Callout/Etiquette: please have the courtesy to put email in profile August 22, 2003 6:30 PM   Subscribe

Proposed : That if you're going to incessantly troll threads and insult people's intelligence, all in an infuriatingly supercilious and unctuous tone that seems intended to inflame, you should at least have the courtesy to provide an email address on your profile, disposable or otherwise.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken to Etiquette/Policy at 6:30 PM (149 comments total)

Everyone is welcome to their opinion, even if that opinion is gold-plated poo, of course. And let it be said that I wouldn't have even wanted to send an email to 111 if I had agreed with his (from my perspective, consistently outrageous) politics.

There are certainly people who express strong opinions from the 'other side' of the imaginary political divide, too. I just don't know who they are, because they don't infuriate me as much as 111 does.

It's good to get angry sometimes, but it's not good to be so often tempted to write things on a public forum that are best expressed privately.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:33 PM on August 22, 2003


Here's a funny thing: when I read 111, I start developing left-wing sympathies; when I read all the attacks on him, my sympathies start moving to the right.
posted by timeistight at 7:04 PM on August 22, 2003


funny, I just don't read the cantankerous dork.
posted by angry modem at 7:05 PM on August 22, 2003


somewhere,
over the rainbow,
bluebirds fly.
birds fly over the rainbow.
why then, oh why can't i?

if happy little bluebirds fly
beyond the rainbow
why, oh why can't i?

posted by quonsar at 7:13 PM on August 22, 2003


what is supercilious and unctuous? no, seriously.

and regarding 111: i've never understood why people constantly refer to him as 'troll' or 'trolling'. opinionated? well, of course! who here isn't?? TROLL? hmmm.... i just don't see it, or maybe i'm blind.


from stav's links (for those who don't want to click):

They're calmly praying for the success of the President, without hurting anyone. What would you say about this? (scroll down to 3 pics)


Back off y2karl, you bicycle-riding lefty sheep. You are totally wrong as usual.

Seriously though, consider this: "Senator Joe McCarthy was a great patriot who only had the USA's best interests at heart " (from the K5 "Troll" post). This is not a troll, this is a valid opinion which happens to be controversial within certain lefty circles.

I sometimes detect what I'd call "countertrolling", which I'd define as a censorship attempt where your right to express yourself is curtailed because someone says there is already a rock-solid view on the matter at hand. That's preposterous-- if people challenge the idea of God, for instance, why shouldn't others challenge the idea of abortion or political correctness or what have you?

My advice to everyone who thinks differently from their marxism-influenced university teachers but feels insecure to express her/himself would be this: read communist thinkers such as Marcuse and above all Antonio Gramsci and you'll see through the strategy of the left as far as consensus-building goes: they'll try to monopolize freedom of expression by silently limiting beforehand what can be said and what can't be said. I do think this kind of false indignation hurts democracies and freedom of expression. If you really know what you're talking about, and if you feel secure about your POVs, you can deal with any argument trollish or not.


It's an interesting article, even if obvious (birds of a feather flock together-- duh) and of course quite data-selective. Like Tom Wolfe, Brooks has this obsessive interest in class whose underlying message often contradicts his open discourse.

Ljubljana, you must always take into account the silent majority: all the people who are not gay, leftwing etc etc but do not care even to respond to these fringe ideologies. Ordinary, middle-of-the-road people do not usually organize themselves into flocks/mobs/unions, because conservatives as a general rule can take care of themselves.

On the other hand, it must also be noted that, perhaps as a survival tactic, minorities are much more vocal and strident in everyday discourse than mainstream folks. Consider as well the fact that half-knowledge often hides itself under the rainbow-colored veil of the hypersensitive, totalitarian zealot.

So some groups these days live in closed circuits which reinforce not only their ideologies but the very belief that these ideologies reflect some kind of major standard. That kind of illusion spills out into daily life, and that's what we sometimes see in MetaFilter.

My opinions put some people off because they've been living for so long in these hothouses that if I say, for instance, that two men kissing is a disgusting sight, they'll process that as some kind of deliberate insult, since in their minds 1)that couldn't possibly be true, since all their pals are gay and they get their info from the gay-friendly media or 2) even if that was my opinion, I should refrain from expressing it because MeFi is becoming a homolefty sanctuary and I should either conform or else stay silent.

Actually, Brook's article draws attention to the fact that diversity is a goal much more than a way of life, but also that everybody, including Brooks himself, has little agendas-- and they'll use whatever means is available to push them forward, including surface evidence, mock indignation and "peer" pressure.

posted by poopy at 7:36 PM on August 22, 2003


and you could say the same exact thing of f&m and be wrong.
posted by poopy at 7:38 PM on August 22, 2003


"if you're going to incessantly troll threads and insult people's intelligence, all in an infuriatingly supercilious and unctuous tone that seems intended to inflame"

What, like 111 is the only one round here doing that? For shame stavros, you have a low user number, thought you'd be tougher by now.
posted by Joeforking at 7:40 PM on August 22, 2003


It's good to get angry sometimes, but it's not good to be so often tempted to write things on a public forum that are best expressed privately.

suggestion: if you're truly feeling that your thoughts are that bad that they shouldn't be displayed on a public forum, then perhaps (even moreso IMO) it's better not to engage in private either. recent META threads have discussed the consequences of bad vibes that have a way of getting out of control. this is no different.
posted by poopy at 7:51 PM on August 22, 2003


Yeah, 111 is kind of a fucknut, but I don't think that you're going to change his mind or his ways with an email or two. Just do what I do -- I just pretend that he means everything in a deeply, deeply ironic way, and it works out fine.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 8:17 PM on August 22, 2003


For Shameeee!!!!
posted by SweetJesus at 8:43 PM on August 22, 2003


Write the email, and then send it to your trashcan, stavros. It'll have the same effect.
posted by crunchland at 8:52 PM on August 22, 2003


"opinionated? well, of course! who here isn't??"

I have no opinions. But for a small fee, I'm willing to pipe up in any thread with a "You said it, brother!" or "Amen!" in support of your opinion.

