as a mostly a lurker, i still think a fauq might be useful. questions such as "what the haystack was the whole bphd banning about", "is there any way possible to try and keep up if you only have 17 or 18 hrs a day to check the threads" linger after months of lurking.
You can download the video on your friendly neighborhood bittorrent or favorite file-sharing network, which would give you a vastly better idea. If you're one of those people all about the "legal" you can Netflix or rent or whatever the SNL "Best Of Christopher Walken" collection. The sketch is about seven years old, after all.
matty, the way to keep up with the threads that you miss the first 100 comments to is to either a) ignore that anyone has commented already and respond directly to the post, b) read all the comments and realize that everything was said by comment 25, or c) wait for the next open thread post to be started published. Of course, there is d) NOTA as well.
It may help to remember that in the age of the internets and text messaging, whole traditions of academic discourse have been boiled down to a few letters.
For example, there's a traditional form of review: "While Professor X's monograph can't pretend to be comprehensive in only 14,827 pages, it is perhaps disingenuous of him not to have noted that his entire argument was anticipated and answered by Professor Y in his paper of 1937 (available only in mimeo, in the original !Kung, translation in press)."
Oooh, I feel so empowered and stuff. And Pwned; on a certain level I feel Pwned.
Is there no room on Unfogged for random kitten links? Random kitten links appear to be the backbone of the internet. Every site with the random kitten links as the gilded path to regulardom. But no, not the Unfogged.
Perhaps it is this fanatical anti-kitten link policy at Unfogged that makes necessary how-to comment guides in the MSM.
Oh yes, now that I am thinking about it, using MSM ironically is like random kitten links, only without the kittens or links. Right, and using the word "ironically" ironically; but then no one knows what you are talking about.
Hello, Matthew Harvey! I used to read Brunching Shuttlecocks when I was in college so Lore Sjöberg brings back happy associations for me. Brunching had some pretty funny stuff in its day. (I was actually thinking about them not too long ago.)
Yeah, I should have remembered that because I almost commented on that post with something trenchant like: "I like the Brunching Shuttlecocks too! Hurr hurr hurrr.."
You know what convinced me that intelligent design theory doesn't hold up? A combination of seasonal allergies and wisdom teeth. Where was the intelligent designer on that one, huh? Or is he in the pocket of [the company that makes Claritin] and the dental surgeon's lobby?
I got banned because I annoyed Ogged beyond endurance. Then after about a year we both cooled off (he from being annoyed, me from being stubborn and refusing not to annoy him because, you know, there was a *principle* involved), and we got back together.
Yes, I am Ogged's new girlfriend. It's just like a sitcom relationship: you hate one another until finally, one day, you realize you are Deeply in Love.
Alas, my friend, the opera singer who wants a rich boyfriend, just broke up with her long term boyfriend with whom she had the charmingest love hate backstory: Just like Anne and Gilbert (sigh) they had hated each other in high school! Then, six years later, they fell in love.
13: Is there no room on Unfogged for random kitten links? Random kitten links appear to be the backbone of the internet
no, we traffic in bunny slippers here.
What was the name of hat woman on Frasier who had been on Designing Women? And Laura Linney's character? Maybe I could be like Laura Linney's character--though I wouldn't want to be the amazing but ultimately fleeting love of anyone's life.
apo, I'm confused about where I saw your link to Max Sawicky, but I thought that his commenter's line was pure Mineshaft: "Boehner comes from the rear."
But who will lay claim to rhe role of Carla? I can think of many male and female commenters here who would fit it at least in part but I don't think there is a precise fit. I am liking my idea though of having characters from the old sitcoms wander into the Cheers set and drink, banter, schmooze, fondle, come perhaps to blows.
You people (you know who you are) dismissed matty's suggestion far too quickly. An FAQ is a brilliant way to not only relive all the old jokes but to codify them in a manner guaranteed to provide even more humor for hours to come. For example, in this thing that I did sometime back when I did things of that sort:
What do you mean by "Pascuccing"?
I don't know. Seems made up to me.
This FAQ sucks.
That's not a question. And fuck you.
Great times were had by all. Not only that, since the explanations only further inned the proprietary humor of the original joke, your new anti-FAQ provides the opportunity to create increasingly elaborate in-wit, thereby accelerating the birth of your very own creole. I say go for it.
(And no, I don't what's up with that text. There's no reason it should look like that...and yet it does.)
I seem to have that effect on people. After all, I am Mr. Office Sex Man. (That should also clear up what I would've taken to be the non-issue of my gender.)
Oh, and I vote UNFAQQED. But I'm not going to try to un-double q that acronym.
since my first stumble in here a few months ago, i've felt that hanging out here is the equivalent of adding an extra 5 credits already. mayhap it just comes natural for some of you, or after enough time (does one put ATM here? see, i'm a babe in the woods) one just becomes comfortable, but with the fun of finding (insert whatever adjective is apropos for blowing smoke up your ass) people comes the desire to put enough time in to not be "that guy." to varying degrees of success, no doubt.
also, just finding a thread where long-running themes are explained is tough. it can be a little intimidating when some threads are almost entirely carried out in meta-links to threads long past. and not all of us have the kotsko fellowship.
ATM = Automated Teller Machine, obviously. But unfogged doesn't charge any additional fees for withdrawals and deposits, IYKWIM.
IYKWIM: If You Kick Wild Insects Maliciously. Unfogged's ATMs are outfitted with cameras to monitor this behavior. Failure to kick insects maliciously will result in extra fees.
Jeez, give a n00b a clue and he just starts showing off.
(Kidding, matty! go steelers!)
The Kotsko Fellowship, of course, is the scruffy band that Kotsko has established at the Weblog, come together to defeat the Troll of Sorrow and destroy the One Ring -- what kind of ring it is, you don't want to know.
Oh, my anti-FAQ stance isn't about keeping new people out. It's just that the nature of in-jokes is to be "in"--they're simply not as much fun if they're spelled out, or whatever. It ruines the joy of discovery.
In all seriousness, I think the *major* issue in getting new commenters is simply acknowledging them when they comment. Unfogged has always been really bad about that, actually, and people who get up the courage to make overtures to an obviously tight-knit group will tend to take lack of acknowledgment as unwelcoming (which it is).
weiner, thanks for the hot leads. those long running jokes can prove impressively long-running.
i'd assumed the fellowship was an academic stipend to read comments. and thus my plans for another degree are dashed.
and after a few moments of playing with the preview button, my embarassment at realizing how obvious the strike tag should be is second only to my joy at having the power to actualize long-denied hegemony use it. must. exercise. restraint.
also, is it fun for the former novices to start feeling old hat? or is it more along the lines of "it ruins my in-crowd feeling to spell out obscure in-joke x, which was so cleverly developed w/o resorting to vulgar exposition"?
Dr. B.'s correct in this matter (and many other besides). Were it not for my obscence sense of self-worth, I wouldn't have the nerve to comment here every three weeks or so. Sure, no one's ever patted me on the back, offered me a couple of shots and said "Scott, we're damn glad to have you." But I've such an inflated self of my own importance that I'm willing to be shunned by the peanut gallery. What's there to lose beside my self-respect?
is it fun for the former novices to start feeling old hat? or is it more along the lines of "it ruins my in-crowd feeling to spell out obscure in-joke x, which was so cleverly developed w/o resorting to vulgar exposition"?
I think, honestly, that it's mostly that spelling out obscure in-jokes is, imho, completely at odds with the nature of Unfogged. What makes this place unlike every other blog on the web is not only incredibly smart commenters (other places have that too) but a particularly well-developed sense of trust--which includes the ability to give one another a hrad time--and a facility for intricate wordplay, both of which create a certain opacity to outsiders. We can try to get rid of the opacity, but I think in so doing we are likely to sacrifice the things that make the place special. On the other hand, saying hi to people when they show up, I think, is simply polite.
Ben, I've observed it. Mr. B. took forever to get an acknowledgement--not a "welcome, good chap!" but simply a response to something he said. He was worried about it, but I said, "don't be, that's just how the place is. Keep hanging out and eventually you'll be accepted." Ash wasn't acknowledged for ages, either.
so apparently the preview button lets you see that someone has already answered a question you were going to ask. duly noted.
as for not recognizing a new poster...i felt like it was an issue, but its hard to tell what that does or doesn't indicate. i suppose that those who persevere are forged through fire and strengthened, separated from the passersby chaff, and are then able to contribute, and to avoid stupid metaphors. and "oh i miss blogger's 'this post has been removed by the author' function" comments.
fwiw, as a several-month lurker, it feels easier to comment since ogged left. not (NOT) b/c he's gone, but i felt like the established roles got mixed up, and the chaos bred crisatunity. that said, i have a surprising sense of regret at missing out on commenting during the ogged era (so random, so mean, so funny), and moreso about missing a meetup in nyc 2 blocks away from casa matty.
I know I personally must have commented a bunch of times before I ever got a response or acknowledgement of anything I said. Not that I particularly cared, but I did notice.
This was not my experience at all, at all. I found this comments section more immediately welcoming than just about any other I have joined in my days of posting on the Internet forums.
97 would've been so much better had it pertained to 9 instead of 95. And by "better" I mean "amusingly insulting."
And Dr. B.'s right: you people are scum who never acknowledge our newbie brilliance. So, uh, why don't we just kick these Unf and Ogged fellows out as retribution. Who's with me?
See, that's what I'm saying, Matty. I think that the "random, mean, funny" thing--which I hope we don't lose--is at odds with being an open book. I'm hoping that we can keep being random, mean, and funny and tweak it just a bit by saying "hi" when new people have the courage to say hi (which hopefully others will see, and take courage from), but yeah: elitist it may be, but I'd hate to change the very nature of the place.
then again, i don't count, yet. and i also didn't offer you a shot yet. i still don't quite understand how the anonymity thing works around here. also, since your "here" seems to be irvine, it'll probably have to be virtual.
while it obviously didn't stop me from coming around (nor drinking way too much caffeine and deluding the site w/ enough posts that i wonder if i should get help before i become the first newbanee), i think that may have been the first time a comment of mine was referenced explicitlym save for the time ash (rightly, i reckon) smacked me down after a sad drunken comment. and again, its not that i took silence to mean i wasn't welcome, but perhaps a sign that the lurker leagues might be better for me.
My first few comments also got very little response (except for one), and I'm only now starting to feel like a regular. It certainly does seem like we're getting a lot more new commenters since ogged left; that may just be from the avalanche of new posts, though.
I'll also say that I think that that kind of jocular insult is something guys do a lot more than women, and I'm interested to see what happens to it now that the Unfogged posters are mostly chicks. Then again, the women here are, by virtue of self-selection, the kind of women who *like* that kind of male atmosphere, so I don't think it's gonna go away any time soon. But I'll lay odds that people will be far less likely to start making fun of, say, Tia's sex life or LB's labia than we were about Ogged's Tivo or Labs' enormous cock.
becks / docB: i think i see what you're saying. if everyone who stumbled in here was embraced and asked to stick around, it would lose the elitist charm. and if someone wants atrios, stuff on my cat, or hugs not drugs, they're certainly better off there.
i guess its just a little weird that even after lurking for quite a while, i thought i knew what "resetting the tivo" meant, but i wasn't at all sure, nor was i sure that it actually meant anything besides a meta-in-joke (still amn't). which i'm all for, but sometimes the "you just had to be there" can last an awful long time.
plus, despite the general ornery nature and willingness to toss daggers at regulars, given that a new commenter isn't likely to see a response of "that is stupid, and you are well advised to look elsewhere for your jollies. plus, you're banned", silence can seem like its saying that.
