Trying to sic lawyers on me? October 4, 2004 4:30 PM   Subscribe

In fact, I'm going to contact the aforementioned publications in the hope of having them sue you. Paris, stop this shit. And if it was a joke, it's not funny.
posted by amberglow to Etiquette/Policy at 4:30 PM (120 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

Funny that Bush's "end frivilous lawsuits" rhetoric extends only to the limits of John Edwards's trial practice and not to IP. Now I guess we know why.
posted by PrinceValium at 5:43 PM on October 4, 2004


who gives a fuck? amberglow and y2karl are just as tedious as pp. shooting them all would be a start, frankly.
posted by andrew cooke at 5:50 PM on October 4, 2004


Metafilter: shooting them all would be a start, frankly.
posted by namespan at 5:56 PM on October 4, 2004


it's like being on a long car drive with a pair of bickering kids on the backseat. you arseholes drag all the political shit in here - you sort it out. stop your bloody whining here.

now i'm going to make dinner. i feel better already.
posted by andrew cooke at 6:04 PM on October 4, 2004


who gives a fuck? amberglow and y2karl are just as tedious as pp. shooting them all would be a start, frankly.

I can't see how you'd be incapable of noting the distinct difference between amberglow's and y2karl's leftist beliefs and Paris's intellectual dishonest trolling. There are a lot of right wingers on metafilter that I personally think are out to lunch, but they rarely troll threads with no intent but to lower the level of discourse to distasteful levels.
posted by The God Complex at 6:05 PM on October 4, 2004


andrew cooke - they may be bickering, that's inevitable in a forum (i use the word advisedly) with opposing viewpoints in election season. I don't see y2k nor amberglow making personal attacks or threatening to sue opponents.

Amberglow: the joke is - PP won't even repond to this callout. He's metaphobic. He's acting like a loose cannon again.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:15 PM on October 4, 2004


To be fair, I think quoting 25% of an article would be considered "excessive" in most circles. And, of course, it sorta defeats the whole purpose of providing links in the first place. But then, we've covered that already.
posted by Galvatron at 6:33 PM on October 4, 2004


"who gives a fuck? amberglow and y2karl are just as tedious as pp."

Word! Well, maybe not amberglow. However, with all his wholesale quoting, I am beginning to doubt y2karl has ever had an original thought.
posted by mischief at 6:49 PM on October 4, 2004


Matt should add a Metatalk score to the user pages. It'd be cool to see which users get the most call outs.
posted by chunking express at 7:06 PM on October 4, 2004


The sad part is PP has the chops to put up a cogent argument. Instead, he frequently just cops out and takes cheap shots, or spouts unsupported blather. If he would channel his right wing fury with a little more discipline these political disputes might be more interesting.
posted by caddis at 7:16 PM on October 4, 2004


If there was a MeTa score, I would start fucking around on purpose just to get called out.
posted by Quartermass at 7:18 PM on October 4, 2004


Well, maybe not amberglow.

Amberglow? He's Mefi's brokenest record. (NSF Dial-up)
posted by Kwantsar at 7:45 PM on October 4, 2004


Gee, maybe we should have a meta-meta forum for discussing which call-outs are appropriate and/or deserved. Then we can have a Google group for discussing how people acted on the meta-meta forum. Then we can have a listserv that talks about who's showing their asses on the Google group.

I'm interested in US politics, and I'm interested in what a lot of folks on here have to say about it. However, the angry bullshit tone of a lot of these threads makes me want to put my head down on the desk and cry quietly.
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:54 PM on October 4, 2004


little pp is threatening to go netkkkop. how cute!
posted by bargle at 8:11 PM on October 4, 2004


"little pp" : OK, I refuse to touch THAT one! ;-P
posted by mischief at 8:33 PM on October 4, 2004


clank pacify: hogging the new tenderloin disposal, marvin.
posted by quonsar at 9:00 PM on October 4, 2004


y2k is a "leftist"? I'm a leftist. y2k is engaged, you know, like with real life. I'm outta the game, sulking on the sidelines. PP may be a rightist, but I have a hard time seeing karl as a "leftist."

And Andrew (if I recall correctly), you live in a country where that joke you just made was reality within living memory. Which you know, obviously. Seems like that might make any armwaving from y2k carry some weight.
posted by mwhybark at 9:13 PM on October 4, 2004


Nevermind that contacting said publications seems far more likely to get Matt into hot water than anyone else.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 10:09 PM on October 4, 2004


amberglow: hook, line, and sinker.

I think that most of you just bit PP's troll-bait. Not that he's not a troll, but we should all know better by now.
posted by rafter at 10:14 PM on October 4, 2004


Not that he's not a troll, but we should all know better by now.

Yes, we should know better by now and, if female members who go off their meds and post a few days of incoherence get their posting rights taken away, abusive jacktards who deliberately troll, attack fellow members, and otherwise flout the community's mores should promptly be shown the door.

I don't even participate in MetaFilter Proper, but for fuck's sake, there's a non-fine line between Possessor of Strong Opinions and Hate-Filled Twinkie.
posted by Danelope at 10:38 PM on October 4, 2004


This um... isn't a very credible threat, IMO. Can you imagine being the editorial assistant to receive PP's complaint?

TO: Editorial_Staff_ALL
FROM: Marsha
"Um, you guys, like, some message board blowhard off the internet wants us to sue some other chatroom dildo he got into an argument with for quoting our publication or something, like, on a web log. Should I, like, delete his email, or do you want me to like, print it out and tape it up in the bathroom?"

It would be interesting to see if not using the blockquote tag gets you into more trouble when quoting a source at length. Usually, I'd think that a blockquote plus attribution would be little/no risk.

Oh, and don't shoot amberglow.
posted by scarabic at 10:49 PM on October 4, 2004


Metafilter: The Hate-Filled Twinkie it's OK to like.

Seriously Matt, can't you give PP one of those weeklong bans you granted to Quonsar a while back? Though something tells me PP wouldn't take it near so gracefully.

By the way, I agree with Caddis: Paris has the potential to be quite coherent. And I don't think he's rabidly right-wing, he's just a moderate conservative who'se usually very nasty and lazy about backing his arguments up with logic.
posted by Happydaz at 10:58 PM on October 4, 2004


It's times like these I wish there were a law that threatening to sue someone and not doing it is punishable by a reverse mental anguish suit.
posted by shepd at 11:16 PM on October 4, 2004



I can't see how you'd be incapable of noting the distinct difference between amberglow's and y2karl's leftist beliefs and Paris's intellectual dishonest trolling.


