Law.
1704-10 HARRIS Lex. Techn. (see above). 1727-51 CHAMBERS Cycl., Civilisation is performed by turning the information into an inquest, or vice versa. 1730-36 in BAILEY. 1812 T. JEFFERSON Writ. (1830) IV. 179 Getting us rid of all Mansfield's innovations, or civilizations of the common law.
2. The action or process of civilizing or of being civilized.
1775 ASH Dict., Civilization, the state of being civilized, the act of civilizing. 1828-46 WHATELY Elem. Rhet. I. ii. §4 The descriptions some writers give of the civilization of mankind, by the spontaneous origin, among tribes of savages, of the various arts of life, one by one. 1879 M. ARNOLD Mixed Ess. Pref. 6 Civilisation is the humanisation of man in society. Mod. To attempt the civilization of the Australian aborigines.
3. (More usually) Civilized condition or state; a developed or advanced state of human society; a particular stage or a particular type of this.
1772 BOSWELL Johnson xxv, On Monday, March 23, I found him [Johnson] busy, preparing a fourth edition of his folio Dictionary..He would not admit civilization, but only civility. With great deference to him, I thought civilization, from to civilize, better in the sense opposed to barbarity, than civility. 1775 in ASH [see 2]. a1790 WARTON (T.), The general growth of refinement and the progression of civilisation. 1790 BURKE Fr. Rev. Wks. V. 154 Our manners, our civilization, and all the good things which are connected with manners, and with civilization. 1814 SIR T. MUNRO Evid. bef. Comm. H of C., Then the Hindoos are not inferior in civilization to the people of Europe. 1857 BUCKLE Civiliz. I. ii. 45 The seat of Egyptian civilization; a civilization which..forms a striking contrast to the barbarism of the other nations of Africa. Ibid. 46 The civilization of Europe..has shown a capacity of development unknown to those civilizations which were originated by soil. 1865 LECKY Ration. (1878) I. 18 The ancient civilisations. 1874 HELPS Soc. Press. iii. 42 The more advanced the civilization, the less powerful is the individual.
b. transf.
1874 LUBBOCK Orig. & Met. Ins. i. 13 Some communities of ants are more advanced in civilization than others.
Here's what is says for 'civilisation':
There are no results
posted by biffa at 8:53 AM on August 24, 2006
1. Law. ‘A law, act of justice, or judgement, which renders a criminal process civil; which is performed by turning an information into an inquest, or the contrary’ (Harris, quoted by J.) The assimilation of Common Law to the Civil Law.
1704-10 HARRIS Lex. Techn. (see above). 1727-51 CHAMBERS Cycl., Civilisation is performed by turning the information into an inquest, or vice versa. 1730-36 in BAILEY. 1812 T. JEFFERSON Writ. (1830) IV. 179 Getting us rid of all Mansfield's innovations, or civilizations of the common law.
2. The action or process of civilizing or of being civilized.
1775 ASH Dict., Civilization, the state of being civilized, the act of civilizing. 1828-46 WHATELY Elem. Rhet. I. ii. §4 The descriptions some writers give of the civilization of mankind, by the spontaneous origin, among tribes of savages, of the various arts of life, one by one. 1879 M. ARNOLD Mixed Ess. Pref. 6 Civilisation is the humanisation of man in society. Mod. To attempt the civilization of the Australian aborigines.
3. (More usually) Civilized condition or state; a developed or advanced state of human society; a particular stage or a particular type of this.