Vis-a-vis 106, but Dr. B., I'm a known quantity. Most of the people who comment here comment elsewheres I also comment or contribute to. It's not like they let just anyone contribute to The Valve. (What do you mean that link won't resolve. Did you break the Valve? Who's going to inform the Spigot. Not me, I tell you.) But seriously, or as seriously as my silly self can be this evening, I'm not sure I'm the best test case around, since I'm not exactly stature-less. I'm not as well-known generally as I am in my head, but you and ben and, well, you and ben show up in elsewheres I frequent, so I'm comfortable jumping in. I'm sure if I were otherwise anonymous I'd be intimidated jumping into the middle of this perpetually ongoing conversation...which is why I think something that'll grease the wheels for other worthy folks wouldn't be a terrible idea.
I also think of matty as a regular. He's earned it. And the way to learn the in-jokes is to read all of every thread that's linked in the comments. Seriously. That's what I've been doing and it's remarkably successful (though time-consuming).
You know what's sort of funny? When I first commented under my old pseudonym, ogged welcomed me immediately; when I first commented as eb after retiring the old pseudonym, Wolfson accused me of trolling. I don't think I was really a regular until a while after commenting as eb, but I'd been around for a while.
Yeah, but as he pointed out, ppl knew his name. And, more to the point, I'd argue, he started off with a joke. We like jokes, especially the self-deprecating kind.
Also silvana, I should have acknowledged it at the time, but I really appreciated this comment. Although I've probably since gone overboard with the poetry rip-offs.
135: Wow. That was a long time ago. I didn't realize I was commenting back then.
But I did always like that poem, both the original and the spoof. Although spoof is not the word I'm looking for. More like homage, but that's not right either.
Unfogged has always been really bad about that, actually, and people who get up the courage to make overtures to an obviously tight-knit group will tend to take lack of acknowledgment as unwelcoming (which it is).
Oh. My. Gawd. There are going to be knitting circles, aren't there?
everyone being nice to me: thanks, and i appreciate the welcome, really. i feel like the prettiest girl ATM.
i had enough ego and inflated self regard (also, i'm somewhat intrigued at the moment w/ wrightian semi-ironic self-effacing braggery - at least that's what i think he was talking about on the bloggingheads while i waited hoping he'd eviscerate kaus) to realize that "not immediately finding a niche" ǂ "unworthy & unwelcome."
i've found following links in threads invaluable, but amazingly hard to follow as they diverge. reminds me of reading choose your own adventure books, and runnning out of fingers to mark the places to go return once i was eaten by scorpions. or the thrill of a play w/in a play.
bphd - i understand completely about the tivo thing, and by that i mean i still don't get it. except i felt weird asking about it and everything else in the zones of In-Joke and pseudo-anonymity. it was only this morning that weiner gave me links to help clear up a couple items of longstanding confusion.
and i repaid it by slutting my knowledge all over. take that, weiner! no honor among matts!
ps - i don't know who's running the site now, but the preview function for comments would be even more excellent if it displayed the post #s as well as the posts. at least as long as "107 to 3 1/3" types run rampant. thanks!
Low, eb, really really low. Trying to use the facts against me. I was mockingly welcomed, you know that as well as I. I didn't feel welcome, except of course my massive ego convinced me I was . . . but not everyone is burdened by such an enlightened self-opinion. Who will speak for the shy people? Who, I ask, WHO?
And as to bands, I don't know. I was told over the phone, but I wasn't listening, and the venue does not appear to be online. Supposedly there are visuals involved. I got the impression that one of the band members is an acquaintance-of-a-friend-of-a-friend, which inclines me to think Quality does not await.
matty, I've thought about the preview #s before, too. When I get around to some mucking, I might do it. I'd also like to see comment links in the RSS feed.
Silvana -- if you like that poem you ought to go hang out at Making Light some. Rarely does a comment thread go by there without somebody working in an homage to Williams. (Not so welcoming to newbies but a nice place to lurk.)
i will repay the kindness repaying betrayal w/ trying to figure out what was going on all those times i was wrong about ogged jokes.
the comment # thing just occured to me b/c by the time i preview a comment, always "97 to 63" seems to pop up. no biggie. funny the things technology can't do.
on my (firefox) browser i see a not-equals. i didn't use script, i cut-and-pasted from the !kung comment. is there a handy reference for scripts that show up for everyone? despite the satisfaction of finally figuring out the strike, a reference would be useful.
matty: i think that may have been the first time a comment of mine was referenced explicitlym save for the time ash (rightly, i reckon) smacked me down after a sad drunken comment.
Er, was that the miner's thing? I wasn't tryin' to slap you down exactly, so much as buck you up.
I'll ask straight out: Gary, why do you consider youth, lack of detailed historical knowledge, or a shortened time perspective to be a moral failing? Why is the above-it-all, omniscient perspective something to be aspired to or to adopt as a persona, rather than just a pose, lacking in humility or self-reflection?
We've all got a lot to learn, but we *already know that*. If you've got something to tell, tell it. If you're tired of doing it, don't do it anymore. Stop complaining!
That question does not make any sense in response to what I wrote. The phrase "any other" implies that this is indeed a member of the set being referenced.
I've been posting for over a year and reading for over two and still I find that I feel like the plain girl at the party. I presume this is due to not having e-mail contacts or hanging around in the chat room. Never really felt like I shouldn't post, though.
And the in-jokes do happen quickly around here. Go out of town for a week? Limited Internet access? Five new in-jokes.
People! I said that I still felt like a troll two days before I was asked to coblog. Further, I'm not even over it now. It's all in your minds!
(Planning a comment where I link to people making jokes about my sex life, perhaps to refute 106, perhaps just as an invitation. Please, crack the whip. IFYKWIM, AITYD.)
(Earnestly, no one hangs out in the chat room I don't think, and I think it's not that you're marginal -- you don't seem so to me, though of course I dig philosophers -- but that at a big party like this there are always gales of laughter coming from the other room, no matter where you're standing.)
I was going to say, "When everyone else has followed Tia away, I'll still be with you by the punch bowl and pretzels, talking philosophy," and then I realized -- OMB, I'm ogged. Which would also account for the no e-mail thing.
And that's another thing! I may get Apo's attention because I'm willing to proposition him, but I often feel too dumb for Unfogged. I don't know anything about philosophy, or symbolic logic, or math, or Latin, or classics...I just get attention with my cock jokes. Secretly I'm looking at you and Weiner and wishing I could be in your conversation.
It could be partly because I never do a good job of explaining it.
Anyway, one of the lovely things about this place is that no one ever gets all the jokes. I feel free to make all sorts of wacky allusions and trust that someone somewhere will appreciate it -- and everyone else will assume I'm drunk.
"I don't think it's an overreaction to that to which I was reacting, which may or may not be 173 simpliciter."
It's quite possible I'm not fully grasping the meaning of "simpliciter" here, as I'm neither a philosophy student nor a college graduate, and my grasp of philosophical terminology is quite shallow and spotty, so I'm relying on various dictionary definitions, but perhaps you could explain to me what I said that caused your name-calling?
A side issue would be my inquiring why if -- as I read you as seeming to suggest here -- it was more than 173, you didn't say so, rather than just quote what you did, and write what you did?
It didn't seem a particularly helpful remark, nor one at all useful in, if we assume arguendo that I somehow deserved it, helping me see the error of my ways, and thus perhaps helping me cease such error.
And it didn't seem terribly nice.
178: "Gary, why do you consider youth, lack of detailed historical knowledge, or a shortened time perspective to be a moral failing?"
I don't.
"Why is the above-it-all, omniscient perspective something to be aspired to or to adopt as a persona, rather than just a pose, lacking in humility or self-reflection?"
They don't.
"We've all got a lot to learn, but we *already know that*. If you've got something to tell, tell it. If you're tired of doing it, don't do it anymore. Stop complaining!"
What is this in regard to?
180: "The phrase 'any other' implies that this is indeed a member of the set being referenced."
So it does. My eye skipped over that. Well, that ruins my feeble little attempted joke. Oh, well. Apologies.
It was just an attempt at a tiny witticism, you know. The usual attempt at wordplay over an opening. In this case, it utterly failed because I read carelessly. My bad.
195: "I don't know anything about philosophy, or symbolic logic, or math, or Latin, or classics"
Ditto. Has anyone called you an "asshole"? It tends to make one feel even worse than just being left alone by the punch bowl and pretzels. It does to me, anyway.
Late to the party/comment thread as usual... (On the other hand, my band rocked last night.)
In all seriousness, I think the *major* issue in getting new commenters is simply acknowledging them when they comment. Unfogged has always been really bad about that, actually, and people who get up the courage to make overtures to an obviously tight-knit group will tend to take lack of acknowledgment as unwelcoming (which it is).
I have to agree way back there with Dr. B, that this is not an overtly welcoming place to new people. I've been reading and commenting for probably close to a year and I still feel like I'm just hopping around the periphery.
(I'm sure having just changed from posting pseudonymously [as Matt #3] to my real name is going to move me back towards the starting line.)
I also think the experience as a new male commenter is quite different from that of a new female commenter. But it's not like you regulars are unwelcoming, and I don't think a formal program of Being Nice to the New People will seem particularly natural. A high barrier to entry probably helps keep the quality high.
Point is, until someone tells me to go away, I'll keep hopping.
"Why is the above-it-all, omniscient perspective something to be aspired to or to adopt as a persona, rather than just a pose, lacking in humility or self-reflection?"
They don't.
My response should, of course, read "It isn't."
Apologies for my carelessness. Also, I have no idea what that's about, and I haven't stopped beating my non-existent wife.
"I have to agree way back there with Dr. B, that this is not an overtly welcoming place to new people."
It did used to be pretty entirely, actually, I'd say, for about close to two years, maybe more, and then in the last year, year and a half, a lot of things changed. Pardigm shift, essentially. These things happen. And it certainly seems to have been a change that Ogged enjoyed and strongly encouraged.
Gary, if it makes you feel any better, I think "asshole" was uncalled for, especially since it seems that we new bloggers should try to aspire to Ogged's model of graciousness (which of course includes making fun of people).
But there's a way you're coming off, which I'm sure you don't intend, which is rankling. Someone makes a very mildly self congratulatory remark ("Only at Unfogged..."), and you rush to inform us that we're exactly like every Usenet forum, etc. The thing is, when people say something like, "Only at Unfogged..." they don't really mean it in the strict logical sense; just that they like the racousness of the conversation here, and the total lack of on topic discipline; that is different from a lot of other blogs, if not Usenet forums.
And besides, it's a little rude. It's like you're in someone's house, and one of the frequent guests says, "Only at your house could I eat such delicous pan seared seitan," and the host says, "Yes, the secret is balsamic vinegar," and you pipe up and say, "You know, you can get seitan this good at every overpriced vegan joint in the West Village. And really I miss it when you used to make tempeh. Tempeh is so much better than seitan, but to each his own. I taught you how to cook, you know. You seem to have deviated from my instruction. I shall have to see if I am interested in this new seitan paradigm, and tolerate eating at your house in the meantime. By the way, why don't you ever come over to my house for dinner?"
173 recalled that previous "only at Unfogged" comment of yours, I think, and also felt like it was taking humorless issue with a distinction someone else was drawing that was in fact pretty clear, because, no, this isn't a forum in the sense that people often mean when they say "internet forum," it's a blog. Maybe you didn't mean it to be humorless, but it sounded that way. You get more credit for being interpreted charitably when a larger proportion of your comments feel like they are good-natured ribbing, rather than telling us all that there's something wrong with this thing that we love, Unfogged.
