Noise in the cat question. December 6, 2004 4:49 PM   Subscribe

How about answering peoples' questions in AskMe, instead of berating them over their reasons for asking?

Y'know, just sayin'.
posted by mr_crash_davis to Etiquette/Policy at 4:49 PM (69 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

Yeah. It was a good point and well made, but an asshole thing to do in the context of an Ask question.
posted by majick at 4:51 PM on December 6, 2004


I was thinking about coming over here and posting this myself, thanks, crash.
posted by konolia at 4:53 PM on December 6, 2004


That's crazy talk, mr_crash_davis.
posted by NortonDC at 4:55 PM on December 6, 2004


Absolutely. That was totally inappropriate. The question was posted in order to receive information, not a lecture from some holier-than-thou freak with twisted values who can't resist preaching at the least opportunity given. If people can't control their urge to rant and attack people asking questions in AskMe, they should have their commenting privileges revoked.
posted by rushmc at 5:01 PM on December 6, 2004 [1 favorite]


Pointing out moral dimensions, and possible unanticipated consequences, in answers to questions is good -- indeed part of the value of Ask.

Ascribing malign intent, or lack of sufficient love for pets, just because the questioner is unwilling to lay their entire life bare is uncool.
posted by Quinbus Flestrin at 5:07 PM on December 6, 2004


Yes, rushmc, it's terrible getting a lecture from some holier-than-thou freak with twisted values who can't resist preaching at the least opportunity given.

Don't fret though; self-knowledge is the first step to recovery.
posted by timeistight at 5:07 PM on December 6, 2004


Since I don't want to disrupt the thread over there more than is strictly necessary, I'd like to comment on this remark over here:

You may very well have some "personal" reasons that nobody can else can figure out, but understand that we're going to assume "personal problems" translates to "I personally just don't want them anymore."

To that, I'd like to say: pfffffft.

I like to assume that when people say things like that, they're being honest. Assuming the worst of people is a bad, ugly habit, and I don't like having been implicity included in that 'we'. If people want to go around making statements for groups, it'd help if they defined them more clearly, say, limiting 'we' to judgmental moralists.

I had three different people offer me cats last year, which I can't take, because I can't have pets where I lived.

The first was being forcibly deported because of refugee issues and beaureaucratic idiocy. Taking her cats home with her would just make the nightmarish hell she was already facing more difficult.

The second is a foster mother for disabled children, and she was being asked to take a child who has severe allergies, which she couldn't do as long as she had the cat.

The third was a selfish asshole who didn't want to move a cat into her shiny new condo.

But all in all, those are pretty good odds on non-assholish reasons for needing to do something that's pretty heartbreaking.
posted by jacquilynne at 5:11 PM on December 6, 2004


damn rush, what thread were you reading? un owen said that he rescues cats. and if you think that makes him a holier-than-thou freak with twisted values then the same could be said to you

I agree that he shouldn't have posted it since it doesn't fit in the guidelines of askme, but he's pretty much right. I don't appreciate people that get animals and don't have the foresight to know whether or not they'll be keeping them. And usually, yes, people make excuses to dump animals on other people. But yeah, shouldn't have been posted, as it wasn't helpful.

and on preview - jac: your first example is pretty valid and there's no way you can fault people for things they can't control. you're second example illustrates that people don't think ahead. As a foster parent, what are the odds you'll get someone that is allegic to cats? Probable, I would say. Didn't think ahead and now the animal suffers. People usually think or care little about planning ahead for an animal, since they figure "it's just a cat." I'm not saying that's what happened in your case, just pointing it out.
posted by puke & cry at 5:19 PM on December 6, 2004


ah, I see rush made the "You're right, that sounds idiotic. Get a life." comment. I would call that a pretty dickish thing to say, and pretty uncalled for, as owen certainly wasn't down to the level of childish insults.
posted by puke & cry at 5:28 PM on December 6, 2004


If the cats were "disposable" to vraxoin, they'd be in a dumpster right now, or at the pound. Obviously, he wants to do the right thing or he wouldn't have come to AskMe looking for advice about how to handle it.

People get emotional about animals, and I understand that, but get a fucking grip and be helpful. If you're OH SO hoity-toity and WORKED FOR A CAT RESCUE ONCE then why don't you give this person some HELPFUL ADVICE that might, oh, I don't know, BENEFIT THESE CATS, instead of being a DIDACTIC PRICK.
posted by scarabic at 5:30 PM on December 6, 2004 [2 favorites]


Assuming the worst of people is a bad, ugly habit, and I don't like having been implicity included in that 'we'.

