Boxster Short April 17, 2012 7:41 AM   Subscribe

Why is this question about buying a Porsche Boxster anonymous? The only reason I can think of is the shame of being associated with a car that is associated with being driven by douchebags, which seems like a pretty low bar.
posted by RandlePatrickMcMurphy to Etiquette/Policy at 7:41 AM (321 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

We could speculate. For example maybe it's being purchased as a gift.

I agree, though, that as phrased this question doesn't really seem like a good candidate for anonymous posting.
posted by alms at 7:43 AM on April 17, 2012


Not having people on the internets know you are buying an expensive car (or other significant purchase) seems like legitimate interest, particularly if your profile contains identifying information. I'll allow it.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:45 AM on April 17, 2012 [37 favorites]


Because they don't want to advertise that they've got $40-50K sitting around for buying a sports car?
posted by Admiral Haddock at 7:46 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Also, the phrasing in this MeTa post is example of precisely why some people might want to ask this question anonymously.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:46 AM on April 17, 2012 [205 favorites]


I can't think of any reason, except mod workload, why any question should not be anonymous beyond "the OP requested anonymity." As long as the mods aren't overwhelmed by anonymous requests, why is this an issue?
posted by GenjiandProust at 7:47 AM on April 17, 2012 [39 favorites]


::head desk::
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:47 AM on April 17, 2012 [5 favorites]


What business is it of yours which mefite might buy a Porsche?

All anon questions are reviewed by a mod before they're posted, so I think it's safe to assume that the mod who reviewed it thought it passed the "why is this anon?" test.

On preview: also what monju_bosatsu said.
posted by rtha at 7:47 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Wow, I was feeling kinda bummed that my anonymous post never got posted, now I really feel bad.
posted by daydreamer at 7:47 AM on April 17, 2012


The OP said that they don't want people knowing that they are considering such a fancy car purchase. We have a little note area where people can explain why the question is anonymous. This is a really nasty way to phrase this question.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:48 AM on April 17, 2012 [98 favorites]


And if people have questions about their own anonymous questions just drop mathowie or me a note and we can let you know whether it's in the queue--questions can take a few days to get approved if the queue is full--or whether it wasn't approved and if so, why.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:49 AM on April 17, 2012


Yeah, people have all sorts of reasons for wanting anonymity. For really seriously silly "why is this anonymous?" stuff there'll probably need to be a pretty good note explaining the rationale, but this doesn't even get into that territory. Major purchases can be socially disruptive things, people have all kinds of weird money intersections with their lives as far as family/friends/jobs go, people know that other people know they're on Metafilter, etc.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:51 AM on April 17, 2012 [3 favorites]


As someone who drives to work every day, I can state with confidence that douchebags are most likely to drive BMWs or Audis, mefites excepted. Porsche drivers don't even rank on that scale.
posted by rtha at 7:53 AM on April 17, 2012 [8 favorites]


I'm going to give the poster some benefit of the doubt and assume that there's some reason for it. The reasons alms and Admiral Haddock suggested are possible. We could probably come up with others. But since poster wanted to post this anonymously, I think it's reasonable to assume that there was some reason they didn't want to post it under their user name.
posted by nangar at 7:54 AM on April 17, 2012


If Mr. McMurphy doesn't want to take his medication orally, I'm sure we can arrange that he can have it some other way.
posted by Edogy at 7:55 AM on April 17, 2012 [9 favorites]


Maybe it's just me, but I often wonder why questions are anonymous. Yes I know the reasons, doesn't mean they make sense to me. Why not own up to your decisions, thoughts and problems?
posted by travelwithcats at 7:56 AM on April 17, 2012


As someone who takes the bus to work, I can state with confidence that everyone, everywhere is a douchebag.
posted by griphus at 7:56 AM on April 17, 2012 [74 favorites]


I'm so glad you asked this question; the same thing occurred to me but I was too chicken to stick my neck out.
posted by londonmark at 7:56 AM on April 17, 2012


Porches are awesome. My favorite one works at Spearmint Rhino.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:58 AM on April 17, 2012 [5 favorites]


I'm so glad you asked this question; the same thing occurred to me but I was too chicken to stick my neck out.
posted by londonmark


Is this in reference to the AskMe or the Meta? Either way you're a chicken.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 7:58 AM on April 17, 2012


Maybe it's just me, but I often wonder why questions are anonymous. Yes I know the reasons, doesn't mean they make sense to me. Why not own up to your decisions, thoughts and problems?

Because real life has real consequences and sometimes getting confidential advice from your community is what you need. It is not a matter of "toughness" or "owning up" - instead it is a recognition of what you need/what is safe/what is personally right for you.
posted by anya32 at 7:59 AM on April 17, 2012 [18 favorites]


Why not own up to your decisions, thoughts and problems?

I think in most cases there's a privacy issue.
posted by nangar at 7:59 AM on April 17, 2012 [4 favorites]


"Value judgments are destructive to our proper business, which is curiosity and awareness." ~John Cage

The things you find, creating FPP's. :)
posted by zarq at 7:59 AM on April 17, 2012 [19 favorites]


Is this in reference to the AskMe or the Meta? Either way you're a chicken.

The latter. But yep, guilty.
posted by londonmark at 8:01 AM on April 17, 2012


Maybe he works for BMW, people.
posted by Rock Steady at 8:01 AM on April 17, 2012 [5 favorites]


Also, a Porsche Boxster is not such a douchebag magnet as this MeTa post implies. It lacks the snob appeal of a 911 and isn't such a pointless exercise in dickwagging as a Cayenne or Panamera. It is the Porsche for the actual motorheads. And, no, I can't afford one right now (alas!).
posted by Skeptic at 8:01 AM on April 17, 2012 [3 favorites]


Why not own up to your decisions, thoughts and problems?

No one is obliged, nor should they be, to live their entire life on the public record. The assumption that not broadcasting every detail of one's life is a failure to "own up" is problematic at best.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:01 AM on April 17, 2012 [104 favorites]


Does this mean you're making a John Cage FPP?
posted by nangar at 8:01 AM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


This is bullshit.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:03 AM on April 17, 2012


jessamyn: "We have a little note area where people can explain why the question is anonymous."

I noticed that when I posted an anon question recently. Neat addition! I used to out myself to the mods. Heh.

nangar: "Does this mean you're making a John Cage FPP?"

Pssst. Check the front page. :D
posted by zarq at 8:03 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


travelwithcats: Because publicly "owning up" to something like "I have $40,000 to spend" or "I am considering cheating on/leaving/deep-frying my spouse" can make life vastly more difficult for all concerned, with no benefit at all to making that thought public while it's still half-baked.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 8:05 AM on April 17, 2012


On the other hand, the wording of this MeTa is pretty douchebaggy itself. RandlePatrickMcMurphy , do you care to enlighten us as to your wheel choice?
posted by Skeptic at 8:06 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


This guy looking for work sees a sign on a house: “PAINTER WANTED.” So he goes to the house and knocks on the door, telling the owner, “I’m here for the paint job.”
“OK.” The owner hands him a couple cans of latex. “Here’s the paint. I want you to paint the porch.”
The worker says, “No problem,” gets the paint and sets off to work. It’s not very long until he knocks on the door again. “All finished.”
Handing over the money, the owner exclaims, “That didn’t take very long!”
“I even gave it two coats,” the worker says, pocketing the money. “And oh, by the way, it’s not a Porch, it’s a Ferrari.”
posted by exogenous at 8:07 AM on April 17, 2012 [67 favorites]


publicly "owning up" to something like "I have $40,000 to spend" or "I am considering cheating on/leaving/deep-frying my spouse" can make life vastly more difficult for all concerned, with no benefit at all to making that thought public while it's still half-baked.

....For the record, now I'm wondering whether a partial baking period for spouse meat would speed up the ultimate deep-frying time.

Not enough to ask anonymously though
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:08 AM on April 17, 2012


Pssst. Check the front page. :D

Heh. Awsome. That'll keep me busy for a while!
posted by nangar at 8:08 AM on April 17, 2012


Enjoy!
posted by zarq at 8:10 AM on April 17, 2012


MetaTalk: Making that thought public while it's still half-baked.
posted by griphus at 8:12 AM on April 17, 2012 [5 favorites]


Why not own up to your decisions, thoughts and problems?

You mean like by putting your real name on your profile?
posted by Bookhouse at 8:13 AM on April 17, 2012 [11 favorites]


Because they don't want to advertise that they've got $40-50K sitting around they are getting a $40-$50K loan for buying a sports car?

Actually, agreeing with everyone who says: none of our business.
posted by The Deej at 8:13 AM on April 17, 2012


Why not own up to your decisions, thoughts and problems?

I've asked several embarrassing questions anon because people I know in my real life read Ask, and there's a reason I was asking the internet instead of my friends/family.
posted by toerinishuman at 8:14 AM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


A while back, I read a review of a $400 Linn turntable in Stereophile or The Absolute Sound or one of those, and, at the end of the review, the guy was like 'Does it sound as good as a $20,000 Soandso Platinum table? No, not really. But it sounds very, very good. And for the price of the Soandso Platinum, you could buy fifty Linn tables and give them to all your friends. And doing that would produce more joy, and more beautiful music, than even the nicest Soandso Platinum.'

So I guess what I'm saying is that, rather than one 2010 Boxster, I think the poster should buy ten secondhand Miatas.
posted by box at 8:14 AM on April 17, 2012 [6 favorites]


> You mean like by putting your real name on your profile?

About that.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:16 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


It lacks the snob appeal of a 911...It is the Porsche for the actual motorheads.

911s don't just have snob appeal - they have car appeal. The outgoing 911 GTS is about as close to a perfect sports car as you can get. In a big city, it's not even a flashy car (in comparison to, say, an SLR, SLS or any of the Italian sports cars). Some people drive Porsches to show off. Some people ride bicycles to show off. Doesn't make Porsche drivers, or bicyclists, any more likely to be douchebags. A lot of people who drive Porsches do so because they love driving, and they are incredible cars. (Well, the Panamera is incredibly ugly, but we'll leave that to one side for now.)

Anyway, I think this is a nasty, judgmental Meta. Is there a word for a question that answers itself? That's what this is.
posted by Dasein at 8:16 AM on April 17, 2012 [7 favorites]


Not wanting to open oneself up to people branding them "douchebags" on the public internet is "a pretty low bar"? Seems pretty understandable to me.
posted by John Cohen at 8:18 AM on April 17, 2012 [4 favorites]


Burhanistan: " About that."

Great. Now I'm going to read his every comment in Nicholson's voice.
posted by zarq at 8:18 AM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


I don't believe the phrase "it takes one to know one" has leapt so immediately to my mind since I was in grade school.
posted by Wolfdog at 8:23 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Jesus Christ on a BBQ spit, can't I have any goddamn privacy?

For the record, now I'm wondering whether a partial baking period for spouse meat would speed up the ultimate deep-frying time.

Ruins the flavor, but you can turn it into jerky.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:23 AM on April 17, 2012


Maybe it's just me, but I often wonder why questions are anonymous. Yes I know the reasons, doesn't mean they make sense to me. Why not own up to your decisions, thoughts and problems?

Well, let's swap it around. Why should any question not be anonymous? In some relationship questions or questions by frequent posters, there is some benefit in looking back over previous posts and saying "you were having this problem" last year, too. Did any of those suggestions help, or has there been some change?" Done in a nice way, that might help clarify things for the poster. But for most questions from "What caused the collapse of the Ming?" to "Help me get this program to do what I want?" to "Should I eat this last pickle?" what is the benefit to knowing that I or Meatbomb or Burhanistan or someone who has never posted before asked the question?
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:25 AM on April 17, 2012


911s don't just have snob appeal - they have car appeal.

Definitely not argueing that. Given a totally free hand, I'd certainly pick the 911 (more precisely I'd pick a 993-series, last of the air-cooled 911s). But the Boxster is significantly cheaper, and some people (aka real snobs) do sniff about that...
posted by Skeptic at 8:26 AM on April 17, 2012


GenjiandProust: "what is the benefit to knowing that I or Meatbomb or Burhanistan or someone who has never posted before asked the question?"

Well, if the question really is, "Should I eat this last pickle" then the knowledge of whether you survived will educate future generations of askme visitors....
posted by zarq at 8:26 AM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


I often wonder why questions are anonymous. Yes I know the reasons, doesn't mean they make sense to me.

Wait, really? You look through the anonymous questions here and can't for the life of you imagine any reasons for the anonymity that make any kind of sense to you?

Really?
posted by mediareport at 8:32 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Why not own up to your decisions, thoughts and problems?

I admire the wholesale lack of irony in having someone using an unidentifiable user name on the internets to post this bold statement.
posted by elizardbits at 8:32 AM on April 17, 2012 [17 favorites]


But the Boxster is significantly cheaper, and some people (aka real snobs) do sniff about that...

Yes, I thought it was poor form when Top Gear (and Richard Hammond in particular) said, "the only reason you buy a Boxster is that you can't afford a 911." Well, no shit. And the only reason I would buy an MX-5 is that I can't afford a Boxster. There's absolutely nothing wrong with buying the best car in your price range, and in a certain price range, the Boxster is it, if you're shopping for a small, convertible sports car. And anyway, I think the Boxster looks way better than the 911 Cabriolet.
posted by Dasein at 8:34 AM on April 17, 2012 [3 favorites]


I agree, the new Boxster is a lovely looking car. Wish I had the cash for one. As for anonymity, with a poorly phrased MeTa such as this one, I completely understand why the OP went off radar.
posted by arcticseal at 8:38 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


I don't want people knowing I can't drive 55.

whoops
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 8:39 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Also, "a pretty low bar" is a pretty accurate way to describe how anonymous questions have worked in AskMe from day one.
posted by mediareport at 8:39 AM on April 17, 2012


I'd like to add that having anonymous questions benefits not just the askers, but the community at large.

ACT I SCENE I

THE MEETUP

"Hi everyone, I'm griphus!"

"Hi, griphus! I'm OneThousandPlatesOfShrimp."

[Smash cut to AskMe question "What are these weird welts on my balls?"]

"...hi."

"Hi, griphus! I'm Professor Fartsworth, and this is my husband who is not on MetaFilter."

[Smash cut to AskMe question "My boyfriend suspects I'm married. What to do?"]

"Uh, hello."

"Hi, griphus! I'm blqrkty."

[Smash cut to AskMe question "Where can I find a support group for recent murderers?"]

"How... how are you?"

"Did you say you're griphus?"

[Smash cut to AskMe question "What are some good zoo-animals-in-clown-makeup fetish websites?"]

"I HAVE TO GO NOW."
posted by griphus at 8:43 AM on April 17, 2012 [63 favorites]


In this age of social networking where I'm constantly informed of the most banal details of my friends lives, it's refreshing that some people want to retain a modicum of privacy (not that I think that buying a Porsche is banal in any way!).
posted by Defying Gravity at 8:44 AM on April 17, 2012 [7 favorites]


A better call out on that question would be that 3/4ters of the answers are what the poster specifically didn't ask for.
posted by Mitheral at 8:45 AM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


griphus is now thinking back to all the comments i've made where i mention how much i hate human social interaction and is worried that i plan to kill him over brunch
posted by elizardbits at 8:46 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Brandon Blatcher: "Jesus Christ on a BBQ spit, can't I have any goddamn privacy?

