Hey, Ben, you're a philosopher: do all fictions occur in fictional worlds?

I'm sure that if I bothered to figure out what you meant by that I would immediately die of boredom.

In other news I was told two nights ago that when I first arrived at my program people thought I was arrogant. I haven't the foggiest notion why.

Post title to 2.

I'm sure that if I bothered to figure out what you meant by that I would immediately die of boredom.

Don't click on this link then.

I'll be honest: I'm confused about who did what wrong here.

6: me too.

I continue to be amazed by people who don't understand how the internet works. You put something in the internet --> that thing is public.

8: There's definitely lots of things that I'm trusting the public indifference not to broadcast. For example, classes of pseudonymity slips I didn't realize I was committing until long after the fact, that now is kind of impossible to go clean up.

10: right, somebody would have to be a total stalker (or Fleur) to go through all the comment's somebody's made. But they certainly could. And, anyhow, this does not seem like that.

Yes, of course, if something's online, it's online. But that's not a response to a request not to publicize something. It's especially not a response to say, basically, "hey, it's out of my hands".

It got linked in comments here, too, as I recall.

But wait, there's more!

It isn't "how the internet works" that everything you put on it is sensationalized by the inflexible, nor is it the case that that obtains with everything public, nor is it the case that, even if something is public, it's unreasonable to want people to treat the publicly-posted information with circumspection or at least some measure of decency (like, say, by amending a highly trafficked post about it to bring its content more in line with reality).

13: it did, and I would hope that if she had emailed us and asked us to be more sensitive, we wouldn't have brushed her off by pretending there was nothing we could do about it. Linking isn't the issue.

Was the Jezebel poster less responsive and sensitive than she could have been? Sure. But I have a hard time holding it against her that she doesn't want to go back and amend the anonymous advice-asker's story.

3: You really shouldn't introduce yourself to people by saying, "excuse me, but I couldn't help overhearing you make a common grammatical error . . . ."

You really shouldn't introduce yourself to people by saying, "excuse me, but I couldn't help overhearing you make a common grammatical error . . . ."

These people need to learn that others will hold it against them, though. I don't myself, but it's an important lesson.

The point isn't just that she didn't update her own post (not the advice-asker's story but her representation of it; why shoudl she amend the advice-asker's story? it's not even in her power) but that her explanation of why she wouldn't do so is self-serving and idiotic.

Sociopath.

Metafilter is not what I would immediately think of as a closed, protected community.

20 to 18.

I'm not sure why anyone thinks that's relevant.

Monster, a regular Hilary Clinton.

And 23 to 21. Is the idea here that because information has been placed online, there's no obligation to treat the placer thereof politely, or just that there's no reason to treat anyone politely?

Those are the only options, right?

I'm not quite sure what the deal here is: someone posted something embarrassing, it got more linkage and attention than had been anticipated, someone with some sort of connection to the original post requested that it be removed, and the person who received that request didn't do anything and was rude about it on the grounds that... it's the internet? the edit button didn't work? information must be freeeee?

That is, I think ben's right.

In other news I was told two nights ago that when I first arrived at my program people thought I was arrogant. I haven't the foggiest notion why.

Congratulations! A good trait for philosophers. Foucault had a reputation for arrogance at the most arrogant school in the world.How could he have failed to succeed?

Stanford isn't that, but it's in the middle seeds.

25: There are probably some rules, yes. But I (and probably others) can't get past waht Jackmormon notes, she posted it on mfing Metafilter for God's sake (I just checked, it gets several times the traffic that jezebel gets according to Alexa). So she posts this item at Metafilter (with the nominal email of whatwhatinthebutt00@gmail.com) and (as far as I know) has *not* asked it to be taken down there. So "anyone in the freaking world can read it form this well-known site, many strangers can comment on it, but not you and your friends", is a hard place to start claiming the high moral ground.

It would be nicer if one could have the expectation that people will deal with your online writings politely. But for the advice-asker to assume that she is guaranteed such treatment strikes me as rather naïve.

In other news I was told two nights ago that when I first arrived at my program people thought I was arrogant. I haven't the foggiest notion why.

Somewhere near the end of my time in grad school I was told that when I arrived people thought I was intimidating. Which is worse?

"anyone in the freaking world can read it form this well-known site, many strangers can comment on it, but not you and your friends"

And yet what JM wrote is that MeFi isn't a closed community.