Email address in profile. I accept PayPal.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:54 PM on August 22, 2003


i know i should be nicer but if there's one thing around this joint that i cannot stop myself from passing judgement on it's bare naked user pages. smacks of cowardice to me, and i notice it's always the people i dislike the most who leave their profiles blank. often when someone angers me i like to hit their profile so i can visit their website, to get a better perspective on their opinions, and to see them more as a person than an irritating fuckwit that i'd love to smack around... but then, you know, it's only a website and y'all are just a bunch of ones and zeros so i quickly get over it.
posted by t r a c y at 8:56 PM on August 22, 2003


In my opinion, 111 sets himself apart because he views MeFi as a public utility, subject to his regulation and own skewed view of how it should be run. This is not the same thing as merely expression opinions. This is most evident when he, for example, invokes the idea that someone is a Nazi, stepping over into the world of libel and defamation. :)
posted by jca at 9:06 PM on August 22, 2003


mefi youth

posted by quonsar at 9:19 PM on August 22, 2003


stav, you'd best be careful provoking 111, he has literally thousands of friends here on Mefi, and they are sure to be along here any minute to upbraid & rebuke you.
posted by jonson at 9:20 PM on August 22, 2003


Oh, and SweetJesus, this made me laugh harder than anything I've seen all day, thanks!
posted by jonson at 9:21 PM on August 22, 2003



I see trees of green, red roses too
I see them bloom for me and you
And I think to myself what a wonderful world.


I see skies of blue and clouds of white
The bright blessed day, the dark sacred night
And I think to myself what a wonderful world.


posted by Shane at 9:22 PM on August 22, 2003


shane, where the hell have you been? You used to be omnipresent on this place, and then you practically disappeared.
posted by jonson at 9:23 PM on August 22, 2003


shane, where the hell have you been?

heh! I've been over the rainbow with the happy little bluebirds, avoiding all this wonderful shite!
Um, you missed me, right?
posted by Shane at 9:28 PM on August 22, 2003


(Besides, derailing these pointless MeTa wankfest arguments never works, and trying to derail them pisses off stavros to no end.)
posted by Shane at 9:30 PM on August 22, 2003


*tries to get pissed-off, fails, gives Shane a big girly kiss*

I still reckon email addresses should be compulsory, though. FWIW.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:35 PM on August 22, 2003


See, jonson? I can't even piss off stavros anymore. What's the point? ;-)
(And, okay, I agree that e-mail addy's are the minimal amount of accountability that should be required of any MeFi "community" member.)
posted by Shane at 9:43 PM on August 22, 2003


I have gone on the record as saying so many times before, but the argument is an old one. 111 is my favorite kind of coward, who dishes out the "wildly controversial" opinions then hides behind anonymity. Way to stand up for those beliefs, tough guy.
posted by jonson at 9:49 PM on August 22, 2003


shane, where the hell have you been?

i've had him distracted with offers of free hosting and illegal software and plan on luring him securely into my web, just like i did with dong_resin. mwhahahaha...! haha...! ha... yah.
posted by t r a c y at 9:50 PM on August 22, 2003


whinefilter
posted by andrew cooke at 9:56 PM on August 22, 2003


111 is my favorite kind of coward, who dishes out the "wildly controversial" opinions then hides behind anonymity.

this is what confuses the hell out of me about the whole email debate. let's say you get their email address. then what? you confront them in email, an exchange that just might get hot considering you don't want to talk to them on a public forum.

and what happens if emails don't resolve your petty online vendetta? a demand of phone numbers, physical addresses? it's funny how many of us cheer for the 'rights to privacy' while simultaneously demanding 'freedom of information'. it's a fine fine line, and one that shouldn't be so easily excused by calling someone a coward.
posted by poopy at 10:06 PM on August 22, 2003


It's not as much about the end results (for example, me being who I am, I've had the odd one or two email exchanges with people here, nothing's really changed), it's more about complete sense of disconnectedness between your online personality and your real life, which is all well and good if you're not going to make a big deal about standing up for your ideals and being unafraid to speak the hard truths that others are apparently too brainwashed to see. I mean, it reeks of hiding your posting record from Google, it's just antithetical to the idea of being outspoken.
posted by jonson at 10:10 PM on August 22, 2003


Beware Tracy, for she is distracting and all powerful, and her web is irresistable. Not to mention the free hosting and illegal software...
posted by Shane at 10:10 PM on August 22, 2003


I do not even see 111's posts anymore. I have to actively look for them or I go past them without even realizing it.
posted by bargle at 10:22 PM on August 22, 2003


and what happens if emails don't resolve your petty online vendetta?

poopy, you miss the point, and insult me by suggesting I have a 'petty online vendetta'. Nothing of the sort. I have never even exchanged words with 111, that I can remember.

let's say you get their email address. then what? you confront them in email, an exchange that just might get hot considering you don't want to talk to them on a public forum.

You assume spuriously that the only reason to send an email would be to 'confront'. And you ignore the reality that there is public and private discourse, and eliminating the possibility of the latter, as jonson mentions, smacks of cowardice. There are discussions I've had in private with various MeFites over the years, heated and otherwise. With most of those people, I am on cordial terms now. That may not have been the case if discussions of some intensity had taken place in public, where ego and pride are a factor.

I preferred that those discussions be private, and remain so, for reasons that ought to be self-evident. I think that courtesy, in both directions, dictates that you ought to stand behind your words and leave open a private communication channel, particularly if you style yourself a gadfly.

YMMV, as they say.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:24 PM on August 22, 2003


Sorry, that was unclear.

I meant that it is a courtesy to leave a channel open for private communications on the part of the gadly, and a courtesy to take personal discussion to that private channel on the part of his interlocuters.

One used to see frequently expressed distaste for ad hominem attacks at Metafilter, and a suggestion that when people engaged in them, they would better serve themselves and the community to take it to email.

It is distressing that the community standard that suggested that (in public, at least) one attack the argument and leave the arguer out of it has gone by the wayside so quickly.

(Irony Time : OK, quonsar, you can put in another inline image now. Try for something with a bit of wit, though, mate. You've been slipping badly of late.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:30 PM on August 22, 2003



stavrosthewonderdildo
posted by quonsar at 10:39 PM on August 22, 2003


that'll do
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 10:43 PM on August 22, 2003


In lieu of wit, a dick picture. Hyuk! Kind of disappointing, actually.