For the record, now I'm wondering whether a partial baking period for spouse meat would speed up the ultimate deep-frying time.

Ruins the flavor, but you can turn it into jerky.
"

Better not let the wife see this. I'm already pretty jerky.
posted by Splunge at 8:47 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Human social interaction?

We're fine.
posted by griphus at 8:48 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Well I don't need anonymity. I drive a Volvo C70 convertible - in this red and white livery - and, especially now that spring has broken out, I LOVE MY CAR!! It's just like that picture - all curvy roads and wind and cool, out of focus scenery. It overcomes my introverted urge to just stay and home and do nothing. It gets me out into the world and when I''m driving it, life is good.

It's the best car I've ever had and no douchebag quotient at all! It represents me quite well, I think. It's safe and dependable and functionally useful while still being styly and fun. Go for a ride in my Volvo and you'll have a good time and it'll get you home safe and sound at the end of it. I love my car.

I'm not aware of the Top Gear guys ever doing anything about the C70, doubtless because it's neither a $200K supercar they can ooh and ah over or sufficiently cheap and crappy to make fun of. I imagine they consider it boring and pedestrian and beneath them. They can blow me.
posted by Naberius at 8:49 AM on April 17, 2012 [4 favorites]


Yes, I thought it was poor form when Top Gear (and Richard Hammond in particular) said, "the only reason you buy a Boxster is that you can't afford a 911."

I don't know if you saw it, but last night's premier of Hammond's new solo show (where he comes to the U.S. and crashes things) saw him driving a tank. As part of his training (do what the tank commander tells you), he had to complete a course that required him to completely run over several classic cars, including a Porsche 928. He almost cried. It was kind of great.
posted by rtha at 8:49 AM on April 17, 2012 [4 favorites]


It's ironic that a lot of us like Mefi and dislike Facebook in part because of privacy matters, and yet we get on our high horses if people want to ask some question anonymously.

I don't know about you, but for the most part the people I know in RL are actually less judgmental about many things than the Mefi crowd. Certainly, shall we say, Mefi is "differently" judgmental rather than non-judgmental.

Personally I'm not sure there needs to be any bar to people asking questions anonymously if for some reason they don't feel comfortable about asking with their username attached.
posted by philipy at 8:54 AM on April 17, 2012 [4 favorites]


I'm not aware of the Top Gear guys ever doing anything about the C70, doubtless because it's neither a $200K supercar they can ooh and ah over or sufficiently cheap and crappy to make fun of. I imagine they consider it boring and pedestrian and beneath them. They can blow me.

Actually, Top Gear has a soft spot for cheap cars that are fun to drive. They may not like the C70 for other reasons, but they have nothing against cheap cars, just cars that are cheaply-made and rubbish to drive.
posted by Dasein at 8:56 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]




I want to stab people who decide that crashing pretty old cars makes for 'good tv'. Dicks. Poor Hamster.

posted by Brockles at 8:56 AM on April 17, 2012 [4 favorites]


Hmmm. Nice HTML there, numbnuts. That comment was supposed to quote the Richard Hammond almost cried bit.

Arses.

Actually, Top Gear has a soft spot for cheap cars that are fun to drive.

Volvos in the UK were driven - almost exclusively for decades - by pensioners, vicars and geography teachers. Their image suffered accordingly. The T5 and a British Touring car programme 15 years or so ago only helped it a little, so it is still on a handicap.
posted by Brockles at 8:58 AM on April 17, 2012


Srsly, if someone wants to ask "what should I have for dinner?" anonymously, the number of fucks I do not give are endless. It's not like there are a limited number of anonymous questions available that can only be bestowed upon those we deem worthy, for fuck's sake.
posted by elizardbits at 8:58 AM on April 17, 2012 [12 favorites]


"I HAVE TO GO NOW."

griphus, I applaud your rich fantasy life.

Now, of course, when I am at meetups, this sort of scenario will be playing on a loop in my head. Except, due to the curse of anonymity, I will not be able to know whether the problem is with me or the Mefite I am meeting. How luck for me that I know you are all figments of my imagination anyway....
posted by GenjiandProust at 8:59 AM on April 17, 2012


Brockles, if it makes you feel any better, they reassured Hammond when he was done with the course that all the cars had been gotten from junkyards, already stripped of useable parts. (I'm sure he knew this beforehand, too, because, you know, TV.)
posted by rtha at 9:02 AM on April 17, 2012


I don't understand these kinds of cars either. If you've got that kind of money and really do care about cars/driving, then why not go and do something crazy like put one of those 993 engines in a Karmann Ghia?

I saw this at a show once. Terrifying. Like a jet engine on a shopping cart.
posted by cmoj at 9:02 AM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


publicly "owning up" to something like "I have $40,000 to spend" or "I am considering cheating on/leaving/deep-frying my spouse" can make life vastly more difficult for all concerned, with no benefit at all to making that thought public while it's still half-baked.

I dunno. If I ever post an AskMe about the fact that I'm considering deep-frying my spouse, I think I'll make it non-anonymous, so that she'll have some advanced notice. It's more sporting that way, right?
posted by asnider at 9:04 AM on April 17, 2012


It's not like there are a limited number of anonymous questions available that can only be bestowed upon those we deem worthy, for fuck's sake.

Just to be a devil's advocate for a minute here, this is sort of true and sort of not true. The anon feature has more utility as something that is available to the community but is not overused by the community. There's a lack of community cohesion in the anon question back-and-forth. One of the things AskMe adds to the site generally is the feeling that you know more about the people you're interacting with and so they become more three dimensional and thus you may be less likely to be total assholes to them elsewhere on the site. Same is true for meetups. Not to be all mercenary about this, but there is value to that, if not specifically outlined as such. And these questions are slightly more likely than the average question to attract flags (though I guess we should run the numbers) and require mod attention either in the thread, by interacting with the original commenters or because of MeTa threads like this one. None of that is complaining and I think the system mostly works, but it works as a very small subset of the AskMe universe and one that we manage to make sure it doesn't get much bigger than that.

So we offer the anon option to people who feel that they need it and we're sparing with it. We tell people to not use it too often and in some rare cases tell people to stop using it so much. We only approve a few questions at a time so there's not a glut of anon questions. We really--and I guess I mean *I* really, since it's mostly me who runs this part of the site--don't want this to be a feature that gets overused and having the "Why are you asking?" box be an option is both for us to understand why, as in this case, but also to make people think about it themselves, that you do need to have a reason to not just ask a question under your own username and we'd like people to be a little thoughtful about it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:05 AM on April 17, 2012 [7 favorites]


*shamefacedly deletes a "what should i have for lunch" anon question draft*
posted by elizardbits at 9:11 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


GenjiandProust: "Now, of course, when I am at meetups, this sort of scenario will be playing on a loop in my head. Except, due to the curse of anonymity, I will not be able to know whether the problem is with me or the Mefite I am meeting. "

"Hey, it's nice to meet you. Could you just look over this list of anonymous AskMe questions and tell me if any of them were yours? Great. Great. Could you also tell me if you were previously known by any of these MeFi usernames? Thanks so much."
posted by zarq at 9:18 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Maybe RPM (hey, as in motors! as in a thing Porsches have!) posted the question himself and wants to throw people off the scent.
posted by emelenjr at 9:20 AM on April 17, 2012


...who told you about my pre-intercourse questionnaire?

oh god was it me?
posted by griphus at 9:20 AM on April 17, 2012


If you've got that kind of money and really do care about cars/driving, then why not go and do something crazy like put one of those 993 engines in a Karmann Ghia?

One reason - corners.
posted by Brockles at 9:22 AM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


Datapoint: I know a MeFite who drives a Boxster who isn't a douchebag. In fact he's a pretty goddamn nice guy.
posted by loquacious at 9:23 AM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


Well I don't need anonymity. I drive a Volvo C70 convertible

We have a saying in Australia. Bloody Volvo Driver.
posted by Talez at 9:25 AM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


jessamyn: ""Why are you asking?" box be an option is both for us to understand why, as in this case, but also to make people think about it themselves, that you do need to have a reason to not just ask a question under your own username and we'd like people to be a little thoughtful about it."

Out of curiosity, do people often out themselves to you in that box?
posted by zarq at 9:27 AM on April 17, 2012


If people choose to make the distinction between online and offline instead of between the privacy of their own mind and everything else, so be it.

Maybe 'owning up' was not the most sensible choice of words. Now I wonder why people get so defensive about it. [insert humor here]
I am not questioning their value/success vs. failure/life choices/ judgment or anything really nor am I saying they should fill out any profile info. I didn't if you haven't checked yet. Everyone can be as anonymous as they want on metafilter, a priori and a posteriori.

Oh, please, read the whole post. The reasons are known. It does not mean they reason with everyone though. And I took the liberty to let it be known to search engines.

P.S. When you come visit, act as if you didn't see my new Boxter please.

I apologize for making humorous remarks in the wrong place which derail the discussion. For real now.
posted by travelwithcats at 9:28 AM on April 17, 2012


Dear AskMe, if I were to ask "what should I have for dinner?" anonymously, how many fucks would elizardbits not give? Please do not answer "endless." Positive integers only.
posted by GenjiandProust at 9:28 AM on April 17, 2012 [4 favorites]



....For the record, now I'm wondering whether a partial baking period for spouse meat would speed up the ultimate deep-frying time.


The key to deep-frying is thin pieces. That way the food can get cooked before the piece can loose all the moisture that's pushing it's way out. That outward force is what keeps the oil from penetrating inward. Big pieces or too low of temperature means greasy food. If you need your food partially cooked already, you're either working in a restaurant (in which case the food is likely cooked and then re-frozen) or using too big of pieces.

Also, I'm not sure that deep-fried is really a good choice for human meat for preparation. You see, the more a muscle works, the tougher the meat from that muscle. That's why shoulder roasts are so tough, and tenderloins aren't. Our food animals use their shoulders much more than they twist and turn their trunk around. On the other hand Humans have a pretty wide range of motions, so more of our muscles are of the tough flavorful variety.

Anyway, the key to get good results from tough meat is all about temperature control. There's a narrow strip of temperature where the connective tissues are broken down, but where the heat hasn't caused the muscle fibers to contract and stiffen too much. Low steady heat lengthens the that the meat spends in that sweet zone, but it also lengthens the amount of time cooking time, giving the meat more time to dry out. So a wet environment is also important to help reduce moisture loss. That's why we do things like braise lamb shanks and pot roasts. Deep frying is both high heat and dry.

There are ways around this, cutlets for instance use force to break down the muscle fibers, but that's pan frying anyway. Also, our muscles tend to be very long relative to their width, so while you could make steaks from them, they'd be pretty small in diameter.

I guess if you REALLY wanted to you could do something like Breast of Man Ste-Menehould, where you'd braise the meat, remove the bones, coat with a mustard paste and bread crumbs (replacing the bread crumbs with a batter of some sort, tempura might be nice), and then deep fry it instead of baking it, but I fail to see how the deep frying would make it any better than the original, and it'd add the hassle of setting up the deep fryer and heating the oil, when there's a perfectly good heat source already going.

The best solution would be to just do small bite sized pieces of one of the more tender muscles, that'd reduce fiber length, but it'd also increase the risk of over-cooking, so you'd have to really pay attention. It'd also remove the need to precook the food.

In other words: it baking your spouse pre-deep frying might help, but if you're doing everything else right it's completely unnecessary and probably means that you're not going to get the best dish possible from the meat.
posted by Gygesringtone at 9:28 AM on April 17, 2012 [17 favorites]


Datapoint: I know a MeFite who drives a Boxster who isn't a douchebag. In fact he's a pretty goddamn nice guy.

Additional: one of the nicest guys I know used to drive a Boxster as his company car. He also gave me his Ferrari on extended loan for 5 months with the only condition being to keep it in my apartment parking space to save him storage costs. He even admonished me for 'not driving it properly' when I was cautious with it and was much happier when I ramped up accordingly and drove him back to his hotel to drop him off, giggling, amid much brake smoke and tyre smell.

If that isn't a slam dunk 'can't be a douchebag' then I don't know what is.
posted by Brockles at 9:30 AM on April 17, 2012 [3 favorites]


I almost got run over in the parking lot at my work a couple weeks ago by some dude driving the ugliest Porsche I have ever seen. In the pictures, it looks perfectly innocuous, but there's something about the proportions that make it (to me, at least) hideous when seen in 3D. I was so amazed at how ugly I found it that I forgot to yell at the guy who almost hit me.
posted by rtha at 9:31 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


do people often out themselves to you in that box?

Nope, you're the only one I can recall ever doing that.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:32 AM on April 17, 2012 [11 favorites]


the ugliest Porsche I have ever seen

You mean the Porsche that looks like a pooping dog? I think it looks great for a station wagon.
posted by jabberjaw at 9:36 AM on April 17, 2012


Really? Oh wow.
posted by zarq at 9:39 AM on April 17, 2012


I'd like to add that having anonymous questions benefits not just the askers, but the community at large.

ACT I SCENE I

THE MEETUP


Yeah, no fucking kidding.

I went to a meetup the day after posting a rather embarassing AskMe question under my own name, (It has since been anonymized, so no need to go trolling through my history to find it.) and Dirtynumbangelboy walked in after I'd been there for awhile, made a beeline to my table and practically yelled "Orange? Really? Orange? That's nasty!" at me.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:42 AM on April 17, 2012 [9 favorites]


Dear AskMe, if I were to ask "what should I have for dinner?" anonymously, how many fucks would elizardbits not give? Please do not answer "endless." Positive integers only.

Just because i is not real doesn't give you any reason to discriminate.
posted by Talez at 9:48 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Why is this question anonymous?

Maybe because the asker is more in need of information than name-calling?
posted by MonkeyToes at 9:50 AM on April 17, 2012


This is just a case where the mods have a different bar for what should be an anonymous question than many users do. That's an acceptable conflict. No reason to attack the users or the mods. Please.
posted by smackfu at 9:57 AM on April 17, 2012


Also, the odd thing about the Porsche question is they could have just asked it factually. It's not a personal question at all, and the answers aren't affected by whether they actually are buying one or not.
posted by smackfu at 9:59 AM on April 17, 2012


Can we attack one another with those giant foam bat things? The ones that look like q-tips?
posted by elizardbits at 10:00 AM on April 17, 2012


Can we attack one another with those giant foam bat things?

Did you mean for this to be anonymous?
posted by RolandOfEld at 10:02 AM on April 17, 2012


One of the things that working with all these anon questions has taught me is that there are a wide range of things that people feel should be private. I understand the sex and health stuff the most personally, but I was surprised that so many people put questions about higher ed and college stuff under that heading or any money questions that talk about how much they make or how much debt that they're in, or even shopping for someone that they know reads MeFi [that's a really common one]. Our feeling is that if you've got your own reasons for wanting something to be anonymous and you're clear about the "please don't use this too often" thing, we're okay with approving questions like this one where we might not personally need/want it to be anonymous, but the OP does and it's their decision.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:05 AM on April 17, 2012 [6 favorites]


> Can we attack one another with those giant foam bat things?

Let's find out. Hold still...
posted by The corpse in the library at 10:07 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


> Is there a word for a question that answers itself?