And you know what? While the exact same thing couldn't have been done on AskMe itself, since the point of the Jezebel post was to direct attention to and discuss the AskMe post, when people are rude or even just off-topic on Ask, they get "called out" on "the gray" and sometimes given "timeouts" or even "banned", so I don't really know what your point is.

What 29 said.

But for the advice-asker to assume that she is guaranteed such treatment strikes me as rather naïve.

Ok—so she was naïve. Her naïveté consists in not expecting jerkish people to do jerkish things (ie treat her writings impolitely). So the next natural step is to point out that the jerks are jerks and castigate them for it.

For some reason, though, everyone seems to balk at this. It's just the way of the world; jerks are jerks. Nothing to see here. Huh?

I read the Jezebel piece after the original Metafilter post was linked here, and I thought that the Jezebel writer was fairly emphatic to the MeFi user's dilemma. I can understand that maybe she was overwhelmed by the amount of attention her post had received, and yes, it would have been very obliging had the Jezebel writer taken down the post, but I really do think it was too late.

Her naïveté consists in not expecting jerkish people to do jerkish things (ie treat her writings impolitely).

Do you think it was jerkish and impolite before the request to take it down? I don't see what's jerkish or impolite about the original Jezebel post.

Part of the point of 32 being that "the 'green'" has even stricter standards/expectations than "the 'blue'". Not just any commentary is allowed, even from people who have paid $5, and of course the other users feel little compunction about calling assholes assholes, unlike, for some reason, Greater Internetia.

Okay, so you have to join MeFi's community to post comments. However, if anyone can read MeFi's thread, it's in no way closed. There are good reasons people still use password-protected blogs or list-servs.

Jezebel and, say, RedState are blog communities that require user registration, but that certainly doesn't stop us from reading the threads and mocking them. It's the Whole Wide World, after all.

I'm going to try to unpack the timeline, mostly for my benefit:
1. person anonymously posts very personal question on Ask Metafilter, reasonably high traffic web site. Thoughtful, plausibly helpful comments thread ensues.
2. Jezebel writer notices Metafilter post, posts about it in turn. Attracts comment thread that is possibly somewhat less thoughtful and suffused with no small amount of possibly misdirected anger.
3. Ask Metafilter member who is not the original poster (who was anonymous) asks Jezebel poster to take down or anyhow modify her post.
4. Jezebel writer refuses, but refuses in kind of passive way that doesn't quite take full responsibility for the post.
5. Ask Metafilter member who is not the original poster (who still hasn't said anything) republishes e-mail conversation with Jezebel author, leading to...
6. widespread outrage.

Is that the deal?

I do not know what this "green" and "blue" and "gray" refer to. Some sort of hierarchy system? Trusted user status? Uh, ok.

The OP of the question posted anonymously for a reason.

So? It's not like Jezebel Megan tracked her down and published her name. Still anonymous.

Also, the original asker is still anonymous, right?
Both in real life and in terms of internet pseuds she presumably uses? If she got identified via the Jezebel link, I'd be more sympathetic.

Did the OP actually weigh in at some point after the fact? Did I miss that?

The other thing I wanted to say is that even within a totally open system like Unfogged, I know that there are various ways to call more attention to myself than perhaps I would want. Already, by having a distinctive handle, I stick out more: hence Lizardbreath's handle fatwas. If I break into a thread with a dramatic personal story, it's more likely to garner outside attention if it's in the beginning of a thread; only the Unfogged junkies read deep into the weeds. If I want an extra layer of protection (a second or third anonymity condom, if you will), I can go presidential. However, if I want to maximize the chances of my issues being picked up by the Whole Wide World, I can write in with an Ask the Mineshaft.

I don't know, maybe I'm getting too jaded about these periodic stories about internet overexposure. Back when I maintained my own blogs, I used to have nightmares every so often about a post going seriously viral, so I've really thought through some of these anxieties. It seems like the price to pay for the medium's publicness and openness.

32: The more clueless or intellectually dishonest at MetaFilter might opine that it as a sweet little electronic utopia of well-understood norms, but ...

I mean, holy fuck, one of the main points of MetaFilter was linking and discussion of other information found on the Jesus freaking internet. And if you've ever had yourself so linked you know what a clusterfuck of clueless un-selfaware out-of-context wankery awaits you. Some coming from *shock* non-members who read it there, even though they aren't members.