Well, preachy, self-righteous people, especially those who can't help but make a display of themselves at any opportunity, love to imagine that they have legions of followers who desperately need to hear their latest pronouncements.

Thus the 'we.'
posted by jonmc at 5:33 PM on December 6, 2004


un owen made some assumptions about motives, but argued convincingly from there on in, in reasonable tone and rational manner.

Score-draw.
posted by dash_slot- at 5:37 PM on December 6, 2004


I am sorry for the preachy, self-righteous thing I said in a whole other thread.
posted by onlyconnect at 5:39 PM on December 6, 2004


Didn't think ahead and now the animal suffers. People usually think or care little about planning ahead for an animal, since they figure "it's just a cat."

"The animal suffers" doesn't seem to keep us from killing animals and eating them, and I doubt very much it will keep anyone from inflicting such minor trauma on a pet as a change of household.
posted by kindall at 5:42 PM on December 6, 2004


I don't appreciate people that get animals and don't have the foresight to know whether or not they'll be keeping them.

According to u.n. owen, you're supposed to map out your life for the next 15-20 years before you get a cat. That is just plain stupid and asinine, and in no way "pretty much right." By this same logic, no one should have children until they have enough money saved up to raise them and educate them - BECAUSE THEY MIGHT DIE and there would be no one to provide for the kids.

While there is a faint image of some pragmatic sentiment in u.n. owen's remarks, it is completely overshadowed by finger-pointing, lecturing, moral judgement, and personal aggrandizement. "As someone who is taking care of two abandoned cats right now, I have the moral authority to DECLARE YOU UNFIT TO LIVE!!!"

This is not "pretty much right." This is "pretty much fucked."
posted by scarabic at 5:48 PM on December 6, 2004 [1 favorite]


Whether or not anyone agrees with what she said isn't even the point; it's that she said it at all. Did it help answer the question?

For the most part, I agree with her comment, although I think she could tone down the judgemental tone a tad. But AskMe is full of unhelpful comments and jokes and off-topic observations now, and it's not going to get any better if we all keep doing it. [/mistress of the obvious]
posted by iconomy at 6:01 PM on December 6, 2004


It's just plain unpractical to level charges of poor pet ownership at the Asker. Who can it possibly help? It's counterproductive and just makes the pet owner afraid to get cat-helping advice. For all we know the poster wrestled with his/her soul before posting this. Or not.
posted by inksyndicate at 6:12 PM on December 6, 2004


vraxoin: maybe it's that I don't want to share the intimate and painful details of my personal life with thousands of virtual strangers.

He's said it's painful, he's said he doesn't want to discuss it. Unless you're actually going to say he's lying about this (which, yeah, Civil_Disobedient basically did), to repeatedly make with the judgemental because you can't think, offhand, of some reasons why he might be in this situation is utterly unjustified. It's not just an abuse of AskeMe, it's personally unpleasant. There are more bad things in life than death and allergies, and some sensitivity towards that might be nice.
posted by flashboy at 6:14 PM on December 6, 2004


I don't think u.n. owen is out of line. Sometimes an opinion sneaks into such a fact-based site, and in this case, I don't believe it's entirely inappropriate.
posted by rocketman at 6:25 PM on December 6, 2004


Well, I'm glad to see someone gets it.

:::nods toward scarabic:::
posted by rushmc at 6:40 PM on December 6, 2004


Alternatively, we could berate someone for yet another pointless MeTa callout. Gee, he was rude? Oh, no's, can't have any of that around here.

Not that. Anything but that. Just a few posts back some nOob left out an apostrophe... your gonna let that slide? I think u.n.owen answered the question based on his expierience... isn't that the point?

Just sayin'.

Posted on behalf of twisted freaks everywhere. Trying... to control... urge.
posted by cedar at 6:46 PM on December 6, 2004


Metafilter: OH SO hoity-toity.

MetaTalk: Completely overshadowed by finger-pointing, lecturing, moral judgement, and personal aggrandizement.