Now this is a good question! "self-answering question"? "tautological question"? "Russell's barber-who-asks-himself question"? There isn't a word for it (as far as I know) but it certainly would be a useful word to have.
posted by bukvich at 10:10 AM on April 17, 2012


What if you can't email the mods because your gmail is broken. Really broken. Why, gmail. WHY
posted by the young rope-rider at 10:17 AM on April 17, 2012


Recipes for cooking people has to be a new MeTa low.
posted by 6550 at 10:18 AM on April 17, 2012


Recipes for cooking people has to be a new MeTa low.

Cue a whole bunch of posters trying to suppress the urge to make a "be smart from the very beginning" joke.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:22 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


What if you can't email the mods because your gmail is broken. Really broken. Why, gmail. WHY

Hey, me too! That's why I'm here, because I can't do productive stuff. Thanks, Gmail!

Also: I once dated a very nice guy who drove a Boxster. Nothing douchey at all. Maybe it's where I live, but the x-ray blondes driving the Cayennes, they annoy me like nobody's business.
posted by ambrosia at 10:25 AM on April 17, 2012


6550: "Recipes for cooking people has to be a new MeTa low."

"There are very explicit and very specific differences in points of view.

To the wee ones, the little folk called man, it's a marvelous adventure, a voyage to another planet. An exciting sojourn to another section of the galaxy.

But to the very large, granite-faced inhabitants known as Kanamits MeFites, it's nothing more than a cattle car, a very comfortable provisions ship bringing food from the other end of the universe.

Like I say... it's all in the point of view."


Apropos of nothing, how's that Metafilter Cookbook coming along?
posted by zarq at 10:28 AM on April 17, 2012


I didn't mean for this to be particularly nasty - douchebag isn't a word I normally use and it seemed to fit the context but in retrospect set the wrong tone for the question.

But I still think its legitimate to ask why or why not something should be anonymous, and that its better to ask that in MeTa than in an individual email, so that others also see the answer.

I respect and love the availability of anonymous questions and in general the judgment of the mods on them, from what I can tell (one I asked was not posted for which I am eternally grateful because it wasn't much more than a self-pitying rant with a question feeble-y attached at the end).
posted by RandlePatrickMcMurphy at 10:28 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


We have a saying in Australia. Bloody Volvo Driver.

From that link: Australia has a unique campaign developed in response to a deep cynicism about Volvo drivers. “Bloody Volvo driver” is a phrase relating to drivers so confident in the safety of their vehicle they treat other drivers’ safety with contempt.

That's Volvos in Australia? WTF? Do you guys not have SUVs or something?

In the U.S. the stereotype I have to overcome is granola-munching, Dennis Kucinich supporting, socks and sandals wearing middle-aged hippies with one bumper sticker that uses religious symbols to spell out "co-exist" and another that says "my other car is a bicycle." It sure as hell isn't "will t-bone you at an intersection for shits and grins because he knows he'll be fine in his well-engineered Volvo."

Man, other cultures...
posted by Naberius at 10:31 AM on April 17, 2012 [6 favorites]


But I still think its legitimate to ask why or why not something should be anonymous

Why? I think if the reason is not immediately obvious, the answer to this is "none of your damn business".
posted by Specklet at 10:32 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


That's Volvos in Australia? WTF? Do you guys not have SUVs or something?

Volvos are safer than SUV's - SUVs are complete dog shit in primary safety by virtue of their stupid 'put the CofG 4 feet off the ground' design.

The Volvo safety issue is borne of the fact that they were sold on their safety record primarily (they had the first crash test dummies in full ad campaigns that I recall) and that same 'everyone else can fuck off, I'm alright' safety thing was in the UK, too.

At that time, the only SUV's that existed in the UK were Range Rovers and Toyota Land Cruisers, and were considered Rich Farmer wagons (Land Cruisers less so).
posted by Brockles at 10:36 AM on April 17, 2012


I don't understand the hostility. If I'm reading it right, the mods have said they try to have some standards for allowing anonymous questions. Those standards should be based on what the community wants. So it seems perfectly reasonable for the community to push back on questions that they feel violate the anonymous standards.
posted by smackfu at 10:36 AM on April 17, 2012


I don't understand the hostility.

Either you're with us or against us. Pick a side, take a stand: sushi or tacos?!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:38 AM on April 17, 2012


first, we have no way of knowing. second, anyone can make any question anon.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:40 AM on April 17, 2012


Those standards should be based on what the community wants.

So....it would be better if the community second-guesses every anon question, and declares that it knows better than the asker if something should be asked anonymously? That doesn't make any sense. I mean, what makes you a better judge of what privacy levels some person you've never met should be comfortable with?

How would you set up guidelines like that? "Health and sex questions are okay. Relationship questions might be okay. Present-buying questions may or may not be okay. Money questions are subject to heavy judgement, anon or no."

Also: sushi tacos.
posted by rtha at 10:42 AM on April 17, 2012 [3 favorites]


I can think of a BUNCH of different reasons why someone would want to anonymize a question about maybe buying a Porsche Boxster:

...It's matthowie, and he doesn't want a bunch of users, good-natured or not, ribbing him about how all those $5 sign-ups have made him so rich he can have nice things now.

...It's a Mefite who recently complained about their finances/student debt/bankruptcy/how hard it is to get by on their budget, and don't want that coming back to haunt them now that they're considering buying an expensive car.

...It's an artist funded by Kickstart who just kept the money instead of actually completing the project as promised (see the desjardins Meta for background).

...It's a Mefite who has righteously pontificated on the importance of having a small carbon footprint, and/or how we should all be walking/cycling as much as possible, who has come into some money and is now thinking that driving a convertible just sounds like fun.

Well, I could go on, but seriously why NOT ask anonymously? That's why an online forum is the perfect venue for the question. If you wanted to ask people who knew you what they thought, you could do that IRL.
posted by misha at 10:42 AM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


But I still think its legitimate to ask why or why not something should be anonymous, and that its better to ask that in MeTa than in an individual email, so that others also see the answer.

Why is it legitimate? I can't think of a single reason why. And why does everyone have to see it?

Its none of our business.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:43 AM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


MeTa Thunderdome! Two comments enter, one comment leaves!
posted by mogget at 10:43 AM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


Those standards should be based on what the community wants

We don't own this place. Matt does. He appoints the mods. Their opinion rules. Not the "community" of which it is impossible to sample or to know what it wants.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:44 AM on April 17, 2012


it seems perfectly reasonable for the community to push back on questions that they feel violate the anonymous standards.

Not disputing this general point but there are a few decisions here that are not up to the community. The community can not, for example, decide to allow suicide questions. It can not, for another example, decide to let everyone ask 15 anon questions per year (though we could talk about that if there was some groundswell of support). And so while I agree that it's fine to ask about why something was anonymous, it's significantly less fine to do so in this sort of way. We know at some level the anon feature involves a large amount of trust of the mods to ensure that it's working not only how it should but how we say that it's working. So, we're not against answering questions but I sometimes feel that half of all MeTa questions get completely buried under the weight of their own phrasing.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:45 AM on April 17, 2012 [3 favorites]


Brockles - oh yeah, I'm not saying SUVs are safer, but in the U.S., part of the whole SUV thing was the idea that, because of its sheer bulk, it would "win" in a collision with a smaller car. There were people who claimed they got their SUVs because they were safer and justified the absurd energy footprint by talking about protecting their children.

Of course the dark side of that was that the SUV also made them far more likely to win that collision by fatality, so there was a sort of "I'm more important than you, so I'll greatly increase your chance of death in a collision to slightly reduce mine" which played well with the Republican types who bought them. (Alongside the deliberate, "Oh, I'm burning a lot of gas all right! Does that annoy you, you stinking liberal?" vibe.)
posted by Naberius at 10:46 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Also, haven't you guys settled this whole anonymous questions thing yet? Because it's really choking up our thread about the social implications of car choice.
posted by Naberius at 10:47 AM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


Dear AskMe: I have a Porsche Boxter from 2010. Is it still safe to eat?
-Anonymous
posted by The Deej at 10:52 AM on April 17, 2012 [6 favorites]


That's Volvos in Australia? WTF? Do you guys not have SUVs or something?

Here's the list of top selling cars in 2011.

1. Mazda3 - Small car
2. Holden Commodore - Large family car
3. Toyota Hilux - Ute
4. Toyota Corolla - Small car
5. Holden Cruze - Compact
6. Hyundai i30 - Small car
7. Nissan Navara - Ute
8. Toyota Camry - Medium family car
9. Ford Falcon - Large family car
10. Mitsubishi Lancer - Small car

The SUV infestation is pretty much tame compared to the US which I think has the CR-V up pretty high and the Ford Escape is usually in top ten lists. Maybe the Equinox as well? I think the only SUVs that sell in great numbers in Oz are the RAV4 and I think the Kluger is picking up some of the Land Cruiser sales now that their starting base price is north of sixty grand.
posted by Talez at 10:53 AM on April 17, 2012


But I still think its legitimate to ask why or why not something should be anonymous, and that its better to ask that in MeTa than in an individual email, so that others also see the answer.

This kind of isn't fair to the asker, however, because you're kind of baiting them to "out themselves" by responding to defend why they made it anonymous. Which....defeats the purpose of having it be anonymous.

Or you're baiting the mods to drop everything and vouch for the anonymizing, and -- honestly, they've probably got better things to do than justify someone else's request for anonymity to an individual's satisfaction.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:54 AM on April 17, 2012


Borderless internet does not equal a borderless community. Any community creates its own rules, traditions, jokes. Those rules, traditions and jokes are challenged and evolve over time. The mods 'enforce' those rules, and have more weight to their opinion than the regular member. But we all are members to the same community.

If we all were thinking "none of [our] damn business" why would we bother to answer questions in the first place?
posted by travelwithcats at 10:55 AM on April 17, 2012


Frankly, I'm surprised that there is more than one comment in this thread.

What I expected: "Because MYOB, that's why." with a mod tag on it.
posted by Aquaman at 10:56 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


I think the only SUVs that sell in great numbers in Oz are the RAV4 and I think the Kluger is picking up some of the Land Cruiser sales

Well that explains it then! In the U.S. someone who is contemptuous of other people's safety has far, far better choices than a Volvo with which to be obnoxiously thoughtless or aggressive. That's why I was kind of surprised to learn of the marque's reputation there. As I noted, here it signals more of a fair-trade coffee, liberal guilt kind of culture that would actually spend a fair bit of energy fretting about the social responsibility of their car choice. (Although a lot of that market's gone to the Prius lately.)

Hell, by U.S. standards, the RAV 4 is barely an SUV at all. We've still got H2s running around out there - though far fewer now that gas is north of $4 a gallon.
posted by Naberius at 11:01 AM on April 17, 2012


If we all were thinking "none of [our] damn business" why would we bother to answer questions in the first place?

Because we might have a genuine wish to share our knowledge and help someone in need. I can still have interest in answering an anonymous question without needing the asker (or mods) to justify the anonymity.
posted by Specklet at 11:02 AM on April 17, 2012 [4 favorites]


The Holden Commodore was sold in the US as the Pontiac G8 until 2009. The Holden Cruze and the Chevrolet Cruze (the compact sedan available since 2007, not the predecessor remarqued Suzuki that was also called the Cruze) are the same car.

Also in humorous US/Australia car naming practices, the Subaru Outback sold in the US is sold in Australia as the Subaru Liberty.

I wish we had gotten the Ford Ka in the US, because it would have been funny to hear my fellow Bostonians talk about whether their cah was a Ka or another kind of cah.
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:04 AM on April 17, 2012 [4 favorites]


I have never understood the nice car = douchebag thing. I have a 2003 BMW 325i (in red, natch) that I bought used in 2007. The last car I owned before that was a 1984 Olds Cutlass. I didn't buy the BMW to be cool, although I like the way it looks. It cost the same as a new car with way less features. It's got heated seats that are awesome in the Wisconsin winter. It gets good mileage. It's really responsive on the road and I have avoided a few accidents because of its handling. True, I've gotten two speeding tickets (on deserted country roads), but I'm a safe driver. When my car dies a horrible death, I'll probably buy another BMW if we can afford it.

I really, truly don't understand why I'm a douchebag for driving my car. Can someone explain?
posted by desjardins at 11:05 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


travelwithcats: "If we all were thinking "none of [our] damn business" why would we bother to answer questions in the first place?"

Why do you need to know the asker's motivation in order to answer? It's a completely straightforward "I need help finding info on X" query.
posted by mkultra at 11:07 AM on April 17, 2012 [5 favorites]


If we all were thinking "none of [our] damn business" why would we bother to answer questions in the first place?

Because I don't necessarily need to know who asked the question in order to answer it. I mean, the vast majority of mefites who post askmes under their handles are people ho are effectively anonymous to me (though not, of course, necessarily anonymous to everyone, and that choice should be up to them), and yet I can answer their questions when I'm able.
posted by rtha at 11:08 AM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


Metafilter seems a little more obsessed with douchey-ness today than usual.
posted by jabberjaw at 11:12 AM on April 17, 2012


desjardins - fwiw, I don't think you're a douchebag for driving a BMW. But you may be a douchebag when you're driving (I bet you're not, though), and from what I've seen on my commute, the quickness and power of BMWs seems to give license to many drivers to do shit they wouldn't try in less powerful/quick cars, like abrupt lane changes/cutting people off and beyond-the-realm-of-okay tailgating. Twice I've seen BMW drivers "chase" each other, which might be fun for them but is fucking hell for the rest of us.
posted by rtha at 11:17 AM on April 17, 2012


All drivers are douchebags except train drivers. I say this as an entirely disinterested and wholly objective observer.
posted by Decani at 11:20 AM on April 17, 2012 [6 favorites]


rtha, I bet that correlates more with age and gender than type of vehicle. I frequently have people who rev their engines at a stoplight, wanting to beat me off the line* (it's hilarious when it's a Chevy Cavalier). 95% of them are men under 25.

*I don't ever race them, even though I could usually "win," because it's such a juvenile thing to do.
posted by desjardins at 11:23 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


rtha, I bet that correlates more with age and gender than type of vehicle.

In the glimpses I catch of them just before my life flashes before my eyes, yes, absolutely.

I recently saw the Google driverless car on the freeway on my drive home. It was going a little under the flow-of-traffic speed, and the most dangerous thing seemed to be the number of other drivers who were spending more time looking at it than they were at the road!
posted by rtha at 11:28 AM on April 17, 2012


I frequently have people who rev their engines at a stoplight, wanting to beat me off the line* (it's hilarious when it's a Chevy Cavalier). 95% of them are men under 25.

If a muscle car has annoyed me in some way, I race them off the line without announcing it first. This is embarrassing not just because it's dangerous and unsporting, but also because I drive a 2002 Ford Taurus.
posted by Snarl Furillo at 11:30 AM on April 17, 2012 [4 favorites]


...I actually like Chevy Cavaliers.

But only because that's the car I rented for my epic cross-country road trip and I sort of bonded with the one I had. (It was red and had an awesome stereo. I named it "Lolita.")
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:36 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Wait, the Google driverless car drives around actually driverless, on the freeway?

