was it something I said?

July 30, 2002 3:16 PM

OK, this thread, took a long time to die....was it something I said?

I was trying to promote a different way of dealing with trolls, but - in my early morning fatigue - may have overstepped some mark.
Or maybe it wasn't me, and I'm justy feeling Catholic (free-floating) guilt. Kindly put me out of my misery!


posted by dash_slot- to MetaFilter-Related at 3:16 PM (38 comments total)

Rumor has it that the thread in question was utter shit. (I wouldn't know, I never saw it.)
posted by Shadowkeeper at 3:22 PM on July 30, 2002

Good riddance.
posted by BlueTrain at 3:23 PM on July 30, 2002

I mean..

[One giant step for Iranian women [my title] Who says Iran does not consider the workplace suitable for women?
posted by Postroad at 10:51 AM PST - 76 comments - Post a Comment]

It got to 76 comments!

(Has it come to this... I'm dragging myself into MeTa?)
posted by dash_slot- at 3:26 PM on July 30, 2002

OK, missed on preview, not (all) my fault. Ne'er mind, eh.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:27 PM on July 30, 2002

I can't say that I'll miss it.
posted by insomnyuk at 3:51 PM on July 30, 2002

A thread surely deserving that medal with the fox or jackal or whatever on it that says "Worst.Thread.Ever". Thanks for zapping it, Matt. Ugliest thread to come down the pike in a long while...
posted by evanizer at 3:56 PM on July 30, 2002

Wouldn't a more lasting solution have been to ban Pantload?
posted by donkeyschlong at 4:06 PM on July 30, 2002

This medal. And it appears to be a jackal.

On preview, your name calling doesn't help things, donkeyschlong.

Snicker. Someone called donkeyschlong thinks it's an insult to call someone Pantload? Oh, the irony.

And if he gets banned, there are a few other flame-baiters around here that would have to get banned with him. You know who you are.
posted by evanizer at 4:13 PM on July 30, 2002

Yep, it was a jackal. And if you could see the rest of him, he'd certainly be wearing a pastel suit.
posted by bshort at 4:37 PM on July 30, 2002

That thread was ugly and the only poster I remember making any sense was evanizer.

I thought the unwritten rule was: 'If you're getting worked up at the keyboard, step away for a break.'?
posted by i_cola at 4:42 PM on July 30, 2002

I am generally against name calling, but Pantload is just too funny. You can't beat that.
posted by adampsyche at 5:12 PM on July 30, 2002

It was a mildly provocative post, but hardly racist, which is the charge that matteo got so exercised about early on. Certainly if Fred (he has a real name, a wide-ranging blog {not work-safe; read between the cheesecake}, and has plenty of goodwill beyond Metafilter, and interesting friends on both sides of the fence) displayed any bias in the post, it was toward the theocratic rulers of Iran, who ought to be deserving of any calumny thrown their way.

Would matteo (and others less vicious) prefer only links to stories such as New study finds: Arabs like bunnies, babies? Would we discuss such links? It's a region with enormous social problems, even taken out of global context. Almost any link to any story from the region could be construed, if one were so tuned emotionally, to be negative. I think that's the reader's problem, though.
posted by dhartung at 6:16 PM on July 30, 2002

a wide ranging blog

Well, apart from
Iran abuzz as Islamic Republic rethinks prostitution
many of those links look awfully familiar--I mean we're talking stripmining...

Goodshit he calls it
I calls it Bonerland
posted by y2karl at 6:33 PM on July 30, 2002

I calls it Bonerland

Well, he did link to Bitterlemons.org, which is something, at least. But I have to admit that's the strangest blog I've seen in...well, *ever*.
posted by mediareport at 6:43 PM on July 30, 2002

Certainly if Fred (he has a real name, a wide-ranging blog

Wow, Fred loves the ladies. Sort of puts a new slant on the nickname 'pantload.'
posted by ljromanoff at 6:59 PM on July 30, 2002

Snicker. Someone called donkeyschlong thinks it's an insult to call someone Pantload? Oh, the irony.