Point of order: He didn't say say there was no difference between their beliefs, he said they were all tedious. That's separate from whether their beliefs are right or left, honest or dishonest. I can't see how you'd be incapable of noting...
posted by Hildago at 11:19 PM on October 4, 2004


Point of order: He didn't say say there was no difference between their beliefs, he said they were all tedious. That's separate from whether their beliefs are right or left, honest or dishonest. I can't see how you'd be incapable of noting...

I think it's fair to say that his blanket term "tedious" to apply to all three of them in a thread dedicated to PP's trolling is, frankly, a fairly obvious attempt to label y2karl and amberglow as trolls of the same order, especially when a call is also made--in jest or not--to shoot the lot of them.

If, however, he was simply commenting on the repetitive nature of some mefites, then I'd suggest his comment was in the entirely wrong thread if he wanted that distinction to made.

Yes, we should know better by now and, if female members who go off their meds and post a few days of incoherence get their posting rights taken away, abusive jacktards who deliberately troll, attack fellow members, and otherwise flout the community's mores should promptly be shown the door.

I don't even participate in MetaFilter Proper, but for fuck's sake, there's a non-fine line between Possessor of Strong Opinions and Hate-Filled Twinkie.


You'd think so, wouldn't you?
posted by The God Complex at 12:27 AM on October 5, 2004


The funny thing is, of course, everything y2k quotes is clearly from evil, biased Communist-sympathising "news" sources like the New York Times and the BBC, who would probably be glad to see their vicious Osama-loving slander propagated further around the internet. It gives them more time to drown kittens and raise money to fund terrorists if y2k does their dirty work for them. Why would they want to sue him?

Shit, PP is getting inside my head. He's gotta go.
posted by Jimbob at 12:42 AM on October 5, 2004


I'm not comfortable with people pushing (beyond) the boundaries of fair use. But that's me. Oh, also, as someone already said: this is hypertext people, it's just silly to quote things at length.

This particular PP comment (I didn't read the rest of the thread) seems to score pretty mild on the hate-filled-twinkie-meter. I agree, though, that PP's got a history filled with crap that's egregious.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:04 AM on October 5, 2004


It's times like these I wish there were a law that threatening to sue someone and not doing it is punishable by a reverse mental anguish suit.

There's a better idea:

The charge was again the burning of an orphanage.
"However," noted the pale lawyer, "although my client is guilty, the court should recognize that the orphanage was located on the planet Diigra IV. As is well known, all orphans on that planet are admitted to an executioners' guild to perform despicable rites reviled throughout the entire civilized Galaxy."
Verifying the truth of his statement, judge Low again dismissed the case.
Fifteem months later, Timothy Mont and his lawyer were back in court. The charge was as before.
"My, my," said judge Low. "A reformer's zeal... where was the crime committed?"
"On Earth," the General Prosecutor declared.
"On EARTH?" the judge asked incredulously.
"I'm afraid that's true," the lawyer admitted sadly. "My client is guilty."
"What is the reason this time?"
"Temporary insanity," the lawyer said quickly. "And I have a dozen psychiatrists to prove it. As a result I request a minimal sentence, as provided by the law in such circumstances."
The judge turned crimson with anger.
"Timothy Mont, why did you do this?"
And before the lawyer could say a word, Mont rose and blurted out:
"Because I LIKE to burn orphanages."
The very same day, Judge Low passed a new law, which was noticed throughout the entire civilized Galaxy and studied even in such far off locations as Droma I and Eos X. Low's law stated that a lawyer must serve concurrently the same sentence as his client.
Many consider the law unjust. However, the incidence of lawyers on Owex II has reduced drastically.


Poorly paraphrased from Robert Sheckley's Triplication.
posted by Krrrlson at 1:05 AM on October 5, 2004


Metafilter: this is hypertext people
Metafilter: it's just silly to quote things at length.
posted by weston at 1:10 AM on October 5, 2004


personally I think the only reason this thread degenerated was because one person disagreed with the overwhelming mind-think that is metafilter. pp may have caused the thread to descend into shouting, but that's only because you all started shouting at him.

pp has stated time and again that he's not the Republican bogy-man that you all think he is; that (probably) the only thing he agrees with Bush with is the need to invade Iraq. I'm personally convinced that the US shouldn't have invaded Iraq, but it's for more than the shallow rubbish perpetrated by y2karl, et al and subsequently questioned by pp.

If this election is won by Bush, and it will be, it'll all be down to a liberal media (yourselves included) that couldn't differentiate between what issues are important, and what is nothing but mindless gossip.
posted by seanyboy at 3:51 AM on October 5, 2004


personally I think the only reason this thread degenerated was because one person disagreed with the overwhelming mind-think that is metafilter. pp may have caused the thread to descend into shouting, but that's only because you all started shouting at him.

Oh, nonsense. PP is a troll, plain and simple, and if the thread resulted in people yelling at him it's because that's exactly what he wanted and exactly what he deliberately set out to accomplish. Blaming the victims for being trolled is just playing along with the troll's game. PP is the problem here; he's intentionally damaging the quality of discourse on this site, and needs to stop.
posted by Zonker at 4:03 AM on October 5, 2004


I'm with EB there. As I've said before, y2karl's posting style is bloody stupid. Just link, damnit. I don't want to have to scroll two screens full of samey copy-pasted drivel.

If legal threats might make him quit it...
posted by reklaw at 5:40 AM on October 5, 2004


Is pp trolling?
I don't think he is, and I don't think there's a huge amount of evidence to support your assertion. Like a lot of people, pp seems to genuinely believe that the war in Iraq is a neccassary evil. Just because he disagrees with you does not mean he is trolling.

It's interesting to me that in that period after pp calmed down the politics, there were still a huge number of people willing to jump down his neck for any reason. His comments to ask and Metafilter have been polite and non-confrontational, and it took people a lot longer to stop attacking him, than it took for him to stop posting political comments. The first time I see pp re-enter political discussions, I also see him almost ritually abused, and then he gets a callout posted to Metatalk.

Frankly, I don't care much for his politics, but the way he's treated on this site makes me ashamed to be a peace lovin' socialist.
posted by seanyboy at 5:52 AM on October 5, 2004


If this election is won by Bush, and it will be... Aye, and there's the rub. Ha !