And by the way, I guess the ban on self-promotion expressed in the Wikipedia post on MetaFilter, "Half-baked posts, self-promotion, open-ended questions, and other fare common on other community sites and internet forums are strongly discouraged at MetaFilter, though such things do sometimes make it through[citation needed]. The post must contain a link, and the site linked must be of high quality.", does not exclude abusive cloying self-promotion at community sites like Wikipedia. And the use of "high quality" in that context makes it sound like a parody. But sadly it is not.

If she (the OP) had e-mailed the Jezebel woman and said "look, I think you got it wrong", and the Jezebel woman had said "I don't give a crap!" then I could see calling the Jezebel woman a jerk.

I want to make a general observation about arrogance in grad school but don't want to have it read as saying something about nosflow, about whom I know next to nothing. So fill in the blanks yourselves.

the original poster (who still hasn't said anything)

Somewhere in there a Metafilter commenter publishes a quote supposedly from her/his own private email correspondence with the original advice-asker.

That is to say, no, it doesn't sound like the OP has had correspondence with the Jezebel poster. Or am I missing something?

At some other blog I administer I've had people email me requesting removal of old, intemperate comments that now appear as the first or second result on googling their name. (The archives are likely to yield me talking about this, with an inkling of nosflow.)

49: it says "This is her correspondence with the Jezebel editor".

48: well, okay, assuming that's actual correspondence from the actual original poster, and further assuming Megan really did have the ability to amend the post (which presumably she did, although she has an editor? and a publishing schedule? so who knows) then it would have been nice if she'd followed through, but hoooooooly crap tempest in an internet teapot.

And, of course, republishing the Jezebel poster's e-mails in a public forum is also kind of jerky.

Oh, no, I'm wrong. Turns out that thing that the third party posted was supposed to be the OP's correspondence with Megan of Jezebel. Geez.

I didn't mean to use the Jezebel poster's name in 52, because of some weird standard I was trying to adhere to for no real reason, but oh well.

Everyone at MeFi seems to be really mad that the Jezebel writer is getting paid to blog.

Yeah, there seems to be a theory that this is sheer money-grubbing, like she's getting rich off the back of this poor anonymous poster. That I don't fathom.

55: That's because paid-by-the-pageview angle provides a supposedly craven motive that explains the refusal to change the post.

I didn't get that either. If she changed the post or added new information, wouldn't that be more likely to increase the page views?

hoooooooly crap tempest in an internet teapot.

Who would have thought!?

Under the same set of assumptions as 52, if the Jezebel poster had said "I'm not going to edit it, because I think I pretty fairly represented it and I feel like updating it now would just confuse the discussion going on at my site", then I don't see how she would have been not-nice at all.

If I had a dollar for every time I've been pwned round here I could buy myself a faster internet connection.

You people are heartless and Ben is right.

Look, we all know EXACTLY what it's like to feel relatively safe and among friends on public Internet sites, even widely-read ones, and to discuss personal, even embarrassing things with the implicit--and not entirely unfounded--belief that one is relatively safe in doing so. I'm certain we've all said things online that would/have embarass(ed) us if transported to a different forum and context.

Mefi is generally a q&a site; Jezebel is basically a snark site. Of COURSE lifting something from one to the other is going to lead to more assholish answers. And of course Jezebel has the right to do so; even snark sites are capable of thoughtful stuff. But I don't see why the snark site can't offer the person whose out-of-context question went awry a half-decent apology, even at the same time as saying "I'm sorry, but it's our/my policy/preference not to remove posts."

Amusingly, the Outrage! over at Metafilter has probably jacked the pageviews way past what they would have been otherwise.

Maybe it was all a scheme on Jezebel poster's part! And all for some filthy lucre. Horrible!

But I don't see why the snark site can't offer the person whose out-of-context question went awry a half-decent apology

Well, it is a snark site.

55: They paid $5 for the privilege of coughing up their hairballs gems of insight all the while under the lash of respectful community norms. So yeah, they're bitter.

(I really don't know where all of my free floating hostility to MetaFilter is coming from, but every time I turn around I find something about it that annoys me. The Wikipedia article, however, is unrecoverable from.)

Look, we all know EXACTLY what it's like to feel relatively safe and among friends on public Internet sites, even widely-read ones, and to discuss personal, even embarrassing things with the implicit--and not entirely unfounded--belief that one is relatively safe in doing so.