You can do better than that, can't you, q?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:00 PM on August 22, 2003


re: jonson - you've watched 'the o'reilly factor'? his use of the word 'coward' to DEFINE those who refuse to sink to his level is disgusting, IMO.

re: stavrosthewonderchicken - by 'online vendetta' i wasn't referring to you at all. i was replying to jonson... it was just a hypothetical.

again, i strongly believe that if someone on MEFI doesn't wish their email be known to others (for whatever reason: call it cowardice if u will... jeez, i remember lurking on MEFI in the 'good ole days' and seeing how people reacted to f&m's posts), so be it. to be perfectly honest, i never voluntarily offer my personal information to any kind of discussion (ok blog) site that demands it, and that's part of the appeal of MEFI (and many other blogs), IMO. if that were to change then i would probably look at MEFI differently.

and stav, if there was some kind of ad hominem attack that i took personally and the user didn't have an email... well, i would bring the issue up here in META, which you have done. my only question is: what did 111 do that was so bad that warrants this?
posted by poopy at 11:00 PM on August 22, 2003


Requiring an email address is self-defeating.
a) As poopy points out, it's a violation of privacy.
b) As stav himself points out, it could be disposable.

111 is no more a troll than 80% of everyone else who comments with regularity. (Oops, poopy made that point, too.)

OK, I have nothing to add to this thread. ;-P
posted by mischief at 11:01 PM on August 22, 2003


ouch. stavrostheblunttraumachicken hits hard. got my sandwich?
posted by quonsar at 11:05 PM on August 22, 2003


To both poopy and mischief, I'd say : using a disposable (or shell, as I do) email address doesn't mean you won't check it. I get all the mail that's sent to my shell email on my profile, but I can easily change it if it's abused. And using a disposable account or shell means that anyone that you don't want having your real email won't have it. Easy.

As far as your question goes, poopy. I've found myself turning red and getting ready to unleash a torrent of...well, elephant piss, retromictural or otherwise, basically... over and over again after reading some of the things that 111 has to say in recent days, then thinking better of it. Today I thought I might just send him (possibly her, but I doubt it) an email to see if he really does believe this stuff or is just having us on, and found I couldn't. With nowhere to turn other than actually going after him in some thread somewhere, I thought I'd start this thread. That's what Metatalk is meant to be for, kind of, no?

You know, that and dick pictures.

stavrostheblunttraumachicken hits hard. got my sandwich?

Yes, sir. And here's my lunch money, too, sir. ;-)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:12 PM on August 22, 2003


Sorry, retromingent.

See, the q teaches, even if he tries not to.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:16 PM on August 22, 2003


I enjoy 111's fine postings and for what it's worth would like to perform sexual on acts on him in a hot man-on-man fashion.
posted by xmutex at 11:39 PM on August 22, 2003


i can get behind that... honest clean...
venting

matt should add another META category just for venting. maybe that would solve some problems.... no, nevermind :)
posted by poopy at 11:51 PM on August 22, 2003


xmutex has a problem with never using commas, y2karl writes a lot in his popups - which I like - and 111 bothers to articulate his crazy point of view. Everyone, leave everyone alone.
posted by interrobang at 11:53 PM on August 22, 2003


It is distressing that the community standard that suggested that (in public, at least) one attack the argument and leave the arguer out of it has gone by the wayside so quickly.

The "cameras" thing is cool and all, but I wish that right there had been the contribution of mine that really took off.

And no, I don't claim to be there, but yes, I do claim it as a goal, a worthy one.
posted by NortonDC at 1:40 AM on August 23, 2003


Whites with whites, blacks with blacks, Asians for everybody. Men kissing men IS gross. Women kissing women is hot. People sharing feces during sex is gross too. The Patriot Act is an excellent tool for finding and capturing terrorists. Gay marriage? Nahh. Guns? Yah! Abortion should always be legal, but girls under 18 should have to notify parents. Our military should be always be the best in the world. Our borders should be extremely tightened. Cops rule! Marijuana laws are too harsh. A woman could/will never be President (fuck Hilldo). Baseball should have a salary cap. NCAA football should have a playoff system. Teachers need more money. NATIONAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL. The health of our environment matters above all else.... 'cept for the Marine Corps (Semper Fi). The death penalty is a must (and child molesters should get it). Christian values are a great basis for morality. Meat be good, especially self-harvested venison. All prisoners should be forced to work and forced to go to class. LawyersCanGoFuckThemselves. Fat people.........

mailto: go.cry.to.mommy@stavrosthewonderchicken.nitwit

When did Matt stop making users submit an legitimate email address during registration? I hate it when he just arbitrarily changes the rules.
posted by Witty at 1:47 AM on August 23, 2003

using a disposable email address doesn't mean you won't check it
Immaterial because that is overridden logically by the fact that one could choose to ignore it completely.

Also, as the recent whinefest from skallas shows, revealing personal contact information opens one to abuse. Restricting the forum for abuse to the public side of MeFi and open for all to read should always be the predominant option in the interest of privacy.

Witty: I don't think Matt did change that requirement. Users can delete their email address from the profile customize page.
posted by mischief at 3:01 AM on August 23, 2003


I'za bein' sarcastic. It's never been required to provide an email address (as far as I know). So it just seems silly to come here and bitch that a member doesn't list one on their user page... ya know, so someone can write them an email and call the person things like cantankerous dork or fucknut or coward, etc., just for having an opposing conservative viewpoint. "111 drives me crazy because he doesn't think like me... wah, wah, wah". Pathetic.
posted by Witty at 5:02 AM on August 23, 2003


It's been so long since I registered, I couldn't remember if one was required or not.
posted by mischief at 5:06 AM on August 23, 2003


ya know, so someone can write them an email and call the person things like cantankerous dork or fucknut or coward, etc.

If you'd actually read the thread, you'd note that I didn't call 111 any of those things, nor was it my intention to do so (though I have my suspicions on the last). Of course, you being the simian dunderhead you apparently are, sending an email to insult someone would be the first thing that leaps to your mind when you disagree with them.

As others have noted in the past, I'm always amused at the happy contradiction between a user who calls himself 'Witty' but posts comments of such thundering dirt-stick-stone stupidity. Good for a laugh, at least.