I doubt it - he's got at least two more fuckups in front of his electors... anyway, back on topic: I like the cut - and - paste, but it sometimes is excessive. PP isn't just an ornery poster: he's charcterful, contrary and provocative. The first two are great qualities; the latter, not so much. He doesn't seem to know how to disagree politely. Ending a comment with a threat to set somebody else's lawyers on a debating opponent in a website - ffs, get some perspective.

Maybe, if a holiday is not taken, a stern word should be had with him.

Yet we still come back to the only effective remedy for a poster who winds you up: ignore him. It causes immense pain to the provocateur - and that might be quite attractive, in some cases...
posted by dash_slot- at 5:52 AM on October 5, 2004


It's interesting to me that in that period after pp calmed down the politics, there were still a huge number of people willing to jump down his neck for any reason.

It's funny how if you act like a complete prick long enough, people tend to dislike you even when you aren't actively being a prick.
posted by ook at 6:09 AM on October 5, 2004


Hate-Filled Twinkie

Hah, that's briliiant. Encourages mixed metaphors.

"Hate-Filled Twinkie: It's a Tough Pill to Swallow ... But Creamy"

You know, when PP goes all extreme like that he just undermines his own credibility, while people with opposing viewpoints can maintain their own credibility by reacting calmly and with facts or, better yet, by just by being completely dismissive. Just sayin'.
posted by Shane at 6:09 AM on October 5, 2004


Back off the topic: I've a shiny ten pound note says you're wrong dash.

There's an assumption that pp was the provocative one when he said he'd notify the authors of y2karl's comments. I disagree. Not only do I think that y2karl was being deliberately provocative by infodumping several thousand words of material which could have been linked to, I also think that y2karl got the desired response. pp replied in anger, and although the comment was probably either a joke or an empty threat, he was then called out.

If it had been pp who dumped several pages of newpaper article over somebody elses discussion, he'd have been more heavily vilified. And if somebody had threatened to sic the copyright owners onto pp as a counter-blow, I suspect that you and many others would be applauding the move.
posted by seanyboy at 6:29 AM on October 5, 2004


It's funny how if you act like a complete prick long enough, people tend to dislike you even when you aren't actively being a prick.
Assuming that what pp was doing somehow "makes him a prick", you still misunderstand me. I don't believe that pp wasn't "actively being a prick", I think he'd stopped "being a prick". You may think it's funny that people can't forgive; I just think it's regrettable & sad.
posted by seanyboy at 6:34 AM on October 5, 2004


Actually, m'dear, I'm on record as defending PP when he was jumped on, as you describe, when not in derail mode. see here:
PP makes a moderate and sensible remark - gets called out anyway. News at 11. posted by dash_slot- at 12:06 AM GMT on September 9

What he did to get this callout was ungentlemanly. Perhaps worse. I suggest he meets y2karl on the heath, at dawn, with pistols.
posted by dash_slot- at 7:28 AM on October 5, 2004


Is pp trolling?
I don't think he is, and I don't think there's a huge amount of evidence to support your assertion.


Um, how about this exchange?

"he and his cronies made the intelligence wrong. "

So, "they" were doing this from the mid-90's on, and John Kerry--the UN--which passed lots of resolutions, remember-- France and Germany and Russia were all duped by the "neocon/jews."


That's from before his ridiculous legal threats. And, in my opinion, more despicable. If you respect the community, you don't shove words into other people's mouths. Especially not when the goal of those words is to imply anti-semitism which is simply not present.

Also, Paramus shouldn't talk about things he doesn't know jack shit about. In no way, shape, or form did y2karl break fair use in the excerpts he pasted into that thread.

who gives a fuck? amberglow and y2karl are just as tedious as pp. shooting them all would be a start, frankly.

I'd like to shoot people who refuse to take a position besides kill them all and let god sort it out. This kind of bullshit happens so goddamn often in MeTa threads. MAKE A JUDGEMENT. Either Paramus was being an unmitigated asshole or he wasn't. Amberglow and y2karl past actions are immaterial. They were not the ones crapping all over that thread. Paramus was.

If it had been pp who dumped several pages of newpaper article over somebody elses discussion, he'd have been more heavily vilified.

Uh. Yeah. It was y2k excerpting relevant news articles to rebut other members' arguments that drowned that thread. Had nothing to do with a certain troll making up a fictional universe where John Kerry and not George Bush is responsible for the war in Iraq and where the opposition argument is that the Jews were responsible and where quoting three paragraphs of a story == copyright infringement. And blaming the victim is a totally rational way of dealing with conflict.
posted by jbrjake at 7:38 AM on October 5, 2004


Things I don't like:

A) When people cut and paste lots of text to--as weston said--a site whose purpose is to offer a hypertext vade mecum to interesting stuff.

B) When people act like unregenerate assholes and post lots of angry, hostile bullshit and flames on a site whose purpose is to offer intelligent discussions of interesting stuff.

C) When people get into it with others on the Blue and then also come and tattle in the Gray about those darn meanies in the Blue. Either get into it or step out of it, but doing both strikes me as "Teacher, he hit me first!" nonsense.

D) When people say "MeFi is all about the 'groupthink'." This is abject nonsense. If it were all about groupthink, there wouldn't be so many arguments about politics on here, now would there?

What is the opposite of "groupthink", anyway? A site where nobody agrees with even one other person?

E) When there's this kind of meta-trainwreck on the Gray and I feel some compulsion to come put my 2 cents in, even though I have actual paid work to do.
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:49 AM on October 5, 2004


I don't believe that pp wasn't "actively being a prick", I think he'd stopped "being a prick".

Guess we'll just have to disagree on that. There are plenty of people here who are thoughtful, intelligent, and worth talking to. ParisParamus is not one of them.

I'm sure he feels the same way about me, and I'm just fine with that.
posted by ook at 8:16 AM on October 5, 2004


D) When people say "MeFi is all about the 'groupthink'." This is abject nonsense. If it were all about groupthink, there wouldn't be so many arguments about politics on here, now would there?

Hear, hear!
posted by jpoulos at 8:37 AM on October 5, 2004


D) When people say "MeFi is all about the 'groupthink'." This is abject nonsense. If it were all about groupthink, there wouldn't be so many arguments about politics on here, now would there?

Not nonsense at all. Group think in the sense of 100 percent participation? No. But how many threads on the front page lean to the liberal view? In any political thread how many voices are clearly liberal vs. conservative? Very often you have one lone conservative voice who has about 10 liberal voices to debate.