AskMetafilter: Why don't you give this person some HELPFUL ADVICE instead of being a DIDACTIC PRICK?

scarabic: Tagline goldmine.

posted by euphorb at 6:51 PM on December 6, 2004


It was entirely inappropriate to continue the berating after vraxoin made it clear that he was not going to explain away his reasons because they were intimately personal. I have no clue what part of that wasn't clear. I have no clue what on earth could justify staying up on a soapbox to preach your agenda at someone in such a situation, and assign motives to them because you haven't been personally satisfied that they're living their lives in the way that you see fit.

I am especially befuddled what could justify such posting when it was off-topic and contrary to the spirit of AskMe, which is to provide answers to questions, not sermons which do not serve as any aid to the asker. vraxoin didn't ask about the moral imperatives of pet ownership, he asked about the best possible solutions to the quandary he was facing. Nothing u.n. owen had to say addressed the question in the slightest. Nothing.

On a personal note, having known vraxoin for quite some time, and knowing him to be, above all, a man of integrity, I believe it beyond unlikely that he views his pets as disposable, and if he says that what's happening in his life (which I'm not privy to) is private and not suitable fodder for public discussion, it is.
posted by Dreama at 6:52 PM on December 6, 2004 [1 favorite]


u.n. owen was being a complete jerk. At most, a one-line remark on the order of "I hope you're really sure you can't take the cats, because it's hard on them" might be appropriate; a paragraphs-long insulting rant, followed by another, is absolutely not.

Or, what scarabic and jonmc said.
posted by languagehat at 7:02 PM on December 6, 2004 [1 favorite]


Actually, u.n. owen did provide some useful information in addition to the editorial opinions.

I think the first question about "why are you doing this?" was reasonable, because the advice for "I suddenly became allergic and can't breathe around the cat" is different from "I'm planning to move to Istanbul in two months and can't take the cat."

However, after vraoxin clarified the situation as much as he was willing to, people should have stayed on-topic rather than launching into a gigantic guilt trip.
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:16 PM on December 6, 2004


Personally, euphorb, I like this one:

MetaFilter: BENEFIT THESE CATS
posted by scarabic at 7:18 PM on December 6, 2004


sometime a cat really is just a cat.

no "personal life" cause short of an owner's death, sudden development of allergies (it happens, I've seen it), or something right-along-those-lines to cause someone to even rationally think about this.

Anything else, and it's just poor planning and abandonment.


Surely the lack of rational thinking is on the part of those with such a bizarrely distorted view of the life of a cat. Finding a good home is ideal, but a painless euthanasia to me seems completely unproblematic.
posted by Rumple at 7:38 PM on December 6, 2004


By this same logic, no one should have children until they have enough money saved up to raise them and educate them - BECAUSE THEY MIGHT DIE and there would be no one to provide for the kids.


That's why people who care about the well-being of their dependents buy life insurance.
posted by trharlan at 7:44 PM on December 6, 2004


If you care more about a cat than about the cow that was ground up to make its food you can dispense with the moralizing before we even start.

k'thanks.
posted by Space Coyote at 7:48 PM on December 6, 2004


I was floored by the 'holier-than-thou' tone of some of the answers in that thread.

I know I shouldn't have been, but honestly folks, all this person wanted was a viable answer to a dilemma, not a sermon.
posted by kamylyon at 7:50 PM on December 6, 2004


I killed a fly this morning that was annoying me. Does that mean I can leave my children to fend for themselves without exacting any karmic damage?
posted by bshort at 8:20 PM on December 6, 2004


I really felt for vraxoin when I read that thread. When my family acquired three cats and a dog over the years, we did so while operating under the assumption that we would all be staying in the same place and my parents' marriage would last.

Oops.

While we were able to hang onto all the animals, it didn't work out the way I wanted it at all. We had to split up the cats (my mom and I took the two females, my dad and brother took the male), and, partially as a result of the new surroundings, the male cat died. The other two are doing fine, but because my mom's boyfriend doesn't want them living in the house, they have to live in a structure in our front yard. Because we live in a wooded area filled with unleashed dogs, coyotes, and snakes, if we were to let them roam freely they would probably be dead in no time (they are also getting up there -- 11 years old). We "visit" them in the front yard all the time, but it breaks my heart that they can't live in the house and get the proper loves, cuddles and comfort they deserve.