"111 drives me crazy because he doesn't think like me... wah, wah, wah". Pathetic.

No surprise that there's no email address on your profile, dumbass, when you're so comfortable with flinging around the epithets.

(Oh dear, tit-for-tat personal attacks! I'm part of the problem! What a quandary...)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:14 AM on August 23, 2003


I still think 111 == hama7.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.
posted by bshort at 7:22 AM on August 23, 2003


I'd love to have a preference to filter out posts by no-contact-info members. There's already too many things to read anyway. Why spend a minute on the cowards?
posted by rcade at 7:22 AM on August 23, 2003


chicken: I never said that YOU called 111 anything. If YOU read the thread you'll see that others have. Reread my post and you'll see that's what I was referring to... hence the use of the word someone. The fact remains that no one is required to post an email address. If you don't like that, then I don't know what to tell ya.

Of course, you being the simian dunderhead you apparently are, sending an email to insult someone would be the first thing that leaps to your mind when you disagree with them.

Oh really? I'm just going by what you posted asshole.

There are certainly people who express strong opinions from the 'other side' of the imaginary political divide, too. I just don't know who they are, because they don't infuriate me as much as 111 does....... It's good to get angry sometimes, but it's not good to be so often tempted to write things on a public forum that are best expressed privately.

So you're angry and you want to email 111 with some thoughts that aren't appropriate for MeFi? Gotcha.

As others have noted in the past, I'm always amused at the happy contradiction between a user who calls himself 'Witty' but posts comments of such thundering dirt-stick-stone stupidity.

How cute. 'Witty' is my surname. I assume 'stavrosthewonderchicken' is just what you call yourself? Do you wear a costume?

(Oh dear, tit-for-tat personal attacks! I'm part of the problem! What a quandary...)

Mummy?

mwitty111@hotmail.com (can't wait!)
posted by Witty at 7:31 AM on August 23, 2003


*cries*
posted by matteo at 8:10 AM on August 23, 2003


Well, WE call him wonderchicken for short.
posted by konolia at 8:51 AM on August 23, 2003


Just do what I do -- I just read all 111's posts in a Little Lord Fauntleroy voice, and it works out fine.
posted by signal at 8:56 AM on August 23, 2003


Hmm. Not to be willfully naive, but for me this thread seems to boil down to this:

Stavros has wildly different political opinions than 111. Therefore everything 111 posts seems like a Troll in Stavros' eyes despite the fact 111 almost assuredly believes everything he writes. 111 gets attacked, personally and ideologically, more often than virtually anyone at MeFi. Occasionally it gets under his/her skin and he/she lashes out. By now, Stavros is already boiling over with rage at 111's audacity to have differing political opinions than his own, and to occasionally be rude about them.

Next, Stavros brings his non-issue to MetaTalk, where seemingly no one agrees 111 is an actual troll, but that yes, email accounts should be required (Here, here).

I guess I could only add how strangely ironic it is when certain anonymous users with his own political worldview have "trolled" and proven to be single-minded fanatical jerks, stavros has been eerily silent.

Not an unfair synopsis?
posted by dhoyt at 9:02 AM on August 23, 2003


I'm in the minority, but I feel obligated to point out that I'm not alone in feeling that requiring email addresses for MetaFilter accounts is counter to the current purpose of MetaFilter. It wasn't intended to be originally - but has (d)evolved into - an online discussion site. Since it has, removing the discussion from public sight revokes the right of (total_mefi_users - 2) people to engage in the debate. If you have things to say, say them here.

If what you want to say makes you too uncomfortable to say here, I'd venture the opinion that saying it "in private" will do nothing to resolve or ameliorate the point, so let it go. I have a dozen different email accounts and if asked will provide one on an individual basis, but I'm no more going to publish it into some directory for 17,000 potential whiners/crackpots to flood with bile because they don't like my opinion than I am going to publish my telephone number or physical street address. Just because you and I participate in an online discussion community like MetaFilter doesn't mean I have to provide you access to my life and world outside that online discussion community.
posted by JollyWanker at 9:18 AM on August 23, 2003


Well, if Matt can give his email address to 17,000 potential whiners/crackpots, so can I.
posted by ginz at 9:24 AM on August 23, 2003


so what we have here is a user who is not only conservative, but who goes into threads about gay rights/marriage and says "ew, boys kissing is gross, and gross people don't deserve civil rights". not to say that there aren't good conservatives, but the political views 111 espouses aren't founded on anything other than his personal aesthetic...and he deliberately goes into threads that contradict his personal aesthetic to stir shit up. how is this not trolling, again?
posted by pxe2000 at 9:24 AM on August 23, 2003


Witty, for what it's worth, I think you're an even bigger fucknut than 111.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 9:42 AM on August 23, 2003


Metafilter is imploding. I'm leaving. Goodbye.
posted by the fire you left me at 9:46 AM on August 23, 2003


Well, I'm of the opinion that 111 is a troll as well.

"Why," you ask?

He makes wild claims just to be controversial, but then when asked to back them up immediately changes the subject or just ignores the request.

Its one thing to make a claim that may be unpopular but which you believe and are able to back up with facts, figures, etc., and its another thing to say things just to be argumentative. The latter is the very definition of a troll.

Or, to use actual examples from MeFi history:
MidasMulligan was so right-wing that he often came across (to me) as some sort of neo-Randian fascist, but his beliefs were sincere and he could (and would) go on at great lengths in his explanation of those beliefs. I disagree with Midas on nearly every political point, yet I still miss him dearly, as he brought a certain perspective to discussions that no one else did (or does).

Hama7, on the other hand, is almost certainly in the same political quadrant as Midas, but would go stomping through threads making wild statements about communists, or the left, etc. Hama would make a statement such as "Hitler was a communist" or "NewsMax is more respected than the New York Times", but when called upon to back up his statements, would just ignore the question, or use some other avoiding tactic.
posted by bshort at 9:48 AM on August 23, 2003


111 is not a troll. 111 shouldn't have to leave a mailbox open for people to send disagreements, etc. that they don't want to send publically. If you want to flame, or otherwise disapprove of what he writes, have the courage to do it here, or don't do it.