1772 BOSWELL Johnson xxv, On Monday, March 23, I found him [Johnson] busy, preparing a fourth edition of his folio Dictionary..He would not admit civilization, but only civility. With great deference to him, I thought civilization, from to civilize, better in the sense opposed to barbarity, than civility. 1775 in ASH [see 2]. a1790 WARTON (T.), The general growth of refinement and the progression of civilisation. 1790 BURKE Fr. Rev. Wks. V. 154 Our manners, our civilization, and all the good things which are connected with manners, and with civilization. 1814 SIR T. MUNRO Evid. bef. Comm. H of C., Then the Hindoos are not inferior in civilization to the people of Europe. 1857 BUCKLE Civiliz. I. ii. 45 The seat of Egyptian civilization; a civilization which..forms a striking contrast to the barbarism of the other nations of Africa. Ibid. 46 The civilization of Europe..has shown a capacity of development unknown to those civilizations which were originated by soil. 1865 LECKY Ration. (1878) I. 18 The ancient civilisations. 1874 HELPS Soc. Press. iii. 42 The more advanced the civilization, the less powerful is the individual.
b. transf.
1874 LUBBOCK Orig. & Met. Ins. i. 13 Some communities of ants are more advanced in civilization than others.
Here's what is says for 'civilisation':
There are no results
posted by biffa at 8:53 AM on August 24, 2006
Wow, people are regularly calling for Bush to be killed? dios, are we reading the same site? I mean, this is a good question. How many times has this happened?
posted by nixerman at 10:45 AM CST on August 24
First off, I never said regularly. But it has happened plenty more times than anything said about Chavez or Sheehan and goes uncommented on. And that's my point. But, I see where you are coming from: "dios made a comment. Must. Argue. With. It." I'm not going to spend any energy getting you links because I really don't care enough. If you want to argue that kind of language about killing Bush/Cheney/Rove/Robertson etc doesn't occur here, have at it.
Personally, I think all "kill my enemies" talk is embarassing bullshit. But I find it to be a degree more offensive when you try to act as if someone has committed a grave sin against civilization when they say someone you like should be off'ed, and yet, you are not bothered when similar things are said about people you hate. But then again, that would be expecting consistency.
posted by dios at 9:02 AM on August 24, 2006
posted by nixerman at 10:45 AM CST on August 24
First off, I never said regularly. But it has happened plenty more times than anything said about Chavez or Sheehan and goes uncommented on. And that's my point. But, I see where you are coming from: "dios made a comment. Must. Argue. With. It." I'm not going to spend any energy getting you links because I really don't care enough. If you want to argue that kind of language about killing Bush/Cheney/Rove/Robertson etc doesn't occur here, have at it.
Personally, I think all "kill my enemies" talk is embarassing bullshit. But I find it to be a degree more offensive when you try to act as if someone has committed a grave sin against civilization when they say someone you like should be off'ed, and yet, you are not bothered when similar things are said about people you hate. But then again, that would be expecting consistency.
posted by dios at 9:02 AM on August 24, 2006
dios, if you're having trouble finding supporting links (or just can't be bothered really) ... feel free to use the 'posted by' link below this comment.
Yes, it is entirely reasonable to advocate the killing, torture and/or three-stooges-style-eye-poking of Bush or Cheney or Pat Robertson. It is not reasonable to advocate such for Sheehan or Chavez.
(I do no have an anus and I approve of this message.)
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:08 AM on August 24, 2006
Yes, it is entirely reasonable to advocate the killing, torture and/or three-stooges-style-eye-poking of Bush or Cheney or Pat Robertson. It is not reasonable to advocate such for Sheehan or Chavez.
(I do no have an anus and I approve of this message.)
posted by If I Had An Anus at 9:08 AM on August 24, 2006
If we are not to judge people by their comments and actions, what are we to judge them by? Just curious.
posted by landis at 9:14 AM on August 24, 2006
posted by landis at 9:14 AM on August 24, 2006
We certainly talk about killing bush, anyway:
uno
dos
tres—and a gem, at that
And so on. That's just on the string "kill bush" against www.metafilter.com; there's more to pick through under "kill the president", for example.
Such as!
If we really want to establish the space between fact and observation bias, someone would have to dig deeper, though. However, it's not really disputable that we have a fair amount of loose talk about talking about killing the president.
posted by cortex at 9:16 AM on August 24, 2006
uno
dos
tres—and a gem, at that
And so on. That's just on the string "kill bush" against www.metafilter.com; there's more to pick through under "kill the president", for example.