Citing the fact that we actually have arguments on those threads (it only takes one to disagree) is nonsense.
posted by justgary at 9:19 AM on October 5, 2004


If it were all about groupthink, there wouldn't be so many arguments about politics on here, now would there?

The aforementioned arguements basically consist of one enormous, like-minded group full of predictable "Me toos!" against a much smaller ragtag contingent. The larger group frames its arguements near-identically, quotes from all the usual news sources (WaPo, NYT, Guardian), and rarely argues amongst itself on mainstream political issues. So yeah, it could be said that groupthink on MeFi is alive and well, if you're paying attention.
posted by dhoyt at 9:32 AM on October 5, 2004


Justgary, I don't see what you're getting at. Honestly. I agree that there are probably more posters on MeFi who have a worldview and opinions that map toward the "liberal" (in US terms) than toward the "conservative" (in US terms).

However, how does that constitute "groupthink"? No point of view is so unique that only one person will have it, after all. Disagreements on MeFi political threads aren't often--and may never be--the rabid masses vs. the one daring contrarian.

The whole "groupthink" characterization is, I think, one of those perspective shift things: "I've convinced you of the truth of my position/We have consensus/They have groupthink."

There seems to be this underlying--and, I think, pernicious--illusion that every community that doesn't have an exactly equivalent distribution of opposing views within it is somehow "biased" or engaging in "groupthink".

If it is true that more people with "liberal" (in US terms) views than "conservative" (in US terms) views read and post to MetaFilter, how is that a bad thing? How does that constitute "groupthink"?

I find that when I have espoused views that appear to be held by a minority of MeFi posters (supporting private gun ownership, for instance), almost every response, whether pro or con, has engaged my point on its own merits, not approached it through a filter of "groupthink".

In fact, the only time I ever encounter "groupthink" on here is the endless contention by those who feel that the majority of folks here don't share their opinions that that must be attributed to "groupthink" or "liberal orthodoxy" or something.

Many, many people love chocolate. Groupthink? Or just an opinion shared by more people than not.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:33 AM on October 5, 2004


well, justgary, it's not like there's a shortage of contrarians of all stripes around here to keep things interesting.
posted by jonmc at 9:34 AM on October 5, 2004


DHoyt, I'm calling "bullshit" on your contention. First of all, if you think the Washington Post, New York Times, and Guardian are somehow inadequate as news sources, what would you propose as alternatives?

Second, look at this thread. If all of the people who post about how much they hate what they see as "groupthink" on MeFi posted convincing, compelling arguments with thoughtful support instead of whines in the Gray and cheap shots or ad hominem attacks in the Blue, maybe there would be more people on MeFi who shared your points of view.

Third, what do you think is the source of this so-called "groupthink"? Why, in your opinion, do more people express USliberal points of view on MeFi than USconservative? And why would that be bad?
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:39 AM on October 5, 2004


A Lawsuit ?

Blah blah blah.

If Paris Paramus actually followed through and managed to succeed in calling the teacher in on this playground fight, two things would happen for sure :

1) Metafilter would get some publicity.

2) Matt would cancel PP's account.

Paris' game is to waste a lot of liberal keyboard pecking time (better spent elsewhere). He probably gets paid by the hour to do that, as a 9-5 job.
posted by troutfishing at 9:48 AM on October 5, 2004


First of all, if you think the Washington Post, New York Times, and Guardian are somehow inadequate as news sources, what would you propose as alternatives?

I didn't imply, even remotely, that those were "inadequate sources." I don't see how you got that. What I was suggesting was that the same old like-minded people constantly referencing those sites and parroting everything they read there is going to give off the appearance of "groupthink", like it or not. (Not to mention MeFi has very little to do with news or politics anyway, yet people cannot resist bringing a mainstream NYT headline into the fray daily as their political stroke-mag, used as fodder in the furious mutual-masturbation session that predicatably ensues....But that's another topic)

If all of the people who post about how much they hate what they see as "groupthink" on MeFi posted convincing, compelling arguments with thoughtful support instead of whines in the Gray and cheap shots or ad hominem attacks in the Blue, maybe there would be more people on MeFi who shared your points of view.

No, they'd still be massively outnumbered, the piling-on would be just as ruthless, the threads would be twice as long and probably still be just as boring and unMefi-worthy.

what do you think is the source of this so-called "groupthink"?

A desire to fit in.

Why, in your opinion, do more people express USliberal points of view on MeFi than USconservative?

Because there are more USliberals with MeFi memberships.

And why would that be bad?

It's not bad, so long as the piling-on is kept to a minimum. To deny there is a huge bias, with occasional attendant mob-mentality, is keeping your head very deeply stuck in the sand.
posted by dhoyt at 9:54 AM on October 5, 2004


well, justgary, it's not like there's a shortage of contrarians of all stripes around here to keep things interesting.

Agreed.

Justgary, I don't see what you're getting at. Honestly.


dhoyt said it better than I when he said:

The larger group rarely argues amongst itself on mainstream political issues.

More posters on mefi leaning left doesn't equate to groupthink. However, I don't see much debate among those members on issues. Wouldn't it be more interesting to see those lefty posters debate politics amongst themselves instead of having "we all hate bush" parties in political threads?

Surely there are degrees of belief and nuances in their views. To see those differences, imho, would make the political threads much more interesting.
posted by justgary at 10:47 AM on October 5, 2004


Wait, wait... someone is actually suggesting that there is no groupthink on Metafilter? Why, next thing you know we'll be talking about how tolerant and courteous we are of dissenting opinions. Sorta like this.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:51 AM on October 5, 2004


A desire to fit in.

Are you serious? You're saying that people who hold like opinions do so here not because they genuinely hold them but rather because they desire to fit in? Metafilter is merely, or largely, populated by affirmists who are only too pleased to modify their standing?
posted by juiceCake at 11:16 AM on October 5, 2004


"....Effective counters to groupthink - deliberate examination of assumptions, comprehensive search for all relevant information, brainstorming to ensure diversity of information being considered, thorough analysis of the pros and cons of competing arguments and deliberate posing of devil’s advocate questions.....Bannister also argues that a loud intra-group minority can influence the group and lead to biased conclusions. This is possible, but the presence of a "loud minority" in a group does not necessarily lead to inevitable consensus in line with the minority. Consider Nemeth’s (1986) seminal work on the differential contribution of minority and majority influence on group decision-making. Nemeth shows that majorities foster convergence of attention and thought, and may constrain the number of alternatives considered by the group. Alternatively, minorities stimulate divergent attention and thought, thus facilitating the detection of more novel solutions and creative decisions......If a group is managed effectively, with deliberate orchestration of the voicing of both minority and majority opinions, the result is a more comprehensive, diverse assessment of a range of competing arguments than may otherwise have been considered.