I was welcomed and responded to immediately when I first started commenting, both the first time, when I posted under a non "Tia" handle, and the second, when I posted as "Tia." That may have been helped by the fact that I had a blog people could click through to to get a sense of me, and it contained some stuff interesting to the average Unfoggeder, i.e., cock jokes. Also, I had a unique and strong perspective on the topics under discussion (as "Tia" it was Nerve dating), which made my comments something that would tend to elicit response. I don't mean to suggest that that's everyone's experience.
I hope not. On the other hand, I think the relative impenetrability of the comments are a big part of why there are so few trolls 'round here. If you want to see legitimate unwelcomingness, try wandering through the soc.motss archives sometime (he said, establishing his Usenet cred).
SB's link in #192 is right on. It is the nature of Unfogged to walk the fine line between insecurity and bravado.
We're all enormous geeks, after all. Otherwise we'd be off doing something else.
I say, give Gary a break. He's obviously feeling very left out of something that's changed a lot since he discovered it. We old people tend to overreact to things.
I think it's just that the trolls are too busy elsewhere on the Internet. Half of the argumentative points made here would be rejoined with a quick 'You only think that because you EAT BABIES' at Washington Monthly or Crooked Timber.
"Gary, if it makes you feel any better, I think "asshole" was uncalled for...."
It does make me feel slightly better; thank you.
"Someone makes a very mildly self congratulatory remark ("Only at Unfogged..."), and you rush to inform us that we're exactly like every Usenet forum, etc."
I thought we were done with that exchange. If we're not, I would offer the suggestion that it might be better to go directly back to it to conclude it, but I suppose that we can just do that here instead; no biggie. Anyway, I don't have anything else to say about it beyond my prior concluding comment in that exchange.
"And besides, it's a little rude. It's like you're in someone's house, and one of the frequent guests says, "Only at your house could I eat such delicous pan seared seitan...."
Just as a datapoint on my perspective, I offer the following. I don't offer it as any sort of attempt to use the information as a club, or as, well, anything other than an attempt to offer an explanation of how it looks and feels from here. Please don't take it as anything more, okay?
From my perspective, which as I said, goes back several weeks before the existence of the site being "opened," to when it was a mere template, which led to many e-mails between Ogged and myself in the month (maybe even six weeks; I'd have to dig up files in the old Pentium I to check) prior to the public opening in late Februrary, 2003, I've been a guest here since that time. I'd note without making any other point, that I've now been here longer than any other human being, without doubt, period (unless Unf shows up again).
Someone who posted as "Magik Johnson" showed up almost immediately (he also was a "Matt"; whether he's the same as one of the later Matts, I have no idea). Apostropher arrived in the first couple of weeks. I've not tracked on who else arrived when and in what order, though it wouldn't be hard to establish in the archives.
But all I'm trying to say is that from my perspective, I've been hanging out at this party for three years (and blogging for considerably longer) and you arrived here as a guest a blink-of-an-eye ago, and now you're a host, which is great, but it's a bit of an adjustment to suddenly being informed of what the new rules of the house are, though since it's your house and not mine, and I am naught but a guest, that's absolutely your privilege and right, and I make no complaint and have no complaint about that.
But it is an adjustment for me to make, and that is all.
"173 recalled that previous 'only at Unfogged' comment of yours, I think,"
I don't see how, but I'll take your word for it.
"...and also felt like it was taking humorless issue with a distinction...."
It was a joke. Which misfired because I missed seeing "other." But an attempted joke, no matter how feeble, no matter how bad, nonetheless.
I don't, of course, contend that your or anyone's perception of it as "humorless" is wrong, since a failed joke that isn't perceived as one is someone's perception, and it remains their perception no matter the intent of the author. But that was, for the record, the intent of the author.
And I'm very unclear as to how it's "humorless" in a way that, say, correcting people's grammar isn't (which I'm perfectly fine with, to be clear; I like clean grammar and all that).
But if my attempts at snappy witticisms and wordplay fail or are off-key or don't fit, admidst the ongoing zeitgeist of humorously intended insults and put-downs, well, then my current attempt to see how I fit in with the new/recent zeitgeist will have shown that result, and I'll have learned that, I guess. I was hoping for a better result, and haven't given up yet, although the abrupt "Wow, Gary, you're an asshole, aren't you?" didn't strike me as particularly humorous or funny or witty or clever or original, or derivative of the contemporary Unfogged zeitgeist, or anything but a sudden and direct slap in the face for no particular reason, I'm afraid.
"...You get more credit for being interpreted charitably when a larger proportion of your comments feel like they are good-natured ribbing, rather than telling us all that there's something wrong with this thing that we love, Unfogged.":
The former was all I was attempting in 173; I apologize that I didn't do a good job of it, but I completely was not, in that comment, at all trying to do the latter, and I still don't see where that reading comes from, though obviously that's a spot of blindness on my part. (To be clear: there's no sarcasm in what I just said or anything I'm saying here; I am being "earnest.")
I'm not sure what else to say. I guess: I'm sorry that my feeble and failed attempt to make a faintly amusing exchange failed so badly, and that I instead wrote something that somehow gave offense, instead. That was not my intent, but since it was the result, I apologize.
"If you want to see legitimate unwelcomingness, try wandering through the soc.motss archives sometime (he said, establishing his Usenet cred)."
Gee, and I just had this page cited to me three days ago on another blog's comments. Among my return comments were "Also just incidentally, me, too; didn't hang out there, but had friends who overlapped, and so occasionally came by to follow a particular thread. And there was a fair amount of overlap with some of the newsgroups I was heavily invested in, including alt.polyamory (where even then, I had long since not done anything polyamorous, but I had in the past, and had a lot of friends in that newsgroup). Just saying in passing." and "Oh, and I saw that soc.motss page a good number of years ago (long since forgot about it), and yes, I find that sort of thing utterly hilarious and enjoyable and not in the least hurtful (as a rule; there can be exceptions, of course, depending)."
Okay, Gary. I wasn't trying to defend Wolfson's response--the opposite--I was just trying to explain what it might have come from. I know you feel a kind of proprietary interest in Unfogged, and no one's trying to drive you out. But even if you built the entire kitchen, speaking only for myself, I still don't like hearing that you don't like seitan, or even that you're not quite sure about seitan yet. I'd prefer you to just try the seitan, and if you don't like it, mention that you have to be up early tomorrow, and it's a long drive back home. And if you say a little bit less frequently that you don't like seitan, we'll better understand what you mean when you ask if Apo jerked off into the food.
"And if you say a little bit less frequently that you don't like seitan, we'll better understand what you mean when you ask if Apo jerked off into the food."
One lesson about online group communication I learned a long time ago -- although only after an equally or longer time of not having yet figured it out, alas -- is that someone -- me, anyone -- can write, say, 40 comments, of which 30 are funny or substantive, and contributions which pretty much everyone welcomes as an entirely positive contribution to the group, 6 are neutral and utterly inoffensive contributions, and four are wrong-headed and offensive, and were, at best, mistakes by the writer.
And what sticks in everyone's mind for the next year or two, is "that guy said those awful four things!; what a jerk."
It's an unfortunate dynamic, I think, but a real one, and thus not something anyone can accomplish anything about by complaining about said dynamic, no matter how frustated they may feel that the other 36 comments, the mass of what the writer contributed, are largely forgotten.
This is my return parable, which is more of a direct statement than a parable. I thank you for yours.
There isn't a single poster, or commenter, here that I have the least personal dislike for or negative feelings towards (save that Wolfson is mildly on suspension for the moment, but that's for the very first time ever), incidentally. I'd just like to be entirely clear about that. Believe me, were it otherwise, I wouldn't hesitate to say so. I like all you guys as individuals (insofar as what I know of you, of course). Many quite a bit.
Gary, I remember goog things about you. We all really appreciate dyou rlink dumps right after Katrina.
To the general point about how well people welcome others:
I posted under a different name a couple of times, and people were really nice. Asking an actual question helps. I'm still a relative newbie; I don't think that I started reading this site regularly until after the election when paperwight decided to remove unfogged from the blogroll--after ogged gave up on regular political blogging. I'm not an old-timer,but I feel welcomed.
Remembering people's birthdays helps. You know that people remember when they chime in with a "Happy Birthday, Tia!"
I think that ogged once addressed the issue of the FAQ; he thought that it was easier to answer questions as they came up.
And, of course, there's a lot I don't get. And people are pretty tolerant of my failings as long as I acknowledge them. (I'm sure that I'll get made fun of for that.) Just yesterday I was stupid about the numbering of various posts.
For what it's worth (and I imagine not much), Gary, I think you're cool. I like your blog, I think your life experience is fascinating, and I agree with you on some of your more unpopular viewpoints. However. Your complaining about how unfogged "used to" be welcoming (and, by implication, that it now isn't) is, in my mind, at odds with a lot of the comments you've made in the last few months. Correct me if I'm wrong, but some of your complaints about the disposition of Unfogged are as follows:
1) There are too many comments. This in itself is exclusionary.
2) Unfogged was better before all these people showed up.
I view you as one of the "original" Unfoggeders (with good reason, as you know), and being one of "all these people," I infer that you wish at least x number of the "new" commenters hadn't shown up. This, I think, is unwelcoming. As has been established in this thread, an Unfogged commenters is an insecure commenter. Given both that many people making the comments are relatively new, and that they are the ones who cause the volume of comments to be driven up, both 1) and 2) sound to me like "shut up and go away," respectively.
That's harsher than I mean it to sound, but because you're like the Unfogged-uncle (either crazy or otherwise, I can't remember which of you or JE is), it matters to me.
"...I infer that you wish at least x number of the 'new' commenters hadn't shown up."
Your inference is incorrect, although I can see where you get it.
No. I can't say more without risking violating Tia's request/comment/advice that "I still don't like hearing that you don't like seitan, or even that you're not quite sure about seitan yet," though.
First, I've made no "complaints." A "complaint" is when you go to someone and tell them they're doing something wrong. And/or it is when you go to someone, and ask them to change things.
I've done neither, at any time.
But it's only what I've said a bunch of times by now: 1) mostly I don't have time to spend on eighty-bazillion comments; 2) the new (for me, 17+ months is "new") dynamic extreme in-jokiness, one-liners, and philosophy references, is one I'm not entirely comfy with.
It has nothing whatever to do with any of the individuals at all.
These are purely subjective reactions. They are not requests. They are not complaints.
"Your complaining about how unfogged 'used to' be welcoming...."
Hey, wait a minute! I made no such "complaint" whatever. You seem to be confusing me with Matthew Harvey's 203. That wasn't me.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but some of your complaints about the disposition of Unfogged are as follows:
1) There are too many comments. This in itself is exclusionary.
2) Unfogged was better before all these people showed up.
I'll correct you. No complaints.
1 is instead this: "There are more comments than I usually want to spend time reading. Period."
The second sentence you're just... well, it's not from me, that's all I can say. And the first is simply a subjective preference, and I've never, ever, ever, said anything otherwise or different.
2 is instead this: "I feel that I fit in better at Unfogged before the current dynamic."
This is, again, wildly different from your re-statement. There is a crucial distinction between "this is what may work better for me" and "you are wrong and should change things for my sake."
I've never, ever, ever, demanded or asked that anyone change anything here for me, or implied that there was anything remotely objective about my personal reactions.
I hope this is now clear.
"For what it's worth (and I imagine not much)...."
It's worth plenty as the opinion of someone I have reason to not consider the opinion of.
I apologize, Tia, for talking about the seitan, but the alternative was no answer at all. Maybe I should have gone with that, but I'd hate to let people think that the suggested summary of my opinions was correct; I hope you'll understand that. It is not my intention to raise the topic of seitan again unless I have something nice to say about it. Mmm, seitan. (Note to self: google seitan, and find out what it is.)
Gary, you're belaboring points that have to do entirely with your subjective response to whatever-it-is. It's the belaboring that is, forgive me, a little tiresome.
