I claim this isle in the name of Asshattery June 15, 2005 3:08 PM   Subscribe

could we get a flag on isle 42780#957736?
posted by delmoi to Etiquette/Policy at 3:08 PM (121 comments total)

You know, I really thought the [!] was a good idea. I really did. I thought, "hey! now there won't be any more metatalk posts about single comments that offend someone! great!"

Boy, was I wrong.
posted by odinsdream at 3:13 PM on June 15, 2005


There are 4-5 users making today a pretty craptacular day on metafilter. They need to grow up.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:15 PM on June 15, 2005


Well, it would be great if the flag works. We have AlexReynolds acting like a complete asshole through two threads, and despite the flags, nothing is done.

I tried e-mailing and didn't get a response, so my next step would be making a MeTa post.

The flags would be a good idea if anything was accomplished with them. But when nothing happens, it would be nice to have some sort of feedback.
posted by dios at 3:17 PM on June 15, 2005


bshort, witty, and alexreynolds are being given time off. dios, you were shitting in threads too, by arguing along with folks instead of taking your beefs to metatalk where they belong.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:19 PM on June 15, 2005


amberglow: anti-gay shit was not called for.

Witty's comment doesn't strike me as "anti-gay". It strikes me as "anti-coddler." And he has a point. Anyone else who ended a post with "Some people should really be ashamed of themselves" would have been laughed off the site. Vanity & I-Told-You-So-Filter have become amberglow's one-two punch, but because many agree with him—and because he never, ever, ever acknowledges fault in any scenario—few have the grapes to call his posts for being shite.
posted by dhoyt at 3:23 PM on June 15, 2005


huh, alex's email bounced. If you're reading this Alex and you want the explanation why, update your email address.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:24 PM on June 15, 2005


Anyone else who ended a post with "Some people should really be ashamed of themselves" would have been laughed off the site.

I don't agree. People do that all the time.

I think witty's main point was a lame link to CNN is a lame link to CNN, but it wasn't deleted because of who posted it. It was in fact a lame place to link, but not really so bad it should be deleted, regardless of who posted it.

As for witty, he then chose to mock amberglow on top of that, and really the main problem here among everyone involved is the need to pick on personalities on the site. Really, there's no reason why people couldn't just stick to talking about the issues surrounding the schaivo case, posting links to other sites with supporting or damning evidence, but directing comments at other members is really pointless noise, and everyone seems to be hung up on it today.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:27 PM on June 15, 2005


Maybe there could be some sort of threshold flag system built in. Like if something is flagged 20 times it goes away. That seems like it would be easier on you. The only problem I see with the flag system is the lack of feedback. Because some times, things are flagged, and the flags are ignored. I guess my confusion is how the flag thing works. Are there like thousands of flags going off?
posted by dios at 3:27 PM on June 15, 2005


Or put another way, is there a possibility a flag is missed? Or should the standing assumption be that the flag was seen and disagreed with?
posted by dios at 3:29 PM on June 15, 2005


Maybe there could be some sort of threshold flag system built in. Like if something is flagged 20 times it goes away.

No, then mob rule wins. You want to shut dios up once and for all? Sign up 19 other accounts and shut him up.

Because some times, things are flagged, and the flags are ignored.

Yeah, because sometimes I read them and wonder why a bunch of adults are acting like children with "he called me a name! nuh uh! did to! did not! you're a poopyhead!"

I take action on the most egregious things. I deleted a bunch of pointless banter in the thread earlier today, but it didn't seem to steer it back on track because a bunch of people love to argue with one another about themselves.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:32 PM on June 15, 2005


There goes dios, coddling the flag again...
(ImsorryImsorryImsorryImsorry)
posted by wendell at 3:35 PM on June 15, 2005


dios, I've said since the inception that I act on maybe 1 in 20 flags, if that.

The rest are ignored because they are for the most minor of issues (oftentimes people that don't like a poster, instead of the content of what they've said) and if I acted on every one, the site would way too chaotic with all the deletions people want.

It's not easy to run a site and not let your personal feelings or politics get in the way, or make decisions for petty reasons. Many of the flags are for those reasons (not all mentioned regarding this thread, of course, but many are in general).
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:35 PM on June 15, 2005


Matt,

This is Alex posting.

Basically, I'm sick of taking unprovoked personal attacks from Dios:

This recent post from him was entirely uncalled for, and totally unprovoked.

I'm tired of getting called a drama queen by Dios everytime I disagree and carry a respectful, if heated conversation with someone else.

This has happened to me numerous times, I've flagged those comments, and you do nothing about it.

His behavior is continually unprovoked and trollish, and it is deliberately meant to pick a fight with me, but up until now I didn't whine about it.

Apparently whining is frowned upon — but because my other account has been locked out, I don't seem to have much choice but to post this here.

I just hope you at some point give him the time-out he's earned.

Feel free to lock this and my other accounts, if you like. Thanks.
posted by Poltroon at 3:35 PM on June 15, 2005


You know what might be fun--possibly not very feasible, but fun none the less? Just for one day, have everyone's screen name "anonymous."

It would be interesting on a couple of levels. First, people may not be as snarky since they will be looking at the post, not at the poster with a preconceived notion. Someone whose ideas one just blows off as "drivel" might not come across as stupid if his/her nemesis wasn't aware that that's who was posting.

Second, it would be interesting to see if we could tell who was posting what just by what is said in a comment.

Of course you'd have to reveal all the next day so that we could be dazzled by the brilliance of some posters whom we had written off as pedantic assholes. (Not naming any names.)
posted by leftcoastbob at 3:39 PM on June 15, 2005


I know, some days it hardly seems worth the trouble.
posted by [!] at 3:41 PM on June 15, 2005


It strikes me as "anti-coddler." And he has a point.

Not in amber's case. I've locked horns with him on numerous issues and I consider the man a freind, he's never given me one ounce of shit for saying what's on my mind.

*rereads*

Oh, yeah, I locked horns with him on the issues, witty, not out of some lame ass grudge.
posted by jonmc at 3:43 PM on June 15, 2005


mathowie, I'd normally agree with you, but since we don't like double posts here that means we have to try to discuss this rather important info in THAT THREAD. Now the whole discussion is poisoned. It's not poisoned because people couldn't handle amberglow's editorializing. It's poisoned because amberglow editorialized so heavily and so self-righteously in the post.