The strained thing is, since I knowingly chose that name, there's no joke to speak of. Old rule of comedy. Get over it. Or don't. But it's a weak and hackneyed response mechanism to call attention to my login every time I say anything.
posted by donkeyschlong at 7:01 PM on July 30, 2002

I'd hardly call it wide-ranging. It's a mix of mostly porn, some heavily Israel-slanted linkage, and then occasionaly random tidbits he finds interesting.

But then some people can always be counted on to vehemently not apologize for such people.
posted by artifex at 7:09 PM on July 30, 2002

...I'm justy feeling Catholic (free-floating) guilt

For your penance say a rosary. Also, in the future exercise self control and utilize the spell check function.

Now say an act of contrition.
posted by flatlander at 7:10 PM on July 30, 2002

I thought the FPP was interesting. Not as interesting as the theory that criticism of Islam is racist; but once Matteo figured out Iranians are not Arab, the thread really picked up speed....

My guess is that if someone else had made that post, the thread wouldn't have deteriorated into hysteria and name-calling so quickly. But because Postroad is Evil Incarnate, it was predictable.
posted by subgenius at 7:15 PM on July 30, 2002

Seems like someone has a little problem with people who don't share their opinions. It's one thing to disagree, but compare your mean little outbursts with Dan's usually eloquent and careful reasoning, and you'll notice quite a disparity. Perhaps you need to go back to charm school, or at least try and brush the chip off your shoulder, and start discussing and arguing your points rather than dropping little insults.
posted by evanizer at 8:03 PM on July 30, 2002

Following your ad hominem attack on me, evanizer, that's rich.
posted by donkeyschlong at 8:09 PM on July 30, 2002

My statement to you was a joke (not the part about the namecalling, but the part about your username), as I realized the absurdity of telling someone with a funny handle not to make funnies out of other people's handles. Sorry if that wasn't clear, I should have used a smiley face or something. For posterity:

;-)
posted by evanizer at 8:14 PM on July 30, 2002

As opposed to your ad hominem attack on Postroad, right donkeyschlong? What was it you said in a MeTa thread a few days ago?

I just think there are nicer ways to say stuff, is all. - donkeyschlong

Indeed, I'll remember that the next time "Pantload" comes up into conversation.
posted by BlueTrain at 8:17 PM on July 30, 2002

When Dan starts going to some of the other cults he frequents (LGF, for example) and starts bitchslapping them for their often belligerent slant, instead of only defending their slant in this forum while criticizing us for ours (supposed), we'll talk. Just because he can run on at length about something doesn't automatically make him right. Ask Ted Kaczynski. I mean SDB. And Dan's occasionally been called out in this very same tattle-tale fest for his own intermittent condescending rudeness ... but I'm not OCD-afflicted enough to google it right now.
posted by artifex at 8:21 PM on July 30, 2002

We're cool, Ev. =)

Blue: for the record, I took exception to Anil's meanness in the cited thread because nothing in Miguel's intent merited it. Pantload, on the other hand, seems to go out of his way to say inflammatory things, so I'm only giving as good as I gets. Now stop picking on me. Me head hurts.

Another smiley for good measure. =)
posted by donkeyschlong at 8:26 PM on July 30, 2002

and starts bitchslapping them for their often belligerent slant, instead of only defending their slant in this forum while criticizing us for ours

First, be careful with those possesive pronouns, "we're" not a "we", at least not in this case.

Second, does one have to 'bitchslap' their own beliefs? Why should Dan or anyone else have to play some schzoid game of devil's advocate in order to be respected? There's nothing wrong with not being a relativist. Stand up for what you believe in, but be open to discussion. We all have a slant. We just notice other slants because they're slanting the opposite direction from our own.

Third, I didn't think Metafilter had an ideological slant, but apparently, according to your implications, it does and, whatever it is, it's the opposite of such 'evil' persons as Mr. Den Beste and Little Green Footballs. I'll be sure to make a note of that. We're a non-Den Beste-Dan Hartung-LGF cult. Check.

Fourth: My head hurts now too.
posted by evanizer at 8:47 PM on July 30, 2002

My head is still spinning from that thread.
posted by insomnyuk at 9:11 PM on July 30, 2002

When Dan starts going to some of the other cults he frequents...we'll talk.