Having said that, it's not like I've never belabored a point my own damn self. Depression, especially, will make even the best of us extremely, even desperately self-involved, and the desire to communicate a matter of urgent necessity.
Gary, you're occasionally - occasionally - quite rude. I think you should be aware of that. I once found out I'd unknowingly been occasionally rude to a group of people online, which was unpleasant, but I'm sure glad I found out. I think it is more forgivable online, maybe esp. here, where the code of conduct is more subtle, perhaps, since everyone's facetious.
In the usual scenario, you seem really agitated about something for no good reason, and sort of understanding that, and try to mask it w humor or charm, but fail miserably. (That's just a guess).
I dn't think you're an asshole.
From reading his weblog, Gary clearly seems to be under strong emotional pressure quite often, and I always thought that had something to do with it, and that that would have occured to other people, and that in that light his occasional tactlessness was forgivable.
Gary, basically, I agree with 234, 237, and 229; often you add value to the comments, but sometimes you belabor things a bit, and sometimes you come off as quite rude or self-righteous. This may happen with other commenters, but it seems to happen a bit more or at greater length with you.
About the complaint thing; when someone says "I liked things better before; this isn't a complaint, though, just a report of my subjective reaction," it still sounds like a complaint. It still seems like you want us to change, even if that's not what you're trying to say.
(Incidentally, am I right that in 232 It's worth plenty as the opinion of someone I have reason to not consider the opinion of should be "no reason to not consider the opinion of"?)
What I want to know is who are these people in the East Bay whining about lack of good pizza delivery. I mean, damn, you are right next to Zachary's, the best pizza on earth, and that's not good enough for you?
237: "Gary, you're occasionally - occasionally - quite rude. I think you should be aware of that."
Thank you, David. I'maware. (Post and comments; two links.)
238: "(Incidentally, am I right that in 232 It's worth plenty as the opinion of someone I have reason to not consider the opinion of should be "no reason to not consider the opinion of"?)"
You are correct on that. My apologies for typical sloppiness.
Incidentally, both Blogger and all of Blogspot.com have been going down and up again all day, and throughout the past week, so if those links don't connect, just try again later or tomorrow or whenever.
pwned!
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02- 2-06 9:53 PM
You know what just doesn't make sense to me? Evolution. Random mutations my ass. I don't buy it.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 02- 2-06 10:02 PM
I didn't know that "needs more cowbell" was an internet catch phrase. I thought it was an Unfogged thing.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 2-06 10:04 PM
It's an SNL thing.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02- 2-06 10:06 PM
as a mostly a lurker, i still think a fauq might be useful. questions such as "what the haystack was the whole bphd banning about", "is there any way possible to try and keep up if you only have 17 or 18 hrs a day to check the threads" linger after months of lurking.
Posted by matty | Link to this comment | 02- 2-06 10:12 PM
Christopher Walken cowbell sketch. HTH. HAND.
You can download the video on your friendly neighborhood bittorrent or favorite file-sharing network, which would give you a vastly better idea. If you're one of those people all about the "legal" you can Netflix or rent or whatever the SNL "Best Of Christopher Walken" collection. The sketch is about seven years old, after all.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02- 2-06 10:22 PM
matty, the way to keep up with the threads that you miss the first 100 comments to is to either a) ignore that anyone has commented already and respond directly to the post, b) read all the comments and realize that everything was said by comment 25, or c) wait for the next
open threadpost to bestartedpublished. Of course, there is d) NOTA as well.Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 02- 2-06 10:51 PM
It may help to remember that in the age of the internets and text messaging, whole traditions of academic discourse have been boiled down to a few letters.
For example, there's a traditional form of review: "While Professor X's monograph can't pretend to be comprehensive in only 14,827 pages, it is perhaps disingenuous of him not to have noted that his entire argument was anticipated and answered by Professor Y in his paper of 1937 (available only in mimeo, in the original !Kung, translation in press)."
That's now glossed as Pwned!
Posted by Michael H Schneider | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 12:06 AM
Thus comments doth make blowhards of us all,
And thus the naive hue of irresolution
Is pasted over with a trial post of thoughts;
And enter lurkers of high pitch and shrillness,
With disregard their persons turn unshy,
And join in on the action.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:56 AM
Okay, fuck it.
I, for one, welcome the chance to say "All Your Base Are Belong To Us" with new overlords in November 2008.
looks around
never mind. back to lurking.
Posted by Saheli | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 2:30 AM
8 gets it exactly ǂ'aama nǃei zhu.
Posted by matty | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 5:36 AM
9: I just saw Hamlet last night. Eerie coincidence? Or just uninteresting?
Posted by Matt #3 | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 6:05 AM
Oooh, I feel so empowered and stuff. And Pwned; on a certain level I feel Pwned.
Is there no room on Unfogged for random kitten links? Random kitten links appear to be the backbone of the internet. Every site with the random kitten links as the gilded path to regulardom. But no, not the Unfogged.
Perhaps it is this fanatical anti-kitten link policy at Unfogged that makes necessary how-to comment guides in the MSM.
Oh yes, now that I am thinking about it, using MSM ironically is like random kitten links, only without the kittens or links. Right, and using the word "ironically" ironically; but then no one knows what you are talking about.
Posted by Alfi G | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 7:47 AM
Becks, are you a fan of Lore Sjöberg in general? I still think his Brunching Shuttlecocks / Book of Ratings stuff is pretty awesome.
(-- formerly Matt #3... pseudonymity be damned!)
Posted by Matthew Harvey | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:19 AM
Hello, Matthew Harvey! I used to read Brunching Shuttlecocks when I was in college so Lore Sjöberg brings back happy associations for me. Brunching had some pretty funny stuff in its day. (I was actually thinking about them not too long ago.)
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:30 AM
In Soviet Russia, posts comment on you!
1)Blog
2)Get lots of commenters
3) ...
4)Profit!
\Yeah, I got nothing.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:36 AM
Yeah, I should have remembered that because I almost commented on that post with something trenchant like: "I like the Brunching Shuttlecocks too! Hurr hurr hurrr.."
Posted by Matthew Harvey | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:46 AM
You know what convinced me that intelligent design theory doesn't hold up? A combination of seasonal allergies and wisdom teeth. Where was the intelligent designer on that one, huh? Or is he in the pocket of [the company that makes Claritin] and the dental surgeon's lobby?
Posted by Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 9:19 AM
It appears that Max Sawicky is applying for Mineshaft posting privileges.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 9:21 AM
Opinions?! We don't need no stinking opnions!
Posted by md 20/400 | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 9:49 AM
I do, however, need a spelling checker.
Posted by md 20/400 | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 9:52 AM
Yeah, you spelled onions wrong twice.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 9:53 AM
Apo is correct of course. Avoid stinking onions. The sweet ones are mighty tasty. Take a bite of a Vidalia. Mmmm, juicy.
Posted by md 20/400 | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 10:53 AM
I got banned because I annoyed Ogged beyond endurance. Then after about a year we both cooled off (he from being annoyed, me from being stubborn and refusing not to annoy him because, you know, there was a *principle* involved), and we got back together.
Then shortly after that, he quit blogging.
Coincidence?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:09 AM
You reset Ogged's TiVo, didn't you?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:21 AM
Yes, I am Ogged's new girlfriend. It's just like a sitcom relationship: you hate one another until finally, one day, you realize you are Deeply in Love.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:23 AM
Wait, are you Janet or Chrissy?
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:27 AM
Colonel Mustard in the Hall with the Candlestick. What did you expect?
Posted by danostuporstar | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:28 AM
(Actually I guess our Jack Tripper is b-wo, not -gg-d.)
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:28 AM
Alas, my friend, the opera singer who wants a rich boyfriend, just broke up with her long term boyfriend with whom she had the charmingest love hate backstory: Just like Anne and Gilbert (sigh) they had hated each other in high school! Then, six years later, they fell in love.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:30 AM
I was thinking more Diane Chambers.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:34 AM
When I started blogging here, I was worried I was like Rebecca--the replacement who's never quite good enough.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:41 AM
I find it a little unusual to hear "When I started blogging here..." from Tia, who started blogging here a couple of days ago.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:43 AM
(And who is certainly not "never quite good enough" -- on the contrary!)
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:44 AM
32- You mean the second Mrs. de Winter. Ogged is Rebecca.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:54 AM
Given his unexpected blog demise, I think Ogged is Coach.
Wait, does that make me Woody?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:58 AM
I can't remember where, but I've already claimed to be Cliff.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 12:14 PM
Did Niles ever appear at the bar? I might be Niles.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:01 PM
FL is Sam.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:04 PM
And I'm Barney Fyfe, feeling slightly out-of-place in late 20th-century Boston.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:07 PM
13: Is there no room on Unfogged for random kitten links? Random kitten links appear to be the backbone of the internet
no, we traffic in bunny slippers here.
What was the name of hat woman on Frasier who had been on Designing Women? And Laura Linney's character? Maybe I could be like Laura Linney's character--though I wouldn't want to be the amazing but ultimately fleeting love of anyone's life.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:09 PM
35: That means you loved me all the time, but I never understood! Who is--what was her name? Mrs. Danvers?
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:12 PM
Emerson can be Frasier's dad. Or possibly Uncle Fester.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:13 PM
36: no, apo, I make you woody.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:13 PM
35 -- picturing -gg-d as Coach would make anyone woody.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:15 PM
"no, apo, I make you woody."
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:15 PM
apo, I'm confused about where I saw your link to Max Sawicky, but I thought that his commenter's line was pure Mineshaft: "Boehner comes from the rear."
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:16 PM
I believe Tim is Mrs. Danvers.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:18 PM
47: That would be comment 19, bg.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:19 PM
48: I have no idea what SCMT looks like, but never the less I'm visualizing him fondling Ogged's hairbrushes.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:23 PM
IYKWIMAITYD
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:24 PM
"hairbrushes" s/b "nutsack"
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:25 PM
Hm, if Labs is Sam maybe I'll keep my claim to Diane. Although now that we're actually picking roles, I really, really want to be Lilith.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:26 PM
You can be Lilith, Bphd. I think I'm Diane.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:27 PM
It becomes apparent that what this blog is in dire need of is a Carla.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:28 PM
Time to change sitcoms.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:28 PM
But who will lay claim to rhe role of Carla? I can think of many male and female commenters here who would fit it at least in part but I don't think there is a precise fit. I am liking my idea though of having characters from the old sitcoms wander into the Cheers set and drink, banter, schmooze, fondle, come perhaps to blows.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:30 PM
I like the Rebecca/Cheers mash-up. Unfogged: the gothic sitcom.
Posted by ac | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:30 PM
Oh god yes.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:30 PM
Bphd, Apo's link in 46 applies to you too.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:32 PM
#59 was to #55. We desperately need a Carla.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:34 PM
49: The brother of a friend of mine announced yesterday that with no further DeLay, it's Boehner time.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:35 PM
Y'know, LizardBreath may already have called Cliff, but I'm pretty sure Farber is playing that role.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:37 PM
Everybody makes apostropher woody. He's kind of like an undergraduate in that way.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:38 PM
NO! Fuck Woody! Apostropher is the undergrad.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:40 PM
Maybe LizardBreath is Norm, then. I could imagine us all shouting enthusiastically when she walked into the room. But wait, I think Becks is Norm.
I just internally generated a nominee for Nick.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:41 PM
Woody kind of *was* the undergrad. Naive, frattish, sweet but occasionally infuriating....
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:42 PM
I just internally generated a nominee for Nick.
Is that the new ogg?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:45 PM
I just internally generated a nominee for Nick.
You mean you're the proprietor of Nick at Nite?