Such as!
If we really want to establish the space between fact and observation bias, someone would have to dig deeper, though. However, it's not really disputable that we have a fair amount of loose talk about talking about killing the president.
posted by cortex at 9:16 AM on August 24, 2006
and Matt deleted it as a double. Totally accurate, but avoiding all of you people's bickering. That's class.
posted by boo_radley at 9:30 AM on August 24, 2006
posted by boo_radley at 9:30 AM on August 24, 2006
If we are not to judge people by their comments and actions, what are we to judge them by? Just curious.
posted by landis at 11:14 AM CST on August 24
Good question. I do think we should judge people by their comments. But judging someone by their comments is one thing. Keeping track of people who say things that you politically disagree with and then bringing those things up as a method to try to undermine them in the future based on the substance of their remarks is a different thing. It's about signals. One of the major problems on this site and society in general is this stupid desire to try to carve up the world into teams, Us and Them. And bringing up the comment as delmoi did was an attempt to show that he is on the other team, and that his post in this case should be judged as such. It's subtle, but its something that, once you become sensitive to, you will see it recur, over and over. So, you don't get the comment that "Isn't it ironic that this person who made a post about civilization called for the murder of someone a year ago." That comment would send one kind of signal: that of inconsistency or that we should adjudge people who advocate such things as "bad." But if that was the signal that the poster wanted to send, the other examples on the site would be equally implicated.Instead, you get the comment "This guy said we should kill Sheehan and Chavez" which is intended to send another signal. It's intended to bring the teams into the dialogue. The idea that posters should be evaluated whether they are on your team or not is one we ought not engender. If we allow it, community members get de-personalized and treated as placeholders for things that are disliked. I'm sure someone will say I am reading too much into this, and maybe I am. But if someone knows the fine art of persuasion and knows the subtle tricks (both conscious and unconscious) people use to try to influence the listener/reader, then those things become glaring when you see them.
posted by dios at 9:32 AM on August 24, 2006
posted by landis at 11:14 AM CST on August 24
Good question. I do think we should judge people by their comments. But judging someone by their comments is one thing. Keeping track of people who say things that you politically disagree with and then bringing those things up as a method to try to undermine them in the future based on the substance of their remarks is a different thing. It's about signals. One of the major problems on this site and society in general is this stupid desire to try to carve up the world into teams, Us and Them. And bringing up the comment as delmoi did was an attempt to show that he is on the other team, and that his post in this case should be judged as such. It's subtle, but its something that, once you become sensitive to, you will see it recur, over and over. So, you don't get the comment that "Isn't it ironic that this person who made a post about civilization called for the murder of someone a year ago." That comment would send one kind of signal: that of inconsistency or that we should adjudge people who advocate such things as "bad." But if that was the signal that the poster wanted to send, the other examples on the site would be equally implicated.Instead, you get the comment "This guy said we should kill Sheehan and Chavez" which is intended to send another signal. It's intended to bring the teams into the dialogue. The idea that posters should be evaluated whether they are on your team or not is one we ought not engender. If we allow it, community members get de-personalized and treated as placeholders for things that are disliked. I'm sure someone will say I am reading too much into this, and maybe I am. But if someone knows the fine art of persuasion and knows the subtle tricks (both conscious and unconscious) people use to try to influence the listener/reader, then those things become glaring when you see them.
posted by dios at 9:32 AM on August 24, 2006
"quite simply, McCarthyism"
Hmm, we need a term for McCarthyism the way we have "Godwin" for Nazism. How about Godlose? Please, dios, show us how making the irresponsible association between past history and a double post is ruining the lives and careers of hundreds of MeFites. I'll wait. I'll grant that the comment history is spurious, but it's hardly McCarthyism.