Seriously, some people were being assholes, but they weren't the start of problems in that thread. The problems started because it's human nature to get derailed in a conversation by something that offends you. Amberglow's editorializing pretty much guaranteed that no one who sided with Schiavo's parents would come into that discussion in a frame of mind for debating the issues.

I guess what I'm saying is, when you say "Really, there's no reason why people couldn't just stick to talking about the issues surrounding the schaivo case," I strongly disagree. In a reasonably worded post, there would have been no reason. In this post, there were reasons. Sure, everyone should have been big about it and ignored the stupid wording of the post, but it's human nature to take offense to shit like that.

If there's a way to expect reasonable discourse in a conversation that begins with "[X] are opportunistic liars and should be ashamed of themselves," then I don't know what it is.
posted by shmegegge at 3:48 PM on June 15, 2005


Wittys trolling tube has been withdrawn , i assume the autopsy will find a shrunken brain.
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:58 PM on June 15, 2005


If there's a way to expect reasonable discourse in a conversation that begins with "[X] are opportunistic liars and should be ashamed of themselves," then I don't know what it is.
Let's see...you could have defended all those people, or you could have pointed out that they weren't opportunistic or liars with examples and evidence, or you could have explained that diagnosing a woman on the Senate floor via videotape is perfectly acceptable and honorable...there are many things you could have said if you wanted. I guess i would have pointed out the extreme stress the family was under, enhanced by the media attention (but that still wouldn't explain the opportunism and lying by everyone else around them, and the GOP leadership).
The sad truth is that many many people were opportunistic and liars, on air and in print, and on the Senate floor, including the president, who flew back from his ranch for the first time ever to sign a bill specifically about her. It's a fact, not editorializing. My editorializing was that they should be ashamed, not that they were opportunistic and liars.

Again, what part of UpdateFilter wasn't clear? We've discussed the tragedy many times here, and this is a coda.
posted by amberglow at 4:05 PM on June 15, 2005


amberglow, your post was loaded with opinion. Some opinion, fine, loads of it pushed on everyone? Sometimes people don't like that.

I still believe folks could have ignored the editorializing in the original post and had a worthwhile discussion if they stuck to issues.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:12 PM on June 15, 2005


amberglow:

As we say around my way, not for nothin' (and I am an admirer and partisan) but I know you are a mission oriented feller (I posted a sparsely attended askme about how to make sure I was registered to vote after a move in Brooklyn and you charged in there and made sure I was registered) and as such, and I totally share your disgust, angst and anger about the current state of affairs, I do think the fpp could have stood on its own, all the rest is merely (IMHO justified, but counterproductive) frustration and itoldyousoism.

If I may humbly suggest, when you cool off, you might do well to count ten (as grandma said) before drafting your posts, if only because I do think one of your missions is to win people over, as opposed to say witty, who just loves to troll and exalt that his team is on top. For what it's worth.
posted by Divine_Wino at 4:17 PM on June 15, 2005


I think leftcoastbob's idea is brilliant. It should be relatively simple to code- just change the homepage, thread, and search results to say "by anonymous". We should totally do that. Matt?

Again, what part of UpdateFilter wasn't clear? We've discussed the tragedy many times here, and this is a coda.

Why, why, why does that need a coda? Isn't this the whole point of metachat?

On preview:

I still believe folks could have ignored the editorializing in the original post and had a worthwhile discussion if they stuck to issues.

Matt, come on. In addition to topic and the phrasing, look at who posted it (to bring up an earlier point). When a prominent MeFite steps in the room lookin' to rassle, there's gonna be a'rasslin'.
posted by mkultra at 4:19 PM on June 15, 2005


Didn't realize that this thread became about that post and thread, and not just witty's comment. I guess you'll delete my meta post, Matt, if you haven't already; but I do think that that particular post and thread is the clearest counter-example of good mefi that I've seen in a while.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:22 PM on June 15, 2005


I initially thought that leftcoastbob's idea was brilliant, too, but the recent "cocks 'n' swastikas" events over at the scratchpad made me change my mind.
posted by interrobang at 4:22 PM on June 15, 2005


Is there a possibility a flag is missed? Or should the standing assumption be that the flag was seen and disagreed with?

It depends, as with many things. I'll back up what Matt was saying: few flags are acted on. This is not always because either of us disagree with the flagging, there are a few other common reasons:

- sometimes taking a comment out of a thread makes the thread make no sense. So, in that thread everyone was piling on Witty and it was unclear if deleting his post would have necessitated rampant other deletions to make the rest of the thread make sense, people hate rampant deletions
- sometimes the issue has been more or less resolved [someone is an ass, someone else says "you're being an ass" everyone else ignores it and moves on] by the time one of us sees it, people hate late/unnecessary deletions
- sometimes on person's "offensive" or "derail" is another person's funny joke, these are usually given more leeway in MeTa/MeFi and less in AskMe, people hate gratuitous deletions

I felt like the thread took off on a bad foot [see Divine_Wino's astute comments above] and just never got back to a good place. By the time I checked in, it was already a mess with unclear cleanup potential. There's been a lot of "rah rah, thanks for deleting less stuff" talk and since amberglow's post was mostly ok and had engendered some discussion already, I was loathe to mess with it, personally.
posted by jessamyn at 4:29 PM on June 15, 2005


I'M SO GLAD I WENT TO VISIT THE GRANDKIDS TODAY
posted by quonsar at 4:47 PM on June 15, 2005




"Feel free to lock my other accounts"

WTF? How many accounts do you have? What is the point of allowing sock puppets, again?
posted by Mid at 4:52 PM on June 15, 2005


amberglow,

if you'd reread my initial statement, you'd see that what I said was "If there's a way to expect reasonable discourse," not "If there's a way to facilitate reasonable discourse." See, of course there are ways to ignore your obnoxious post wording. The point is that to expect everyone to do so is a waste of breathe and energy. Not to mention contrary to, as I said above, human nature. If people fall for you bait, the problem is that you baited them, not that they fell for it.

and to respond to mathowie, yes people COULD have ignored the editorializing, but what are the reasons for the guidelines in the first place? I mean, couldn't the same logic be applied to ALL posts? "Sure, that guy's post was just trolling AND a self-link, but couldn't we see past all that and respond solely to the merit of the corporate web site he linked to based on its own merits?" There are certain things that, as a rule of thumb, we don't like to see here. Chief among those things are GYOBFW posts like that one, for good reason.
posted by shmegegge at 5:14 PM on June 15, 2005


Chief among those things are GYOBFW posts like that one, for good reason.