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:48 PM
69: Given my internal generation, god forbid.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:51 PM
Sometime you're going to have to tell us what your talking about. Otherwise none of us will get it.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:55 PM
It's okay, I'm having a happy conversation with myself, Osner. In my world, everything rhymes.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 1:58 PM
Carla had a husband - one of a number - who was reputed to be irresistable.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 2:03 PM
Oh wait, you're right eb, I remembered him wrong. I take it all back! Not that I ever said anything in the first place.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 2:06 PM
Were you thinking of the hockey/ice skater? I think that was Eddie.
I watched too many reruns last year.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 2:16 PM
Were you thinking of the hockey/ice skater? I think that was Eddie.
No, that was Michael.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 2:24 PM
Prince was a hockey skater in Purple Rain. You could see his skates in one of the shots, hanging on the wall in a stairway, IIRC.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 2:49 PM
Could Domineditrix have been Carla? Is Carla Aunt Dahlia?
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 3:57 PM
You people (you know who you are) dismissed matty's suggestion far too quickly. An FAQ is a brilliant way to not only relive all the old jokes but to codify them in a manner guaranteed to provide even more humor for hours to come. For example, in this thing that I did sometime back when I did things of that sort:
Great times were had by all. Not only that, since the explanations only further inned the proprietary humor of the original joke, your new anti-FAQ provides the opportunity to create increasingly elaborate in-wit, thereby accelerating the birth of your very own creole. I say go for it.
(And no, I don't what's up with that text. There's no reason it should look like that...and yet it does.)
Posted by Scott Eric Kaufman | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 5:16 PM
for the record, mr or ms s.e.m.'s statement
You people (you know who you are) dismissed matty's suggestion far too quickly
made me feel a little tingly.
also, i think it should be a FAUQ or FAQAU. then again, i am easily enamoured with stupid things. esp if they're shiny.
Posted by matty | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 5:35 PM
I seem to have that effect on people. After all, I am Mr. Office Sex Man. (That should also clear up what I would've taken to be the non-issue of my gender.)
Oh, and I vote UNFAQQED. But I'm not going to try to un-double q that acronym.
Posted by Scott Eric Kaufman | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 6:36 PM
Unfogged's Not-so Frequently Asked Questions: Q.E.D!
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 6:43 PM
No FAQ! Jesus, we're not even going to require people to do homework?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 6:45 PM
Dr. B., you act as if I said "accurate FAQ."
Posted by Scott Eric Kaufman | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 6:49 PM
And no, I don't what's up with that text. There's no reason it should look like that
This is, unsurprisingly, related to a FAQ:
"Is <blockquote> broken on Unfogged?"
Yes. You need to renew it every paragraph break if you want it to look right.
Posted by slolernr | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 6:55 PM
bphd-
since my first stumble in here a few months ago, i've felt that hanging out here is the equivalent of adding an extra 5 credits already. mayhap it just comes natural for some of you, or after enough time (does one put ATM here? see, i'm a babe in the woods) one just becomes comfortable, but with the fun of finding (insert whatever adjective is apropos for blowing smoke up your ass) people comes the desire to put enough time in to not be "that guy." to varying degrees of success, no doubt.
also, just finding a thread where long-running themes are explained is tough. it can be a little intimidating when some threads are almost entirely carried out in meta-links to threads long past. and not all of us have the kotsko fellowship.
Posted by matty | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 6:57 PM
You need to renew it every paragraph break if you want it to look right.
Not true! You just need to use <p> instead of a carriage return.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 7:00 PM
Well, let's get started:
ATM = Automated Teller Machine, obviously. But unfogged doesn't charge any additional fees for withdrawals and deposits, IYKWIM.
IYKWIM: If You Kick Wild Insects Maliciously. Unfogged's ATMs are outfitted with cameras to monitor this behavior. Failure to kick insects maliciously will result in extra fees.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 7:01 PM
kotsko fellowship
Jeez, give a n00b a clue and he just starts showing off.
(Kidding, matty! go steelers!)
The Kotsko Fellowship, of course, is the scruffy band that Kotsko has established at the Weblog, come together to defeat the Troll of Sorrow and destroy the One Ring -- what kind of ring it is, you don't want to know.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 7:08 PM
I think you're having too much fun, Weiner.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 7:13 PM
Oh, my anti-FAQ stance isn't about keeping new people out. It's just that the nature of in-jokes is to be "in"--they're simply not as much fun if they're spelled out, or whatever. It ruines the joy of discovery.
In all seriousness, I think the *major* issue in getting new commenters is simply acknowledging them when they comment. Unfogged has always been really bad about that, actually, and people who get up the courage to make overtures to an obviously tight-knit group will tend to take lack of acknowledgment as unwelcoming (which it is).
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 7:24 PM
weiner, thanks for the hot leads. those long running jokes can prove impressively long-running.
i'd assumed the fellowship was an academic stipend to read comments. and thus my plans for another degree are dashed.
and after a few moments of playing with the preview button, my embarassment at realizing how obvious the strike tag should be is second only to my joy at having the power to
actualize long-denied hegemonyuse it. must. exercise. restraint.also, is it fun for the former novices to start feeling old hat? or is it more along the lines of "it ruins my in-crowd feeling to spell out obscure in-joke x, which was so cleverly developed w/o resorting to vulgar exposition"?
go stillers.
Posted by matty | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 7:27 PM
In all seriousness, I think the *major* issue in getting new commenters is simply acknowledging them when they comment.
I'm not sure this is true.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 7:29 PM
Because being acknowledged or not doesn't make a difference, or b/c you think we acknowledge new commenters?
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 7:38 PM
The latter, the latter.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 7:39 PM
Dr. B.'s correct in this matter (and many other besides). Were it not for my obscence sense of self-worth, I wouldn't have the nerve to comment here every three weeks or so. Sure, no one's ever patted me on the back, offered me a couple of shots and said "Scott, we're damn glad to have you." But I've such an inflated self of my own importance that I'm willing to be shunned by the peanut gallery. What's there to lose beside my self-respect?
Posted by Scott Eric Kaufman | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 7:41 PM
I don't think that's true.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 7:42 PM
is it fun for the former novices to start feeling old hat? or is it more along the lines of "it ruins my in-crowd feeling to spell out obscure in-joke x, which was so cleverly developed w/o resorting to vulgar exposition"?
I think, honestly, that it's mostly that spelling out obscure in-jokes is, imho, completely at odds with the nature of Unfogged. What makes this place unlike every other blog on the web is not only incredibly smart commenters (other places have that too) but a particularly well-developed sense of trust--which includes the ability to give one another a hrad time--and a facility for intricate wordplay, both of which create a certain opacity to outsiders. We can try to get rid of the opacity, but I think in so doing we are likely to sacrifice the things that make the place special. On the other hand, saying hi to people when they show up, I think, is simply polite.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 7:42 PM
97 to 95.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 7:43 PM
Ben, I've observed it. Mr. B. took forever to get an acknowledgement--not a "welcome, good chap!" but simply a response to something he said. He was worried about it, but I said, "don't be, that's just how the place is. Keep hanging out and eventually you'll be accepted." Ash wasn't acknowledged for ages, either.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 7:44 PM
so apparently the preview button lets you see that someone has already answered a question you were going to ask. duly noted.
as for not recognizing a new poster...i felt like it was an issue, but its hard to tell what that does or doesn't indicate. i suppose that those who persevere are forged through fire and strengthened, separated from the passersby chaff, and are then able to contribute, and to avoid stupid metaphors. and "oh i miss blogger's 'this post has been removed by the author' function" comments.
fwiw, as a several-month lurker, it feels easier to comment since ogged left. not (NOT) b/c he's gone, but i felt like the established roles got mixed up, and the chaos bred crisatunity. that said, i have a surprising sense of regret at missing out on commenting during the ogged era (so random, so mean, so funny), and moreso about missing a meetup in nyc 2 blocks away from casa matty.
Posted by matty | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 7:45 PM
I know I personally must have commented a bunch of times before I ever got a response or acknowledgement of anything I said. Not that I particularly cared, but I did notice.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 7:46 PM
Unfogged has always been really bad about that
This was not my experience at all, at all. I found this comments section more immediately welcoming than just about any other I have joined in my days of posting on the Internet forums.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 7:47 PM
Ok, fair enough.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 7:47 PM
98 gets it exactly right.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 7:48 PM
97 would've been so much better had it pertained to 9 instead of 95. And by "better" I mean "amusingly insulting."
And Dr. B.'s right: you people are scum who never acknowledge our newbie brilliance. So, uh, why don't we just kick these Unf and Ogged fellows out as retribution. Who's with me?
Posted by Scott Eric Kaufman | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 7:49 PM
"pertained to 96," that should've read. Stupid, stupid keyboard.
Posted by Scott Eric Kaufman | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 7:51 PM
See, that's what I'm saying, Matty. I think that the "random, mean, funny" thing--which I hope we don't lose--is at odds with being an open book. I'm hoping that we can keep being random, mean, and funny and tweak it just a bit by saying "hi" when new people have the courage to say hi (which hopefully others will see, and take courage from), but yeah: elitist it may be, but I'd hate to change the very nature of the place.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 7:52 PM
I'm afraid you can't kick either ogged or unf out, as the former has explicitly left us and the latter implicitly so.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 7:52 PM
s.e.k.:
not true!.
then again, i don't count, yet. and i also didn't offer you a shot yet. i still don't quite understand how the anonymity thing works around here. also, since your "here" seems to be irvine, it'll probably have to be virtual.
while it obviously didn't stop me from coming around (nor drinking way too much caffeine and deluding the site w/ enough posts that i wonder if i should get help before i become the first newbanee), i think that may have been the first time a comment of mine was referenced explicitlym save for the time ash (rightly, i reckon) smacked me down after a sad drunken comment. and again, its not that i took silence to mean i wasn't welcome, but perhaps a sign that the lurker leagues might be better for me.
Posted by matty | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 7:54 PM
Also, this has been addressed before.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 7:54 PM
My first few comments also got very little response (except for one), and I'm only now starting to feel like a regular. It certainly does seem like we're getting a lot more new commenters since ogged left; that may just be from the avalanche of new posts, though.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 7:57 PM
#106: See, that's the spirit!
I'll also say that I think that that kind of jocular insult is something guys do a lot more than women, and I'm interested to see what happens to it now that the Unfogged posters are mostly chicks. Then again, the women here are, by virtue of self-selection, the kind of women who *like* that kind of male atmosphere, so I don't think it's gonna go away any time soon. But I'll lay odds that people will be far less likely to start making fun of, say, Tia's sex life or LB's labia than we were about Ogged's Tivo or Labs' enormous cock.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 7:57 PM
teo, you've totally earned a fruit basket.
And, come on, my first comment was trying to hook Ogged up with some girl for anal sex. If I can make it here...
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:01 PM
IHNJH, IJLS "flappy labia".
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:02 PM
becks / docB: i think i see what you're saying. if everyone who stumbled in here was embraced and asked to stick around, it would lose the elitist charm. and if someone wants atrios, stuff on my cat, or hugs not drugs, they're certainly better off there.
i guess its just a little weird that even after lurking for quite a while, i thought i knew what "resetting the tivo" meant, but i wasn't at all sure, nor was i sure that it actually meant anything besides a meta-in-joke (still amn't). which i'm all for, but sometimes the "you just had to be there" can last an awful long time.
plus, despite the general ornery nature and willingness to toss daggers at regulars, given that a new commenter isn't likely to see a response of "that is stupid, and you are well advised to look elsewhere for your jollies. plus, you're banned", silence can seem like its saying that.