Coming so close on the heels of you getting called out for calling someone else on their exaggeration makes me start to doubt you, dawg.
posted by Eideteker at 9:37 AM on August 24, 2006
Hmm, we need a term for McCarthyism the way we have "Godwin" for Nazism. How about Godlose? Please, dios, show us how making the irresponsible association between past history and a double post is ruining the lives and careers of hundreds of MeFites. I'll wait. I'll grant that the comment history is spurious, but it's hardly McCarthyism.
Coming so close on the heels of you getting called out for calling someone else on their exaggeration makes me start to doubt you, dawg.
posted by Eideteker at 9:37 AM on August 24, 2006
dios, there's already a perfectly good thread on the metatalk front page about you. There's no need to make this one about you, too.
posted by crunchland at 9:50 AM on August 24, 2006
posted by crunchland at 9:50 AM on August 24, 2006
Shit, my bad. I didn't mean to participate, crunchland. Please send me an email letting me know when I can start commenting again and trying to make threads about me. TIA.
posted by dios at 9:52 AM on August 24, 2006
posted by dios at 9:52 AM on August 24, 2006
Ok, maybe "McCarthyism" is foolishly hyperbolic, but I think the point that Dios is making is sound--politics have nothing to do with whether or not the post is a self-link / double.
Mentioning his politics in the call out can read rather like "He's one of Them, get him!"
posted by Squid Voltaire at 9:56 AM on August 24, 2006
Mentioning his politics in the call out can read rather like "He's one of Them, get him!"
posted by Squid Voltaire at 9:56 AM on August 24, 2006
I think you should all be killed.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:57 AM on August 24, 2006
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:57 AM on August 24, 2006
dios, I understand and appreciate your response. And I know what you mean about past comments being held against one. However, if one's past comments are along a similar line to their more recent one's, then it seems to me that the older remarks are being used to demonstrate that one, for lack of a better phrase, 'has always been this way.'
As to your point about "teams". . . . Yes, it would be better if the world were one big happy family, but its not. Failing to see this is the real root of most of the problems we all face today.
posted by landis at 10:00 AM on August 24, 2006
As to your point about "teams". . . . Yes, it would be better if the world were one big happy family, but its not. Failing to see this is the real root of most of the problems we all face today.
posted by landis at 10:00 AM on August 24, 2006
On a lighter note:
Civili(s/z)ation vs. the Middle Ages?
Middle Ages, 1; Civ., 0.
posted by Eideteker at 10:03 AM on August 24, 2006 [1 favorite]
Civili(s/z)ation vs. the Middle Ages?
Middle Ages, 1; Civ., 0.
posted by Eideteker at 10:03 AM on August 24, 2006 [1 favorite]
First off, I never said regularly. But it has happened plenty more times than anything said about Chavez or Sheehan and goes uncommented on. And that's my point. But, I see where you are coming from: "
dios, man, you really have to up your game. You imply that people are constantly calling for Bush to be murdered (not true) and then use that to establish some sort of double standard (where there is none) and then begin lobbing out charges of McCarthyism (just stupid).
Your point is that you had no point.
It's quite reasonable for anybody to believe that zagszman is a nut for calling for Sheehan's death. This has absolutely nothing to do with Bush or anything else.
Keeping track of people who say things that you politically disagree with and then bringing those things up as a method to try to undermine them in the future based on the substance of their remarks is a different thing.
The word for this is 'reputation'. Your future actions are viewed in light of your past actions. When you repeatedly make obscene comments, then people will treat you as somebody who repeatedly makes obscene comments. Nobody ever explained this to you?
posted by nixerman at 10:22 AM on August 24, 2006
dios, man, you really have to up your game. You imply that people are constantly calling for Bush to be murdered (not true) and then use that to establish some sort of double standard (where there is none) and then begin lobbing out charges of McCarthyism (just stupid).
Your point is that you had no point.
It's quite reasonable for anybody to believe that zagszman is a nut for calling for Sheehan's death. This has absolutely nothing to do with Bush or anything else.
Keeping track of people who say things that you politically disagree with and then bringing those things up as a method to try to undermine them in the future based on the substance of their remarks is a different thing.