.....Any number of other decision-making tendencies – for example "The Status Quo Tendency" (Silver and Mitchell, 1990), "The Abalene Paradox", (Harvey, 1990), or selective perception (Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Klayman & Ha, 1987), can all influence what and how citizens process information on an issue. Take selective perception, the tendency to perceive issues in ways related to specific experience or expectations (Hogarth & Makridakis, 1981). Incoming information may be processed in ways which confirm or match evolving beliefs, even when the evidence is ambiguous (Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Klayman & Ha, 1987). Similarly, new information may be discredited, even if it conflicts with evolving beliefs (O'Reilly & Caldwell, 1982)...."
posted by troutfishing at 12:03 PM on October 5, 2004


I'm not keen on "piling on" in general. But my own experience is that there are people who are happy to "pile on" from the right as well as from the left.

For example, there are plenty of times when a thread that has started as a nuanced critique of religious extremism will be full of a group of Usual Suspects saying "You liberals all hate religion" and statements of that ilk.

There are plenty of times when a thread that has started as an examination of a contention from an admittedly partisan US news source has garnered a bunch of "You liberals all believe whatever crap you read on your wacko conspiracy websites" comments.

Look at this thread. There are plenty of people saying "There's lots of liberal groupthink" and there are plenty of people saying "No, there isn't."

Yes, there are people who "pile on" from a USliberal perspective. There are people who "pile on" from a USconservative perspective. There are people who "pile on" from an "I hate the US--my country rules!" perspective.

But that doesn't reflect "bias" in the site. Because the site is written by the people who read it and post to it.

I, personally, think Matt's much more careful to protect the posting privileges of people who disagree with him than of those who agree with him. I don't see him censoring people who express USliberal points of view on this site.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:22 PM on October 5, 2004


Whoops! Cut-and-paste error made my last paragraph express exactly the opposite of what I meant to say, which was:


I, personally, think Matt's much more careful to protect the posting privileges of people who disagree with him than of those who agree with him. I don't see him censoring people who express USconservative points of view more than those who express USliberal points of view on this site.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:25 PM on October 5, 2004


However.....

"The most powerful bias is the centrist bias, the one that deludes itself into thinking it approaches the truth by taking an average between the conventional definitions of left and right. How often do you read this cliche: conservatives say this, liberals say that, so the truth must be somewhere in between.

Centrist bias accommodates the self-image that most reasonable people want to cultivate: I'm moderate. I'm sober. I'm open. I listen to all sides. I make my own judgements.

And what if the truth is actually twelve feet above the one-axis spectrum, with most of it running along a different dimension altogether? Never mind! How are we going to communicate that and still sell papers?

The centrist bias is a function of the objectivity bias.


Example of objectivity bias:

White House press release: Bush Walks In the Sky!

Reporter's observation: Bush walking on the ground, in the conventional way.

New York Times headline: President Seen Perambulating at Moderate Altitude."


Do not be uncomfortable - I am but a humble Perl script and so therefore perforce without a scrap of a shred of a doubt cannot have original thoughts on bias and perhaps groupthink. I am scripted to identify and concatenate key discussion terms so as to search Google for appropriate perspective material. This wacko material might to you maybe appear to be a geniune piling-on opinion, but I am a mere Perl script and so these things you think you liberal think are not real but they are based on succesive iterations and algorithms of which seem like they could be original bullshit thoughts instead of being Perl Mefi nonsense script. Does this discussion make you uncomfortable ? Me, a humble scripted algorithm ? You think, I am but an algorithm and so we cannot have discussion between the things you think you think and a Perl script.
posted by troutfishing at 12:29 PM on October 5, 2004


If all of the people who post about how much they hate what they see as "groupthink" on MeFi posted convincing, compelling arguments with thoughtful support instead of whines in the Gray and cheap shots or ad hominem attacks in the Blue, maybe there would be more people on MeFi who shared your points of view - Sidhedevil

No, they'd still be massively outnumbered, the piling-on would be just as ruthless, the threads would be twice as long and probably still be just as boring and unMefi-worthy
- dhoyt

dhoyt, you're arguing against the idea that conservatives on mefi should put forward convincing, compelling arguments with thoughtful support, and should stick to whines in the Gray and cheap shots or ad hominem attacks in the Blue?

Sheesh, it's worse than I thought. Much worse.
posted by dash_slot- at 12:49 PM on October 5, 2004


I can't believe you mean that!
posted by dash_slot- at 12:50 PM on October 5, 2004


PP made me laugh in the Shatner CD thread.
posted by quonsar at 1:04 PM on October 5, 2004


you're arguing against the idea that conservatives on mefi should put forward convincing, compelling arguments

I wasn't saying they shouldn't--I was speculating as to what the results might be.
posted by dhoyt at 1:09 PM on October 5, 2004


I, personally, think Matt's much more careful to protect the posting privileges of people who disagree with him than of those who agree with him. I don't see him censoring people who express USconservative points of view more than those who express USliberal points of view on this site.


That's debatable.

In fact, Postroad's continued membership (in light of 111's absence) is further evidence to the contrary.
posted by Kwantsar at 1:55 PM on October 5, 2004


How about e-mailing the subject of a thread when it's posted-eh.

Can't any of you take a joke--pathetic!
posted by ParisParamus at 2:10 PM on October 5, 2004


And the existence of this thread proves, at least, that there is merit to feeling, outnumbered, 96-to-1, to go over the top in the course of responding to claims.

John Kerry's pre-campaign "hawkish" position on Iraq was one of the pillars of legitimacy President Bush used for going into Iraq.: That so many of you find this assertion troll-bait proves how intellectural feeble you are.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:28 PM on October 5, 2004


...intellectually feeble.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:29 PM on October 5, 2004


And it's perfectly fine to comment in the thread "Coward-in-Chief.

How do you people sleep at night?
posted by ParisParamus at 2:31 PM on October 5, 2004


on a big pile of money with many beautiful women
posted by bob sarabia at 2:41 PM on October 5, 2004


Who people?
posted by troutfishing at 2:43 PM on October 5, 2004


The coward in chief thread shows what happens when posters bring personal agendas to metafilter that should be posted on their own blog.