Until then, you'll continue acting like a three-year-old at every opportunity? Okay, thanks for the advance warning.
posted by Danelope at 9:54 PM on July 30, 2002

Worst.Community.Weblog.Ever.
posted by swift at 10:46 PM on July 30, 2002

Artifex: You can come up with all the reasons you want, but there's no excuse for continually taking shots at the same person on different threads. If you reach a point where you're doing that, and I have reached it several times myself, you should take it to e-mail and hash it out or turn things down a notch.
posted by rcade at 5:41 AM on July 31, 2002

I've been trying to get that thread out of my head.....I''ll be working and just look up and think, "racist?.........huh?"
posted by mkelley at 6:03 AM on July 31, 2002

Funny how this thread is beginning to resemble the one that's under discussion.

The problem as I see it is that several individuals are treating MetaFilter as their personal soapbox. In the case of Postroad, he should be saving his stuff for his own 'blog instead of posting it here.

I'm really tired of reading all this divisive and inflammatory tripe. Visiting this place used to be fun. Nowadays, it's something closer to a daily trepanning with a rusty pick.
posted by MrBaliHai at 6:44 AM on July 31, 2002

I think introspection is part of the deal with a 'self-policing' community. When said community is intelligent ( on the whole) but unsure of the rules (cos there are none), dissent and friction are inevitable. We're growing up here. And as I remember, that process is painful, but necessary. We need to cut each other some slack, and let a few things go, now & again. Dad ain't around to referee all the time, so there will occasionally be injustices. Get over it.
posted by dash_slot- at 7:28 AM on July 31, 2002

artifex, I replied with deliberate restraint on the MeFi thread where you brought this up. Consider that offer withdrawn unless you get some manners. Ted Kaczynski? I'm the fucking Unabomber? You anonymous snot.

Where the hell do you live? I want to send you a nice package.
posted by dhartung at 3:40 PM on July 31, 2002

unsurprisingly, i back artifex up 100 on this call. dhartung spends much of his mefi time defending povs that i for one find offensive ( i think the breaking point for me was when he suggested that there could be no 'innocents' killed in afghanistan, as all afghanis would shoot an american given the chance, i cannot be bothered to find the thread in question right now). his arguments, usually fairly verbose in content, often boil down to 'everyone has a right to expression'. they are usually unneccessarily condecending, to boot.
at the same time, dhartung will take an attack on his pov as justification for name calling and negativity, and in this case some kind of threat of violence against a member of the community. 'Seems like someone has a little problem with people who don't share their opinions'
do not question dan, he has worked it all out for you already.
'manners', eh?
posted by asok at 6:15 AM on August 1, 2002

dhartung spends much of his mefi time defending povs that i for one find offensive

So because you find his viewpoint offensive, it's ok for artifex to write off all of dhartung's comments as 'warblogging'? How erudite. I often disagree with his points, but I always appreciate the effort he puts into them, and his style is quite inoffensive, which cannot be said for many members who vociferously disagree with him.

So it's ok to frequently shout someone down when their views disagree with your sensibilities? I think there's something wrong with that. How would you feel about this if you agreed with him?
posted by insomnyuk at 7:10 AM on August 1, 2002

asok, I didn't compare artifex -- or you -- with the Unabomber. I will also ask you not to summarize my views with as much "spin" as you used above, because it comes perilously close to a lie. And I will always defend the right of free speech, a principle I hold dear to my heart, and one which is often undermined; I'm not at all surprised you feel this is an unworthy principle to defend.

Condescending? With the way you entered this place by trolling? That's rich. You and artifex go play together. You're obviously two of a kind.
posted by dhartung at 7:12 AM on August 1, 2002

Well, I'm not getting into that fight.

But, on the topic of

I calls it Bonerland

I have to agree with mediareport. After remembering Postroad once said he was going to use some of my Minstrelsy links, I went fishing in his archives and in and among the Breast of the Web I found a link to
The International Campaign for Justice for the Victims of Sabra & Shatila.

Now, given he has his bias, that says something. Also, amid all the pulchritudinous epidermi are quite a few interesting links. So, I retract my stripmining snark.

I still calls it Bonerland

...but like like Playboy, it does have some great articles.
posted by y2karl at 12:05 PM on August 1, 2002