The word for this is 'reputation'. Your future actions are viewed in light of your past actions. When you repeatedly make obscene comments, then people will treat you as somebody who repeatedly makes obscene comments. Nobody ever explained this to you?
posted by nixerman at 10:22 AM on August 24, 2006
Not to bring things back around to whether or not the post in question is a dirty self link, but it certainly seems to be. Or perhaps a fraternal link. From zagsman's Profile:
Name: Nick Zaharias
From the post's RSS feed:
<div class="author" title="Chris Zaharias">
I suppose it could be coincidence. But I doubt it.
posted by thinman at 10:24 AM on August 24, 2006
Name: Nick Zaharias
From the post's RSS feed:
<div class="author" title="Chris Zaharias">
I suppose it could be coincidence. But I doubt it.
posted by thinman at 10:24 AM on August 24, 2006
good catch thinman, guess it's time to warm up the banhammer.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:43 AM on August 24, 2006
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:43 AM on August 24, 2006
Looks like there are two brothers that used to work for realnames.com called Chris and Nick Zaharias
posted by bob sarabia at 10:46 AM on August 24, 2006
posted by bob sarabia at 10:46 AM on August 24, 2006
But, I see where you are coming from: "dios made a comment. Must. Argue. With. It."
Shit, my bad. I didn't mean to participate, crunchland. Please send me an email letting me know when I can start commenting again and trying to make threads about me. TIA.
You really do have a tendency to turn the topic of conversation towards yourself.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:48 AM on August 24, 2006
Shit, my bad. I didn't mean to participate, crunchland. Please send me an email letting me know when I can start commenting again and trying to make threads about me. TIA.
You really do have a tendency to turn the topic of conversation towards yourself.
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:48 AM on August 24, 2006
I saw the realnames.com Chris and Nick, and decided not to bring them into it, in case they were in no way related to this. However, I found this Chris Zaharias profile, which points to this blog, which mentions both the John Batelle article (wherein Chris and Nick are identified as brothers), and Chris's current campaign "whose goal is to get Wafa Sultan's message seen by as many Western, European and Middle Eastern people as possible."
...And, on preview, I see the hammer has already fallen.
posted by thinman at 11:00 AM on August 24, 2006
...And, on preview, I see the hammer has already fallen.
posted by thinman at 11:00 AM on August 24, 2006
So is zagzman one of 'our Arabs,' pushed out shy and blushing-clumsy on the stage of history at this particular moment by their proud but but anxious NeoCon parents to sing in ragged chorus the praises of Bush and the American Empire?
If so, perhaps dios' tender concern is not to be wondered at, after all.
posted by jamjam at 11:58 AM on August 24, 2006
If so, perhaps dios' tender concern is not to be wondered at, after all.
posted by jamjam at 11:58 AM on August 24, 2006
I find the referencing to his former comments to be, quite simply, McCarthyism in that by signaling the other comments, our reaction to him is somehow supposed to change because of the content of his views.
Argumentum ad...
Hominem
Invidiam
Odium
Metum
Misericordiam
Naturam
Nazium
Odium
Populum
McCarthym
posted by mrmojoflying at 12:08 PM on August 24, 2006
Argumentum ad...
Hominem
Invidiam
Odium
Metum
Misericordiam
Naturam
Nazium
Odium
Populum
McCarthym
posted by mrmojoflying at 12:08 PM on August 24, 2006
you forgot nauseum.
posted by owhydididoit at 12:22 PM on August 24, 2006
posted by owhydididoit at 12:22 PM on August 24, 2006
No, "septic" is an old anti-American bit of Brit slang from the 1700s, playing of the perception of the Colonies as a nature-damned, undeveloped place to live. Stuck out in the woods, as it were, where there was basically nothing "'cept ticks".