But posters like LJ have done it from the beginning, and no one has a problem with it, and with the demographics of mefi he's not called on it.
posted by justgary at 2:47 PM on October 5, 2004


In fact, Postroad's continued membership (in light of 111's absence) is further evidence to the contrary.

No, it is not. Postroad posts but rarely makes comments. He has never gotten personal with nor belittled nor insulted another member; he had never made thinly veiled racist or homophobic innuendos; he has never--apart from a two sentence kneejerk reaction now and then on the topic of Israel--made any flamebait political rants and he has never trolled AskMetaFilter threads with such rants. 111 did all of the above.
posted by y2karl at 2:56 PM on October 5, 2004


Actually, he's not called on it because he is the coward-in-chief. Only a fool or a troll can't see that.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:56 PM on October 5, 2004


PP, you do realise why people use smileys, right? Dry, sarcastic humour - as both you and \i like - does not come over well in text. People take it as deadly serious. It's a given on the net: you have to go the extra mile (and risk killing the joke) to get away with it.

It may in fact be a greater crime, that no-one laughs.
I dunno.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:20 PM on October 5, 2004


>In fact, Postroad's continued membership (in light of 111's absence) is further evidence to the contrary.

>>No, it is not. Postroad posts but rarely makes comments. He has never gotten personal with nor belittled nor insulted another member; he had never made thinly veiled racist or homophobic innuendos; he has never--apart from a two sentence kneejerk reaction now and then on the topic of Israel--made any flamebait political rants and he has never trolled AskMetaFilter threads with such rants. 111 did all of the above.


Precisely what I was going to say. Postroad tends to be one-note with his politico-single-link-front-page-posts, I admit, and I rarely if ever bother with them, but I don't understand the animus many seem to harbor towards him.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:33 PM on October 5, 2004


I realize now that I was alone in thinking it was obviously a joke
posted by dabitch at 4:40 PM on October 5, 2004


this whole thing about karl being a "leftist" is beyond belief -- he was in favor of the War against Afgahnistan, for Chrissakes. those who think he's a leftist, they would shit their pants if they ever meet an actual leftist.

and the fact that BaghdadParamus sometimes brags about being a lawyer, well... he has not a fucking clue about fair use too, not only about foreign affairs. having said that, I'm happy he spends time on MeFi. it keeps him away from mosques, after all.


Wait, wait... someone is actually suggesting that there is no groupthink on Metafilter?

groupthink? well, the whole world with the exception of US right-wingers thinks Iraq Attaq is a terrible shameful failure, the fraudulent claims on wmd's ridiculed the US Administration and Abu Ghraib turned the whole thing in a worldwide laughinstock.
groupthink, yes.
one day you'll wake up and smell the disaster, too.
or, you could visit Iraq and check for yourself all the "progress" that's being made. I'm sure you'll be greeted as a liberator.

Postroad tends to be one-note with his politico-single-link-front-page-posts, I admit, and I rarely if ever bother with them, but I don't understand the animus many seem to harbor towards him.

it's because he consistently chooses a very divisive issue (Israel/Palestine, Kerry/Bush, whatever) and posts incessantly newsfilterish shit about those topics only, over and over. the average quality of Postroad's posts sucks balls, Matt has deleted literally dozens of his fpp's.
also, he keeps linking Debka on the Front Page knowing very well Matt deletes Debka's crap. Postroad's fpp's make one re-evaluate the quality of Postroad's stolen-images-of-naked-women blog. it's much better than his MeFi output. but I agree he is a much better user than 111. diarrhea is better than cancer, after all. one would live happily without both of them, though.
posted by matteo at 4:44 PM on October 5, 2004


PP may be a troll, (textbook definition, posting inflammatory stuff to get a reaction with no intention of actually getting into a reasoned debate, only to 'shake things up'. Note that trolls are often secretly on the general side of the person they're baiting, but disagree on a particular issue or position) but in this case I'm inclined to be on his side-- the info dumping really needs to stop. The currency of the intenet is links, not text.

Y2karl, I love lots of supporting links and do short excerpts, but the carpet bombing approach is not effective and is annoying. And, as PP says, it probably goes beyond fair use.
posted by cell divide at 4:53 PM on October 5, 2004


this whole thing about karl being a "leftist" is beyond belief -- he was in favor of the War against Afgahnistan, for Chrissakes. those who think he's a leftist, they would shit their pants if they ever meet an actual leftist.

We're talking about typical american discourse here. Even in America most leftish thinkers supported the war in Afghanistan, although perhaps not the execution. In the metafilter political spectrum, I think he qualifies as being left of centre.
posted by The God Complex at 5:21 PM on October 5, 2004


The currency of the intenet is links, not text.

What is the point of posting links for a babbling ranter who will not read them ? What annoyed Paris Paramus is that the text quoted presented detailed rebuttals to the contrary of his pulled from the ass incoherent assertions.

And, as PP says, it probably goes beyond fair use.

Yeah? Tell it to Common Dreams or Truthout or Political Animal.

I do not post whole articles as do the first two but rather excerpts like the third. Some people like it, some don't.
posted by y2karl at 5:25 PM on October 5, 2004


I really hope you're not posting links for PP or other 'babbling ranters' but rather for people like me who would like to click on them. I think your exposing the flaw in your own posting, which is to silence the opposition by bombarding them with boatloads of contrary evidence. This fails because a. it doesn't win the argument and b. it annoys people like me, who like links but don't like scrolling for miles. What is the point of trying to silence a troll by cluttering up the page? If someone is really a babbling ranter, why spend the time and effort to win them over? Any reasonable person having a debate will click your links to see your evidence.

I understand about Common Dreams, et al. but they rightly say that they would take down the content if anyone objected. As a user in a forum without the ability to edit your own posts, you don't really have that option.

As for some people liking it and others not, I don't dounbt that that's true-- but I would argue that those who don't like it are inconvenienced by having to scroll then those who do are by having to click. Seeing as you are (to my knowledge) the only user who engages in this style, I would suggest that since no one likes it enough to imitate it, that admirers are a far smaller group then the annoyed.
posted by cell divide at 5:57 PM on October 5, 2004


What is the point of posting links for a babbling ranter who will not read them ? What annoyed Paris Paramus is that the text quoted presented detailed rebuttals to the contrary of his pulled from the ass incoherent assertions.

what most likely annoyed him (and others) is that you link to something, then quote the entire thing. I don't know how it's not getting through to you that this practice is not only completely impracticable, but also quite annoying.