We do? This is something I largely try to avoid.

I'm certain we've all said things online that would/have embarass(ed) us if transported to a different forum and context.

Again, I find the anonymity of the OP a mitigating factor. The woman doesn't even have a regular internet handle for the story to be identified with.

Also, I just can't get past the fact that the original asker seems to have successfully stayed anonymous. I can imagine it would make my heart beat pretty fast if my embarrasing ATM question went viral, but if no one truly chased it back to Heebie, it hasn't actually scratched me.

I'm still confused about what the offense is. We know from 48 that there was correspondence between the OP and the Jezebel editor. I can see how it was jerkish for no one at Jezebel to retract or clarify the post or otherwise respond sympathetically. But a lot of the discussion seems to be about whether it was jerkish that it was ever posted at Jezebel in the first place before the OP contacted them. I don't see how it could be; nosflow, do you think it was?

Bphd is probably thinking of that time that guy did that thing that led to a spate of redactions here.

Okay, that's the second time I've been a half-beat behind Blume on the subject of the poster's anonymity. I bow in defeat.

But you're commenting for two!

(Okay, I'm not sure how that's supposed to make you slower. Anyway!)

68: yeah. I can't quite figure out what the harm is. Somebody would get the wrong impression about something that happened to some anonymous person?

It isn't like the thoughtful, helpful comment thread on Ask MeFi went away, or something. Just look at that one, not the other one!

I think we're all in agreement that the Jezebel folks should have been nicer in corresponding with the Metafilter people, but Ben's post seemed to be implying some further wrongdoing.

The POINT is that people are being INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST!

WHERE IS THE FUCKING OUTRAGE?!

I responded to heebie to make her feel better about the pwn.

For the sake of decency, 75 should be amended to the original post.

I think ogged took all the fucking outrage with him when he left.

77 doesn't even make sense.

I wasn't. Actually I was thinking of my own reactions when I've picked something up from somewhere and later heard from the author or a friend of the author that my doing so led to their being bothered by it. Picking stuff up is totally fair, and I'm completely down with not removing posts, but it's pretty lame to pull the "what did you expect?" bullshit. Apologize, chastise your readers and remind them that the people they're discussing are human if you feel it's necessary, but don't get all righteous about someone else's feelings. Jeez.

The "it's public but private" schtick is mirrored (in the ensuing controversy) by this "it's anonymous but *I* know who I am" thing that makes it easy to ping back and forth between standards appropriate to the common decency owed to a person and the those owed to random, anonymous internet identities. "Don't be an asshole to random, anonymous internet identities" seems hard to sustain.

62: And if it fucking escaped into the wilds of the Internet, I would hope we'd all understand the rules. After AltaVista et al led to the initial widespread death of "security by obscurity" on the Internet, I sent a couple of website owners e-mail notes asking that they anonymize a couple of items that were in fact the first result returned when you searched on my real name (and as a bonus had my work e-mail ... stuff lifted from the good/bad old days of Usenet). In both cases they did so, but if they didn't, tough shit real person behind the JP pseud.

Excuse me. I have to eat a pancake now.

For the sake of decency, someone should give me a warm arugula pizza right now, so I don't have to go make dinner.

Someone should help me write these final exams, in case I don't end up finishing the semester.

Excuse me. I have to eat a pancake now.

It's surprising how often philosophers avail of this response when they're losing an argument. Very common move at NYU.

I don't think the anonymity thing matters. It does mean that the poster is being a little oversensitive, maybe, but we also know that people can be identified even when they post anonymosly.

As best I can tell none of the google results on my real name are me.

I guess 15.last answered my 69 and I missed it. Comity! I think.

Obviously in saying "oversharing can have consequences you don't expect" she means "oversharing should have consequences whether you expect them or not", and has decided to bring such consequences about, but adopts this infuriating pose of just letting you know how it is, don't blame her.

74: Is this the part [emphasis mine] that is bothersome? It sounds a bit as though Ben is claiming that Megan wrote her post with the clear intent of bringing about 'consequences'. When no, she wrote the post in response to the MF question. That the ensuing discussion was considered negative consequences by the OP does not seem to have been Megan's intent.

we also know that people can be identified even when they post anonymosly

By whom? That certainly doesn't seem to have happened in this case. Where, incidentally, the nominally offensive post in question was at a much lower traffic blog than the original post, and added no new information.