Amberglow has never taken a GYOBFW post and also posted it to Ask Metafilter unlike other members.
posted by mlis at 5:27 PM on June 15, 2005


huh?
posted by shmegegge at 5:35 PM on June 15, 2005


On the bright side, Matt is getting a lot of experience handling the toddler mentality which may come in handy the next few years.
posted by caddis at 6:01 PM on June 15, 2005


*pees self, demands to be burped*
posted by jonmc at 6:25 PM on June 15, 2005


pees self, demands to be burped*

I see things are back to normal.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:51 PM on June 15, 2005


This is Alex posting.

Doesn't this kind of defeat the purpose of a time out?

Matt, I know you have said that there aren't many sock puppets and you didn't see a reason to take action, but I think this might be a pretty good reason.

Myself, I would make a note somewhere in the sign up process making a rule against multiple accounts -- sure, it would be pretty much unenforceable -- well, at least until someone rubbed it in your face that he can't be stopped from posting and has so little respect for this site or it's owner that he feels free to circumvent an administrative action. A formal policy would, at the very least, allow you to play whack-a-troll when required without people whining about their five bucks.
posted by cedar at 6:52 PM on June 15, 2005


I see things are back to normal.

this diaper's still wet, motherfucker.
posted by jonmc at 6:59 PM on June 15, 2005


Amberglow has never taken a GYOBFW post and also posted it to Ask Metafilter unlike other members.

What are you, 12? This is why we can't have nice things.
posted by mkultra at 7:00 PM on June 15, 2005


this diaper's still wet, motherfucker.

Yeah, so I hear. Over and over.
posted by interrobang at 7:12 PM on June 15, 2005


*stomps off to playpen*
posted by jonmc at 7:23 PM on June 15, 2005


This is totally just what it was like when the Beatles broke up.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 7:36 PM on June 15, 2005


I just got an email from witty :

Hi Matt ,

This is Witty ,
I'd firstly like to apologise for my behaviour and my comments in that thread and secondly i'd like to make a personal apology to amberglow , my comments were uncalled for and extremely insulting , i have had issues with my sexuality for a long time and when i don't feel that i can accept myself for what i am , i tend to lash out.
I'd like to thank matt for banning me , it's been a real wake up call for me that i need to go back into some form of counselling to address my sexuality issues.
Once again , i'm truly sorry.

yours

Witty (mefi's least favorite homo)

posted by sgt.serenity at 7:36 PM on June 15, 2005


This is totally just what it was like when the Beatles broke up.

*hastily records mediocre solo album*

i have had issues with my sexuality for a long time

Tell me more. Cosmo for my freind here, barkeep...
posted by jonmc at 7:41 PM on June 15, 2005


Maybe its time everyone wiped their grudge slate clean?
posted by fenriq at 7:49 PM on June 15, 2005


interrobang : "I initially thought that leftcoastbob's idea was brilliant, too, but the recent 'cocks "n" swastikas' events over at the scratchpad made me change my mind."

Ah, no, you see, the beauty is that the next day, all the names revert! So if you go "cocks and swastikas" on MeFi, in a day you'll be shown for what you are (and likely banned).

However, one modified recommendation: instead of making them all "by anonymous", number them randomly or something ("by anonymous748"). Otherwise people will just have fake conversations with themselves all day as if they were one person.

MLIS : "Amberglow has never taken a GYOBFW post and also posted it to Ask Metafilter unlike other members."

Well, good for him. When I was in elementary school I used to shoplift art supplies, but I never cheated on tests, unlike other kids. I guess that means I wasn't doing anything wrong?
posted by Bugbread at 7:54 PM on June 15, 2005


Is that for real sgt.serenity? WTF?
posted by Quartermass at 7:55 PM on June 15, 2005


Wow Matt's time-out hammer really prevents the maddening flameouts of chopping off of one's hand, among other things...can't decide if that's a good or bad thing.
posted by jmd82 at 8:00 PM on June 15, 2005


Matt,

This is Alex posting.


No offense but the Poltroon account hasn't exactly been a very helpful account around here.

===

That said, I hadn't looked over the whole Terri Shaivo thread, and I guess it's a good thing. I didn't Divine_whino linked to Witty's comment (Alex Reynolds I think) and I thought it was way beyond the pale for the blue. I thought maybe the people linking to it didn't have any MeTa posts left so I posted it. Maybe flagging it would have been enough.

Really, I wish people would take more responsibility for the site; it's as useful as we make it. I find the one-liner jokes hilarious, personally, but the acrimony around here these days is just incredibly tedious. Metafilter is a very cool site. We have a community of intelligent, interesting people and we can say whatever we want. But in order to keep that, we all need to keep our heads on and not let a single irritant flair up into some sort of crazy-ass train wreak ignore the trolls. The sorts of crybaby flameouts ruin the site for everyone. They're just not worth it, I think.
posted by delmoi at 8:25 PM on June 15, 2005


er, I made a few errors in the above post.

That said, I hadn't looked over the whole Terri Shaivo thread, and I guess it's a good thing. I didn't Divine_whino linked to Witty's comment (Alex Reynolds I think) and I thought it was way beyond the pale for the blue.

Should be

That said, I hadn't looked over the whole Terri Shaivo thread, and I guess it's a good thing. Divine_whino linked to Witty's comment, and I thought it was way beyond the pale for the blue.

Also a period between "train wreak" and "ignore the trolls".

*sigh*
posted by delmoi at 8:29 PM on June 15, 2005


mathowie writes "amberglow, your post was loaded with opinion. Some opinion, fine, loads of it pushed on everyone? Sometimes people don't like that."

Sometimes people don't like lots of things. Maybe they'd enjoy "MetaFilter: Best Unicorns and Rainbows and Fluffy Kittens and Other Innocuous Stuff that Offends Nobody on the Web".

amberglow was right on target, and his target included a bunch of ideologues who should have known better than to make medical diagnoses they aren't qualified to make, and some very foolish doctors -- including Dr. Frist -- who would have known better if they'd examined the medical records and not just watched snippets of videos of the brain-dead woman. That sort of quackery, making medical diagnoses based on ideology instead of medical facts, needs and deserves to be called out, and more power to amberglow for doing it.