I, uh, had no idea that this technology has made it past the testing stage.
posted by Specklet at 11:36 AM on April 17, 2012


Yeah, no offense to Chevy Cavaliers, but I think my 0-60 might be a bit quicker.

mr. desjardins races my car (on an approved track).
posted by desjardins at 11:40 AM on April 17, 2012


In LA, an old 3 series BMW might as well be a Cavalier.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:45 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


frequently have people who rev their engines at a stoplight, wanting to beat me off the line*

I have known people who play along, revving their engines back, then driving off sedately and watching the other person get caught by a cop.
posted by jeather at 11:47 AM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


I am also like 90% sure that happened on that episode of The Wonder Years that follows Kevin on his Chinese food delivery route.
posted by griphus at 11:48 AM on April 17, 2012


But I still think its legitimate to ask why or why not something should be anonymous, and that its better to ask that in MeTa than in an individual email, so that others also see the answer.

The distinction in my mind is between "what is the rubric by which anonymous questions are approved or rejected based on their apparent legitimate need for anonymity", which is totally fine as a community discussion in Metatalk, and "why was THIS anonymous question approved?", which is putting some community member on the spot out of the blue and asking us to defend the decision to not refuse to allow someone to ask something without compromising whatever details they might have privately shared with us at submission time.

Like Jess said, this may just be a framing issue with what you wrote in the post vs what you were actually hoping to see discussed, and no biggie there, but that's the key disconnect for me.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:50 AM on April 17, 2012 [3 favorites]


I'm just going to decide that the person who wants to buy it wants to buy it as a special surprise present for their spouse who has always wanted a really marvelous sports car, and that's why it's anonymous.

Sadly, I know my husband doesn't post here, so I don't expect to see anything in the driveway but our 2000 Honda Civic hatchback on my birthday morning.
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:52 AM on April 17, 2012


How to cook Mefites.
How to cook for Mefites.
How to cook forty Mefites.
How to cook for forty Mefites.
posted by Occula at 11:56 AM on April 17, 2012 [4 favorites]


Wait, the Google driverless car drives around actually driverless, on the freeway?

There was someone in the driver's seat, and someone in the passenger seat. The passenger had a laptop open. I couldn't tell if the driver had his hands on the wheel or not. It was within a couple of days of the video of the blind driver using the car made the rounds, and I wondered if it was him after I saw the video (I thought there was an fpp about this but my fu fails).
posted by rtha at 11:59 AM on April 17, 2012


"why was THIS anonymous question approved?", which is putting some community member on the spot out of the blue

And just because I'm jumpy about this sort of thing I want to also state that if the "why this was anon" reason here was more embarrassing or more identifying [i.e. "Because I'm the one who asked the question about driving the Ford Pinto and I don't want people making fun of me"] we wouldn't be telling you about it here either. In this case I don't think sharing the reason is likely going to be problematic for the OP but that is a decision point for us, not something we'll just willingly share without forethought.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:00 PM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Sadly, I know my husband doesn't post here

You can always hope you have a secret billionaire Mefite admirer, who is too respectful and abashed to ever let you find out, but would like to surprise you anonymously.

By "always", I mean: until your birthday.
posted by philipy at 12:08 PM on April 17, 2012


I'm really disappointed in you, secret billionaire MeFite admirer. My birthday is tomorrow, and you had all year to ask about safety ratings and fuel efficiency of any number of German sports cars, and you wait until today? I expect better planning and forethought in my secret benefactors. It's going to be a huge challenge to get it delivered by tomorrow in the colors and finishes I favor (Agate Grey Metallic, Black Leather interiors). I'm not even sure I would accept your gift at this point.

Yes, I would.
posted by Rock Steady at 12:20 PM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Talez: " 3. Toyota Hilux - Ute"

Ute?

All I can think of is this.
posted by zarq at 12:21 PM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Answering my own Q. Turns out that "ute" means many different things, but in Australia, an Ute is a "coupe utility vehicle." Interesting.
posted by zarq at 12:28 PM on April 17, 2012


which is putting some community member on the spot out of the blue

Well, out of the green, surely?
posted by Brockles at 12:28 PM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Coupe utility vehicles are awesome; I really wish they'dstart making/importing them here. Drives me batty that GM and Ford both make Utes for the Mexican market and don't sell them here.
posted by Mitheral at 1:19 PM on April 17, 2012


I have known people who play along, revving their engines back, then driving off sedately and watching the other person get caught by a cop.
posted by jeather at 7:47 PM on April 17


I used to love doing that. My other favourite game involved a speed camera that was cunningly located just out of the line of sight on the other side of a rise. This was on my way to work so I knew all about the location of all speed cameras on the route (it was also back in the days when speed cameras actually worked once in a while). The speed limit over this rise was 50 mph, and at rush hour all lanes would be pretty full. Whenever I saw an arsehole speeding up the outside lane (I'm sorry, but it almost always would be a BMW driver) I'd pull out and keep to a steady 50 as we approached the rise. If the speeder behaved decently by slowing and keeping a safe distance I'd wait until we crested the rise so that he (I'm sorry, it was always a he) could see the camera before pulling out of his way and giving him a cheery wave. If, on the other hand, he started tailgating me, flashing lights etc., I'd pull out of his way at just the right distance before the crest to allow him to impatiently hit about 70 - 80 before he realised the camera was there. Flash flash. Have a nice day, motherfucker.
posted by Decani at 1:24 PM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Didn't Subaru have a Ute in the states for awhile? The Baja or something like that?

Also, why do people think douchebags drive nice cars? I can't speak for everyone but I can shamefully admit my own main reason: envy
posted by Doleful Creature at 1:24 PM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


I really, truly don't understand why I'm a douchebag for driving my car.

You think because it's because of your car??

I could not resist that was a joke I love you desjardins you are not a douchebag hey can I have a ride home in your red car thanx
posted by marxchivist at 1:24 PM on April 17, 2012 [3 favorites]


I don't think it was a nasty way to phrase this question. That's the only reason I could think of, too.

To clarify: Not that drivers of Porsches are douchebags, but that there is a public perception that that is the case.

Frankly, whatever the excuse, that AskMe looks an awful lot like a textbook case of someone getting around the one-a-week rule. If the asker wants to obscure the fact that they're looking to buy a Boxster, they could have just omitted that information from the question since it's not pertinent anyway.
posted by Sys Rq at 1:33 PM on April 17, 2012


that AskMe looks an awful lot like a textbook case of someone getting around the one-a-week rule

That seems more likely than worried about Metafilter's judgement? Because it was pretty clear to me right away.

If the asker wants to obscure the fact that they're looking to buy a Boxster, they could have just omitted that information from the question since it's not pertinent anyway

Is that a joke? I really can't tell. They want safety info on the specific model.
posted by yerfatma at 1:36 PM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


that AskMe looks an awful lot like a textbook case of someone getting around the one-a-week rule.

That's not how it works. You ask a question, while logged in, and then for a week, the "new question" link takes you to a placeholder page that says you have to wait a week. You can't get to the point where it's possible for you to post a question anonymously if you've already asked a question in the past week.
posted by gauche at 1:37 PM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Though I sense myself digging an ever deeper hole, if I were to ask again and give it more thought, it might go something like, "As an occasional participant here, I'd like to get a better feel for what kinds of questions are posted anonymously. Many anon questions seem to be to be about personal or even intimate issues, but this one about the Boxster is pretty objective and factual. The only reason that immediately comes to mind for posting anonymously is that the Boxster is often associated in the public imagination with boorish driving behavior, an inflated male ego and ostentatious displays of wealth, and that the poster does not wish to be identified with that image, even within this community."

"The point of my question is not to judge the OP's desire to buy a Boxster, or to find out why he/she wants to be anonymous, but since this seems to be an outlier among the usual anonymous questions on Metafilter, and outliers can often illuminate institutional decision-making, I (and perhaps others as well) would appreciate it if the mods could provide some insight into their criteria for dealing with anonymous questions. Are there circumstances in which the mods will go back to an OP and say that there is no reason for a post to be anonymous and ask the OP to post under his/her profile name, or is an OP's desire to be anonymous taken at face value and accepted without judgment or questioning?"

And yes, I need a hug.
posted by RandlePatrickMcMurphy at 1:40 PM on April 17, 2012 [5 favorites]


I don't think it was a nasty way to phrase this question. That's the only reason I could think of, too.

Then I think maybe your guys don't have very good imaginations.
posted by rtha at 1:41 PM on April 17, 2012


You guys.
posted by rtha at 1:41 PM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


You ask a question, while logged in, and then for a week, the "new question" link takes you to a placeholder page that says you have to wait a week.

Didn't work that way for me. (I went to the page out of curiosity, not because I broke the once a week rule.) And I did it from the same computer as I asked the anon question from, too.
posted by jeather at 1:41 PM on April 17, 2012


Is that a joke? I really can't tell. They want safety info on the specific model.

Exactly. The reason they need that info is not needed to answer the question.

That's not how it works.

Since when?
posted by Sys Rq at 1:41 PM on April 17, 2012


Frankly, whatever the excuse, that AskMe looks an awful lot like a textbook case of someone getting around the one-a-week rule.

This does not follow. The textbook case of someone trying to get around the rule is someone buying a sockpuppet and using one account to ask a question less than a week after they had used the other account to ask a question, and it's something we police fairly vigilantly. Trying to do it with the anonymous system is actually a bit more work and not a particularly obvious thing to do, because we make a basic effort to prevent it from happening.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:42 PM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Didn't work that way for me.

My bad then. That's what I remembered but I wasn't going to burn a non-question just to test it out.
posted by gauche at 1:44 PM on April 17, 2012


Since when?

Since a long time, I can't remember when it was first implemented but the correct unit is years, plural. It's a cookie-based system and so not bulletproof for a couple reasons, but for the default case folks are likely not to be able to try to ask a question for a week after. In a couple unlikely cases we've found people abusing the system a bit by working around it but it's one of those "locks keep honest folks out" situations where we expect that at least generally speaking a lot of folks stumbling in that direction with no ill intent will be brought up short, be okay with that, and leave it alone.

In any case, "trying to get around the waiting period" is, again, absolutely not the most obvious explanation for this question or questions like it, based on a whole lot of experience dealing with folks using the anonymous system over the years. People have lots and lots of different reasons to want to have things be anonymous.

And it's a balancing act to make things work sometimes but generally speaking the thing to keep in mind is that everybody's different and Person A's inability or disinclination to imagine a satisfactory motivation for Person B's to want some privacy is pretty much just Person A's problem to deal with internally.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:49 PM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Okay, fair enough. Person C still doesn't think person A is "nasty" for asking, though.
posted by Sys Rq at 1:53 PM on April 17, 2012


For what it's worth, Mod D doesn't think Person A is nasty either but pretty seriously agrees with Persons E, F, et al that the phrasing of the metatalk was really poorly chosen.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:55 PM on April 17, 2012 [3 favorites]


I don't know who bought the porsche, but I notice jonmc is conspicuous by his absence from this thread.
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:10 PM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


The only reason that immediately comes to mind for posting anonymously is that the Boxster is often associated in the public imagination with boorish driving behavior, an inflated male ego and ostentatious displays of wealth, and that the poster does not wish to be identified with that image

Or something like "the Boxster has negative connotations for some people", without this laundry list that essentially insults the asker (though it may actually suggest more about the person who wrote the list).

My SO drives a BMW and is very polite. Of course, it's an 11-yr-old BMW.
posted by Glinn at 2:11 PM on April 17, 2012


And yes, I need a hug.

I will send you a coupon for one.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:14 PM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


The Deej: "Dear AskMe: I have a Porsche Boxter from 2010. Is it still safe to eat?
-Anonymous
"

No. You need to throw it out right away.

No, actually that's too dangerous. Sign the back of the title and leave it and the keys in the car and I'll be right over to, um, dispose of it for you.

Certain cars have stereotypical drivers. There's a Lexus SUV that I associate with late middle-aged women with big sunglasses, leathery skin and an overwhelming belief in their entitlement to privilege.
posted by double block and bleed at 2:17 PM on April 17, 2012


I really, truly don't understand why I'm a douchebag for driving my car. Can someone explain?

Jeus, YOU PEOPLE.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:24 PM on April 17, 2012


There's at least two general reasons why a poster might want an apparently innocuous question to be anonymous. I shall give the general cases, and the application of each to the particular question, "Please recommend some 19th-century Japanese literature."

1. The poster's MeFi username is not generally connected with their real-life identity, and they do not want people they know in real life to make the connection to their username, and thus discovering other things they've posted. For example, the poster may have also asked their coworkers for 19th-century Japanese literature recommendations recently, and don't want the coworkers making the connection between the poster and their MeFi account, given that comment they made a few years back about having been a Colombian drug lord. Or just finding out that they post several comments a day from work.

2. The poster's username is already well-connected with their real-life identity, and while the question might seem innocuous to us, it might not be so much to people the poster knows in real-life. In this example, maybe the poster is a minor whose parents are rabidly anti-Japanese racists, and would not take it well to learn that their child had an interest in 19th-century Japanese literature.

Yes, the bar for anonymity is a low one—that's a feature, not a bug. At the same time, it's not so low that anon questions can go through without any mod review at all, in part for the reasons jessamyn suggests.

Just to be a devil's advocate for a minute here

Hey!
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:27 PM on April 17, 2012 [8 favorites]


Brandon, does it have to do with my rockin' tight ass?
posted by desjardins at 2:29 PM on April 17, 2012 [3 favorites]


Didn't Subaru have a Ute in the states for awhile? The Baja or something like that

Subaru Baja. Also Subaru BRAT.

Neither hold a candle to the El Motherfucking Camino.
posted by Rock Steady at 2:32 PM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


No, the pink slip of my '89 Datsun.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:32 PM on April 17, 2012


Many anon questions seem to be to be about personal or even intimate issues

Buying a Porsche is tied into money and status, two issues which can be highly personal and intimate.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 2:36 PM on April 17, 2012


Obviously, they should have just used the "it's for a novel" excuse the way we do with corpse-disposal questions.
posted by Sidhedevil at 2:38 PM on April 17, 2012 [3 favorites]


I almost got run over in the parking lot at my work a couple weeks ago by some dude driving the ugliest Porsche I have ever seen. In the pictures, it looks perfectly innocuous, but there's something about the proportions that make it (to me, at least) hideous when seen in 3D.

Somehow, Porsche realized they hadn't cracked the dickwagon market yet, so they made those... Things. We've got one here in the neighborhood, and the guy who bought it just drives it around all the damn time, and has tailgated me through the neighborhood a couple times. Other than him, all the Porsche drivers around here are unbeleviably mellow, except the housewives in the Cayennes with the cellphones, but they're mostly just self-absorbed and clueless. The Boxter & 911 owners just seem kinda content.
posted by Devils Rancher at 2:41 PM on April 17, 2012


Proposal: an all anyonmous Platinum Executive AskMe for questions about luxury cars, contacting a jeweler to design your new crown, and private island management.

The sign up fee is 50 thousand dollars.
posted by The Whelk at 3:03 PM on April 17, 2012 [4 favorites]


It would be the website equivalent of a knowledgeable personal valet. We can even call it "AskJeeves."

wait
posted by griphus at 3:11 PM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Please. Concierge is the preferred nomenclature.
posted by Devils Rancher at 3:13 PM on April 17, 2012


And yes, I need a hug.