Now, if the Jezebel poster had used the headers in the e-mails she was sent to track down and post personal information about the OP, now that would have jerky.

We don't know shit about what the OP is feeling because she ain't saying. All these other MeFi people are all, The OP supports me in email! I wouldn't be surprised if some of more curt emails from Jezebel that are being quoted came after a long-ass day of answering complete strangers' hectoring complaints.

I was just about to post something along the lines of 90, but preview has saved me fron pwnage, so instead I'm posting this largely content-free comment.

90, huzzah.

W: Excuse me. I have to eat a pancake now.

G: It's surprising how often philosophers avail of this response when they're losing an argument. Very common move at NYU.

More than 50 years have passed since two philosophers squared off against each other at England's Cambridge University. Wittgenstein had sent Karl Popper an invitation to discuss "some philosophical puzzle." That got Popper's goat. He had real problems on his mind, not puzzles. Wittgenstein insisted there were no real problems in philosophy, only the puzzling way philosophers talked about the world. Wittgenstein, picked up an iron poker from the fireplace and waved it at Popper. Or maybe he only waved it in the air for emphasis, as he shouted "Popper, you are wrong! You are wrong!" Taking the goat by its lead, Popper tried to escape upstairs to the King's refectory, claiming he had left a piece of strudel there earlier -- but Wittgenstein was adamant, "There will be no strudel for you this evening, my little friend, not until I have seen you thinking for yourself. What are the first two syllables of the word 'philosophy'?" "Of course!" cried Popper. "Philo: It is a kind of dough, is it not?" But Wittgenstein had more universal fish to fry. In fact, he wanted philosophers to shut up about most of what matters in everyday life: ethics, aesthetics, nature, religion. "Pastry! This is the crux. It was right under our noses all the time, but all you would talk about was this empirical falsification, these equations, this critical rationalism of scientific method bullshit. I'm surrounded by idiots."

It sounds a bit as though Ben is claiming that Megan wrote her post with the clear intent of bringing about 'consequences'.

I'm prepared to say that she has decided to continue teaching her lesson (regarding "oversharing", itself not obviously the apt term) deliberately, even if she didn't when she put up the post at first think of it in those terms.

I can see Megan's remarks as having been in good faith if she posted the thing sympathetically. But it's still sort of naive/dumb not to realize that she created the problem, even unintentionally.

I maintain that I am losing no argument, but I'm unsurprised that the move should be common at NYU.

75: The POINT is that people are being INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST!

It is what it is. And, yes, Ben I suspect everybody gets that this is similar to the annoyance one might feel when confronted with that phrase from someone who has actual agency over what "it" is. Maybe Megan at Jezebel is thinking, "This person needs to learn that others will hold it against her. I don't myself, but it's an important lesson."

96 continued: and therefore the "making money" thng is relevant. We all know that professional bloggers are really just young underpaid regular people, but professional ethics, guys.

Schoolmarmish motives are also to be decried. "This hurts me more than it hurts you".

"it is what it is" is the lamest status-quo excusing statement evah.

88: "As best I can tell none of the google results on my real name are me."

I sometimes wonder what David Weman the fireman and David Weman the student athlete might have thought of me, if they've googled their name sometime.

But it's still sort of naive/dumb not to realize that she created the problem, even unintentionally.

I just don't buy that she's created a problem or violated any professional ethics, given the difference in traffic and the intact anonymity.

96, 99: Gah. My head. It sounds like you're arguing that it was the Jezebel post that was in the wrong.

101: Yeah, tell me about it and RTFA when you do. Recent ones.

45: The "self-promotion" in that Wikipedia post is a reference to linking, in MeFi posts, to things the linker has a personal interest in. It's a rather draconian method of dealing with spam and SEO junk, and while I think the standards are a bit OTT sometimes I can see where they're coming from.

I think the point of the question the OP was asking was not how to recover from being raped, but how she should handle it when it felt like rape, but she didn't think it was. I am guessing here, but from the reposted emailed remarks, she was implying that the boyfriend was supposed (or asked?) to do the er, sticky-in-the-butt thingy. And it didn't work out well, because of (perhaps) miscommunication? However, OP's reaction was as though she were raped.