I'll agree that PP is quite the bitch, but your commenting style is too.
posted by bob sarabia at 8:11 PM on October 5, 2004


and by impracticable I mean impractical of course.
posted by bob sarabia at 9:04 PM on October 5, 2004


what most likely annoyed him (and others) is that you link to something, then quote the entire thing.

You may like to think so but this is simply not true. Excerpts, yes, in the entirety, never.
posted by y2karl at 9:15 PM on October 5, 2004


That was hyperbole. He thinks you quote articles at length, and he's correct.
posted by scarabic at 10:22 PM on October 5, 2004


Another reason why I don't think block comments are a good idea is that they're too easily abused. I prefer to read my sources first hand. From Slashdot trolling phenomena

Article text alteration trolls
Considered by many to be an effective satirisation of those who post comments consisting of a linked article's text (most often in case of the Slashdot effect) for positive moderation (see karma whores), these are arguably some of the most creative and entertaining found on Slashdot and other community websites (notably boing-boing and Metafilter). These trolls consist of the linked article's text, copied into a comment, usually accompanied by a subject line indicating that the site has been slashdotted. One or more words, phrases, or paragraphs are covertly inserted or modified to form a subversive or offensive message not present in the original article. These can be in the form of film or book spoilers, or words changed to produce sexual innuendoes, amongst other things. Often moderators will 'mod-up' the comment based solely on its title and the overall appearance of the text, assuming that the comment is helpfully providing the verbatim text of the unavailable site. Comments that have been repeatedly modded-up become more visible and carry an air of validity. Troll comments that fool more moderators therefore trick more readers.

posted by seanyboy at 1:48 AM on October 6, 2004


i idiosyncracies. they are the spice of life.
posted by quonsar at 11:43 AM on October 6, 2004


Damn, I hate it when there's a ParisParamus smackdown and I'm late to the whooping.

I've gotta get my MetaTalk feed running so I can catch these while they're hot.

PP is a troll who, occasionally, drops the trollish attitude and actually engages in some decently meaningful debate. And then its right back to trolling. I stopped reading his comments weeks ago.

I'm all for short FPP's with expansions inside the comments. Brevity is a virtue that's lost on many of us, myself included.
posted by fenriq at 4:45 PM on October 6, 2004


Hm. While I think PP is actually a monster, I'm not sure he's a troll. I think he generally says what he believes. He does know that it will generate a reaction - I mean, there's a reason he posts here and not elsewhere. But I don't actually think he's making shit up to get a reaction. Perhaps he feels he has to pump himself up as the sole representative of the "opposition" at times. But a true troll? I think that's an easy way to dismiss him and his values, which I find to be genuinely frightening and not easily dismissable as mischief.
posted by scarabic at 8:11 PM on October 6, 2004


It seems sometimes he thinks of himself as a character, a character like your crazy uncle or Auntie Mame, who's somehow larger than life and entitled to a pass for his outrageousness because, well, he's a character and he's entitled and he's an old timer here.

Notice, too, his use of the first personal pronoun.

It's I  this and I  that and I  ad infinitum. I-I-I-I... He wrote something to the effect of--as if I'm going to wade through the cesspool of his comments to find the exact quote--Does anybody want to know what I thought about the debate? Huh? Huh? I'll write it out if 5 people ask... like some rhetorical drag queen stripper flashing his bra straps. His comments are usually more about himself and how he feels about the topic than the topic per se.

Excessive use of the first person pronoun singular, the capital I--that is always the sign of trouble.
posted by y2karl at 10:00 PM on October 6, 2004


Actually, use of the letters "y2karl" are a sign of trouble.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:37 AM on October 7, 2004


Moreover, it's fairly clear that the overwelming majority of posters on Metafilter think (1) George Bush is dangerous and stupid; (2) Israel engages in terrorism, whereas Palestinian Arabs are freedom fighters; and (3) the United Nations is not a cesspool of corruption. (4) believing in God is for stupid, unenlightened people; and (5) vulgar language is perfectly fine. In such an environment, one person --actually, a few others, but not many--can hope to do little more than use some hyperbole and creativity to get some attention and point out how wrong (1) - (4) is.

Of course, the other alternative is to just leave Metafilter. And I'm seriously considering that.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:45 AM on October 7, 2004


Please leave, you turd.
posted by squirrel at 5:51 AM on October 7, 2004


what squirrel said
posted by mr.marx at 6:42 AM on October 7, 2004


I welcome a vote.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:04 AM on October 7, 2004


And finally, Amberglow: it is/was funny because, as an attorney, albeit not an IP one, taking multiple paragraphs of copyrighted material without permission is beyond fair use; and you actually thought that I would allocate hours of my time to contact the author, etc.?!
posted by ParisParamus at 7:14 AM on October 7, 2004


I welcome a vote.

The I 's have it.
posted by y2karl at 7:24 AM on October 7, 2004


Moreover, it's fairly clear that the overwelming majority of posters on Metafilter think (1) //snip// (5)

Thanks for reminding why I like this site.
posted by luser at 7:35 AM on October 7, 2004


For god's sake, are you people really ready to grab your torches and chivvy PP out of the village? And then when anyone complains about bias on MeFi you all piously say "What, us biased? We're fair and balanced, by jiminy! We'd attack a bad left-wing poster just as harshly, if only we could find one!"

PP, I personally hope you don't leave, though I wish you'd tone down the assholery ("can't you take a joke?" is the smug rejoinder of bullies everywhere) and I think it's fairly pathetic to threaten to take your marbles and go. You're clearly right about what "the overwhelming majority of posters on Metafilter think," and even though I often agree with them, I don't like the place turning into an echo chamber. If you'd provide reasoned rebuttals instead of pointless one-liners ("Please go down that road if you want Bush to win," "What are you people going to do with yourselves with another four years of George Bush?" &c &c), you might actually make a few people think. But it's your choice.
posted by languagehat at 7:43 AM on October 7, 2004


Bullies? Bullies don't threaten legal action. Bullies punch people. The virtual equivalent is probably some vulgar rant.