Posted by matty | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:04 PM
Ok, maybe this is just me, but matty, I don't actually think of you as a lurker or an outsider. Now where's that fruit basket?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:06 PM
Thanks, Becks.
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:06 PM
Vis-a-vis 106, but Dr. B., I'm a known quantity. Most of the people who comment here comment elsewheres I also comment or contribute to. It's not like they let just anyone contribute to The Valve. (What do you mean that link won't resolve. Did you break the Valve? Who's going to inform the Spigot. Not me, I tell you.) But seriously, or as seriously as my silly self can be this evening, I'm not sure I'm the best test case around, since I'm not exactly stature-less. I'm not as well-known generally as I am in my head, but you and ben and, well, you and ben show up in elsewheres I frequent, so I'm comfortable jumping in. I'm sure if I were otherwise anonymous I'd be intimidated jumping into the middle of this perpetually ongoing conversation...which is why I think something that'll grease the wheels for other worthy folks wouldn't be a terrible idea.
Posted by Scott Eric Kaufman | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:07 PM
I think what we really need is a Matt reference. The only Matt I'm sure I can keep straight is Weiner.
Or, the only Weiner...
Something.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:08 PM
You're welcome, Ted.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:08 PM
Fuck, I think I had to ask about some aspect of the Tivo-joke lately.
Of course, that's because I WAS BANNED when it got started. Hmph.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:08 PM
I also think of matty as a regular. He's earned it. And the way to learn the in-jokes is to read all of every thread that's linked in the comments. Seriously. That's what I've been doing and it's remarkably successful (though time-consuming).
Posted by teofilo | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:10 PM
The archive search is your friend. That's how I got up to speed on stuff while I was lurking.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:10 PM
"Other worthy folks"???
Those are few and far betwen. And I like that whole "other" there. Nice try, but no one has sent you a fruit basket yet, n00b.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:10 PM
With the boys at the Mineshaft sometimes it's, um, hard, but you can keep me straight anytime, Silvana.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:11 PM
You know what's sort of funny? When I first commented under my old pseudonym, ogged welcomed me immediately; when I first commented as eb after retiring the old pseudonym, Wolfson accused me of trolling. I don't think I was really a regular until a while after commenting as eb, but I'd been around for a while.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:12 PM
126 - You can do better than that, Weiner.
120 - You can do better than that Weiner.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:13 PM
Weiner-chivalry!
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:13 PM
Uh, S.E.K. was welcomed.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:14 PM
Yeah, #126 was really lame. See? We're losing our edge already.
I blame Matty.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:16 PM
Yeah, but as he pointed out, ppl knew his name. And, more to the point, I'd argue, he started off with a joke. We like jokes, especially the self-deprecating kind.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:17 PM
127: I think Wolfson's use of trolling is an in-joke in itself.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:17 PM
Dude, that dog picture is going to give me fucking nightmares. The light in his eyes!
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:17 PM
Also silvana, I should have acknowledged it at the time, but I really appreciated this comment. Although I've probably since gone overboard with the poetry rip-offs.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:18 PM
Silvana, maybe this dog picture will be more to your taste.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:19 PM
135: Wow. That was a long time ago. I didn't realize I was commenting back then.
But I did always like that poem, both the original and the spoof. Although spoof is not the word I'm looking for. More like homage, but that's not right either.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:24 PM
I would be reassuring eb about the poetry rip-offs, but after 131 I think I'm just going to pout in the corner.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:24 PM
No one should ever, ever say "cute little vagina," in any context, anywhere. Drawing a picture is twice as bad.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:25 PM
Unfogged has always been really bad about that, actually, and people who get up the courage to make overtures to an obviously tight-knit group will tend to take lack of acknowledgment as unwelcoming (which it is).
Oh. My. Gawd. There are going to be knitting circles, aren't there?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:30 PM
I am about to go to a bar I've never heard of to hear two bands I've never heard of. This better be good.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:32 PM
everyone being nice to me: thanks, and i appreciate the welcome, really. i feel like the prettiest girl ATM.
i had enough ego and inflated self regard (also, i'm somewhat intrigued at the moment w/ wrightian semi-ironic self-effacing braggery - at least that's what i think he was talking about on the bloggingheads while i waited hoping he'd eviscerate kaus) to realize that "not immediately finding a niche" ǂ "unworthy & unwelcome."
i've found following links in threads invaluable, but amazingly hard to follow as they diverge. reminds me of reading choose your own adventure books, and runnning out of fingers to mark the places to go return once i was eaten by scorpions. or the thrill of a play w/in a play.
bphd - i understand completely about the tivo thing, and by that i mean i still don't get it. except i felt weird asking about it and everything else in the zones of In-Joke and pseudo-anonymity. it was only this morning that weiner gave me links to help clear up a couple items of longstanding confusion.
and i repaid it by slutting my knowledge all over. take that, weiner! no honor among matts!
ps - i don't know who's running the site now, but the preview function for comments would be even more excellent if it displayed the post #s as well as the posts. at least as long as "107 to 3 1/3" types run rampant. thanks!
Posted by matty | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:32 PM
spoof is not the word I'm looking for
Silvana, I'm going to sue you.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:32 PM
Low, eb, really really low. Trying to use the facts against me. I was mockingly welcomed, you know that as well as I. I didn't feel welcome, except of course my massive ego convinced me I was . . . but not everyone is burdened by such an enlightened self-opinion. Who will speak for the shy people? Who, I ask, WHO?
Posted by Scott Eric Kaufman | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:34 PM
What bands, silvana?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:34 PM
#140: Unfogged is inimical to knitting. I should know, as I'm making really, really slow progress on this goddamn sweater I'm making for PK.
In fact, I suspect you all know that, and are trying to keep me from turning my son into a priss, as the sweater is actually kinda girly.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:34 PM
I will not deign to acknowledge your threats.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:35 PM
And as to bands, I don't know. I was told over the phone, but I wasn't listening, and the venue does not appear to be online. Supposedly there are visuals involved. I got the impression that one of the band members is an acquaintance-of-a-friend-of-a-friend, which inclines me to think Quality does not await.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:37 PM
That refusal to respond will cost you half a million dollars.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:37 PM
What venue, silvana?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:37 PM
matty, I've thought about the preview #s before, too. When I get around to some mucking, I might do it. I'd also like to see comment links in the RSS feed.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:38 PM
I guess it's called Morseland.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:39 PM
See? No info.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:40 PM
Good eats and nice beats? In Rogers Park?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:41 PM
Silvana -- if you like that poem you ought to go hang out at Making Light some. Rarely does a comment thread go by there without somebody working in an homage to Williams. (Not so welcoming to newbies but a nice place to lurk.)
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:41 PM
I've thought about the preview #s before, too. When I get around to some mucking, I might do it.
If you figure out how to do it, be sure to gloat.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:42 PM
Twice.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:44 PM
I've thought about the preview #s before, too. When I get around to some mucking, I might do it.
That was pretty trivial.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:46 PM
Well, I meant that there was no info about their music schedule. And I'm off.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:46 PM
Actually, if you clicked on the "calendar" link, it shows you their music calendar.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:47 PM
Ben is teh awesome.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:48 PM
Let the gloating begin.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:48 PM
I repay betrayal with kindness: Resetting the Tivo.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:48 PM
Don't encourage him, Becks.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:48 PM
Where's Apostropher? I was totally waiting for him to take a shot at Weiner for pouting.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:50 PM
Weiner, that's a crap link. If you're going to give away the secrets, at least do it right.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 8:59 PM
"resetting the tivo" ǂ masturbation?
aha.......
i will repay the kindness repaying betrayal w/ trying to figure out what was going on all those times i was wrong about ogged jokes.
the comment # thing just occured to me b/c by the time i preview a comment, always "97 to 63" seems to pop up. no biggie. funny the things technology can't do.
Posted by matty | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 9:03 PM
I did like this spam comment on the thread Weiner linked. It almost sounds like a non-sequitur a real commenter would write.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 9:05 PM
Do you see your not-equals, matty? Because I don't.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 9:05 PM
I see his not-equals.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 9:07 PM
168: This is also a handy primer.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 9:07 PM
on my (firefox) browser i see a not-equals. i didn't use script, i cut-and-pasted from the !kung comment. is there a handy reference for scripts that show up for everyone? despite the satisfaction of finally figuring out the strike, a reference would be useful.
Posted by matty | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 9:09 PM
"I found this comments section more immediately welcoming than just about any other I have joined in my days of posting on the Internet forums."
This isn't a forum on the internet?
Man, these new-fangled 56k modems (which has never gone higher than 49.5k) are better than I thought.
"135: Wow. That was a long time ago."
Um, yeah.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 9:24 PM
Wow, Gary, you're an asshole, aren't you?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 9:32 PM
matty: i think that may have been the first time a comment of mine was referenced explicitlym save for the time ash (rightly, i reckon) smacked me down after a sad drunken comment.
Er, was that the miner's thing? I wasn't tryin' to slap you down exactly, so much as buck you up.
If you get my meanin'.
ash
['Glad I was trying to be harsh.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 02- 3-06 11:08 PM
"Wow, Gary, you're an asshole, aren't you?"
Sometimes. Is it possible this is a bit of an over-reaction to 173, though? I'm quite unclear what was so provocative about it.
Maybe there's something funny or injoke-ish about 174 that's zooming over my head.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 1:48 AM
I don't think it's an overreaction to that to which I was reacting, which may or may not be 173 simpliciter.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 3:37 AM
I'll ask straight out: Gary, why do you consider youth, lack of detailed historical knowledge, or a shortened time perspective to be a moral failing? Why is the above-it-all, omniscient perspective something to be aspired to or to adopt as a persona, rather than just a pose, lacking in humility or self-reflection?
We've all got a lot to learn, but we *already know that*. If you've got something to tell, tell it. If you're tired of doing it, don't do it anymore. Stop complaining!
Posted by mealworm | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 3:55 AM
Matty -- html code for ≠ is ≠
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 4:57 AM
This isn't a forum on the internet?
That question does not make any sense in response to what I wrote. The phrase "any other" implies that this is indeed a member of the set being referenced.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 4:59 AM
Where's Apostropher?
Every so often, I decide to spend time with my family so they don't forget who I am.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 6:27 AM
We're your family now, apostropher.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 6:41 AM
I've heard that before.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 6:53 AM
I like that the user comment to that film is "The worst 'film' ever excreted?" and the average rating is five stars of ten.
"They're creepy and they're kooky..."
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 7:08 AM
I've been posting for over a year and reading for over two and still I find that I feel like the plain girl at the party. I presume this is due to not having e-mail contacts or hanging around in the chat room. Never really felt like I shouldn't post, though.
And the in-jokes do happen quickly around here. Go out of town for a week? Limited Internet access? Five new in-jokes.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 7:13 AM
I feel like the plain girl at the party
Wanna dance, beautiful?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 7:16 AM
See, what you need is some kind of gimmick.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 7:19 AM
Yeah, you say that now, but as soon as Tia shows up, I'll be left alone with the punch bowl and the pretzels. Alone!
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 7:19 AM
People! I said that I still felt like a troll two days before I was asked to coblog. Further, I'm not even over it now. It's all in your minds!
(Planning a comment where I link to people making jokes about my sex life, perhaps to refute 106, perhaps just as an invitation. Please, crack the whip. IFYKWIM, AITYD.)
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 7:20 AM
Apostropher doesn't waste time.
(Earnestly, no one hangs out in the chat room I don't think, and I think it's not that you're marginal -- you don't seem so to me, though of course I dig philosophers -- but that at a big party like this there are always gales of laughter coming from the other room, no matter where you're standing.)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 7:21 AM
(Earnestly, Weiner, I don't take this terribly seriously. Tia's just prettier, admit it.)