When the Jezebel person jumped on it, she took it as cut and dried, and the OP didn't think it was, which was why the OP was asking. The Jezebel person refused to amend the OP's description of the story.

In essence, the OP was saying the Jezebel person was posting (via telephone style misinterpretation) an untrue story. That's what it reads like to me; obviously that may be wrong. Or the OP may not be firing on all cylinders and sees it that way when it isn't, or the OP may have screwed up with the original post.

In any event the Jezebel person is 'helping' in a particularly toxic (to the OP or to the BF, who may in fact be guiltless) way, for her own reasons.

max
['Hrmm. Dunno.']

I'm arguing that inasmch as the Jezebel post ostensibly hurt someone's feelings, megan's response is at worst self-serving and at best insensitive.

106: Oh, I can see where they're coming from too. It's just a bit rich coming in the middle of an incredibly self-serving Wikipedia article. But don't mind me.

People at Stanford eat pancakes joyfully as an consummation of life and an iteration of the Pancake Division of the Eternal Return -- not instrumentally as a means to an ever-receding end.

I think there's comity around 108. Isn't there?

The no-self-link policy has other justifications, such as that one is not the best judge of the fpp-worthiness of things in which one has a stake. There are other mechanisms for drawing attention to such things.

88: I wish I could say the same, but sharing a last name with all of four all other people in the world kinda shoots that in the head.

Oh, man. Someone talk to me sternly if I turn up here again tonight. A subtitler's deadlines aren't flexible.

I experienced a tremendous moment as I was eating the pancake and said to it, "you are a god and never have I eaten anything more divine".

As best I can tell none of the google results on my real name are me.

Now someone with my name has moved up in the rankings by starting a new blog about such fascinating religious-y things as how God helped him get a refund on a plasma TV. Ew. (I should probably rephrase that so as to follow the advice I keep giving read about charitable readings, but oh well.)

I may have said this before, but there's really no reason to make a pancake out of anything other than wholegrain spelt.

I experienced a tremendous moment as I was eating the pancake and said to it, "you are a god and never have I eaten anything more divine".

Isn't there a version of the ontological argument that suggests that God is maximally delicious?

Not even the lack of spelt and the desire for a pancake?

Can you make a dutch baby out of spelt?

Weman! Get out of here, young man.

I'm sorry, i don't have time to answer you.

One philosophy professor at Wash U has his own special way of dealing with other people on the internet with his name.

Neb Nosflow sounds a lot cooler than just Nosflow.

There are a considerable number of John Emersons on the web, and a surprising number of them have some kind of orientalist connection (Hawaii, China, Japan, Tibet, Persia, tea imports, international relations and graft).

Weman! The film watchers will get confused if you do not do your job!

I want to be a sword and basket maker. I bet they have relaxed deadlines.

I want to be a sword and basket maker. I bet they have flexible deadlines.

The Pancake God is one of the least jealous Gods, IIRC.

I knew a woman whose last name was Pancake once.

I have made a basket and subtitled films. I have never made a sword.

One of the weirder jobs I've had was to provide voice-over translation for the German titles in a silent movie. I sat in the projection booth with a mug of tea and waited for each title screen to come up, whereupon I read distinctly into the microphone. The movie itself was a Weimar Freudian fairy tale---a tragic enactment of repetition-compulsion, very silly--but I've forgotten the title.

129: Don't worry, you are still young.

127 is the subtitle to 126.

A guy I know did that on very short notice for the Russian titles in "Strike". There were funny moments when they would go by too fast, often on titles with lists, and he would end by hurriedly saying "and... a bunch of other Russian villages" or the like.

I'm supposed to be subtitling the 6th season finale of Last Comic Standing, which is the worst piece of shit program I've ever done. They have a huge audience, and I can't believe they're actually laughing at these douchebags.

I mean literally the worst program I've done. I did subtitle a zero budget horror movie about the BTK killer that was worse. That's the weirdest thing I've done, including Caligula. Creepy as fuck, plus they inserted random shots of animals getting slaughtered to compensate for the lack of any horror.

If it's any consolation, 134 is funny.

40: They're references to the various subsites under the MeFi umbrella (referring to the page background for each). "The blue" is metafilter.com (aka the front page), "the green" is AskMe (which is IIRC the only place on the site where anonymity is allowed), and "the grey" is MetaTalk (for discussion of the site itself).