Some people need to realize that, even for those of us who regard our animals as members of the family, stuff happens that we can't control. Vraxoin obviously cares enough to try and find his pets a good home -- I can't imagine he feels very good about any of this. Have a little heart here, people. God forbid anything unexpected should throw your life out of whack -- then you'd have to rethink your rigid, absolutist principles.
posted by fricative at 8:40 PM on December 6, 2004


Is it any wonder that, with redeeming personal traits such as "willing to launch into unprovoked diatribes about the reprehensible lifestyles of others", u.n. owen is so very loooonely? It must be difficult to make friends over all that shrieking condemnation.
posted by Danelope at 8:49 PM on December 6, 2004


That was completely unnecessary, Danelope. Her comments were inappropriate and she was called out for it. The story should end there, not with people sinking their fangs into her.
posted by Marit at 8:56 PM on December 6, 2004


hate the post, not the poster. =)
posted by angry modem at 8:58 PM on December 6, 2004


Hold on, Marit, Danelope might be on to something. Maybe u.n. owen has a lazy eye we can make fun of, or maybe he's got a painful disease just begging for big ol' "Ha, ha," from Nelson.

But, then again, if he gets pissed on now for coming to us with a moderate but dispiriting personal obstacle, we might blow our chance to really crush him at just that moment of critical need.

It's a tough call.
posted by NortonDC at 9:03 PM on December 6, 2004


"Maybe u.n. owen has a lazy eye we can make fun of, or maybe he's got a painful disease just begging for big ol' "Ha, ha," from Nelson."

I'm pretty sure u.n. owen is female.

However, if she has a lazy eye or is suffering from a painful (but not terminal) disease, we should certainly mock her.

*sigh*
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:04 PM on December 6, 2004


Okay, now that I've actually read the thread.

Without knowing the real reasons why these cats have to go, you can't simply start ranting and judging their reasons for needing to part with them. I'm sure the person asking the question isn't exactly careless with the cats and assuming that they were is a slap in the face of any cat owner.

The comments were definitely out of line, but even more out of line was the little moral crusade half the thread was trying to pull without even having any place or invitation to.

But, let's leave personal attacks out of it. No need to drop to the level of Monkeyfilter.
posted by angry modem at 9:07 PM on December 6, 2004


Maybe she can steal the content from this meta callout for her next big story...

but hey i hear she's lonely...

You might get a cat.
posted by LarryC at 6:27 PM PST on December 6


indeed... ;)
posted by Dreamghost at 9:13 PM on December 6, 2004


Apologies to owen for thinking she was a he.

Also, as pointed out above, she was very helpful later in the thread.

And yeah, I have no idea what thread scarabic and rush are looking at. Owens comments may have been misplaced, but I would hardly call it "finger-pointing, lecturing, moral judgement, and personal aggrandizement". I thought that even though owen did have a slightly condemning tone towards the situation, I think some of us are making more out of it than it is.

And denelope: Thats a petty little snark there buddy. You should keep that stuff to yourself, as it doesn't further the conversation in any way.
posted by puke & cry at 9:35 PM on December 6, 2004


I have learned today that some people feel the same about books as u.n. owen feels about cats.
posted by smackfu at 9:36 PM on December 6, 2004


That's why people who care about the well-being of their dependents buy life insurance.

Right - I had that thought - but if people like u.n. owen were running the world, you could have your kids taken away from you for not having sufficient life insurance to see them through age 18. How many people have any life insurance? And of those, how many have more coverage than their own funeral will require? How many have the coverage to see 1 kid through college, let alone 2, 3?

Life has risks. And while my little comparison was a flawed one, I think it serves to show how retarded it is to expect people to make a 20 year commitment before they get a cat. I think the Uncertainty Principle alone precludes that. You can't know where you'll be in 20 years. Neither can u.n. owen. So either she is going to have to find a home for these abused cats at some point- which is all vraxoin is trying to do, or she is independently wealthy and lives under guard, for the sake of the cats' future.

Bullshit.
posted by scarabic at 9:40 PM on December 6, 2004


Unless you're actually going to say he's lying about this (which, yeah, Civil_Disobedient basically did)

Well, my first posts were actually pretty on-topic, but I admit I ventured over into "critical" land with my statements in the last comment.

I don't see why it's not helpful, however. If the reason for getting rid of the cats is nothing more than "don't want 'em", well, perhaps in the future you might exercise a little foresight and don't get 'em if you can't handle the responsibility.

But as my SO pointed out, many times pet owners have to get rid of their animals because of, say, HIV. Which is not exactly the kind of thing you want to banter around.