I only give side-hugs, but here ya go.

*side hug*
posted by SpacemanStix at 3:17 PM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Also, the Platinum Executive AskMe questions will still be answered by the same shmucks who can't tell the difference between a 1982 Maison Derrierre merlot and a can of Night Train with a crazy straw in it.
posted by griphus at 3:23 PM on April 17, 2012


Night Train comes in a can now?!
posted by double block and bleed at 3:28 PM on April 17, 2012


The sign up fee is 50 thousand dollars.

Or 1 million favorites.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:29 PM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Ask Concierge: I desire to marry the charming but land poor gentry who barley notices I exists and courts my pretty but simple sisters while my father insist I marry his widowed brother in law to keep his money in the family. What is the best dress to express my turmoil and win over favor.

Also my mother is mad.
posted by The Whelk at 3:31 PM on April 17, 2012 [6 favorites]


barley notices

Does this have something to do with beer goggles?
posted by exogenous at 3:34 PM on April 17, 2012 [5 favorites]


It is always so, so easy to come up with a plausible scenario for why a question is anonymous. In the future, people should imagine a plausible scenario and then assume that is why the question is anonymous and not get worked up about it.
posted by Falconetti at 3:34 PM on April 17, 2012 [3 favorites]


An anon. and his money are easily parted.
posted by tumid dahlia at 3:35 PM on April 17, 2012


Sidhedevil: "
Also in humorous US/Australia car naming practices, the Subaru Outback sold in the US is sold in Australia as the Subaru Liberty.

Actually, the car sold in Australia as the Liberty is the Legacy in the US. The Outback is the same in both countries (basically the same car as the Liberty/Legacy with higher ground clearance and a few cosmetic differences).

jeather: "frequently have people who rev their engines at a stoplight, wanting to beat me off the line*
I have known people who play along, revving their engines back, then driving off sedately and watching the other person get caught by a cop.
"

Um, yeah, that's me. I used to own a car that looked like it would be driven by someone who likes to play* at drag racing and it happened a lot. Now I drive either a Subaru Liberty or a Nissan Patrol and it never happens. I kind of miss it.

I spend at least two hours a day on the M1 here and BMW drivers are by no means the douchebags (mostly being driven by professionals who buy a BMW because they have awesome leasing deals if you own a business, making a BMW cheaper than a 'lesser' car for many). Because of ubiquitous speed cameras (both fixed and mobile), nobody who drives this highway regularly speeds, but everyone sits exactly on the speed limit. The douchebags are in all sorts of cars (I think mid-sized 4WDs and ratty old Commodores with shiny 18" wheels are probably over-represented though) and they are the ones that sit inches from my rear bumper flashing their lights when I'm already doing 110 km/h and refuse to risk my license. A quick 'brake test' sorts them out, although it doesn't seem to do much to improve their mood. Maybe they don't appreciate the favour I'm doing them by helping them to understand how dangerous tailgating is ;-)

*Street racing is not drag racing
posted by dg at 3:55 PM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Maison Derrierre

lol butt house
posted by elizardbits at 3:57 PM on April 17, 2012 [9 favorites]


Thanks for the correction, dg. "Liberty v. Legacy" isn't as funny, though!
posted by Sidhedevil at 4:11 PM on April 17, 2012


I'm really disappointed in you, secret billionaire MeFite admirer. My birthday is tomorrow

Hey, Rock Steady, mine too. we're birthday twins! Happy Birthday!

I didn't get you a Porsche, though. Maybe next year.


Don't hold your breath.
posted by misha at 4:15 PM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


A quick 'brake test' sorts them out, although it doesn't seem to do much to improve their mood. Maybe they don't appreciate the favour I'm doing them by helping them to understand how dangerous tailgating is ;-)

Please don't do this. It's incredibly dangerous. If someone is tailgating you, the only correct response is to let them pass.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 4:17 PM on April 17, 2012 [3 favorites]


Actually, I think 'Liberty vs Legacy' is kind of funny - I imagine Subaru's marketing people agonising over how Americans would react to a Japanese car being called a 'Liberty', given the baggage that word seems to carry in the US.

PareidoliaticBoy: "Please don't do this. It's incredibly dangerous. If someone is tailgating you, the only correct response is to let them pass."

When I'm in the middle of four lanes of heavy traffic doing 110 km/h with no possibility of changing lanes to let them pass (which should be obvious to even the most dim-witted driver), tailgating is the about the most dangerous activity there is. Every single working day, I see the end result of this activity in the aftermath of rear-end collisions on the side of the highway. 'Brake-testing' someone (keeping my foot on the accelerator and giving the brake pedal a jab, which brings the brake lights on and makes the front of the car drop slightly as if it's braking heavily, but doesn't slow the car down at all) is far less dangerous to me, the person behind me and the people in cars around me who stand to get tangled up in the mess if there is an accident than tailgating. I'm not talking about people who simply fail to observe the correct distance, I'm talking about people who sit literally inches from my rear bumper with headlights flashing insisting that I move over instantly. I'm a pretty courteous driver - I don't hog the right lane, I move over whenever possible if I see a car coming up behind me (regardless of the lane I'm in), I let people in who indicate to change lanes and I don't tailgate. But if you act like an arsehole on the road, don't expect me to treat you with the same degree of respect I give other drivers.
posted by dg at 4:31 PM on April 17, 2012


Countdown to the launch of Secret Quonsmas Platinum.
posted by arcticseal at 4:37 PM on April 17, 2012


Secret Quonsmas Platinum.

Hey guys I know we had a set limit this year but my Secret Quansar got me Lichtenstein and I just wanted to say how happy I am. The kids are gonna love it!
posted by The Whelk at 4:41 PM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


(It's not really a Lichtenstein--I just ran an old Mary Worth through the Rasterbator.)
posted by box at 4:59 PM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


lol butt house

We prefer the term rump parliament.
posted by fleacircus at 5:02 PM on April 17, 2012 [3 favorites]


The uh...back house.
posted by The Whelk at 5:03 PM on April 17, 2012


I imagine Subaru's marketing people agonising over how Americans would react to a Japanese car being called a 'Liberty', given the baggage that word seems to carry in the US.

Hee. I think it was the other way, though--"Legacy" was pulled for the Australian market because of some other product or organization called "Legacy".
posted by Sidhedevil at 5:22 PM on April 17, 2012


My dad had a route he used to drive home pretty much daily. He drove beat up "dad cars," but he knew the light timing to the second, so he pretty much stopped twice each 6-8 mile trip across town. As a kid, I was always amused by the young guys who would blow past my dad, only to get stopped at the next light and have my dad drive sedately by them as the light changed. Then they would race past him, and he would pass them at the next light. This would go on for miles....
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:36 PM on April 17, 2012 [4 favorites]


Please don't do this. It's incredibly dangerous. If someone is tailgating you, the only correct response is to let them pass.

When I was younger and much more stupid, I ... er, a friend has on occasion brake tested particularly persistent tailgating dicks hard enough to lock all four tyres. If you're in something quick, you can jam on the brakes and downshift a couple and floor it and by the time the guy (it always is, yes) has hit his brakes you've disappeared down the road. All of a sudden they're 150 yards behind you.

Terribly stupid, but incredibly satisfying.

I still believe there is, though, a time and place for a gentle brake test. Tailgating is far more dangerous than the brake test unless it is a full on banzai bollocks move. If you genuinely can't move over (and this happens a lot) or it is single lane traffic, then I don't think there is anything wrong with letting the twat behind you know he's too close. If done correctly, with awareness and care and decent driving ability, it really isn't dangerous unless the guy behind you is asleep. In which case, I'd rather he hit me under controlled circumstances than when I had to brake to avoid an issue ahead. As long as you phase up from a flash of the brake lights and a 'back off' hand signal, then I can't see there being something that could be unpredictable to the guy behind (which would make it dangerous like a SURPRISE brake test would).

I always tend to leave (two stopping distances in front of me minus the space left by the guy behind) to try and avoid this. If he's at a decent distance, I only have one stopping distance, if he's too close, I'll double up the room needed. The closer he gets, the further I get from the car in front of me, so I can manage his stopping distance as well as mine. The guy sitting about 3 inches from me crawling along in traffic got very upset that after doing that repeatedly I just didn't pull away the next time the traffic moved until it was 50 yards away. He got the message eventually.
posted by Brockles at 6:03 PM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


If done correctly, with awareness and care and decent driving ability, it really isn't dangerous

90% of drivers on the roads fail this test.

unless the guy behind you is asleep

You already know that he's an unaware moron, why push your luck? Beyond this however, you can't predict how this dipstick will respond. The following driver might suddenly make an unsafe lane change, and wipe out a vanload of nuns cruising along in the slow lane, taking some orphans home with their new puppies from the animal shelter. Or, the driver might needlessly slam on their brakes and lose control. More likely however, is that the pinhead will begin to drive even more aggressively, and (if in the U.S.) perhaps pull out their handy assault rifle.

A prudent driver can avoid most accidents by paying proper attention, but one thing that even the best driver in the world can't do is control the behaviour of others. It's not your responsibility to "teach someone a lesson" on the highway. It is a mistake to become emotionally invested in the driving skills of others, as most people are horrible drivers. It is your responsibility to attempt to get from point A to point B without needlessly endangering yourself or others. The only effective way to do this with a tailgater is to let them pass, and this action is the only correct response on every driver's exam and road test I've ever seen. This puts them in front of you, and gives you back control of the space buffer you try to maintain around you.

Your approach to this is likely influenced by your racing background I'm guessing, Brockles, while mine is influenced by my background in transporting passengers, often on twisty mountain roads. I can't quantify the number of times I've let some dipstick pass me on the way to Whistler, only to encounter them in a ditch, a few miles down the road ( if you are passing me, you're going really fast). I like to give these morons a little toot toot on the horn as I pass.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 6:44 PM on April 17, 2012 [4 favorites]


I don't hog the right lane...

Who hogs the slow lane?
posted by cjorgensen at 6:44 PM on April 17, 2012


Slow people?
posted by Naberius at 7:03 PM on April 17, 2012


Who hogs the slow lane?

When you're doing an economy cruise in the slow lane on the freeway, folks from the fast lane who are getting off at the next exit can get impatient.
posted by hwyengr at 7:12 PM on April 17, 2012


And, no, I can't afford one right now (alas!).

Used ones, perfectly functional, can be got for $15 000 +. These cars lose their value like a brick dropping from a high condo. Having driven them, I'm not surprised.

As for brake testing, it's a form of road rage I can do without. The be an asshole because this guy is an asshole is I suppose emotionally understandable but still. The worst is being brake checked during an actual race and the stewards do dick all about it.
posted by juiceCake at 7:21 PM on April 17, 2012


cjorgensen: "I don't hog the right lane...

Who hogs the slow lane?
"

If Aussies drive on the left like the Brits, then I think the right lane would be the fast lane, since it would be furthest from the on and off ramps on the left.
posted by double block and bleed at 7:22 PM on April 17, 2012


I am just looking for a used car...what is all this?
fred
posted by unliteral at 7:24 PM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


Who hogs the slow lane?
Not every country drives on the wrong side. Here, the right lane is the fast lane.

Like Brockles, I also manage tailgaters by leaving enough space in front of me that I can reduce the chance of needing to brake suddenly, where possible. My behaviour towards tailgaters, though, is nothing to do with either teaching someone a lesson or becoming emotionally invested. It's entirely about controlling the space I need around me to be safe and a car inches from my rear bumper at high speed means that I am not safe. Sure, when it can be done, letting them pass is the best solution and that's what I do when it's possible. On my daily commute, I am often in a situation where I can't change lanes due to heavy traffic all around me and a tailgater is placing me in danger by his (yeah, almost always a male) reckless actions. I can't speed up to increase the gap behind me, I can't change lanes to let him pass (and he can't change lanes to get around me, which is why he wants me to move) but, if I have to actually brake suddenly, he will almost certainly hit me and hit me hard. Perhaps hard enough to push me into that van full of nuns or under the wheels of the 46-wheel B-Double driving beside me. In almost all cases, my action leads to them backing off (although it also leads to various hand gestures). Rarely, it does lead to more aggression, but that doesn't make the situation any worse than it is. Fortunately, I don't have to worry about assault rifles too much here.
posted by dg at 7:25 PM on April 17, 2012


The Volvo safety issue is borne of the fact that they were sold on their safety record primarily (they had the first crash test dummies in full ad campaigns that I recall) and that same 'everyone else can fuck off, I'm alright' safety thing was in the UK, too.

My husband and I (in the US) so firmly believe that many Volvo drivers are people who bought a safe-for-them car because they're horrible drivers who just want to survive the many accidents they cause that when we see someone driving foolhardily in, say, a Mercedes, we say "Traded up from the Volvo" or in a Kia, "Couldn't afford the Volvo, I see."

Of course none of this applies to Naberius, whom I have every reason to believe is a great driver.
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:26 PM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Your approach to this is likely influenced by your racing background ...
I also have a racing background, but boats, not cars. Boats don't have brakes, so it's not transference of skills in my case ;-)
posted by dg at 7:26 PM on April 17, 2012


We feel the same way about SUV drivers, so imagine our chagrin (and terror! Remember we're driving a Honda Civic hatchback!) when Volvo started selling SUVs over here.
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:28 PM on April 17, 2012


It's not your responsibility to "teach someone a lesson" on the highway.

It's not at all to do with that. Not even close. They've demonstrated they are fucking clueless by tailgating me beyond the point I am comfortable I can manage the distances of the two cars myself. I have no issue with moving over and that is the correct response if I can, but if I can't, my only concern is to stop this idiot endangering me. I don't give a rats arse if he learns a lesson as long as he doesn't learn it 3 car lengths or more further back.

Brake testing is a defensive action, not one of vigilantism or rage, for me. I've experienced both sides of road rage at pretty much the extreme when I was younger and that way of thinking is long gone for me. People endangering me still angers me, but in a rational way...
posted by Brockles at 7:36 PM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


I've just realised something I hadn't thought about before I relation to this - it didn't occur to me that (at the point I would consider a brake test appropriate) I would move over because I find it weird that you'd have someone who was travelling faster than you be right behind you when you CAN pull over.

Tailgating when the slower lane is empty is entirely the fault of the lead car. They should have been watching their mirrors and moved over well before the tailgating at arrived if the option to move over was there. I just assumed that it was obvious that someone could only be tailgating a competent driver of they were constrained to one lane.

People have three mirrors on their cars. They should use them all.
posted by Brockles at 7:40 PM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Also, the phrasing in this MeTa post is example of precisely why some people might want to ask this question anonymously.

Yeah, RandlePatrickMcMurphy, as my mom would've said (back when I was around nine), you were a better person than Anonymous right up until you decided you were.
posted by philip-random at 7:45 PM on April 17, 2012 [3 favorites]


I turn on my hazards while not reducing speed. It works brilliantly. I do the same thing when I'm at a stoplight in a hill and the IMBECILE behind me creeps up my tailpipe because they're in an automatic transmission and not a real car so they don't have to roll backward slightly before the gears engage.
posted by winna at 7:50 PM on April 17, 2012


I don't know who bought the porsche, but I notice jonmc is conspicuous by his absence from this thread.