Citations for this please? Us "Goddam Brits" normally take 'septic' as being derived from Cockney Rhyming slang: "Septic Tank = Yank".
posted by ninthart at 12:22 PM on August 24, 2006
Citations for this please? Us "Goddam Brits" normally take 'septic' as being derived from Cockney Rhyming slang: "Septic Tank = Yank".
posted by ninthart at 12:22 PM on August 24, 2006
jamjam wrote: So is zagzman one of 'our Arabs'...?
I think Zaharias is a Greek surname.
posted by thinman at 12:23 PM on August 24, 2006
I think Zaharias is a Greek surname.
posted by thinman at 12:23 PM on August 24, 2006
No, "septic" is an old anti-American bit of Brit slang from the 1700s, playing of the perception of the Colonies as a nature-damned, undeveloped place to live. Stuck out in the woods, as it were, where there was basically nothing "'cept ticks".
Though that pun might have been in play for a while, it is not the proper etymological origin of the word, which the OED traces back to usage from at least 1605 and deriving from late Latin and Greek.
posted by mrmojoflying at 12:29 PM on August 24, 2006
Though that pun might have been in play for a while, it is not the proper etymological origin of the word, which the OED traces back to usage from at least 1605 and deriving from late Latin and Greek.
posted by mrmojoflying at 12:29 PM on August 24, 2006
you forgot nauseum.
You also forgot Polium.
Citations for this please?
Page 337, Hartwick, Erick and James Fultonbrooke, "A History of Obviously Made-Up European Slang". Third paragraph, after the entry about how "fuck" is a German-origin abbreviation of "fire truck".
posted by cortex at 12:31 PM on August 24, 2006
You also forgot Polium.
Citations for this please?
Page 337, Hartwick, Erick and James Fultonbrooke, "A History of Obviously Made-Up European Slang". Third paragraph, after the entry about how "fuck" is a German-origin abbreviation of "fire truck".
posted by cortex at 12:31 PM on August 24, 2006
Citations for this please?
I think Cortex is having a turkish, mate.
posted by kosem at 12:36 PM on August 24, 2006
I think Cortex is having a turkish, mate.
posted by kosem at 12:36 PM on August 24, 2006
...and the importance of the well-placed comma once again manifests itself in kosem's latest comment.
posted by aberrant at 1:51 PM on August 24, 2006
posted by aberrant at 1:51 PM on August 24, 2006
...and the importance of the well-placed comma once again manifests itself in kosem's latest comment.
Oooh...well-placed commas can be important!
'A Basic Rule of Punctuation'
Oooh...well-placed commas can be important!
'A Basic Rule of Punctuation'
"It could be the most costly piece of punctuation in Canada. A grammatical blunder may force Rogers Communications Inc. to pay an extra $2.13-million to use utility poles in the Maritimes after the placement of a comma in a contract permitted the deal's cancellation."posted by ericb at 2:44 PM on August 24, 2006
"Septic" is a contraction of "septic tank", which is indeed rhyming slang for "yank".
Citation.
posted by dg at 3:28 PM on August 24, 2006
Citation.
posted by dg at 3:28 PM on August 24, 2006
The reason for posting the background comments was because they were intresting.
posted by delmoi at 4:11 PM on August 24, 2006
posted by delmoi at 4:11 PM on August 24, 2006
If anyone's curious, Turkish [bath] = laugh in Cockney rhyming slang (note that /th/ > /f/ in Cockney dialect, so it does rhyme).
posted by languagehat at 8:01 AM on August 25, 2006
posted by languagehat at 8:01 AM on August 25, 2006
D'oh! I was hoping I'd waited long enough that no one would ever see my nerdy update... and I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for that meddling cortex!
posted by languagehat at 9:06 AM on August 25, 2006
posted by languagehat at 9:06 AM on August 25, 2006
. . . and I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for that meddling cortex!
How many times have I said THAT!
posted by The Bellman at 2:09 PM on August 25, 2006
How many times have I said THAT!
posted by The Bellman at 2:09 PM on August 25, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by rocketpup at 3:34 AM on August 24, 2006