Anyway, sorry for the proselytizing.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:53 PM on December 6, 2004


Just answer the question or don't reply at all, simple as that. Good AskMe questions are never opinion polls. I know this issue has been brought to MetaTalk before, but thank you mr_crash_davis for bringing it up again because this is the line that defines AskMe as valuable as part of a strongly opinionated community such as MeFi. AskMe posts are mostly relevant to the poster and frequently have to do with very personal decisions: in many cases a thoughtless word or flippant remark is tantamount to a kind of wannabe parental correction and as such the ostensible answer wrecks the thread because it puts the asker on the defensive and the asker has to post twice. The best AskMe threads don't need any follow up: the poster asks a clear question and the community offers answers.

I asked a pretty simple question about my cigarette smoking that had nothing to do with addiction issues or quitting smoking and I still got told to quit and that I am poisoning myself. I got mostly excellent answers, but to those of you (in my case scarabic and sic) who moralize with your keyboards I say AskMe is about answers and unless your personal, moral judgement is requested save it.
posted by Cryptical Envelopment at 9:56 PM on December 6, 2004


Yes, cluck your tongues all you want, but reality indicates that Ask MetaFilter is a place where the majority of us are interested in helping others. In a Blue and Gray ocean of contempt and polarization, the Green stands alone as an island of reason, of civility and kindness. Issuing misplaced, vitriolic attacks on other members who come to us with problems -- particularly non-trivial, emotional matters -- is contrary to the very ethos of Ask MetaFilter.

In doing so, you introduce a chilling effect into the Green, whereby those who would ask for personal advice might never do so for fear of being indicted. To do so in a more-or-less tight-knit community of people who need help is tantamount to calling down fire from on high.

Whether petty or not, my comments reflect a desire (as an active participant in Ask MetaFilter, and reaper of its benefits) to preserve this resource from being inundated by unhelpful bullshit. I at least had the courtesy to confine my aforementioned outburst to MetaTalk, where player hating is par for the course.

Just sayin'.
posted by Danelope at 10:07 PM on December 6, 2004 [1 favorite]


who would ask for personal advice might never do so for fear of being indicted

Excuse me, but isn't that the very point of anonymous AskMe?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:19 PM on December 6, 2004


Excuse me, but isn't that the very point of anonymous AskMe?

No. Anonymous posting is designed to shield members from potential embarassment by disassociating the question and the username. I doubt that someone who feels emotionally distressed will take "even considering this makes you inhuman!" any better because the commenter cannot identify the target of their attacks.
posted by Danelope at 10:32 PM on December 6, 2004


My point is, if the poster had a potentially embarassing reason for not explaining themselves, they could have gone the AnonAskMe route to begin with.

u.n. owens offered some extremely useful advice in that thread. Just as scarabic offered some very pretty useful advice in Cryptical Envelopment's thread. Some people just have very thin skin.

"Dear AskMe: Whenever I stab myself in the stomach, I keep bleeding all over shoes. Can someone please suggest a solution to this. Please to NOT tell me to stop stabbing myself."
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:45 PM on December 6, 2004


While I can't speak for Danelope, I think what she's saying is that anonymous AskMe is to keep your identity hidden from the rest of the world, the real world, for real world reasons. Not to protect you from in-website embarassment.

Asking anonymously doesn't spare you the moralizing, anyway. God knows that anonymous askers get the moral 3rd degree all the time. We just don't know who they are.
posted by scarabic at 10:55 PM on December 6, 2004


Some people just have very thin skin.

you know, if anyone mutters something like that in real life, they are probably an asshole. So, u.n. owens offered some useful advice. That doesnt excuse her from the moralizing which, as has been said above, is not in the spirit of Ask.Me.

Yeah, we can all come up with examples of "I'm about to jump off the bridge. Tell me how to do it so nobody sees me. Please dont tell me to not kill myself" but lets just assume we all graduated from Argumentation 101.
posted by vacapinta at 11:02 PM on December 6, 2004


My point is, if the poster had a potentially embarassing reason for not explaining themselves, they could have gone the AnonAskMe route to begin with.

Not if they want to take a chance, and not if they want to risk that their question will not be posed via AnonAskMe. Matt has only so many minutes and we seem to think he is using them well. And so far AnonAskMe has been informative and compassionate. Gift horse and all that...
posted by Cryptical Envelopment at 11:22 PM on December 6, 2004


I'm still trying to figure out how "Ladies, what do you notice in a guy's apartment" turned into a "You're wrong. No, you're wrong!" argument.