Only if it was a Matchbox car, dude.
posted by jonmc at 8:19 PM on April 17, 2012 [3 favorites]


Tailgating when the slower lane is empty is entirely the fault of the lead car. They should have been watching their mirrors and moved over well before the tailgating at arrived if the option to move over was there

Of course, it is. The sitaution is so bad here in B.C. that we have signs on our highways pointing this out, and it's still a major issue safety-wise. However, as dg notes, ( to the apparent confusion of Americans) he doesn't hog the right lane ( the fast lane when driving on the left) either. However, any driver who tailgates in the kinds of conditions you both describe has already demonstrated poor driving skills, anger management, and decision-making ability.

Correctly, you don't want this dimwit anywhere near you, but you also don't want to do anything to antagonize him either. The solution in this circumstance is to turn on your blinker, slow down enough to let the car beside you move ahead, and then move into the slower lane. Sure this costs you a few seconds, and increase your decision load, but this action places the idiot into a position where they no longer control the space behind you, creating a hazard over which you have no control.

Beyond the other possible negative consequences mentioned above, as well repercussions further down the road from other drivers who might rear-end dipshit number one, antagonizing idiots like this in this manner might then lead to them passing unsafely, or attempting to cut back in too soon, in order to annoy you. None of these behaviors are predictable, and are quite common.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 8:20 PM on April 17, 2012


Metafilter: Still angers me, but in a rational way.
posted by Grlnxtdr at 8:21 PM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Used ones, perfectly functional, can be got for $15 000 +

Really? If they are down into the teens, I just might have to start daydreaming.

Re: the tailgating question, if someone is riding my ass I just ease off the gas and gradually slow down; they get frustrated and find a way to pass soon enough. I used to do the brake test thing, but all that did was provoke confrontations.
posted by Forktine at 8:48 PM on April 17, 2012


Before daydreaming about your 15K used boxster you might want to try an ask.metafilter question or two about repair and maintenence charges.
posted by bukvich at 8:52 PM on April 17, 2012 [3 favorites]


Anywaze, that's enough of a derail about the philosophy of road safety (from me , at least).

Getting back the to the discussion at hand; about perceptions about automobile ownership, and why someone might ask such a question anonymously, my own experience has made it abundantly clear that categorizing others based onapparent vehicle choice is incredibly common and especially lazy thinking. The post, as phrased, prodigiously demonstrates this.

Judging someone solely on the basis of their current transport choice demonstrates the kind of divisive and simplistic dismissal of others which permeates daily life. You have no idea why that person is using that vehicle, right now. It might be work related. It might be a rental. It might have been passed on in a will, from a maiden aunt who died as a childless nun in a flaming highway accident. This inpropensity to judge others based on their tool choice is symptomatic of a society which so wrongly emphasizes branding over other more likely and mundane considerations.

As just one example, among other marques, I've owned : a Jaguar 3.4 litre Saloon, a Thames Freighter, a Buick Electra 225 convertible, (you can sleep in the trunk of these) and a 64 Wildcat convertible, a BMW Bavaria and a 2002, numerous VW Bugs ( the real ones), a bunch of British sports cars,( Lucas refrigerators are why Brits drink warm beer. Add a couple of Micro-Buses ( never buy one of these) a Volvo sedan, and a series of Jeeps, including the latest, Wrangler Unlimited. I've also had some cargo vans, a bus, some mini-vans, an AMC Matador, a Ford Granada, a Chevy Caprice and a Chevette, along with a Dodge Power Wagon, and a bunch of pick-ups and numerous motorcycles.

It was the same person driving all of these. Stop judging people based on a brand they use.

Now, as to the Boxter idea.

I looked at these as an option, after the junkies across the street torched my TJ, 2 summers ago. I'd looked at a couple of classic Mercedes SL convertibles as one possible option for a personal ride, as I had access to vans and SUVs, for daily work purposes. While doing this, I discovered that Boxsters did depreciate dramatically, as has been mentioned above, by others.

"Weird", I thought, "these are well within my price range". I could afford one only a few years old. "What the hell? "

Intrigued, I tested a few. Huge fun, certainly, but absolutely impractical for anyone carrying anything much more than a phone and a latté. Having dealt in the past with parts costs for brands such as BMW and Volvo, I was unsurprised to discover that this absurdity escalates dramatically at the Porsche level, as does the maintenance interval and cost.

These cars are a hobby to an enthusiast with plenty of spare cash and time for TLC.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 9:39 PM on April 17, 2012


Before daydreaming about your 15K used boxster you might want to try an ask.metafilter question or two about repair and maintenence charges.

Dreaming is free, right?
posted by Forktine at 9:42 PM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


because they're in an automatic transmission and not a real car so they don't have to roll backward slightly before the gears engage

Say what now? Use the handbrake, not the footbrake, and you can hill start with no rolling back.

I never understood the US notion that it's a "parking" brake. UK drivers are taught that the handbrake should be engaged whenever you're stopped, as a safety measure, and for control on hill starts. (Rolling back on a hill start would be a mark against you in the UK road test.)
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 9:47 PM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


UK drivers are taught that the handbrake should be engaged whenever you're stopped, as a safety measure,

Cripes. All this time I was convinced it was to keep the tea-kettle steady.
*Madly starts looking over motorcycle for missing hand-brake*
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 9:57 PM on April 17, 2012


But if you act like an arsehole on the road, don't expect me to treat you with the same degree of respect I give other drivers.

Infamous last words.

Fortunately, I don't have to worry about assault rifles too much here.

Infamous last words on a headstone.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:02 PM on April 17, 2012 [1 favorite]


Using the handbrake on a hill start is marked against you on a US road test.

I am the Queen of Not Rolling Back On Hill Starts. It is my only driving superpower.
posted by Sidhedevil at 10:13 PM on April 17, 2012


Wait, what? If you didn't use the handbrake on a hill start for a driving test here, you would fail instantly. How do you do that without rolling backwards at least a little bit?
posted by dg at 10:32 PM on April 17, 2012


I used the handbrake for a bit when I first moved to San Francisco, but I think I can be forgiven for needing the practice, having come from DC, where the hills are fewer and far less hilly. After not too long, I didn't use it anymore. Then our stickshift died and now we drive an automatic.
posted by rtha at 10:34 PM on April 17, 2012


PareidoliaticBoy: "*Madly starts looking over motorcycle for missing hand-brake*"
It's on the right handlebar - it operates the front wheel brake. Oh, I get it, you mean a parking brake;-)
posted by dg at 10:35 PM on April 17, 2012


Here in America Lite ®, dg, we call the misidentified brake, the E Brake. For emergency brake. If you're using it, and not actually doin' a Bootleg Turn or parking, it's pretty likely you're doing it wrong.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 10:43 PM on April 17, 2012


I never understood the US notion that it's a "parking" brake. UK drivers are taught that the handbrake should be engaged whenever you're stopped, as a safety measure, and for control on hill starts.

I don't understand how the UK version is different. That still sound like a parking brake.
posted by BurnChao at 10:49 PM on April 17, 2012


Used ones, perfectly functional, can be got for $15 000 +.

Believe me, I know the quotes for the Boxster very well, as I regularly salivate through the classifieds. Unfortunately, I'm saving for a house, and I currently live in a city where housing prices range from the extortionate to the bloody insane, so, no, I can't afford a Boxster (also, the parking space would cost double that).
posted by Skeptic at 11:13 PM on April 17, 2012


How do you do that without rolling backwards at least a little bit?

Know exactly the point where the clutch engages? It's not hard if you drive stick regularly in San Francisco or other hilly place.
posted by oneirodynia at 11:14 PM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


Know your clutch point and/or heel-and-toe. Roll into the gas, clutch, roll off the brake.
posted by introp at 11:43 PM on April 17, 2012 [2 favorites]


Weird that drivers are expected to be able to heel-and-toe instead of just using a tool perfectly designed for hill-starts. Oh well, takes all kinds, I guess. Let's not start comparing give way or roundabout rules.

Bootleg Turn
Unsurprisingly, we call that a 'handbrake turn'.
posted by dg at 12:47 AM on April 18, 2012


Porches are awesome. My favorite one works at Spearmint Rhino.

Is it just me or is Porch a really bad stripper name?
posted by clearly at 1:03 AM on April 18, 2012


I'd like to add that the only Boxster owner I've ever known was a class-A sociopath. He's still out there taking suckers for a ride, so beware his plumage.
posted by telstar at 2:49 AM on April 18, 2012


No one is obliged, nor should they be, to live their entire life on the public record. The assumption that not broadcasting every detail of one's life is a failure to "own up" is problematic at best.

I wish someone would inform these kids starting these new things on the internets.
posted by infini at 4:08 AM on April 18, 2012 [1 favorite]


"Weird", I thought, "these are well within my price range". I could afford one only a few years old. "What the hell? "

I was looking at Boxsters very closely for the same reasons. Apparently Porsche engineers tried to take a little cost out of the engine at the expense of durability and reliability. If I want a car engineered by an accountant, I'll buy a Chevy.
posted by klarck at 4:42 AM on April 18, 2012


If you're using it, and not actually doin' a Bootleg Turn or parking, it's pretty likely you're doing it wrong.

Not at all. Using the handbrake for hill starts is perfectly valid, but it is a brake you can operate with your hand (which is why it is useful. Those stupid foot operated ratchet things that most US cars have would make it totally impossible to use for almost anything. Even handbrake turns are bloody hard with those, and they are an excellent method for turning around in short order.

I don't understand how the UK version is different.

It is a lever mounted horizontally between the front seats and comes up and towards you as you apply it. It has a button in the end to release the ratchet mechanism, rather than the ridiculous over centre thing like US ones. I've not driven a manual normal US made car, though - do they still have that stupid arse foot ratchet brake? Or a proper handbrake on the centre console?
posted by Brockles at 4:43 AM on April 18, 2012


"A lever between the seats that comes up and toward you as you apply it" is a good description of every emergency/parking brake I've used in cars made since 2000.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 5:12 AM on April 18, 2012


hose stupid foot operated ratchet things that most US cars have

I've only ever seen those in minivans and pickups. Old ones, at that. Most US cars are not those.

UK drivers are taught that the handbrake should be engaged whenever you're stopped, as a safety measure


That actually seems a lot less safe. Need to make a quick lane change because there's an out-of-control 18-wheeler barreling towards you? Hope you like dying!
posted by Sys Rq at 5:16 AM on April 18, 2012


I've only ever seen those in minivans and pickups. Old ones, at that. Most US cars are not those.

My US car experience over the last 6 years has been (through rentals) Japanese compacts, about 200 (literally) Dodge Minivans (all brand new), a bunch of trucks, a Crown Victoria and a Jeep Liberty. Plus a Corvette Z06. The Corvette and two of the trucks were the only manual gearbox cars I've driven in the US and only the Japanese cars and the Corvette had a hand brake. All the auto cars I have seen have had the foot parking brake, I think, but I don't see to many small (ie normal sized) cars, although I suspect a lot of those have european footprint/chassis anyway.

That actually seems a lot less safe. Need to make a quick lane change because there's an out-of-control 18-wheeler barreling towards you?

No more so than putting your car into neutral while stopped, which is also good practice. It's not a 'lot less safe', but more 'I can think of a freak edge case where that would be bad, so I shall declare it less safe' with that example. Besides dropping the handbrake on and off is second nature if you do it all the time.
posted by Brockles at 5:23 AM on April 18, 2012 [1 favorite]


Know your clutch point and/or heel-and-toe. Roll into the gas, clutch, roll off the brake.

What, you have your heel on the brake and your toe on the accelerator at the same time? I'd be dead by now if I was supposed to do that.

My parents' old Nissan campervan had a handbrake that stuck out horizontally from the dashboard. You had to twist it and pull it out to engage. Other awesome features of that van were a gearstick that stuck out from the side of the steering column like the indicator lever of a lesser vehicle, and a manual choke. Cars are softcore these days.
posted by A Thousand Baited Hooks at 5:33 AM on April 18, 2012


Well I don't need anonymity. I drive a Volvo C70 convertible - in this red and white livery - and, especially now that spring has broken out, I LOVE MY CAR!!

Me too, and me too! Mine's silver. It is a very, very nice looking car. Now, I'll tell you what's wrong with it.

1) Too much power for the drivetrain. The torque steer is wicked. I have the 2011 without the Polestar upgrade, so I "only" have 227HP/233ft/lbs, and esp. with the stock tires, it's too much for a FWD car. If the damn thing was AWD, it would be vastly better -- and it would be reasonable to get the upgrade to 250HP.

2) It needs to be a foot longer.

3) Did I mention AWD? Yeah, that would rock.

Now that I'm done with that, it's a very nice car, and I'm glad I have it.

It's the best car I've ever had and no douchebag quotient at all!

Basically none, but I've caught myself doing bimmer asshole moves a couple of times, because the car does handle very well. I love the seats, the audio system's sound is just amazing, and I've gotten sunburned a couple of times because driving five hours with the top down just made sense at the time.

I'm not aware of the Top Gear guys ever doing anything about the C70, doubtless because it's neither a $200K supercar they can ooh and ah over or sufficiently cheap and crappy to make fun of. I imagine they consider it boring and pedestrian and beneath them. They can blow me.

Actually, Clarkson owns a XC90, and they did mention the C70 briefly in the news, watching the top, and going "That's from Ikea! That's a flat-pack roof." No real complaints. Clarkson also drove the Polestar modified C30, and loved it, and has driven the Ford Focus RS, which has the same engine as the C30 and C70 (the T5) and loved the motor. He did complain that Volvo wasn't actually going to make the Polestar C30, but things have changed at Volvo.

They did have a little grump at the V50, because they say the reason you bought a Volvo wagon was to carry truly immense amounts of stuff, and the V50 wasn't good at that. I suspect the new S60R is going to show up, as Volvo firmly moves into the BWM/Audi/Mercedes class. I just hope they don't go too stupid with the power, like the others did.
posted by eriko at 5:43 AM on April 18, 2012


There's a Lexus SUV that I associate with late middle-aged women with big sunglasses, leathery skin and an overwhelming belief in their entitlement to privilege.

One of my favorite people is a large, middle-aged professor who drives (or at least drove) a station wagon with a rubber duck on the dash.

Of course, the station wagon was an Audi S4 Avant, with 350HP.
posted by eriko at 5:48 AM on April 18, 2012


All the auto cars I have seen have had the foot parking brake

Well here's the need for an anonymous comment system. Shameful confession time: my 2010 automatic but manual when I want Camaro has a proper handbrake. As suggested above, you mainly see those on trucks and vans now, though GM used them in everything for a decade or so ('90s, '00s). My wife's Mazda 3 is an auto with a normal handbrake as well, come to think of it.
posted by yerfatma at 5:51 AM on April 18, 2012


I've not driven a manual normal US made car, though - do they still have that stupid arse foot ratchet brake? Or a proper handbrake on the centre console?

As others have said, you pretty much only see foot-operated parking brakes on trucks, or on big-ass cars with a bench front seat (not many of those get built anymore, though, and I've never seen a boat car like that with a stick shift).