I understand the money-changers were upset too, when Jesus "pushed his opinion on everybody" and whipped them out of the Temple.
posted by orthogonality at 8:30 PM on June 15, 2005


That sort of quackery, making medical diagnoses based on ideology instead of medical facts, needs and deserves to be called out

I think you forgot something, there. Here's the amended sentence:

"That sort of quackery, making medical diagnoses based on ideology instead of medical facts, needs and deserves to be called out on amberglow's blog.
posted by shmegegge at 8:40 PM on June 15, 2005


Sometimes people don't like lots of things. Maybe they'd enjoy "MetaFilter: Best Unicorns and Rainbows and Fluffy Kittens and Other Innocuous Stuff that Offends Nobody on the Web".

That is exactly the kind of condescending, patronizing tone Metafilter does not need. If you want to proselytize, orthogonality, GYOB.
posted by mlis at 8:56 PM on June 15, 2005


shmegegge writes "on amberglow's blog."

Perhaps if the Terry Schiavo case had never been discussed on MetaFilter. But in fact it was quite thoroughly discussed here -- and indeed, if I recall correctly, that discussion included comments that relied on the medical quackery.

That made the follow-up fair game -- indeed, it would be a disservice to not do our best to enlighten those discussants who, I'm sure through no fault of their own, inadvertently based their arguments on that quackery.
posted by orthogonality at 9:00 PM on June 15, 2005


also, sgt serenity, why are you getting emails written to Matt Haughey? and posting them here?
posted by shmegegge at 9:00 PM on June 15, 2005


Mid writes "What is the point of allowing sock puppets, again?"

Short of getting a notarized proof of identity at sign up it's pretty impossible to enforce a ban.

orthogonality writes "'MetaFilter: Best Unicorns and Rainbows and Fluffy Kittens and Other Innocuous Stuff that Offends Nobody on the Web'"
I'm only reading this if it includes bunnies with pancakes.
posted by Mitheral at 9:02 PM on June 15, 2005


MLIS writes "That is exactly the kind of condescending, patronizing tone Metafilter does not need."

I'm sorry, that sincerely wasn't meant as condescending or patronizing. Perhaps I'd have better put it, "Truth will always offend somebody, but we do them and ourselves a disservice if we restrict ourselves to innocuous platitudes because of that, and the grown-ups who frequent MetaFilter can handle real discussions.


"If you want to proselytize, orthogonality, GYOB."

I assume that's not meant as either condescending or patronizing, right?
posted by orthogonality at 9:06 PM on June 15, 2005


orthogonality, I could not disagree more.

First of all: nothing makes excessive editorializing on the front page "fair game." There is no condition which provides the front page as a soapbox for whoever's issue-de-jour, no matter how many times a subject has come up.

Second of all: If you look at amberglow's thoughts on the matter, he said he just wanted to create an UpdateFilter post to discuss the new development. If that had been true, then the post would have said something like "UpdateFilter: Schiavo autopsy reveals [X]" and then left his commentary for inside the thread. But he didn't. Why? Because he decided to turn MeFi into his soapbox, which is not and has never been what MeFi is for. That's what his own blog would be for.

What people say in-thread is one thing, and facilitated discussion is often what posts are for. But fpps have a separate standard, one which amberglow ignored.
posted by shmegegge at 9:09 PM on June 15, 2005


why are you getting emails written to Matt Haughey?
Since when is there a rule that only one person in the world can be called Matt?
posted by dg at 9:37 PM on June 15, 2005


shmegegge writes "Second of all: If you look at amberglow's thoughts on the matter, he said he just wanted to create an UpdateFilter post to discuss the new development. If that had been true, then the post would have said something like 'UpdateFilter: Schiavo autopsy reveals [X]' and then left his commentary for inside the thread. But he didn't. Why? Because he decided to turn MeFi into his soapbox, which is not and has never been what MeFi is for. That's what his own blog would be for."


Let's all agree to ignore the elephant in the room, and maybe it'll disappear. The truth is that there are an infinite number of possible FPPs, and the act of selecting one of those infinite possibilities and making that an FPP draws attention to it, precisely because the poster believes that subject deserves to be up on a soapbox. The act of posting an FPP is "editorializing" in the most basic sense of the word: an editor selects one story out of many because he believes that one story, for whatever reason, deserves a wider audience.

You're criticizing amberglow for being honest about his intentions.

But let us consider another poster's FPPs:
dastardly Electronic Arts killed Origin Systems.... Sure, they had Freelancer, but you couldn't even use a joystick with that game! For a long time, it looked like the decent HOTAS and Sci Fi loving populace would be doomed to wander stickless through the desert of action oriented Space Simulation games.... And the people played it, and it was good.
Sounds like the poster doesn't like Electronic Arts, doesn't enjoy joystick-less games, and does enjoy the game remake he's posting about. Should this poster have "left his commentary for inside the thread" rather than "turn MeFi into his soapbox, which is not and has never been what MeFi is for"?

Or how about this FPP:
[This film is an] animated masterpiece. I wish I could provide more than the material already provided by Andy Baio, but I just felt like you all should see this. It's the true story of Ryan Landis, a brilliant artist devastated by the real world. It's also the story of his impact on the director. That really doesn't do it justice. Please just click. apology inside
I guess the "apology inside" tells us that the poster knew that just because he thinks the film is a "masterpiece" that he feels all of us should see, about an artist he, the poster considers "brilliant", and going so far as to ask us to "[p]lease just click", the poster really knows that that sort of editorializing is "what his own blog would be for"?

Or what about the FPP in which the poster rhapsodizes about an "under-appreciated novel" that has "an entire web site dedicated to simultaneously exalting it and apologizing for it?" The poster even parenthetically tells that one of the stories that pays homage "is fantastic in its own right". Of course, that's fantastic in the poster's personal opinion. Sounds like editorializing to me. Rather than gushing paise on the front page, shouldn't the poster just have pointed us to the web page and "then left his commentary for inside the thread"?

I'd go one, but those three highly editorial posts are the entirety of that poster's FPPs.

I mean really, shmegegge, "[w]hat people say in-thread is one thing, and facilitated discussion is often what posts are for. But fpps have a separate standard, one which [the poster making the FPPs above] ignored.