On topic, the link in the original post? Summed up the whole Internet.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 7:25 AM
If it's any consolation…
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 7:26 AM
and the first sentence of my email to Alameida was "woot! I guess I'm not a troll!"
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 7:27 AM
Goddamned foreshadowing.
Posted by Standpipe Bridgeplate | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 7:29 AM
I was going to say, "When everyone else has followed Tia away, I'll still be with you by the punch bowl and pretzels, talking philosophy," and then I realized -- OMB, I'm ogged. Which would also account for the no e-mail thing.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 7:30 AM
And that's another thing! I may get Apo's attention because I'm willing to proposition him, but I often feel too dumb for Unfogged. I don't know anything about philosophy, or symbolic logic, or math, or Latin, or classics...I just get attention with my cock jokes. Secretly I'm looking at you and Weiner and wishing I could be in your conversation.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 7:36 AM
I wish I could understand Matt's philosophy. Friggin' epistemologists.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 7:38 AM
anything about philosophy, or symbolic logic, or math, or Latin, or classics...I just get attention with my cock joke
We're perfect for each other! But Cala was first, and you know how guys are about their first (aside from apologetic).
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 7:41 AM
It could be partly because I never do a good job of explaining it.
Anyway, one of the lovely things about this place is that no one ever gets all the jokes. I feel free to make all sorts of wacky allusions and trust that someone somewhere will appreciate it -- and everyone else will assume I'm drunk.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 7:41 AM
I was going to make some joke about propositioning propositions.
But I can't think of one.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 7:55 AM
Well, when we meet for real and I start macking on you, 186 will be a prepositioned proposition.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 7:59 AM
"I don't think it's an overreaction to that to which I was reacting, which may or may not be 173 simpliciter."
It's quite possible I'm not fully grasping the meaning of "simpliciter" here, as I'm neither a philosophy student nor a college graduate, and my grasp of philosophical terminology is quite shallow and spotty, so I'm relying on various dictionary definitions, but perhaps you could explain to me what I said that caused your name-calling?
A side issue would be my inquiring why if -- as I read you as seeming to suggest here -- it was more than 173, you didn't say so, rather than just quote what you did, and write what you did?
It didn't seem a particularly helpful remark, nor one at all useful in, if we assume arguendo that I somehow deserved it, helping me see the error of my ways, and thus perhaps helping me cease such error.
And it didn't seem terribly nice.
178: "Gary, why do you consider youth, lack of detailed historical knowledge, or a shortened time perspective to be a moral failing?"
I don't.
"Why is the above-it-all, omniscient perspective something to be aspired to or to adopt as a persona, rather than just a pose, lacking in humility or self-reflection?"
They don't.
"We've all got a lot to learn, but we *already know that*. If you've got something to tell, tell it. If you're tired of doing it, don't do it anymore. Stop complaining!"
What is this in regard to?
180: "The phrase 'any other' implies that this is indeed a member of the set being referenced."
So it does. My eye skipped over that. Well, that ruins my feeble little attempted joke. Oh, well. Apologies.
It was just an attempt at a tiny witticism, you know. The usual attempt at wordplay over an opening. In this case, it utterly failed because I read carelessly. My bad.
195: "I don't know anything about philosophy, or symbolic logic, or math, or Latin, or classics"
Ditto. Has anyone called you an "asshole"? It tends to make one feel even worse than just being left alone by the punch bowl and pretzels. It does to me, anyway.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 8:01 AM
Late to the party/comment thread as usual... (On the other hand, my band rocked last night.)
In all seriousness, I think the *major* issue in getting new commenters is simply acknowledging them when they comment. Unfogged has always been really bad about that, actually, and people who get up the courage to make overtures to an obviously tight-knit group will tend to take lack of acknowledgment as unwelcoming (which it is).
I have to agree way back there with Dr. B, that this is not an overtly welcoming place to new people. I've been reading and commenting for probably close to a year and I still feel like I'm just hopping around the periphery.
(I'm sure having just changed from posting pseudonymously [as Matt #3] to my real name is going to move me back towards the starting line.)
I also think the experience as a new male commenter is quite different from that of a new female commenter. But it's not like you regulars are unwelcoming, and I don't think a formal program of Being Nice to the New People will seem particularly natural. A high barrier to entry probably helps keep the quality high.
Point is, until someone tells me to go away, I'll keep hopping.
Posted by Matthew Harvey | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 8:16 AM
Just for clarification's sake:
My response should, of course, read "It isn't."Apologies for my carelessness. Also, I have no idea what that's about, and I haven't stopped beating my non-existent wife.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 8:16 AM
"I have to agree way back there with Dr. B, that this is not an overtly welcoming place to new people."
It did used to be pretty entirely, actually, I'd say, for about close to two years, maybe more, and then in the last year, year and a half, a lot of things changed. Pardigm shift, essentially. These things happen. And it certainly seems to have been a change that Ogged enjoyed and strongly encouraged.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 8:23 AM
Tia, g'morning. You end your comment 189 with "IFYKWIM, AITYD"
Did you mean IYKWIM? Because I'm thinking about that extra F in there, and well, it has me LMAOROTFF
Posted by Mr. B | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 8:36 AM
Gary, if it makes you feel any better, I think "asshole" was uncalled for, especially since it seems that we new bloggers should try to aspire to Ogged's model of graciousness (which of course includes making fun of people).
But there's a way you're coming off, which I'm sure you don't intend, which is rankling. Someone makes a very mildly self congratulatory remark ("Only at Unfogged..."), and you rush to inform us that we're exactly like every Usenet forum, etc. The thing is, when people say something like, "Only at Unfogged..." they don't really mean it in the strict logical sense; just that they like the racousness of the conversation here, and the total lack of on topic discipline; that is different from a lot of other blogs, if not Usenet forums.
And besides, it's a little rude. It's like you're in someone's house, and one of the frequent guests says, "Only at your house could I eat such delicous pan seared seitan," and the host says, "Yes, the secret is balsamic vinegar," and you pipe up and say, "You know, you can get seitan this good at every overpriced vegan joint in the West Village. And really I miss it when you used to make tempeh. Tempeh is so much better than seitan, but to each his own. I taught you how to cook, you know. You seem to have deviated from my instruction. I shall have to see if I am interested in this new seitan paradigm, and tolerate eating at your house in the meantime. By the way, why don't you ever come over to my house for dinner?"
173 recalled that previous "only at Unfogged" comment of yours, I think, and also felt like it was taking humorless issue with a distinction someone else was drawing that was in fact pretty clear, because, no, this isn't a forum in the sense that people often mean when they say "internet forum," it's a blog. Maybe you didn't mean it to be humorless, but it sounded that way. You get more credit for being interpreted charitably when a larger proportion of your comments feel like they are good-natured ribbing, rather than telling us all that there's something wrong with this thing that we love, Unfogged.
I was welcomed and responded to immediately when I first started commenting, both the first time, when I posted under a non "Tia" handle, and the second, when I posted as "Tia." That may have been helped by the fact that I had a blog people could click through to to get a sense of me, and it contained some stuff interesting to the average Unfoggeder, i.e., cock jokes. Also, I had a unique and strong perspective on the topics under discussion (as "Tia" it was Nerve dating), which made my comments something that would tend to elicit response. I don't mean to suggest that that's everyone's experience.
Matthew Harvey is banned!
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 8:37 AM
[studiously ignoring Mr. B]
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 8:45 AM
Are not.
Posted by Mr. B | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 8:47 AM
You get more credit for being interpreted charitably
this should be, "You are more likely to be interpreted charitably"
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 8:48 AM
Am too.
D'oh! I mean--
[looks the other way]
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 8:49 AM
And god forbid anyone dislike seitan. They don't remember the days when the first brave seitan eaters had to endure horrible ridicule for trying it.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 8:50 AM
But it's not like you regulars are unwelcoming
I hope not. On the other hand, I think the relative impenetrability of the comments are a big part of why there are so few trolls 'round here. If you want to see legitimate unwelcomingness, try wandering through the soc.motss archives sometime (he said, establishing his Usenet cred).
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 8:52 AM
SB's link in #192 is right on. It is the nature of Unfogged to walk the fine line between insecurity and bravado.
We're all enormous geeks, after all. Otherwise we'd be off doing something else.
I say, give Gary a break. He's obviously feeling very left out of something that's changed a lot since he discovered it. We old people tend to overreact to things.
CHANGEBAD.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 9:01 AM
I think it's just that the trolls are too busy elsewhere on the Internet. Half of the argumentative points made here would be rejoined with a quick 'You only think that because you EAT BABIES' at Washington Monthly or Crooked Timber.
Posted by Cala | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 9:01 AM
We're all enormous geeks, after all.
Are you calling me fat?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 9:04 AM
#215: EXACTLY. Which is why scaring away people is GOOD.
#216: Only where it counts, baby.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 9:05 AM
"Gary, if it makes you feel any better, I think "asshole" was uncalled for...."
It does make me feel slightly better; thank you.
"Someone makes a very mildly self congratulatory remark ("Only at Unfogged..."), and you rush to inform us that we're exactly like every Usenet forum, etc."
I thought we were done with that exchange. If we're not, I would offer the suggestion that it might be better to go directly back to it to conclude it, but I suppose that we can just do that here instead; no biggie. Anyway, I don't have anything else to say about it beyond my prior concluding comment in that exchange.
"And besides, it's a little rude. It's like you're in someone's house, and one of the frequent guests says, "Only at your house could I eat such delicous pan seared seitan...."
Just as a datapoint on my perspective, I offer the following. I don't offer it as any sort of attempt to use the information as a club, or as, well, anything other than an attempt to offer an explanation of how it looks and feels from here. Please don't take it as anything more, okay?
From my perspective, which as I said, goes back several weeks before the existence of the site being "opened," to when it was a mere template, which led to many e-mails between Ogged and myself in the month (maybe even six weeks; I'd have to dig up files in the old Pentium I to check) prior to the public opening in late Februrary, 2003, I've been a guest here since that time. I'd note without making any other point, that I've now been here longer than any other human being, without doubt, period (unless Unf shows up again).
Someone who posted as "Magik Johnson" showed up almost immediately (he also was a "Matt"; whether he's the same as one of the later Matts, I have no idea). Apostropher arrived in the first couple of weeks. I've not tracked on who else arrived when and in what order, though it wouldn't be hard to establish in the archives.
But all I'm trying to say is that from my perspective, I've been hanging out at this party for three years (and blogging for considerably longer) and you arrived here as a guest a blink-of-an-eye ago, and now you're a host, which is great, but it's a bit of an adjustment to suddenly being informed of what the new rules of the house are, though since it's your house and not mine, and I am naught but a guest, that's absolutely your privilege and right, and I make no complaint and have no complaint about that.
But it is an adjustment for me to make, and that is all.
"173 recalled that previous 'only at Unfogged' comment of yours, I think,"
I don't see how, but I'll take your word for it.
"...and also felt like it was taking humorless issue with a distinction...."
It was a joke. Which misfired because I missed seeing "other." But an attempted joke, no matter how feeble, no matter how bad, nonetheless.
I don't, of course, contend that your or anyone's perception of it as "humorless" is wrong, since a failed joke that isn't perceived as one is someone's perception, and it remains their perception no matter the intent of the author. But that was, for the record, the intent of the author.
And I'm very unclear as to how it's "humorless" in a way that, say, correcting people's grammar isn't (which I'm perfectly fine with, to be clear; I like clean grammar and all that).