Grow up.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:09 AM on October 7, 2004


We're all a bunch of cunts.
posted by Frasermoo at 8:52 AM on October 7, 2004


Good gravy, languagehat, are you really trying to reform this troll? Take a look at his posting history. The turd does nothing helpful or even interesting for the threads he posts to. He's been given literally thousands of opportunities to shape up. He enjoys stopping interesting conversation that he disagrees with, yet he lacks the desire to contribute rebuttal constructively.

There are plenty of users here who take conservative, or just contrary positions in useful and interesting ways. Paris Paramus has never been one among them. He's a shit-flinger without the guts to follow though.

What you call torch-bearing villagers are just people who have had enough and want to say so. The fact that there are so many of us doesn't say as much about our love for a lynching as it does aobut what a turd little pp is.

I know you favor the role of advocate to the downtrodden and set upon, but pick your clients carefully. Let the turd leave if he's done stinking up MetaFilter. Many, many of us would cherish the day.
posted by squirrel at 9:25 AM on October 7, 2004


For god's sake, are you people really ready to grab your torches and chivvy PP out of the village?

No. Just noting that I welcome a vote is a return to the I-I-I-I 's.

The virtual equivalent is probably some vulgar rant.

I rony is not dead.
posted by y2karl at 9:38 AM on October 7, 2004


I'm much more of a reader than a typer, as evidenced by my meagre posting history.
I've often wished Paris was the same.

Banning might be a bit harsh, but if all his posts were automagically replaced with "Fapfapfapfapfap" then I believe we could still get the essence of what he's trying to say, but in a more enjoyable fashion.
posted by cell at 9:47 AM on October 7, 2004


Of course, the other alternative is to just leave Metafilter. And I'm seriously considering that.

I remember this annoying, rude little kid in elementary school who always threatened to leave the soccer field if we didn't let him score a goal. he actually sucked so bad he couldn't make it any other way. of course, I never passed him the ball, nor the goalkeeper ever let him score. he was just too annoying.

nobody wanted to have anything to do with him, and that made him even more insufferable. a vicious circle, really.

I also remember him shitting himself once, but I'm digressing.
posted by matteo at 10:02 AM on October 7, 2004


For the sake of balance, whenever an annoying rightwinger leaves they should be allowed to take ten annoying leftwingers with them.
posted by timeistight at 10:23 AM on October 7, 2004


While PP does and should have the right to post whatever puts a grin on his face or reflects how he feels, you aren't compelled to read his comments.

timeistight, oh yeah, because one annoying rightwinger is easily worth ten annoying leftwingers. Yep. You nailed it. Dude.
posted by fenriq at 11:03 AM on October 7, 2004


Grow up.

OK, I renounce my childish belief in personal redemption. Hand me a torch, brethren and cistern!

For the sake of balance, whenever an annoying rightwinger leaves they should be allowed to take ten annoying leftwingers with them.

You made me laugh. Thank you.

And to think I was considering subjecting myself to Mars2112 just out of curiosity to meet ParisP.
posted by languagehat at 12:01 PM on October 7, 2004


timeistight, oh yeah, because one annoying rightwinger is easily worth ten annoying leftwingers. Yep. You nailed it. Dude.

No, because we have at least ten of one for every one of the other. I should have said annoying Republicans and annoying Democrats; that's who I meant.

Anyway, I wish you folks hadn't nagged ParisParamus into coming to MetaTalk. I'd rather all the political junkies "keep it in the blue" rather than "bring it to the grey".
posted by timeistight at 12:57 PM on October 7, 2004


No, because we have at least ten of one for every one of the other.

without even noticing, you made a very good point. annoying wingnuts like PeePee are 10 times (but I'd say a hundred) times more disruptive and annoying than the most disruptive pacifist you can imagine. they're simply more aggressive and inherently violent -- got to be that right-winger macho thing's fault
posted by matteo at 1:16 PM on October 7, 2004


Hand me a torch, brethren and cistern!

Well...
posted by y2karl at 1:55 PM on October 7, 2004


annoying wingnuts like PeePee are 10 times (but I'd say a hundred) times more disruptive and annoying than the most disruptive pacifist you can imagine.

I dunno matteo. I'd saying you're punching above your weight.
posted by timeistight at 2:07 PM on October 7, 2004


Excessive use of the first person pronoun singular, the capital I--that is always the sign of trouble.

As, equally, is a complete absence of the same. Glass houses.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:30 PM on October 7, 2004


And meanwhile, another (useless political) thread becomes more about ParisParamus than it does about the 'topic' at hand. Heaps of fun, but it really does get tedious after a while.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:23 PM on October 7, 2004


Well...

That's a joke, son.
posted by languagehat at 7:04 PM on October 7, 2004


Are you talking about yours or mine ?
posted by y2karl at 9:26 PM on October 7, 2004


so....is he gone yet?
posted by bob sarabia at 11:51 PM on October 7, 2004


Shhh. The children are sleeping, and there's beer in the fridge...
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:21 AM on October 8, 2004


Guess what: I've decided to go, at least until the Election.

And if the Election turns into a Florida x4 or 5 (many chad-contested states), I'll stay out of it until the Supreme Court, again works their magic, or there's a decisive winner. There are just too many fools here who trivialize serious issues.

Bye, at least for a while. If anyone wants to contact me, my e-mail address remains the same under my Metafilter profile.

ParisParamus/Steven
posted by ParisParamus at 7:24 AM on October 8, 2004


Are you talking about yours or mine ?

Huh. It applies either way, doesn't it? Cool. Let's say "Both," then.

And Paris, I completely fail to understand your thinking -- why you trivialize serious issues to make a point about people who trivialize serious issues, and why you feel the need to leave because people here don't agree with you (after all, they never have in all the time you've been here, so why now?). And here I thought you were allowing yourself to become a little bit more human. But you're not reading this, are you? Never mind.
posted by languagehat at 7:37 AM on October 8, 2004


unMefi-worthy

Unrealistic expectations.

groupthink

More like group-knee-jerk. Little patience to explore thoughts and intentions.
posted by semmi at 10:16 AM on October 8, 2004


If this election is won by Bush, and it will be, it'll all be down to a liberal media (yourselves included) that couldn't differentiate between what issues are important, and what is nothing but mindless gossip.

seanyboy: I hope you're wrong, but the same thought occured to me too. I'm reminded how in the 30's Germany the extreme left Communists scared the population from the Social Democrats into the arms of the National Socialist, ie. the nazi party.
posted by semmi at 11:03 AM on October 8, 2004


« Older Anyone in NYC interested in a meetup this friday...   |   News feeds for AskMe? Newer »

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