Don't you think so?
posted by orthogonality at 9:44 PM on June 15, 2005


Metafilter: Just the facts. Leave all your comments at home.
posted by Balisong at 10:01 PM on June 15, 2005


Clearly, there is no difference between saying that you like an animated short, and saying that someone else should be ashamed for the beliefs that they hold about medical care for people in a vegetative state. In the first case, I can learn about a new movie, which either I might like or not. In the second case, I can witness some people get all pissed off and bicker instead of having a tired discussion which has already been had many times before.

Wait, crap, those things aren't the same at all.
posted by 23skidoo at 10:09 PM on June 15, 2005


Since when is there a rule that only one person in the world can be called Matt?

In my memory, the email said "I'd like to thank you for banning me." In reality, it said "I'd like to thank matt." clearly I misread.
posted by shmegegge at 10:19 PM on June 15, 2005


23skidoo writes "there is no difference between saying that you like an animated short, and saying that someone else should be ashamed for the beliefs that they hold about medical care for people in a vegetative state."

The poster's first comment in his post panegyrizing the animated short is
sorry if this falls into the GYOBF category. I honestly just wanted to share it with the community. Any personal touches are more a symptom of my own inability to properly emphasize how incredible this short is.
There is no difference: both posts make a soapbox of MeFi in order to state the poster's personal opinion.

And I have no problem with that, because as I noted, making an FPP, even without adding any editorial copy, is a form of stating an opinion. I brought up the animated short only to point out that the same commenter who claims "[t]here is no condition which provides the front page as a soapbox" and who castigates amberglow for it has repeatedly engaged in the very activity he claims has no excuse.

And to me that smells of self-serving hypocrisy.
posted by orthogonality at 10:23 PM on June 15, 2005


Wow, what an incredibly deceptive and inappropriate reply.

Remember kids, go diving through a poster's history when you have no real reply.

1. My posts were in appreciation of creative works. Show me a definition of "up on a soapbox" that includes the appreciation of creative works and I'll grant you that point. You won't, though, so stay the fuck out of my history, asshole.

2. The animated short fpp had a lot wrong with it, being my whopping 2nd fpp, and I called for deletion MYSELF in the thread.

3. My posts caused no train wrecks.

4. My posts were designed to offend no one.

and last but not least: with the exception of the lame animated short fpp which I myself asked to have deleted, no one could think my posts were excessively editorialized. That's why no one did. If someone had, there'd be a callout, and resultant discussion. The reason there's been a callout and resultant discussion here is because there's ample reason to believe that amberglow editorialized excessively in his post. You're aware of what excessively means, correct?

So let's actually discuss the merits or lack thereof of the post at hand, hm? Your garbage about comparing my posts to amberglow's is obviously bullshit rhetoric and from this point on I'm ignoring it.

In fact, the entirety of your reply is nothing but logical fallacies and history digging.

1. Ignoring the elephant in the room doesn't apply, here, because no one said the topic shouldn't be brought up. The post is criticized because it editorializes excessively (by me) and because it may be trolling (others brought this up) and because the post itself is little more than newsfilter (again, others make this argument.) Nobody says the topic shouldn't be discussed.

2. The act of posting an FPP is "editorializing" in the most basic sense of the word:

This is bullshit, and you know it. Please look up "excessive." You're well aware of the kind of shit that the community doesn't like to see on the front page, and this "but what IS editorializing" spew of yours is nothing short of vapid rhetoric designed to deviate from the issue at hand.

If you decide to continue this, then try actually discussing the merits of the post in question, stay out of my history, and stop being such an asshole.
posted by shmegegge at 10:42 PM on June 15, 2005


shmeg, the point is people's opinion will be present in their FPPs. The question of what's 'excessive' and what's not is essentially up to mathowie. We could argue all day but this "just the facts, ma'am" notion for FPPs is silly. As for amberglow's post, mathowie made the right call. There was a lot of heat and anger in the post, yes. But that's not such a bad thing. I honestly wouldn't mind if people showed more emotional y2karl-style tendencies in their posts. It's a good thing to be passionate or outraged about something. But amberglow wasn't attacking anybody. The post wasn't designed to provoke anybody. It wasn't designed to become any sort of pile-on. Essentially, the post wasn't a troll.

If idiots like dios and Witty (who really are trolls and want nothing more than to provoke and attack others and aren't interested in any sort of discussion) hadn't shown up it's quite possible cooler heads would've parsed out amberglow's outrage and discussed both the Schiavo case and the media tactics used by the 'pro-lifers'. (In fact this is just what I wanted to post about before I saw the thread go nuclear). That meltdown wasn't amberglow's fault, it was the fault of 3 or 4 idiots who went into the thread intent on causing a meltdown.
posted by nixerman at 11:13 PM on June 15, 2005


Newsflash:

The coroner's autopsy reveals that Metafilter was blind and had less than half a brain to share amongst the community. There was never any hope for recovery from it's persistently vegetative state. More news at 11.

Now, stay tuned for fireworks from the MeTa parade of sanctimonious assholes. Featuring all the usual suspects.

...

Half the fun of reading the blue is dropping into obviously trollish FPPs to watch you monkeys sling shit at each other.
posted by C.Batt at 11:13 PM on June 15, 2005


orthogonality : "it would be a disservice to not do our best to enlighten those discussants who, I'm sure through no fault of their own, inadvertently based their arguments on that quackery."

Exactly. And that's the issue. If amberglow had just posted a link to whatever medical findings were out there, folks would be enlightened and less of this would have happened. It's the editorializing that caused part of the blast of the explosion to reflect back on amberglow.

Amberglow's post read:
UpdateFilter: Schiavo autopsy results --contrary to those who used this poor shell of a woman as a political football and fundraiser, Schiavo was not abused, was blind so could not possibly have seen a balloon or her loved ones, and had a brain half the normal weight that was massively and irreversibly damaged. previous posts here--and just one example of the many many lies printed about her and her husband here. Some people should really be ashamed of themselves.
If the goals are enlightening folks with the wrong ideas about the case, it could have read:
UpdateFilter: Schiavo autopsy report results. She was not abused, she was blind, and her brain was half the normal weight of a brain. Previous posts here
See? Exact same linked materials, exact same amount of enlightening, but nobody would be calling amberglow out for GYOB. The stuff in the thread might still have happened, but amberglow's framing didn't really start things on the right foot.

orthogonality : "The act of posting an FPP is 'editorializing' in the most basic sense of the word: an editor selects one story out of many because he believes that one story, for whatever reason, deserves a wider audience. "

If we take it to be true, then basically the situation is: by merely posting, amberglow is editorializing. By adding additional editorial content, it's going over the top. It's like putting sugar in your icecream. It is, in fact, one of the better arguments against editorializing in FPPs: merely writing one is already editorializing. Adding editorial content is the written equivalent of clobbering someone about the head with it.

orthogonality : "I'd go one, but those three highly editorial posts are the entirety of that poster's FPPs."