But if my attempts at snappy witticisms and wordplay fail or are off-key or don't fit, admidst the ongoing zeitgeist of humorously intended insults and put-downs, well, then my current attempt to see how I fit in with the new/recent zeitgeist will have shown that result, and I'll have learned that, I guess. I was hoping for a better result, and haven't given up yet, although the abrupt "Wow, Gary, you're an asshole, aren't you?" didn't strike me as particularly humorous or funny or witty or clever or original, or derivative of the contemporary Unfogged zeitgeist, or anything but a sudden and direct slap in the face for no particular reason, I'm afraid.
"...You get more credit for being interpreted charitably when a larger proportion of your comments feel like they are good-natured ribbing, rather than telling us all that there's something wrong with this thing that we love, Unfogged.":
The former was all I was attempting in 173; I apologize that I didn't do a good job of it, but I completely was not, in that comment, at all trying to do the latter, and I still don't see where that reading comes from, though obviously that's a spot of blindness on my part. (To be clear: there's no sarcasm in what I just said or anything I'm saying here; I am being "earnest.")
I'm not sure what else to say. I guess: I'm sorry that my feeble and failed attempt to make a faintly amusing exchange failed so badly, and that I instead wrote something that somehow gave offense, instead. That was not my intent, but since it was the result, I apologize.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 9:10 AM
Only where it counts, baby.
The wallet?
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 9:15 AM
"If you want to see legitimate unwelcomingness, try wandering through the soc.motss archives sometime (he said, establishing his Usenet cred)."
Gee, and I just had this page cited to me three days ago on another blog's comments. Among my return comments were "Also just incidentally, me, too; didn't hang out there, but had friends who overlapped, and so occasionally came by to follow a particular thread. And there was a fair amount of overlap with some of the newsgroups I was heavily invested in, including alt.polyamory (where even then, I had long since not done anything polyamorous, but I had in the past, and had a lot of friends in that newsgroup). Just saying in passing." and "Oh, and I saw that soc.motss page a good number of years ago (long since forgot about it), and yes, I find that sort of thing utterly hilarious and enjoyable and not in the least hurtful (as a rule; there can be exceptions, of course, depending)."
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 9:15 AM
Okay, Gary. I wasn't trying to defend Wolfson's response--the opposite--I was just trying to explain what it might have come from. I know you feel a kind of proprietary interest in Unfogged, and no one's trying to drive you out. But even if you built the entire kitchen, speaking only for myself, I still don't like hearing that you don't like seitan, or even that you're not quite sure about seitan yet. I'd prefer you to just try the seitan, and if you don't like it, mention that you have to be up early tomorrow, and it's a long drive back home. And if you say a little bit less frequently that you don't like seitan, we'll better understand what you mean when you ask if Apo jerked off into the food.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 9:21 AM
if Apo jerked off into the food
Mmm, jerk sauce. However, all I did was stick my dick in the mashed potatoes.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 9:28 AM
To be fair, Ben was being rather mean, which is pretty indefensible, really.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 9:28 AM
"And if you say a little bit less frequently that you don't like seitan, we'll better understand what you mean when you ask if Apo jerked off into the food."
One lesson about online group communication I learned a long time ago -- although only after an equally or longer time of not having yet figured it out, alas -- is that someone -- me, anyone -- can write, say, 40 comments, of which 30 are funny or substantive, and contributions which pretty much everyone welcomes as an entirely positive contribution to the group, 6 are neutral and utterly inoffensive contributions, and four are wrong-headed and offensive, and were, at best, mistakes by the writer.
And what sticks in everyone's mind for the next year or two, is "that guy said those awful four things!; what a jerk."
It's an unfortunate dynamic, I think, but a real one, and thus not something anyone can accomplish anything about by complaining about said dynamic, no matter how frustated they may feel that the other 36 comments, the mass of what the writer contributed, are largely forgotten.
This is my return parable, which is more of a direct statement than a parable. I thank you for yours.
There isn't a single poster, or commenter, here that I have the least personal dislike for or negative feelings towards (save that Wolfson is mildly on suspension for the moment, but that's for the very first time ever), incidentally. I'd just like to be entirely clear about that. Believe me, were it otherwise, I wouldn't hesitate to say so. I like all you guys as individuals (insofar as what I know of you, of course). Many quite a bit.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 9:35 AM
The current discussion makes the original title of this post strangely apropos.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 9:46 AM
Matthew Harvey is banned!
Damn, that was fast.
Posted by Matthew Harvey | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 10:15 AM
Don't worry, honey, it's your first time.
Posted by Tia | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 10:18 AM
#219: Low blow, my friend. If I were a golddigger, I'd have dumped both my guys a long time ago.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 10:24 AM
Gary, I remember goog things about you. We all really appreciate dyou rlink dumps right after Katrina.
To the general point about how well people welcome others:
I posted under a different name a couple of times, and people were really nice. Asking an actual question helps. I'm still a relative newbie; I don't think that I started reading this site regularly until after the election when paperwight decided to remove unfogged from the blogroll--after ogged gave up on regular political blogging. I'm not an old-timer,but I feel welcomed.
Remembering people's birthdays helps. You know that people remember when they chime in with a "Happy Birthday, Tia!"
I think that ogged once addressed the issue of the FAQ; he thought that it was easier to answer questions as they came up.
And, of course, there's a lot I don't get. And people are pretty tolerant of my failings as long as I acknowledge them. (I'm sure that I'll get made fun of for that.) Just yesterday I was stupid about the numbering of various posts.
Posted by bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 10:28 AM
A FAQ would have to be so constantly updated as to be instantly obsolete with each revision, I think.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 10:37 AM
For what it's worth (and I imagine not much), Gary, I think you're cool. I like your blog, I think your life experience is fascinating, and I agree with you on some of your more unpopular viewpoints. However. Your complaining about how unfogged "used to" be welcoming (and, by implication, that it now isn't) is, in my mind, at odds with a lot of the comments you've made in the last few months. Correct me if I'm wrong, but some of your complaints about the disposition of Unfogged are as follows:
1) There are too many comments. This in itself is exclusionary.
2) Unfogged was better before all these people showed up.
I view you as one of the "original" Unfoggeders (with good reason, as you know), and being one of "all these people," I infer that you wish at least x number of the "new" commenters hadn't shown up. This, I think, is unwelcoming. As has been established in this thread, an Unfogged commenters is an insecure commenter. Given both that many people making the comments are relatively new, and that they are the ones who cause the volume of comments to be driven up, both 1) and 2) sound to me like "shut up and go away," respectively.
That's harsher than I mean it to sound, but because you're like the Unfogged-uncle (either crazy or otherwise, I can't remember which of you or JE is), it matters to me.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 10:41 AM
"...I infer that you wish at least x number of the 'new' commenters hadn't shown up."
Your inference is incorrect, although I can see where you get it.
No. I can't say more without risking violating Tia's request/comment/advice that "I still don't like hearing that you don't like seitan, or even that you're not quite sure about seitan yet," though.
First, I've made no "complaints." A "complaint" is when you go to someone and tell them they're doing something wrong. And/or it is when you go to someone, and ask them to change things.
I've done neither, at any time.
But it's only what I've said a bunch of times by now: 1) mostly I don't have time to spend on eighty-bazillion comments; 2) the new (for me, 17+ months is "new") dynamic extreme in-jokiness, one-liners, and philosophy references, is one I'm not entirely comfy with.
It has nothing whatever to do with any of the individuals at all.
These are purely subjective reactions. They are not requests. They are not complaints.
"Your complaining about how unfogged 'used to' be welcoming...."
Hey, wait a minute! I made no such "complaint" whatever. You seem to be confusing me with Matthew Harvey's 203. That wasn't me.
I'll correct you. No complaints.1 is instead this: "There are more comments than I usually want to spend time reading. Period."
The second sentence you're just... well, it's not from me, that's all I can say. And the first is simply a subjective preference, and I've never, ever, ever, said anything otherwise or different.
2 is instead this: "I feel that I fit in better at Unfogged before the current dynamic."
This is, again, wildly different from your re-statement. There is a crucial distinction between "this is what may work better for me" and "you are wrong and should change things for my sake."
I've never, ever, ever, demanded or asked that anyone change anything here for me, or implied that there was anything remotely objective about my personal reactions.
I hope this is now clear.
"For what it's worth (and I imagine not much)...."
It's worth plenty as the opinion of someone I have reason to not consider the opinion of.
I apologize, Tia, for talking about the seitan, but the alternative was no answer at all. Maybe I should have gone with that, but I'd hate to let people think that the suggested summary of my opinions was correct; I hope you'll understand that. It is not my intention to raise the topic of seitan again unless I have something nice to say about it. Mmm, seitan. (Note to self: google seitan, and find out what it is.)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 11:00 AM
it's a bit of an adjustment to suddenly being informed of what the new rules of the house are
Did I miss that post?
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 11:08 AM
Gary, you're belaboring points that have to do entirely with your subjective response to whatever-it-is. It's the belaboring that is, forgive me, a little tiresome.
Having said that, it's not like I've never belabored a point my own damn self. Depression, especially, will make even the best of us extremely, even desperately self-involved, and the desire to communicate a matter of urgent necessity.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 11:14 AM
Hey, wait a minute! I made no such "complaint" whatever. You seem to be confusing me with Matthew Harvey's 203. That wasn't
Gary, quit trying to get me in trouble.
Posted by Matthew Harvey | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 11:19 AM
Matthew, you've already been banned. Quit picking on Gary.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 11:26 AM
Gary, you're occasionally - occasionally - quite rude. I think you should be aware of that. I once found out I'd unknowingly been occasionally rude to a group of people online, which was unpleasant, but I'm sure glad I found out. I think it is more forgivable online, maybe esp. here, where the code of conduct is more subtle, perhaps, since everyone's facetious.
In the usual scenario, you seem really agitated about something for no good reason, and sort of understanding that, and try to mask it w humor or charm, but fail miserably. (That's just a guess).
I dn't think you're an asshole.
From reading his weblog, Gary clearly seems to be under strong emotional pressure quite often, and I always thought that had something to do with it, and that that would have occured to other people, and that in that light his occasional tactlessness was forgivable.
Posted by David Weman | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 11:33 AM
Gary, basically, I agree with 234, 237, and 229; often you add value to the comments, but sometimes you belabor things a bit, and sometimes you come off as quite rude or self-righteous. This may happen with other commenters, but it seems to happen a bit more or at greater length with you.
About the complaint thing; when someone says "I liked things better before; this isn't a complaint, though, just a report of my subjective reaction," it still sounds like a complaint. It still seems like you want us to change, even if that's not what you're trying to say.
(Incidentally, am I right that in 232 It's worth plenty as the opinion of someone I have reason to not consider the opinion of should be "no reason to not consider the opinion of"?)
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 12:09 PM
I was wondering about that, too.
Posted by silvana | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 12:15 PM
Speaking of sitcom characters (as we were yesterday) -- Al Lewis of "Munsters" fame passed on last night.
Posted by Jeremy Osner | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 12:25 PM
What I want to know is who are these people in the East Bay whining about lack of good pizza delivery. I mean, damn, you are right next to Zachary's, the best pizza on earth, and that's not good enough for you?
Posted by Maynard Handley | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 4:02 PM
237: "Gary, you're occasionally - occasionally - quite rude. I think you should be aware of that."
Thank you, David. I'm aware. (Post and comments; two links.)
238: "(Incidentally, am I right that in 232 It's worth plenty as the opinion of someone I have reason to not consider the opinion of should be "no reason to not consider the opinion of"?)"
You are correct on that. My apologies for typical sloppiness.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 8:53 PM
Incidentally, both Blogger and all of Blogspot.com have been going down and up again all day, and throughout the past week, so if those links don't connect, just try again later or tomorrow or whenever.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 8:55 PM
I wasn't really aware just how many of the blogs I read are hosted on blogspot until today. Kinda frustrating.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 02- 4-06 9:02 PM