Sample:

A: Well, I'm a woman, and I look for X.

B: I don't have X, so you're wrong.

C: Why would you care about X?

D: If I were A, I wouldn't care about X. A is shallow.
posted by taz at 12:33 AM on December 7, 2004


Metatalk: Where player hating is par for the course.

The world is on fire, and we've got fifty-odd comments on dumping your cat. Or not. (cateat: I have one great cat)
I had a gf once whose ancient cat expired. She wrapped it in a plastic bag and stashed it in the freezer. She told me this was normal, and it wasn't until I started stacking the lasagna on top of it that she finally buried it.
posted by atchafalaya at 4:43 AM on December 7, 2004


In doing so, you introduce a chilling effect into the Green, whereby those who would ask for personal advice might never do so for fear of being indicted. To do so in a more-or-less tight-knit community of people who need help is tantamount to calling down fire from on high.

I have to agree here. In MeFi, I just fire back at stupid comments. On the other hand, my second AskMe question ever got crapped on and I wound up with such a nasty taste I quit reading the board. (After months, I got up the nerve to ask one more question, but even then I had to use up half my question space defending the question, and I still feel hesisitant to come back on a regular basis.)
posted by Karmakaze at 7:11 AM on December 7, 2004


While I can't speak for Danelope, I think what she's saying...

There's a lot of gender confusion going on in this thread. For the record, it's Dan-el-ope (not Dan-el-oh-pee, for crying out loud) and it's a male, with the usual assortment of chromosomes and appendages said gender entails.
posted by Danelope at 7:38 AM on December 7, 2004


Then quit sitting down to pee.
posted by angry modem at 8:49 AM on December 7, 2004


How about answering peoples' questions in AskMe, instead of berating them over their reasons for asking?

Hypocrite.
posted by esch at 9:02 AM on December 7, 2004


For the record, it's Dan-el-ope (not Dan-el-oh-pee, for crying out loud)

I thought it was Dan-el-em-en-oh-pee :(
posted by filmgoerjuan at 9:07 AM on December 7, 2004


There's a lot of gender confusion going on in this thread.

Oops! Sorry. I did check your member page, which has no chromosomes listed. Now that you've outed yourself as a penis-bearer, maybe you want to update it?
posted by scarabic at 10:06 AM on December 7, 2004


For the record, it's Dan-el-ope (not Dan-el-oh-pee, for crying out loud) and it's a male, with the usual assortment of chromosomes and appendages said gender entails.

You go Girl!
posted by y2karl at 10:19 AM on December 7, 2004


With all the noobs around, you have to put any suspect question-askers in their place, you know? It's in the best interest of MeFi, after all.
posted by Doohickie at 10:44 AM on December 7, 2004


Did u.n. owen's comments get deleted?

And, I agree that there was a fair amount of moralizing going on in that thread even exclusive of u.n. owen. It's inappropriate. Period.
posted by Juicylicious at 10:59 AM on December 7, 2004


Yes, her first comment is gone now. That was the one where she said that people who didn't know where they were going to be for the next 20 years shouldn't have cats.
posted by scarabic at 11:15 AM on December 7, 2004


my god , there are 20,000 users now .......i bet thats been FUN .........did son of minya attempt a comeback ? were there tons of bans ? i have a metafilter sized gap in my life that i am foolishly trying to fill with productive activity.......
posted by sgt.serenity at 11:50 AM on December 7, 2004


son of son of minya?
posted by euphorb at 1:33 PM on December 7, 2004


/me cuts off his right hand.

CRAP. i always read things wrong.
posted by Stynxno at 4:02 PM on December 7, 2004


u.n. owens offered some extremely useful advice in that thread. Just as scarabic offered some very pretty useful advice in Cryptical Envelopment's thread

I await the launch of Metafilter Advice with baited breath.
posted by Cryptical Envelopment at 7:04 PM on December 7, 2004


I await the launch of Metafilter Advice with baited breath.

So you know, it's bated breath.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 12:19 PM on December 8, 2004


Not for those who eat worms....
posted by Doohickie at 3:18 PM on December 8, 2004


« Older does this look more like an advertisement than a...   |   THIS is the best of the web Newer »

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