I think he's an idiot, but he's an idiot who holds opinions that a lot of others hold. Those opposed to his idiocy should post their opposition here or ignore it.
posted by pyramid termite at 9:50 AM on August 23, 2003


look, I have controversial opinions, and a history, but I almost NEVER get emails, abusive or otherwise. The few I do get are usually quite nice-and from unexpected sources.
posted by konolia at 10:08 AM on August 23, 2003


I'm with konalia; my metafilter email experience (such as it is) has all been positive. There's been a last three occasions when email communication has defused some snit I was getting myself into about something written here. The one-to-one forum seems to make things less open to misinterpretation.

I don't think this onslaught of abusive email that people fear is very likely.
posted by timeistight at 10:23 AM on August 23, 2003


pyramid termite: So who would you consider to be a troll? What does it take for someone to cross the threshold into troll-dom?
posted by bshort at 10:30 AM on August 23, 2003


Perhaps none of you have considered that some people just do not want to list their e-mail addresses.
posted by Stan Chin at 10:43 AM on August 23, 2003


Thanks for explaining that, Stanley. All this time, I thought they didn't know how.

Hey, what happened to your gold star?
posted by timeistight at 10:50 AM on August 23, 2003


what gold star


*resumes crying*
posted by matteo at 10:55 AM on August 23, 2003


MARS WILL BE BRIGHT
posted by bargle at 10:57 AM on August 23, 2003


Ive been turning it over and over again
Like a stone Im waiting to wish on
Ive been holding my breath just wondering when
Youll make some sort of decision
To let me in or let me go
Ill always lose if I never know
Where I fit in
Baby you win again
posted by bargle at 10:58 AM on August 23, 2003


Hey, what happened to your gold star?
It faded?

I really don't see why people wouldn't want to list an e-mail address. This is a community after all, not usenet.
posted by ginz at 10:59 AM on August 23, 2003


This is all frightenly similar to the "Why don't you own a cellphone? Don't you want to be available? Everybody has one! Carry a cellphone! It's really useful. That way I can call you whenever." conversation I have every once in awhile. Sometimes people just want to engage in socializing on their own terms.
posted by Stan Chin at 11:09 AM on August 23, 2003


today is my 21st birthday!
posted by mcsweetie at 11:10 AM on August 23, 2003


I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Requiring e-mail addresses would be like requiring everybody who goes to the local bar wear their phone number on a name tag. It might be great in some cases, but it's also an invitation to stalking. And, while I'm sure you're all fine upstanding members of the community, we certainly have people who are capable of doing some digital stalking around these parts.

Besides, just because somebody comes to a web site and wants to have a discussion doesn't mean they want to be contacted in other ways and it's crazy to suggest that should be forced on them. If Ashcroft was forcing everybody to report their details to some national registry many of the members supporting mandatory e-mail addresses would probably be up in arms, and rightly so.

A toss away account is no less anonymous than a MeFi user name, so the idea that they'll be more accountable if forced to provide one is really just dumb and misguided. Here in public, we all keep each other honest, move it to e-mail, and there isn't any of that. It's actually worse in terms of accountability than MeFi.

Look, if you want somebody to be able to contact you, then by all means include an e-mail address. It's great that you're open to that, and want to extend the relationship past a silly web site. If somebody wants to keep it all here, well then that's perfectly fine too.
posted by willnot at 11:14 AM on August 23, 2003


I have a cellphone. It's always off. People can leave me a message. It's the same with listing an email address. People can leave a message. There's no obligation to reply.
It certainly doesn't interfere with the way I want to socialize.


Happy birthday mcsweetie! And cheers to you too.
posted by ginz at 11:20 AM on August 23, 2003


Not an unfair synopsis?

dhoyt seems to have cut to the heart of this thread.

If this is simply about e-mail addresses, why involve and attack another Metafilter member? If you disagree with a member's statements, why not disagree in the appropriate thread, or keep it to yourself? If you self-righteously spot a "troll", and patronizingly acknowledge that a "troll's" only purpose is to attract attention to themselves, then why start another thread focusing attention on that member, when everybody knows it's just a matter of political disagreement?

Hama would make a statement such as "Hitler was a communist"

I said leftist, which he absolutely was, without question. And a socialist, which a cursory search will undoubtedly show.

or "NewsMax is more respected than the New York Times"

I don't remember that, but now that you mention it, the Weekly World News is a more dependable news source that the New York Times, as recent events have proven conclusively. Outright fabrication and left wing propaganda does not a news source make, unfortunately.

*jumps in SUV, unbuckles holster, floors it*
posted by hama7 at 11:37 AM on August 23, 2003


I said leftist, which he absolutely was, without question. And a socialist, which a cursory search will undoubtedly show.

Hahahah... I wish you'd post more often! It's great.
posted by SweetJesus at 11:41 AM on August 23, 2003


well it was the great for a few weeks right after he joined, but the Ann Coulter shtick got old pretty quick

but of course, since he apparently likes so much to rattle "peacenik"'s cages with automatically contrarian, pro-dictatorship crap, he just goes on even if by now he's the only one having fun
I guess he took a few weeks off, but what can you do, hamas heaven is back. too bad that, unlike some of his ideological buddies, it's not even fun to refute him. he's just a John Birch Society/Jean-Marie LePen/Baruch Goldstein quote generator
posted by matteo at 12:35 PM on August 23, 2003


today is my 21st birthday!
posted by mcsweetie


May you be drunk on the liquor of your choice and laid by the being of your coice, mcsweetie.

On second thought, that goes for everybody, except 111.

On third thought, especially 111.

and stav. and me.
posted by jonmc at 12:57 PM on August 23, 2003


Metafilter is imploding. I'm leaving. Goodbye.