I don't know where the hostility to using a hand-operated parking/emergency brake for hill starts comes from -- I know I was taught that when I was learning to drive, and sometimes it is handy. (It's not a US/UK split, unlike that goofy idea about using the e-brake at every red light.) But honestly, as long as you vaguely have a clue about driving a stick, you don't need to do that even on steep hills. And, as mentioned, if you are driving a truck, it's probably going to have a foot-operated e-brake, unless it's a Toyota with their goofy "pull and twist" thing in front of your right knee, so you'd better be able to make a hill start without the e-brake.

And of course some new cars have hill-holding features built in (I've encountered it in Subarus), where it holds the brakes while you dither around with getting started. That's a nice feature, though it can be odd going from a car with it back to a car that doesn't.
posted by Forktine at 6:22 AM on April 18, 2012 [1 favorite]


I don't know where the hostility to using a hand-operated parking/emergency brake for hill starts comes from -- I know I was taught that when I was learning to drive, and sometimes it is handy.

I learnt to drive in Belgium and Germany, and in both countries I was taught how to use the handbrake for hill starts, but told to do that only if absolutely necessary: I was also taught how to do (moderate) hill starts without the handbrake.

The reason to avoid using the handbrake for hill starts whenever possible, I believe, is that in the heat of the moment the driver may not push the handbrake all the way down, and thus drive off with a partially engaged handbrake. Also, it's probably easier to fry the clutch with a handbrake hill start.
posted by Skeptic at 6:29 AM on April 18, 2012


UK drivers are taught that the handbrake should be engaged whenever you're stopped, as a safety measure

This totally explains my Most Annoying Road Trip of All Time where my friend the Australian driver would put on the emergency brake at literally every stop light and I could not figure out what was going on in the slightest. I haven't seen a foot pedal emergency brake since I drove a truck.

But I live in Vermont where we are issued a green AWD Subaru upon entry and you don't get a lot of choice in the matter, though sometimes you can bribe someone and get a blue one.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:56 AM on April 18, 2012 [9 favorites]


This has almost nothing to do with anything in the thread except it's about the UK and driving.

I went to a club in London a few years back and got - what would you call it? properly pissed? - anyways I needed a taxi (cab?) back to the hotel.

The driver was exceedingly polite and we chit chatted about various things. I think I started nodding off into sleep. When I woke up, I looked out the windshield and screamed YOU'RE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE ROAD, WE'RE GOING TO DIE!

I gave him a hefty tip upon arrival.
posted by desjardins at 7:10 AM on April 18, 2012 [9 favorites]


I did this once driving in France; we had a pit stop and I naturally pulled out onto the left hand side of the road, and narrowly avoided being squashed by an HGV. Luckily I managed to dodge into a car park just before getting squished.
There was also the hilarious time I picked up a rental at Heathrow after being out of the UK for over 18 months, climbed into the passenger seat and looked for the steering wheel.

I can handle a handbrake though, just don't ride with me for a day or so until I get used to which side of the road I'm supposed to be on.
posted by arcticseal at 7:40 AM on April 18, 2012


But I live in Vermont where we are issued a green AWD Subaru upon entry

In Maine they throw in a pair of Crocs. You should move.
posted by yerfatma at 7:46 AM on April 18, 2012 [1 favorite]


What, you have your heel on the brake and your toe on the accelerator at the same time? I'd be dead by now if I was supposed to do that.

Why? Surely it wouldn't require more coordination than operating the clutch, steering wheel, hand brake, and regular brake/accellerator.

If you want your mind blown contemplate the acrobatics required to drive a truck equipped with a twin stick. Note that linked video has the operator only moving one stick at a time; some transmissions require you to move both sticks for a single shift. If you didn't use both hands you'd end up in double neutral which was tough to recover from without coming to a full stop.

Also interesting are trucks equipped with two speed rear end. The truck I drove like that had a quirky shift pattern where you didn't always shift between low and high on every shift. IE: the shifts went 1L-1H-2L-2H-3L-4L-3H-4H-5L-5H. Luckily the rear end was vacuum shifted via an auxillary knob on the shifter and not a seperate control so you only needed one hand.

Interestingly reading links for this comment I found some trucks had twin range transmissions and two speed rear ends.
posted by Mitheral at 8:06 AM on April 18, 2012 [2 favorites]


I have done the 'wrong side of the road' thing twice now. Once was when I went back to England after 4 years here and pulled out of the car park straight onto the wrong side of the road for about 50 yards before my new boss sat next to me said "Er...... I thought you were just doing a wide exit, but..." and I realised.

When I was driving between the UK and Le Mans with racing car parts for a few weeks way back in 1998 I used to take the Portsmouth-Caen crossing that was a 5 hour freight ferry trip that left at 1130pm. With very little sleep (no cabin) I drove off the ferry and out of the town. The place was deserted and it was only when I approached a roundabout and all the signs weren't facing me that I realised I was on the wrong side of the road. This was about 30 miles out of the ferry terminal, so I'm not sure if I did the whole 30 miles on the wrong side or just did it from the previous junction. So either a mile or 30.

I made sure they booked me a cabin next time and got some sleep.
posted by Brockles at 8:55 AM on April 18, 2012


As I was driving to work this morning, I got caught in a lane where everyone had to drive very slowly because the car at the front was going significantly under the flow of traffic, and there were limited opportunities to pass (not that that stopped people from doing so in an unsafe manner, of course).

I was getting all impatient and mad and was muttering bad words. Then I remembered the feeling I had a couple of years ago, when we picked up a rental car on the outskirts of Glasgow, and had to drive a couple-three hours to a ferry landing. I was dry-mouthed with terror, and even once we were on the divided highway - where at least I didn't have to worry that I would accidentally drive on the wrong side - I drove much more slowly than I usually do, and more slowly than most of the other drivers. So I thought about that as I was stuck behind Mr. Slowpoke this morning, and decided that I would remember how frightened I was driving on the "wrong" side, and try to treat him as I was treated by other drivers in Scotland, where no one flashed their lights at me or honked or tailgated or passed too close to "teach me a lesson."

I also remembered that I was on my way to work, so what exactly was my damn hurry? It made for a much less stressful commute.
posted by rtha at 9:45 AM on April 18, 2012 [7 favorites]


Apropos driving,
Young Americans less likely to drive
posted by needled at 10:06 AM on April 18, 2012


UK drivers are taught that the handbrake should be engaged whenever you're stopped, as a safety measure

FWIW, my driving instructor's rationale for this was that if you're holding the car on the footbrake and are hit from behind, you might accidentally or inadverently release the brake and then your car is uncontrolled (and maybe heading for a collision with another car or worse, a pedestrian). The handbrake holds itself on its ratchet so remains engaged even if the driver is disturbed.

I've no idea if this actually bears out in practice; but it's a deeply-engrained practice in UK driving instruction and examination and a hard habit to lose.

(Also: I was taught in the UK to feed the steering wheel through my hands rather than crossing them -- you don't want your fists in your face if the airbag goes off mid-turn. That habit got marks against me in my California driving test. "You're in the USA now, you gotta cross over.")

I learnt to drive in Belgium and Germany, and in both countries I was taught how to use the handbrake for hill starts, but told to do that only if absolutely necessary

Heh: I'm driving a rental manual in Belgium next week.
posted by We had a deal, Kyle at 11:02 AM on April 18, 2012


Those stupid foot operated ratchet things that most US cars have

I've seen the rachety types in a few hybrid cars, including the Prius.

Boxter - got a laugh when I saw one posted on an internal company "for sale" exchange board. 1. Who but an exec could afford to buy a "garage-kept, adult-driven" Boxter? 2. It surely meant layoffs were coming (they did, four times in five years?).
posted by tilde at 11:03 AM on April 18, 2012


I haven't seen a foot pedal emergency brake since I drove a truck

My minivan has one. I think they're normal for 'em.
posted by The corpse in the library at 11:09 AM on April 18, 2012


I rent cars all the time, and I got a car that had a foot pedal emergency brake recently. Maybe a 2010 Mustang? Anyway, the guy from the rental agency went to some trouble to explain to me how it worked, which was cute.

They are certainly not the norm even in US-made sedans and coupes.
posted by Sidhedevil at 11:33 AM on April 18, 2012


I've not driven a manual normal US made car, though - do they still have that stupid arse foot ratchet brake?

In my experience, US built cars with manual transmissions that have the foot brake instead of the hand brake are typically performance versions of sedans that usually come with automatics. The Taurus SHO was the only manual-with-a-foot brake car I've ever driven.
posted by hwyengr at 11:38 AM on April 18, 2012


My Pinto wagon was manual-with-a-foot-brake. I also had to turn on the high beams with my foot. That seems like a lot of footwork; maybe I'm misremembering.
posted by The corpse in the library at 11:40 AM on April 18, 2012


I haven't seen a foot pedal emergency brake since I drove a truck

A friend's 2002 Buick Century has one.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:00 PM on April 18, 2012


My car has both.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:13 PM on April 18, 2012


> I also had to turn on the high beams with my foot.

Yep, for some reason this was a thing.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:14 PM on April 18, 2012


The corpse in the library: "My Pinto wagon was manual-with-a-foot-brake. I also had to turn on the high beams with my foot. That seems like a lot of footwork; maybe I'm misremembering."

Who was it that said something to the effect of "It is almost inconceivable that the largest, most expensive, most dangerous possession that we own is primarily operated with our feet."?
posted by Rock Steady at 12:20 PM on April 18, 2012


A handyman.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:51 PM on April 18, 2012


Headlight dimmers were on the floor because that's the way god intended. These stalk mounted dimmers are the work of the devil.
posted by Mitheral at 1:23 PM on April 18, 2012


easier to fry the clutch with a handbrake hill start.

That seems doubtful. It's absurdly easy to let go the handbrake as you feel the clutch beginning to take up--what else is occupying your hand at that point? The worst thing you can do for your clutch on a hill is ride it to keep the car in position (i.e., to have it partly disengaged, so that it's slipping just enough to keep the car from going forwards or backwards). I think non handbrake users are more likely to do that than handbrake users.

As for foot-pedal parking brakes; many of the sedans I've rented in the states have had them. Puzzled the hell out of me the first time I encountered it.
posted by yoink at 1:59 PM on April 18, 2012


dg: " In almost all cases, my action leads to them backing off (although it also leads to various hand gestures). "

Seconding winna's suggestion of turning on your hazards instead. I drive a full-size van. Nothing says, "Give me some room / tailgate me at your own risk" like blinking hazard lights on a vehicle you can't easily see around.
posted by zarq at 2:28 PM on April 18, 2012


Why anyone wants to post anonymously is their business, not yours. Your opinion is neither desired nor required. Why do people care so much about things that will have no effect on them one way or the other? Welcome to Metafilter, our own little slice of Payton Place on the web.
posted by doctor_negative at 2:29 PM on April 18, 2012


You misspelled that as a nerd trap and I am not falling in to it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:49 PM on April 18, 2012 [7 favorites]


But I live in Vermont where we are issued a green AWD Subaru upon entry

In Maine they throw in a pair of Crocs. You should move.


In Asheville you get a kayak on the roof and a border collie with a red bandanna. I brought my green Saturn wagon with me here though and it was close enough to pass, so I still have it, manual transmission, regular emergency brake between the two front seats and all. Handy for parking in the mountains and when some idiot is right on your tail at a stoplight at the top of a hill. I am in awe at the thought of driving in San Francisco without it.

I've always done the brake checking thing, although I've never heard it called that. If somebody is tailgating, you tap on the brakes briefly to flash the lights and let them know to back off. If they don't back off, you start slowing down slooooowly until you're going really slow and they are incandescent with rage but the chances of a bad rearending are much slimmer. Then hopefully you get to a place where you can pull over and let them pass - or shoot you, I guess, but so far that hasn't happened. I thought everyone did that - the brake tapping, not the shooting so much.
posted by mygothlaundry at 3:37 PM on April 18, 2012


I thought everyone did that - the brake tapping

A friend of mine got a $100 ticket for doing that to a cop.
posted by Sidhedevil at 3:43 PM on April 18, 2012


A Thousand Baited Hooks: "My parents' old Nissan campervan had a handbrake that stuck out horizontally from the dashboard. You had to twist it and pull it out to engage. Other awesome features of that van were a gearstick that stuck out from the side of the steering column like the indicator lever of a lesser vehicle, and a manual choke. Cars are softcore these days."
Yep, most cars built here until the '70s or so had, as standard, the under-dash 'pull and twist' handbrake and a 3-speed column-shift manual gearbox (aka 'three-on-the-tree').

Forktine: "some new cars have hill-holding features built in (I've encountered it in Subarus), where it holds the brakes while you dither around with getting started"
The Subaru I drive has one of these (when you activate it, it turns the handbrake on automatically if you stop facing up a hill and turns it off again when you depress the accelerator)- not a lot of point in an auto, but I've used it a couple of times and discovered a real flaw in it - you only have to touch the accelerator gently to disengage the brake and the auto doesn't hold the car from rolling backwards on a hill. I imagine the consequences are even worse in a manual.

Mitheral: "Headlight dimmers were on the floor because that's the way god intended. These stalk mounted dimmers are the work of the devil."
In an auto, I agree with you completely - it's much easier to flick the lights up and down with your left foot, because it doesn't need to do anything else, unlike your right hand (or left for those furrin cars), which is often quite busy.

The only cars built here that I've seen with a foot-operated handbrake (!) only used the foot pedal to activate the brake and used a lever on the dash to take it off. A major drawback was that there was no middle ground - when you twisted the lever, the brake came off instantly. Not so good for hill starts and even worse for handbrake turns. Or so I've heard ...
posted by dg at 3:45 PM on April 18, 2012


mygothlaundry: "you tap on the brakes briefly to flash the lights and let them know to back off"

A 'brake test' is a tad more aggressive than that - while I keep my foot on the accelerator so my speed doesn't drop enough to matter, I actually tap pretty hard on the brake pedal with my left foot, enough to briefly bring the brakes on so the car dives a bit and it looks like I've slammed the bakes on. It is (almost) always preceded by a gentle tap as a warning, though.

It used to be a pretty common tactic on motor racing, particularly back when brakes were much less reliable than they are now. It was common to give the brake pedal a jab to test that they were still working and get a feel for how well they were working down a long straight (imagine coming down the ~2km straight of this track at 300km/h and not being sure if your brakes were going to work, particularly when was straight all the way before the 'chase' was put in) so the driver had confidence coming into the braking area before the next corner. Because it was a common practice, it was also easy to excuse doing it to disadvantage the driver behind as 'I was just testing my brakes'. It's pretty hard to get away with now that drivers can have much more confidence in their brakes.
posted by dg at 4:05 PM on April 18, 2012


If you didn't use the handbrake on a hill start for a driving test here, you would fail instantly.

I'm 99.99999% sure that my driving test didn't include a hill start. (FWIW, my 2000 Ford Ranger (RIP) had a foot emergency brake, the mr's 2001 Kia Spectra has a center console one, and the Chevy Impalas in the office's motor pool are all foot e-brakes.)

And as far as why anonymous, I can see plenty of reasons, including fear of being perceived poorly. I seriously considered going anon on my last question, because I'm sort of embarrassed about not being able to go organic with my yard. And if I knew my neighbors were here, I'd go anon, because that's just awkward.
posted by epersonae at 4:08 PM on April 18, 2012


But I live in Vermont where we are issued a green AWD Subaru upon entry

Upon entry into Wisconsin, you get a bumper sticker that says either RECALL WALKER or I WOULD SUCK WALKER'S DICK.