Good point. While above I say that any editorializing is taking it over the top, those three examples seemed fine to me. So, on reflection, it seems that the editorializing that takes it over the top is editorializing aimed at other posters. Praising a movie, vilifying EA, and praising an underappreciated novel are not editorials against anyone here, while saying "you should be ashamed of yourselves" is.

Does that mean that you can't say anything that other people disagree with, or that attacks a position they may have? Of course not. This is not unicornfilter. It just means you should have more tact about it. Put your own opinion inside, instead of on the blue. Or let the facts speak for yourself, if the case is strong enough (as this one is). Or choose your words more carefully.
posted by Bugbread at 11:39 PM on June 15, 2005


bugbread, the question is, who was amberglow's editorializing aimed at? It wasn't other posters. As far as I see, amberglow's "editorializing" was a basic expression of outrage and disgust. If amberglow's post had been a troll, an explicit attempt to provoke others into futile arguments, that would be one thing. But this claim of "excessive editorializing" is missing the points. Some issues need to be heavily editorialized. And some people will always find a post to be too editorialized e.g. posts about the Holocaust and Holocaust Deniers. Expressing outrage in FPPs isn't a problem. Having an opinion, particularly a strong one, is also not a problem. Editorializing becomes a problem only when the poster is trolling, something which (I think) amberglow wasn't doing.

And really, I don't think the post would've gone all that different even if amberglow had toned it down. You would've had the same boring people come in and complain about NewsFilter followed, predictably, by the boring crowd to complain about DrudgeFilter and then the trolls would've seen this as an opportunity to jump in and get a few licks in--better yet, under the pretense of "saving" the blue--and you'd be on your way to trainwreckville later, perhaps, rather than sooner.
posted by nixerman at 11:51 PM on June 15, 2005


also, sgt serenity, why are you getting emails written to Matt Haughey? and posting them here?

I think maybe it was because alex reynolds got to reply in the thread , there was a bit of thread envy going on maybe.
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:28 AM on June 16, 2005


bugbread, the question is, who was amberglow's editorializing aimed at?

No, that's not the question. The question is "should such excessive editorializing have been in the post in the first place?"

But this claim of "excessive editorializing" is missing the points.

No, it's precisely the point.

Some issues need to be heavily editorialized.

No, they don't.

Editorializing becomes a problem only when the poster is trolling,

I disagree. editorializing becomes a problem when, either because of or despite the best intentions of the poster, the entire thread is derailed from the word go. A good way to look at it, in my opinion, is that editorializing becomes a problem when it says that it's not ok to see things a certain way. That's what amberglow's post did, and that's the problem. Like I said, it's unreasonable to expect anything worthwhile to come from an fpp worded that way. He practically begged for a trainwreck, whether intentionally or no. My problem isn't with his intentions. My problem is that it's a crap post. Whether by accident or no, I think posts that are THAT shitty need to be deleted. It's one of the worst MetaFilter threads in recent memory, and it's largely because of the post's wording. You can say that, as long as no one sunk to the level of the original post, that thread should have been fine all you want. It doesn't change the fact that a good portion of what went wrong in there started with amberglow. Speculation about what would have happened in there if the post had been worded better is not only baseless, but also historically inaccurate, since (even though there have been some nasty things said in Schiavo threads, here) there hasn't been one quite that useless. There hasn't been one that quite so neatly embodied the worst side of MetaFilter.

Mind you, I agree with amberglow's side of the schiavo controversy. So this isn't me making a fuss because of a dissenting viewpoint or anything.
posted by shmegegge at 2:40 AM on June 16, 2005


sgt serenity:

yeah, I actually thought that the email you posted was adressed to Matt Haughey, and I got all confused. Sorry about that.
posted by shmegegge at 2:41 AM on June 16, 2005


...and I actually thought you were joking. Witty really sent you that email?
posted by timeistight at 2:43 AM on June 16, 2005


oh, and nixerman:

The question of what's 'excessive' and what's not is essentially up to mathowie. We could argue all day but this "just the facts, ma'am" notion for FPPs is silly.

So, what, are we never supposed to talk about these things anymore? As I understand it, MeTa is here precisely for us to talk about these things, and to some extent our discussion informs #1's decision. So, the question of what's "excessive" and what's no is essentially up for discussion. Furthermore, as I've already stated, my position is not one of "just the facts, ma'am." My position is "just not the offensive self-righteous editorializing, ma'am." There are a ton of posts that express opinions around here, and in most call-out threads I defend the poster. This particular post was utter crap in almost every conceivable way, and it resulted in 3 temporary bans. There is every reason to believe the post has something to do with that.
posted by shmegegge at 2:46 AM on June 16, 2005


Hey I just got an e-mail from Mathowie! -

Dear kid,

Fuck, you're really looking beautiful tonight. I don't usually single out people who never fucking post here for this kind of attention, but I just wanted to tell you what a great big dick you have and how much I love you.

Peace,

Matt


Hey, right back at ya buddy.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 3:42 AM on June 16, 2005


Cueing the one who got an email from Terry Schiavo in 3...2...1...
posted by dflemingdotorg at 3:52 AM on June 16, 2005


Right, the e-mail to sgt. is fake. Right? It's a joke: ha ha he's gay. If so, isn't that exaclty the sort of thing the others were timed-out for?

If it's real -- sorry. It sure looks fake.

Also, couldn't Matt prevent many sock puppets by doing an IP check? Or by showing a "last logged IP" in the profile? I know this wouldn't be perfect, but it might help.
posted by Mid at 4:09 AM on June 16, 2005


MetaFilter: dropping into obviously trollish FPPs to watch you monkeys sling shit at each other

schmegegge: your 20k+ is showing. ;-P
posted by mischief at 4:15 AM on June 16, 2005


I agree that amberglow's fpp needed some editorializing to put it into context, but I also think that it would have been better to tone it down a bit. If he really wanted to let loose it would have been best saved for a post within the thread where it likely would have attracted less negative attention. The real blame lies not with amberglow's post, but rather with the attacks and counter-attacks that followed. People complain all the time about posts, but not with that much vitriol. A lot of simmering resentment from prior battles seemed to come out quite negatively.
posted by caddis at 4:40 AM on June 16, 2005


nixerman writes "And really, I don't think the post would've gone all that different even if amberglow had toned it down. You would've had the same boring people come in and complain about NewsFilter followed, predictably, by the boring crowd to complain about DrudgeFilter and then the trolls would've seen this as an opportunity to jump in and get a few licks in--better yet, under the pretense of 'saving' the blue--and you'd be on your way to trainwreckville later, perhaps, rather than sooner."