Well good thing it's not exploding, in which case you'd have to avoid the flying bits of concrete on your way out the door.
posted by PrinceValium at 1:23 PM on August 23, 2003


thanks!
posted by mcsweetie at 1:27 PM on August 23, 2003


111 can be quite vexing, especially when dishing out the ad hominem insults, but upon cursory research, it is hard to tell if the ad hominems are totally gratuitous or made in response to others' jibes. He--just to settle these tiresome he or she quibbles--can be quite interesting on apolitical topics--a trait he shares with hama7, who, despite his penchant for flamboyantly irritating remarks, usually does not stoop to call people names, even when under direct attack. Of course, cursory research has clouded my judgement. I don't care for the patronizing tone nor the 'righty' lefty bashing cliches, myself, but one could learn to become inurred to these things. I certainly have been busted for much milder remarks by some defending him here. So, it may be a case of whose ox is getting gored. To my surprise, the jury is still out for me. I may pursue the matter.
posted by y2karl at 1:40 PM on August 23, 2003


>he's just a John Birch Society/Jean-Marie LePen/Baruch Goldstein quote generator

Haha, I can see the next popular online personality test, "Which quote generator are you?"
posted by skallas at 1:55 PM on August 23, 2003


I'm sure Miguel will provide us a fpp about that very soon, skallas
posted by matteo at 2:31 PM on August 23, 2003


bshort - Often calling someone a troll is simply a means of saying, "This person's viewpoints aren't answerable by me, or it would take more effort than I want to take, or it would start an endless argument and therefore I'm just going to call them an illegitimate troll and not answer them." A true troll is more interested in the reactions his "opinions" earn than the actual opinions themselves. After a few reply cycles, it can be quite obvious when this is going on.

111 doesn't qualify - his opinions, whatever you may think of them, seem more important to him than how people react to them. To say that someone who believes that Joe McCarthy was a Great American HAS to be kidding is a dangerous self-deception. A lot of people though Hitler was a ridiculous troll, too. (pace Godwin.)

I'm beginning to think that calling someone a troll is the internet leftist's equivalent of Rush or O'Reilly hanging up on or shouting down those who disagree with them. We have to do better than that, I think.
posted by pyramid termite at 4:30 PM on August 23, 2003


^spot on.
posted by dhoyt at 4:53 PM on August 23, 2003


hmmm these people completely hate me and wish to send me abusive emails ........perhaps i will help them by publishing my email address.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:05 PM on August 23, 2003


i must say, 111 gives us right-wing fanatics a bad image. I am considering banning him from the Green Dragon and seeing if i can get his limbaugh letter revoked.
posted by clavdivs at 5:06 PM on August 23, 2003


hi sarge
posted by clavdivs at 5:06 PM on August 23, 2003


what pyramid termite said. the whole concept of troll is thrown around so conveniently now (in many cases to silence those who disagree) that it's almost become like the definition of 'terrorist' since 911. please, for the love of all that is good and sacred in this world, 'if you're not with us you're against us' bullshit.
posted by poopy at 5:08 PM on August 23, 2003


I'm sure Miguel will provide us a fpp about that very soon, skallas

Confess that you miss me, Matteo. Same time, same place on Tuesday?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:14 PM on August 23, 2003


please, for the love of all that is good and sacred in this world, 'if you're not with us you're against us' bullshit.

And your point here is?
posted by y2karl at 5:45 PM on August 23, 2003


Come on! The New York Times bends about as far to the left as my willy. That is; slightly, and certainly not enough to stop it doing it's job properly.
posted by Jimbob at 6:05 PM on August 23, 2003


I just woke up. Sorry for calling Witty a simian dunderhead upthread. Sometimes my vocabulary runs away with me.

But I still think some form of email address ought to be compulsory. That's all.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:10 PM on August 23, 2003


jeez y2karl, i thought you would have figured it out already...

i love you.
posted by poopy at 6:12 PM on August 23, 2003


happy bday mcsweet! (i'm going out to get drunk in your honor right now)

I always wonder whether some of the right-wing people here are paid by some repub think tank (like heritage foundation or something) to repeat the day's talking points...
posted by amberglow at 6:23 PM on August 23, 2003


I want my check!
posted by konolia at 6:38 PM on August 23, 2003


you got your payment in answered prayers, hon! : >
posted by amberglow at 6:46 PM on August 23, 2003


a little wonderful piece of metafilter:

stavrosthewonderchicken
timeistight
angry modem
quonsar
Joeforking
LittleMissCranky
SweetJesus
crunchland
mr_crash_davis
t r a c y
jca
jonson
Shane
andrew cooke
bargle
Ignatius J. Reilly
mischief
xmutex
interrobang
NortonDC
mischief
Witty
bshort
rcade
matteo
konolia
signal
dhoyt
JollyWanker
ginz
pxe2000
LittleMissCranky
the fire you left me
bshort
pyramid termite
konolia
ginz
mcsweetie
willnot
hama7
SweetJesus
jonmc
PrinceValium
y2karl
skallas
sgt.serenity
clavdivs
MiguelCardoso
Jimbob
amberglow
posted by poopy at 7:07 PM on August 23, 2003


you forgot poopy.
posted by quonsar at 8:25 PM on August 23, 2003


Whoa, I made the 'poopy' list twice! I am sure that distinktion is a first.
( PS: thx, p - luv m . ;-P )
posted by mischief at 8:45 PM on August 23, 2003


111 is the worst kind of member here. Not interested in any topic in which he can't inject his political / religious views, he or she simply waits for the next oppourtunity to grab attention and make him- or herself feel better by belittling those who simply ask him or her a question regarding what was said.

I must myself admit to being a big of a flamewar voyeur, but I really prefer them to be between people, and not of the 'argument clinit' variety, with the personal insults thrown in for free.

I think it's simply the case that he or she is simply too obsessed with feeling superior that squeezing any kind of useful, sincere writing out of 111 would be a wasted effort.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:00 PM on August 23, 2003


bshort - Often calling someone a troll is simply a means of saying, "This person's viewpoints aren't answerable by me, or it would take more effort than I want to take, or it would start an endless argument and therefore I'm just going to call them an illegitimate troll and not answer them." A true troll is more interested in the reactions his "opinions" earn than the actual opinions themselves. After a few reply cycles, it can be quite obvious when this is going on.

111 doesn't qualify - his opinions, whatever you may think of them, seem more important to him than how people react to them. To say that someone who believes that Joe McCarthy was a Great American HAS to be kidding is a dangerous self-deception. A lot of people though Hitler was a ridiculous troll, too. (pace Godwin.)