If you're from Illinois you're just issued a speeding ticket.
posted by desjardins at 7:02 AM on April 19, 2012


This totally explains my Most Annoying Road Trip of All Time where my friend the Australian driver would put on the emergency brake at literally every stop light and I could not figure out what was going on in the slightest. I haven't seen a foot pedal emergency brake since I drove a truck.

Well if you put the handbrake on you don't need to keep your foot pressed on the brake or clutch. If you're on any sort of slope in the rain it's infinitely safer to bring the handbrake down as you engage the clutch since you won't roll back at all.

Also I was driving a rental Camry and it had a foot handbrake. Stumped me for a minute trying to figure out where the hell it was.
posted by Talez at 9:34 AM on April 20, 2012


> Also I was driving a rental Camry and it had a foot handbrake.

The Camry is actually about as American as cars come, too.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:37 AM on April 20, 2012


I was out at the lake, near a boat ramp, loitering for god knows why, it was just the lake, you know. Anyway, this guy brings his boat up to the ramp to take it out of the water, & is obviously at least 2.5 sheets to the wind. Through some general flailing, he manages at length totget the boat up on to the trailer, & when it's time to drive off, he gets in, and guns the engine, but it won't go anywhere. Vroom, vroom, you can see the truck rocking from the torque, but no go. He sits there & thinks about it for a minute, then finally reaches down and pops the hood open. Still wouldn't go anywhere, even with the hood cracked, no matter how hard he mashed the gas pedal. I think this was about when his wife yanked him out of the driver's seat.

That's my story about foot-operated parking brakes.
posted by Devils Rancher at 10:21 AM on April 20, 2012


The Camry is actually about as American as cars come, too.

A Camry is as Japanese as car design comes. It is only assembled in the US from parts made in the US. The critical and over-riding element of a cars origin is its design. That is the major flaw of US car manufacturers, not necessarily their parts and assembly. They always used to be relatively well made pieces of crap - they certainly lasted well - but were very ugly and dynamically godawful compared to European and Japanese models of equivalent age (and often of the previous 15 years of Euro/Japanese pedigree).

It's just marketing guff to make the american public's perceptions about 'must buy domestic at all costs' that has allowed the US market to waddle into irrelevancy until their wake up call about 5 year ago. The only way to sell cars cost effectively in the US is to assemble them here. It doesn't make a Camry american, though.
posted by Brockles at 10:29 AM on April 20, 2012


> It doesn't make a Camry american, though.

Nope, it's American by pretty much all metrics except the gut.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:30 AM on April 20, 2012


Upon entry into Wisconsin, you get a bumper sticker that says either RECALL WALKER or I WOULD SUCK WALKER'S DICK.

I sort of breezed through that without reading it entirely and for a second thought there was some sort of hiking-related chronic condition called Walker's Dick.
posted by griphus at 10:33 AM on April 20, 2012 [1 favorite]


Nope, it's American by pretty much all metrics except the gut.

No, design and company ownership is far more defining than the nationalituy and physical location of who bolts part a to part b. It is designed almost entirely in Japan. If the components for a Chevrolet are sent out in a container and it is assembled in Ghana, does that make it African?
posted by Brockles at 10:48 AM on April 20, 2012


It is designed almost entirely in Japan. If the components for a Chevrolet are sent out in a container and it is assembled in Ghana, does that make it African?

Yep.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:50 AM on April 20, 2012


(For the same reason that a t-shirt from the Gap is Bangladeshi. It matters.)
posted by Sys Rq at 11:53 AM on April 20, 2012


So Apple is a Chinese company then? Or is just their hardware all Chinese? An iphone is a Chinese product, as is a Macbook etc?

I find it staggering that you think that something as complex as a car that is designed with a completely - vastly- different corporate, engineering, operational and social culture to the US with entirely different processes and thinking should change nationalities just because of the last tiny fraction of its product life. The design and development cycle for a car is 5-10 years, which will be done predominately in the country of origin (in this case Japan). It's been a Japanese car for the best part of a decade, but apparently people believe that the first several years of the products life and matching nationality of the parent company is negated because it spends about 24 hours being built in an american plant with american workers. I find that staggering and nonsensical that such a vanishingly small percentage of a products life totally changes the perceived country of origin of the car.

I just... can't get my head around how anyone could think that.
posted by Brockles at 12:02 PM on April 20, 2012 [1 favorite]


That aspect might be expedient. Such and such product/brand/company built huge manufacturing plant hiring thousands in this economically challenged state for a taxbreak and naturalization vs designed in California, made in China.

I've seen this with solar panels where it says "solar cell technology made in Germany" technically leveraging the preferred country of origin at the point of sale, while assembly might have actually occurred in a lesser favoured nation.
posted by infini at 12:12 PM on April 20, 2012


I live in a town that builds cars -- Canadian (!!!) cars. Our local economy greatly depends on people knowing which cars are made here. This affects hundreds of thousands of people in my immediate vicinity.

Where it was designed doesn't make a lick of difference to anybody.
posted by Sys Rq at 12:18 PM on April 20, 2012


It's probably time we started to get over the idea that people and products have one fixed one place they come from.

Our local economy greatly depends on people knowing which cars are made here

It's hard to believe that your local economy can buy more than a tiny fraction of the output of your local car factory. Which incidentally means if everyone everywhere insisted on buying local, your local car factory would be toast, because it is non-local to almost all of its customers.
posted by philipy at 12:22 PM on April 20, 2012


The whole taxation of imported vehicles was to remove the issue of removing jobs from the US production workforce in assembling the products. It was designed to make people buy domestic, but has morphed into only buying domestically assembled

Where it was designed doesn't make a lick of difference to anybody.

That doesn't mean the same thing as 'a car built in Canada' is 'a Canadian car'. The perception of the buying public is to support domestic workers. The BMW's built in the States are sure as hell German Engineering, German processes, German quality control, German sales and marketing principles etc., etc. They are a German car assembled in the US.

It's probably time we started to get over the idea that people and products have one fixed one place they come from.

To a point, but certain nationalities and cultures (whether they be that of the parent country or just of the engineering/relevant professional population within it) will always impart value where it is deserved. You can't just blank that out until it is no longer relevant and we are several decades from being able to pretend that country of origin and manufacture impart absolutely no implication in build and/or quality.
posted by Brockles at 12:24 PM on April 20, 2012 [1 favorite]


Brockles: " It's been a Japanese car for the best part of a decade, but apparently people believe that the first several years of the products life and matching nationality of the parent company is negated because it spends about 24 hours being built in an american plant with american workers. I find that staggering and nonsensical that such a vanishingly small percentage of a products life totally changes the perceived country of origin of the car."

This is one way foreign products are marketed to Americans. For many years, there has been a political drumbeat to buy products that are manufactured domestically, because doing so creates and maintains jobs for Americans.

Toyota, for example, is a Japanese company. But their cars are assembled by Americans. And to many people, that helps determine whether they buy one.
posted by zarq at 12:25 PM on April 20, 2012


It's hard to believe that your local economy can buy more than a tiny fraction of the output of your local car factory. Which incidentally means if everyone everywhere insisted on buying local, your local car factory would be toast, because it is non-local to almost all of its customers.

Did I say that they're all sold here?
posted by Sys Rq at 12:28 PM on April 20, 2012


> Toyota, for example, is a Japanese company. But their cars are assembled by Americans.

And their parts are sourced in the US, the overall design is specific to the US market, and there are Americans on Toyota's design and engineering teams for the Camry. It's every bit as "American" as anything Ford or GM sells, especially since those manufacturers use "world car" platforms for many of their domestic offerings.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:37 PM on April 20, 2012 [2 favorites]


And to many people, that helps determine whether they buy one.

I have absolutely no problem with that, and think it is a very good way to prevent losses of domestic US jobs to foreign (and historically superior) marques that'd decimate the US car industry if they were allowed to import without any kind of restriction. But it doesn't change the essential nationality of the car or the manufacturer.

It's something of a good compromise, even if it does rather force external manufacturers of a certain size to be the only ones that can compete at all - they have to make an enormous investment in time and money to build the facility that will produce cars with which a foreign manufacturer can enter the US car market in a realistic manner. It was a long time before BMW sold enough cars in the US before it was cost effective to be actually building them there, and even longer before they recovered the cost of committing to the market in a way that would work.

However, it doesn't make the car american. It just doesn't take away jobs from americans if you buy it, unless you count the design and development team and the company CEO's. It's a lesser impact to the US economy than buying a car that is imported fully built in a container would be.

It's every bit as "American" as anything Ford or GM sells

I totally disagree and you haven't given me one piece of supporting evidence that even slightly convinces me. Assembling a car in one country does not mean the origin of that car changes. Tailoring a car for a market means a small part of the process is modified, but it does not change the ethos of the car.
posted by Brockles at 12:41 PM on April 20, 2012


> I totally disagree and you haven't given me one piece of supporting evidence that even slightly convinces me.

Well, I don't have to because the government and major manufacturers classify it as "American" by more or less precise metrics. Anything else is just opinion.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:44 PM on April 20, 2012


Anything else is just opinion.

Perception, rather. As perception matters more in branding and marketing than opinion, in a manner of speaking.

The essence of a Mercedes Benz will always remain German while you'd never consider a Chevy Chinese even if they bought the whole marque lock, stock and barrel.
posted by infini at 12:51 PM on April 20, 2012


Just like how Jaguar is still considered British. Regardless of who owns it.
posted by infini at 12:52 PM on April 20, 2012


Well, if we're getting into "perception" or "essence" then things should perhaps be toned down or couched in disclaimers of opinion rather than forcefully stated. Anyway, the Camry sold in the US certainly "feels" more American than other Japanese cars, mainly because it's wider.
posted by Burhanistan at 12:53 PM on April 20, 2012


Anyway, the Camry sold in the US certainly "feels" more American than other Japanese cars, mainly because it's wider.

How can something american feel more american? It either is or it isn't...

It's a Japanese car that has been modified to appeal more to the american market (even going so far as to having a subset of american engineers - a very efficient and Japanese way of approaching the problem, I thought). Marketing and legislation has allowed it to be considered an american product by jumping through the nominal (but expensive) hoops that are in place to protect the domestic car industry. You seem to be buying rather heavily into that, which surprises me enormously, to be honest. It is smoke and mirrors to head off the 'must buy domestic' mantra that the US car manufacturers relied on for so long that recently fell apart.

That the Camry is considered 85% US in origin - I'd love to know if that is by volume of parts or by volume of types of parts. If all the fasteners are US made and each fastener counts as one 'part' you'd make a lot of japanese parts irrelevant by counting them like that.
posted by Brockles at 12:59 PM on April 20, 2012


Eh, it's a product sold by a giant mulitinational that we associate as Japanese. I drive a Mazda made in Japan anyway.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:01 PM on April 20, 2012 [1 favorite]


The downside of the attempts by multinational brands to act local while being global is this very aspect of blurring the boundaries of their core values/culture/origins. Most people are wholly unaware of Unilever's provenance, believing it to be a local brand, like Phillips, while Coke's brand emphasizes its All Americanness even in remote rural Africa.

[on preview, never mind]
posted by infini at 1:01 PM on April 20, 2012


It is smoke and mirrors

It is people with jobs.

Also, robots!
posted by Sys Rq at 1:20 PM on April 20, 2012


What, you have your heel on the brake and your toe on the accelerator at the same time? I'd be dead by now if I was supposed to do that.

I heel and toe by pressing the brake with my toe and blipping the throttle with my heel, mostly when I down shift and need t engage the brakes as well as engine breaking. Why would you be dead by now if you had to do that?

The ability to heel and toe is somewhat dependent on the the pedals in your car. Mazda's seem to be very heel and toe friendly, as well as sports cars, but Toyota's aren't bad for it as well. Haven't driven anything else in awhile.

Where it was designed doesn't make a lick of difference to anybody.

I guess I'm nobody. If I were buying another car where and what company designed it would be very important to me. If it was a Toyota or Honda I'd avoid the one's designed for the American market, which, is far as I can tell, is starting out with a great car design, good handling, fairly stiff and responsive, and making it, for lack of a better term, a piece of shit. Soft, imprecise, unresponsive, etc. I couldn't care less where it was manufactured if it's a good car. Assembled locally can mean a cheaper price.

Toyota, for example, is a Japanese company. But their cars are assembled by Americans.

My Toyota was built and assembled in Japan.

Toyota has put out variation of their cars for different markets for years. How a car designed and developed by a Japanese company is an American car is well beyond me.
posted by juiceCake at 3:48 PM on April 20, 2012


I don't think anyone is suggesting all Toyotas are American. That would be bananas. The ones built in the U.S., though, are. Especially the (quite possibly entirely crappy) ones made for the American market.

Is a Holden Ute an American car just because it's made by GM?
posted by Sys Rq at 4:29 PM on April 20, 2012


The ones built in the U.S., though, are.

I disagree. They're Japanese cars tailored for a specific market. Toyota is not an American company. How is it their cars are?

If this is the case then a lot of formerly American companies are now Taiwanese, Chinese, and Vietnamese. Lots of animated shows like the Simpsons for example are Korean, not American shows.
posted by juiceCake at 5:06 PM on April 20, 2012


Toyota is not an American company.

Oh no?
posted by Sys Rq at 6:06 PM on April 20, 2012


I'm well aware they own companies in the States and their is even a TRD.\

Fine. If a company owns another company and operates out of other countries then they are a Chinese company, a Japanese company, a Korean company, an English company, a German company, a Filipino country, a Malaysian company.

Great to see that all these emerging, first world, second world, and third world countries have great companies like Apple, Mercedes, etc.

Can't wait for the American government to give tax breaks and possibly bail out money to Honda and Toyota should they ever have trouble.
posted by juiceCake at 8:46 PM on April 20, 2012


And Honda has a factory close to me here in Canada. I once had a Japanese woman say she was amazed that Canada didn't have companies like Sony, Toyota, Honda. Little did she know that these are actually Canadian companies!
posted by juiceCake at 8:47 PM on April 20, 2012


Obviously, many people here aren't paying attention.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:58 PM on April 20, 2012


Does that mean those tens of thousands of Camrys driving around here are American? Do wonder they are such n un in spiring, spongy piece of crap to drive.
posted by dg at 2:47 AM on April 21, 2012


This is a pretty fascinating argument, especially since we're looking at tangible products. Do the lines get more blurred when its online? What company was the original Gu Ge? Is Facebook American anymore? And Twitter?
posted by infini at 3:06 AM on April 21, 2012


And what about outsourcing? Does it even truly exist? Has it all been just an illusion? If some tech support company or publishing company opens offices in India well then, they're an Indian company so they aren't outsourcing.

When AMD took over ATI a year or two in they moved the entire, or close to at least, accounting department to Malaysia. Obviously they opened a business there so it wasn't outsourcing was it? AMD is a Malaysian company by the logic we see here.
posted by juiceCake at 9:27 AM on April 21, 2012


« Older An ugly debate   |   This is not the time machine I was hoping for... Newer »

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