Unfortunately we'll never know, which is one of the reasons that restraint on all sides should be a guiding principle. To me the comments inside the thread were egregious and way beyond the bounds of the type of decorum I'd like to see around here. The FPP was certainly pointed, but this thread has become largely a discussion of that, when, pointed or not, the FPP didn't name other members by name, didn't deploy personal attributes as personal attacks, didn't showcase homophobia, etc. Had it been less pointed, though, we may well have seen all of the same posters shitting in all of the same ways, without them having recourse to the lame excuse that the FPP was too outrageous for them to control themselves. Then we would be having the proper conversation in this thread.

Not incidentally, I'm much more impressed by folks who manage to ignore those who clearly perennially piss them off than I am by those who take every opportunity to re-engage in the scab-picking goodness that makes MetaFilter so unpleasant at times.
posted by OmieWise at 4:44 AM on June 16, 2005


Oops, on preview: said better and with fewer words by caddis.
posted by OmieWise at 4:45 AM on June 16, 2005


nixerman : "And really, I don't think the post would've gone all that different even if amberglow had toned it down...and you'd be on your way to trainwreckville later, perhaps, rather than sooner."

Don't get me wrong, I don't put the blame on amberglow for how the thread turned out; I suspect that a few trolls would have destroyed it pretty quickly anyway. However, if that were the case, we'd all be complaining about the trolls, and not amberglow. The thread was destined for failure, but amberglow didn't help.

And if it was on the train for wrecksville later rather than sooner, that would be a nice thing as well. After all, in a similar way, we all know one day we're all going to die, but generally we consider it a good thing if it's later rather than sooner.

On preview:

OmieWise : "Had it been less pointed, though, we may well have seen all of the same posters shitting in all of the same ways, without them having recourse to the lame excuse that the FPP was too outrageous for them to control themselves. Then we would be having the proper conversation in this thread."

Said better and with fewer words by OmieWise and Caddis.
posted by Bugbread at 4:49 AM on June 16, 2005


Also a period between "train wreak"

er, that would be "train reek". thank you.
posted by quonsar at 5:37 AM on June 16, 2005


What the hell is that smell?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:33 AM on June 16, 2005


Feel free to lock this and my other accounts

Accounts plural? Jesus Christ. I couldn't give a fig about amberglow's over-editorialising, really, but having multiple accounts (which in AlexReynolds' case can only be for polyphonic grudgematch bleating) is wrong and bad and should be stopped.
posted by jack_mo at 7:09 AM on June 16, 2005


dios writes "Maybe there could be some sort of threshold flag system built in. Like if something is flagged 20 times it goes away."

There is an old saying that goes "be careful what you wish for."
posted by terrapin at 7:29 AM on June 16, 2005


but having multiple accounts (which in AlexReynolds' case can only be for polyphonic grudgematch bleating) is wrong and bad and should be stopped.

PUH-LEEZE. This is going to turn into a "cast the first stone" scenario. I bet mathowie has a sock puppet account.

When Zeus wanted to know what was going on among the mortals, he would take on the guise of a mortal. What better way for mathowie to judge how the membership treats new users than to assume the guise of one.
posted by mlis at 7:30 AM on June 16, 2005 [1 favorite]


That meltdown wasn't amberglow's fault

Right, because nothing is ever amberglow's fault. It's all the fault of those moneychangers in the temple: there is no Jesus but amberglow, and orthogonality is his prophet.

Once again, we see the double standard: as long as you're on the correct side (and we all know that on MeFi, that ain't the right side), anything goes. But if you have Bad Thoughts, no matter how polite and well-spoken you are, you must be whipped and cast out of the temple. Get with the program, people! See the Light!
posted by languagehat at 7:33 AM on June 16, 2005


Witty really sent you that email?

This is why we can't have ironic things.
posted by soyjoy at 7:51 AM on June 16, 2005


Dear Adult People;

Your outrage and righteous anger, while admirable, are sadly misguided. If you saved it for issues that really matter you might actually do some good, but quoting each other endlessly and nitpicking on wording makes you sound petty and foolish. My god--it's like walking into the middle of some sort of faculty meeting from hell!

Please stop it and go back to making the world a better place.

Thank you.
posted by leftcoastbob at 9:24 AM on June 16, 2005


Me: Witty really sent you that email?

soyjoy: This is why we can't have ironic things.

I knew it was a joke, soyjoy, but other folks seemed to be taking it seriously. I probably should have written "Witty didn't really send you that email, did he sarge?"

Mid: It's a joke: ha ha he's gay. If so, isn't that exaclty the sort of thing the others were timed-out for?

Everyone gets a free pass to insult witty.
posted by timeistight at 9:50 AM on June 16, 2005


I don't have a sock puppet account and it bothers me that other members do. The presumption that Matt has one makes no difference to how I feel about regular members having them. Matt's got a real need to be able to pass among his peoples without their knowing that he's the guy with the banhammer in his back pocket.

Which, by the way, loses most of its bite if the bannee can just sign in to another of their accounts and continue to be an asshole. Maybe it turns into a MeFi Whack-a-Troll game and Matt's just laughing and laughing and laughing as he bops the sock puppets on the head. But I doubt it.
posted by fenriq at 9:56 AM on June 16, 2005


Clearly the solution is to purge the users table and start the site over. WELCOME TO THE YEAR 0, MOTHERBITCHES
posted by darukaru at 10:05 AM on June 16, 2005


What sort of world do we live in, where people don't know the difference between "isle" and "aisle"? Oh, the humanity.
posted by anapestic at 10:53 AM on June 16, 2005


i never cared for the isle brothers
posted by quonsar at 11:11 AM on June 16, 2005


No FPP is an isle?
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 11:15 AM on June 16, 2005


Isle be seeing you.
posted by languagehat at 11:27 AM on June 16, 2005


I agree that sock puppets are bad and that it is sort of inexplicable that Matt seems to permit them. I don't know what possible benefit it brings to the community to permit someone to don different identities when speaking.