But see, that's exactly my point. People have tried to engage 111 in many threads and on numerous topics, but instead of actually engaging in a conversation and communicating, 111 prefers to resort to ad hominem and topic switching. He is interested in his own opinions, but only for the reactions that he's able to engender in others.

I agree that troll is often bandied about too much, but sometimes you have to call a spade a spade.
posted by bshort at 9:03 PM on August 23, 2003


>I agree that troll is often bandied about too much, but sometimes you have to call a spade a spade.

Exactly. Troll:
To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames. Derives from the phrase "trolling for newbies"; which in turn comes from mainstream "trolling";, a style of fishing in which one trails bait through a likely spot hoping for a bite.

The well-constructed troll is a post that induces lots of newbies and flamers to make themselves look even more clueless than they already do, while subtly conveying to the more savvy and experienced that it is in fact a deliberate troll.

If you don't fall for the joke, you get to be in on it.

The following extract is from a broader expansion of the defining comments given above:

In Usenet usage, a troll is not a grumpy monster that lives beneath a bridge accosting passers-by, but rather a provocative posting to a newsgroup intended to produce a large volume of frivolous responses.

The content of a "troll posting generally falls into several areas. It may consist of an apparently foolish contradiction of common knowledge, a deliberately offensive insult to the readers of a newsgroup, or a broad request for trivial follow-up postings.

There are three reasons why people troll newsgroups:

People post such messages to get attention, to disrupt newsgroups, and simply to make trouble.

Career trollers tend for the latter two whilst the former is the mark of the clueless newbie and should be ignored.
posted by skallas at 9:22 PM on August 23, 2003


Fold_and_Mutilate and 111 in a STEEL CAGE LADDER MATCH for the hand of the lovely Miss Elizabeth!!!! OH YEAAAAAH!

Place your bets!

(I'm putting Foldy at 2 over considering vast medical knowledge.)
posted by Stan Chin at 9:30 PM on August 23, 2003


111 hasn't, I'm sure, succeeded in convincing anyone that any of his views are of any value, and I don't think that's the intention. Rather, to advance views in the most blunt, abrupt and insulting way possible, and to receive the obvious and predictable response, one can conclude that the world (or MeFi) doesn't understand, is bad, are all going straight to hell. Whatever makes one feel better. This is the MO of weak passive-agressives.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:09 PM on August 23, 2003


Three digit username on 111 (but I get 3-1).

See, 111 is just plain mean and feels downtrodden. Like a short little guy with no career. Think Arnold Swchartzawhatever and Gary Coleman fighting it out for California. You may think, at first and without due thought, that the muscle bound steriod enraged bodybuilder would be lock. You'd be wrong.

Midgets are tough little fuckers. Think about it-- you want those piranha sharp tiny little teeth sunk into your ankle?
posted by cedar at 10:17 PM on August 23, 2003


a short little guy with no career.

*sobs*
posted by quonsar at 10:21 PM on August 23, 2003


No takers? Fine, be like that.

Hands. Let's bet hands. If 111 takes foldy I'll cut my left hand off (and then I'm mailing it to Matt because this is all his fault).
posted by cedar at 10:24 PM on August 23, 2003


F&M would lay waste to 111 through the sheer power of his mind. He would blind him with science.
posted by bshort at 10:30 PM on August 23, 2003


f&m has detailed files on human anatomy. It makes him a more efficient killer.
posted by NortonDC at 10:45 PM on August 23, 2003


Dude, foldy can drop a cow at 50 paces with a ~wink~. 111 has got no chance.
posted by furiousthought at 10:46 PM on August 23, 2003


bshort, NortonDC, furiousthought: We have a problem here, I'm out of hands. Would you settle for, say, another appendage. Maybe something hardly used?
posted by cedar at 10:54 PM on August 23, 2003


LOOK UPON ME!

I'll show you the life of the mind!
posted by xmutex at 12:02 AM on August 24, 2003



happy new mcsweetie year...!
posted by t r a c y at 1:34 AM on August 24, 2003


god help me but threads like this remind me of why i love you all, you sick freaks.
realizing she has reached a terrible place from which there is no return, tracy runs sobbing from the room
posted by t r a c y at 1:39 AM on August 24, 2003


Does the following definition of a troll sound like the work of those scurrilous "Internet leftists"?

"Trolls' beliefs follow a standard outline, whose roots are in the anti-American, Jew hating, Marxist rhetoric of Noam Chomsky, Said, etc. along with generous doses of Jewish loony-leftist rhetoric, courtesy of Israel's New Historians (read: anti-Zionists) and Jewish anti-semites such as Ben Shapiro."

Troll is a bipartisan insult. The kids on Free Republic and LGF are just as enamored of the term as we are.
posted by rcade at 4:51 AM on August 24, 2003


People have tried to engage 111 in many threads and on numerous topics, but instead of actually engaging in a conversation and communicating, 111 prefers to resort to ad hominem and topic switching.

As do a sizable percentage of people on the internet and other media. I'm afraid many people don't debate these days with the idea that they're actually exchanging ideas in order to arrive at a mutual discovery. No, they just want to stroke their own egos - but if we're to call that trolling, then I'm afraid we live in a troll culture.

space coyote's comments about 111 wanting to feel superior and being weak passive aggressive seem accurate to me. I don't define that mindset as trolling, but it's not that valuable a contribution to debate.
posted by pyramid termite at 5:27 AM on August 24, 2003


It's interesting that everyone can name the HANDFUL of conservative, righties, whatevers, that exist here... as if they represent the same evil to everyone.

I don't agree that 111 is a troll at all (surprise). For someone who continutally has to defend his beliefs, his statements, and himSELF to the majority here, often alone, in thread after thread, I think he does quite well. I'd like to see how some of you people would fair under the same constant scrutiny and harassment.

My email address really is mwitty111@hotmail.com
posted by Witty at 7:18 AM on August 24, 2003


I'd like to see how some of you people would fair under the same constant scrutiny and harassment.

I'd be terribly disappointed in anyone who would repsond to a disagreement by attacking that person. Do you disagree?
posted by Space Coyote at 7:23 AM on August 24, 2003


wait, so Witty == 111?

I'm so confused.
posted by bshort at 9:35 AM on August 24, 2003


Fold_and_Mutilate and 111 in a STEEL CAGE LADDER MATCH

no, mud wrestling
posted by matteo at 11:22 AM on August 24, 2003


I'd be terribly disappointed in anyone who would repsond to a disagreement by attacking that person. Do you disagree?

I would agree if 111 was faced with simply responding to disagreement. But that just isn't the case. As you can see from this thread alone, he isn't liked very much.
posted by Witty at 2:12 PM on August 24, 2003


111 could not have been more correct when he lay at the doorstep:

"I should refrain from expressing it (his opinion) because MeFi is becoming a homolefty sanctuary and I should either conform or else stay silent"

This thread is yet one more in a long tradition of whinefests about style points when defenders of the liberal faith have a conflict with the substance.
posted by paleocon at 4:21 PM on August 24, 2003


As you can see from this thread alone, he isn't liked very much.

What are you talking about? He has thousands of friends!
posted by jonson at 4:39 PM on August 24, 2003


This thread is yet one more in a long tradition of whinefests about style points when defenders of the liberal faith have a conflict with the substance.

If he'd back up his claims with substance instead of truly nasty personal attacks and slurs, he'd still be in the political minority, but he'd be respected by many level-headed, reasonable homolefty mefites.

I love it when users who've been here for well under a year claim that MetaFilter is "becoming" liberal when we clearly have a long history of being a homolefty sanctuary.
posted by blissbat at 5:00 PM on August 24, 2003


Wow, "homolefty" is probably the coolest sounding label I've heard in years. I wish I were gay so I could tattoo it across my hand.
posted by Jimbob at 5:06 PM on August 24, 2003


hand? FOREHEAD!
posted by quonsar at 5:19 PM on August 24, 2003



posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:45 PM on August 24, 2003


My opinion of Paleocon is just plain unprintable.
posted by bargle at 7:05 PM on August 24, 2003


So is paleocon making claims about a vast left-wing conspiracy, or just joining the smoke-blowing parade?

If you'd all like to be taken seriously please say so when you think GWB and the republicans do something stupid. You won't find a single MeFite who would defend every last action of Bill Clinton, and if you did they probably wouldn't be contributing much to any discussion, either.
posted by Space Coyote at 7:05 PM on August 24, 2003


LOOK AWAY! I'M HIDEOUS!
posted by quonsar at 4:07 PM on August 25, 2003


If you'd all like to be taken seriously please say so when you think GWB and the republicans do something stupid.

Or maybe you could talk about something else every once and a long while.
posted by timeistight at 4:33 PM on August 25, 2003


111 is at it again.
What is the point of being part of an online community?
posted by asok at 1:00 PM on August 28, 2003


It won't help. The problem with 111 is that he's really good at what he does. Most trolls just say something inflammatory and hope to reel someone in. But 111 is very calculating. He's perfected the art of disguising the hook. He'll say a few things that let you know he's a reasonable and well read person, and then once he has your attention he drops something bogglingly incorrect.

You end up feeling like you need to correct his misunderstanding rather than ignore something which is too dumb to comment on.

If you just read his Islamic culture comment out of context you'd never respond because it's just too silly. Ditto for his "McCarthy was a great American" comments, etc etc. If he didn't dress it up in a nice suit and a cute hate people would ignore him.

I have no idea why Matt won't ban him. He contributes nothing but starts most of the fights.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:07 PM on August 28, 2003


111 doesn't even do us the courtesy of posting links to online art and culture sites or come into #mefi now and then to make it look like he's actually interested in participating as anything other than a loudmouth / troll.
posted by Space Coyote at 1:12 PM on August 28, 2003


Burn the witch! Purify the 'filter!
posted by timeistight at 1:14 PM on August 28, 2003


The paranoid gremlin that lives in my head things 111 is Cardoso on a spree. It's not sure why it thinks that, but it does.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:43 PM on August 28, 2003


I think he is actually a ghost from Swiss Air 111 haunting us in an attempt to tell us something about that crash. We should begin archiving his messages in order and look for patterns and hidden messages.
posted by bargle at 1:59 PM on August 28, 2003


space coyote: if #mefi and links to art and culture are what make a good poster, do you feel the same about foldy?

And, FWIW, looking at his FPP history, 111 does have a *few* non-political posts.
posted by turbodog at 2:28 PM on August 28, 2003


Fold entertains me, and doesn't seem to have any real prejudices that don't revolve around personal choices. I was actually referring to hama7, who, despite his crackpot side did contribute quite a bit of good content. 111 not so much.
posted by Space Coyote at 3:40 PM on August 28, 2003


I didn't believe you all about 111. I thought, "ah, he's a nutter, but you know the MeFi regulars, always looking to slam someone." Then I actually saw him in action. And how he diabolically managed to derail an entire thread and turn it about him...well, that's genius right there.

Nuke 'im.
posted by solistrato at 4:21 PM on August 28, 2003


doesn't seem to have any real prejudices that don't revolve around personal choices

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.

But it sounds like it's the politics that separates good from bad. f&m is entertaining but hama7 is a crackpot (unless he sticks to arts and lit posts)?
posted by turbodog at 4:25 PM on August 28, 2003


I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.

Simple, I haven't seen F&M insult someone or talk down to them for being of a certain sexual orientation or what-have-you. If I was a political conservative I'd be insulted that you automatically lumped me into a group with 111.
posted by Space Coyote at 4:45 PM on August 28, 2003


Maybe not sexual orientation, but my view of many f&m comments, politics aside, is that they're enormously condescending and insulting. I guess it depends on what the what-have-you is.
posted by turbodog at 5:39 PM on August 28, 2003


or come into #mefi now and then to make it look like he's actually interested in participating

I didn't realize we were supposed to go elsewhere in order to be true members of MeFi.
posted by languagehat at 8:34 PM on August 28, 2003


languagehat - didn't you get the memo? Uh... I mean, never mind forget about it. There was no memo...
posted by jonson at 8:39 PM on August 28, 2003


I didn't realize we were supposed to go elsewhere in order to be true members of MeFi.

I simply meant do something, anything, that isn't trolling and that shows that you're an actual human being.
posted by Space Coyote at 1:15 AM on August 29, 2003


« Older Not peeing on external sites   |   an apology is noted Newer »

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