The technical objections--it would be hard to ban socks--don't really explain why we don't have a rule against them anyway. We have lots of norms against behaviors that are impossible to prevent through technical fixes.
posted by Mid at 11:30 AM on June 16, 2005


Heere on Gilligan's Aisle....
posted by jonmc at 11:45 AM on June 16, 2005


*Aisle be seeing you, in all the old familiar places...*
posted by Cyrano at 12:08 PM on June 16, 2005


*misses migs*
posted by sgt.serenity at 1:22 PM on June 16, 2005


When i first saw you something stirred within me , you were standing softly in the rain ........
If i could have held you .....i would have helped you rip it up and start again........
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:07 PM on June 16, 2005


People who do not have at least two user names are losers.
posted by bargle at 2:36 PM on June 16, 2005


The act of posting an FPP is "editorializing" in the most basic sense of the word: an editor selects one story out of many because he believes that one story, for whatever reason, deserves a wider audience.

No, that's editing. Note that editors might work on any section of a publiction, rather than just the Editorial section.

Posting something because you think the content of the link is neat or worth seeing is wholly in line with the idea of Metafilter. Affirming that by pointing out that you think the thing you're pointing to is, while redundant, pretty much in line with the idea of Metafilter.

Referencing the thing you're linking too with negative, emotionally charged, partisan statements? Making your feelings about the subject primary and the linked content no more than justification for your statement of opinion? Not so much in line.

^^ NOT ROCKET SCIENCE
posted by cortex at 2:37 PM on June 16, 2005


Witty!
posted by bargle at 2:40 PM on June 16, 2005


This is why we can't have ironic things. - by soyjoy

Bwhahahahahaha. Hee.

sgt.serenity: *misses migs*

Ye gods, me too. There's so many old Mefites that I miss...but he's top of the list. Evan is a close second.

As to sock puppets, I'm against them. Down with the evil puppets!
posted by dejah420 at 2:55 PM on June 16, 2005


Once again, we see the double standard: as long as you're on the correct side (and we all know that on MeFi, that ain't the right side), anything goes. But if you have Bad Thoughts, no matter how polite and well-spoken you are, you must be whipped and cast out of the temple. Get with the program, people! See the Light!

Well I'm glad that's finally cleared up.
posted by sic at 3:30 PM on June 16, 2005


amberglow was right on target, and his target included a bunch of ideologues who should have known better than to make medical diagnoses they aren't qualified to make, and some very foolish doctors

There is no target on metafilter. There's good links and bad ones. This one was bad.

I understand the money-changers were upset too, when Jesus "pushed his opinion on everybody" and whipped them out of the Temple.
posted by orthogonality


Great comparison. Amberglow and jesus. Turn off the computer go outside...
posted by justgary at 3:36 PM on June 16, 2005


Well, they're both Jewish. I'm just sayin'. Although, I have great difficulty imagining amberglow doing carpentry.
posted by jonmc at 4:29 PM on June 16, 2005


You sock puppet accountholders will be first up against the wall when the revolution finally comes. You bastards.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:39 PM on June 16, 2005


Yeah, both of you
posted by dodgygeezer at 5:06 PM on June 16, 2005


You sock puppet accountholders will be first up against the wall when the revolution finally comes.

I.e., when hell freezes over.
posted by timeistight at 5:11 PM on June 16, 2005


he did turn alligator into soup in my presence.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:25 PM on June 16, 2005


Although, I have great difficulty imagining amberglow doing carpentry.

I'm bad at that stuff, but i've actually put up walls, with metal studs and drywall. : >
posted by amberglow at 5:43 PM on June 16, 2005


Well, then, I'm craving a fish sandwich. Can you throw something together?
posted by jonmc at 5:59 PM on June 16, 2005


*open can of Starkist, passes it over with some bread*
posted by amberglow at 6:44 PM on June 16, 2005


Oy gevalt, a miracle, you call this?
posted by jonmc at 6:45 PM on June 16, 2005


metal studs

buff dudes in sleeveless Metallica wifebeaters.
posted by quonsar at 6:51 PM on June 16, 2005


Don't sweat it, timeistight, I just grabbed your comment 'cause it was closest. I had already decided I must drop that line after reading the comments upthread, and then when I got to the comment box yours was right there and I was too lazy to scroll up. But now I've made up for my laziness with all this strenuous typing. So I hope we're even.
posted by soyjoy at 7:41 PM on June 16, 2005


whew! I oftentimes revisit threads I've joined in by going to my user profile and clicking the latest comment of mine in the thread then reading from that point on down. Doing that this time revealed to me that I've commented an AWFUL lot in this thread.

I have no idea why I got so riled up. I like amberglow, I agree with this side on the Schaivo issue, and I usually dislike callouts as a rule. At this point, I think I've managed to say only those things I actually believe, thankfully. I also would like the believe that the resultant VERY long conversation was in some way helpful, but it seems unlikely. Either way, if this came off as some kind of tirade against amberglow, I apologize. I suspect the reason I kept going like I did was because I got the impression I was the only one who had a problem with that kind of post, which I found hard to believe. Feeling so solitary in my viewpoint is probably why I kind of dug in and refused to let the issue drop. Either way, it wasn't about any particular posters so much as my feeling on the post, and I hope I haven't offended anyone.

It is, since then, refreshing to see people who seem to feel the same way I do chiming in since then. It makes me feel less like William Shatner in that one Twilight Zone episode.

"No! You don't understand! Amberglow's post is on the wing of the plane, and it's... OH MY GOD!!! IT'S TEARING THE WING APART!"
posted by shmegegge at 11:15 PM on June 16, 2005


I.e., when hell freezes over.

A-yup.

(I was going for a sidelong Hitchhiker's Guide reference there, but I forgive you for missing it.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:42 AM on June 17, 2005


MetaFilter: buff dudes in sleeveless Metallica wifebeaters.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 1:44 AM on June 17, 2005


buff dudes in sleeveless Metallica wifebeaters.

Gee, quonsar, you sure know how to turn a girl on.
posted by deborah at 11:57 AM on June 17, 2005


« Older I can't find the page with google   |   All the usual suspects say all the usual things... Newer »

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