Coming next is a site with 80s-computer-graphics visual theme for discussion of esoterica and mysticism, MetaTron.

Fistful had a great post on subtitling sometime last year. (Maybe more than one.)

My sister with the sociopath husband, after divorcing him, lived in Wichita during about the last 10 years of the BTK era, when he was mostly but not completely inactive. She's pretty hard to intimidate. Some of the cons in involuntary rehab try to, but she's seen it all.

She told a funny story. At one point in a group of moderately rough rehabbing guys, about half of them ended up telling stories to defend one or more of their sisters. They asked if any of her brothers had had to fight to defend her honor. She was puzzled by the question, the answer being no. She'd never thought about it.

One of them said "Everyone was afraid of you", which was half a joke. She isn't a pushover in any way, obvs.

Adding you probably won't publish this letter (and its variants) is an interesting strategic move -- kind of a pride sacrifice. To encourage an outlet to publish a letter presumed hostile, you gives the outlet the additional incentive of portraying their presumed opponent as a whingey brat.

137 - And the upperclassman-only spinoff, MetaThesis?

I'm fairly sure none of the (three, IIRC) people with a financial stake in MetaFilter wrote that Wikipedia entry, fwiw.

The DIY subtitles you find on movie sites are really impressive. Crazy damn people, doing that for free.

It's possible sword making has relaxed deadlines, but I bet it's incredibly time consuming, and if you want to turn out more than two a year or so (which presumably you'd need to do to make money) I bet it's kind of stressful.

141 is I think correct, but also uses the language in various fascinating but oddly troubling ways.

I hadn't read the OP until now; I must say I wouldn't have linked to it as fodder for discussion, but Jezebel is apparently a site for discussing just that sort of thing (among others). A snark site. If there's an objection to be made, it'd be against snark sites.

To make a good sword you have to kill a slave. Weman presumably is producing defective vegan swords.

Weman is just lying in wait to nationalize our banks. Keep the swords away from him.

Let's smother him in toxic debt.

||
I'm babysitting for a friend's kids and watching Big Love on HBO On Demand. The subtitles are very nicely done (well, captions). You know what's weird? When I lived in LA I was at a party one time and Harry Dean Stanton gave me a cigarette. I didn't know who he was, and also I was kind of drunk. We smoked in the back yard for a while. Then everyone told me "Oooo Harry Dean Stanton!"

The end.
|>

149: what's the standard usage of "babysit"? Do I say "babysitting FOR a friend's kids" or "babysitting a friend's kids [for the friend]"?

149: interesting Harry Dean Stanton story. Think of *being* Harry Dean Stanton. That would be crazy. To have total strangers telling stories to each other about once receiving a cigarette from you. No stranger will ever tell a story "I was at a party once in LA and PGD gave me a cigarette".

150: the latter.

I would say "babysitting a friend's kids".

I'm going to start telling that story, PGD. You are the new Harry Dean Stanton.

do you ever say "babysit for"? who's the indirect object, if you do? the parents?

I think I say it with the parents as the complement to the preposition but my judgments are not fully confident on that point. I know I would say it in cases where I'd refer to the family in that slot. "I used to babysit for this crazy family with three really out-of-control kids" or "I used to babysit for a family where the dad drove a tricked-out old Ford pickup" are both definitely okay for me.

I like babysitting for families with a fridge full of beer and HBO On Demand.

I like friends who would be willing to babysit for me.

UT Austin has a big sign language linguistics program. There are things that are less likely than me babysitting for you. Stock up on the beer and Big Love, baby!

Done and done!

But I like Big Love. I'd probably end up staying home and drinking beer and watching TV with you.

And the use of "high quality" in that context makes it sound like a parody. But sadly it is not.

It's someone lifting language directly from the Metafilter posting guidelines and plopping it into the Wikipedia article, I believe, rather than someone directly associated with Metafilter tooting his or her own horn on Wikipedia.

I'm going to start telling that story, PGD.

I'm flattered. As long as you make it clear that I gave you drugs. Cigarettes are boring.

Done. Do I know, or not know, who you were, at the time?

When I lived in DC I was at my house one time and PGD gave me drugs. I didn't know who he was, and also I was kind of drunk. We sat in the living room for a while. Then everyone told me "Oooo PGD!"

The end.

142, 160, probably others upthread: My negativity towards MetaFilter is probably not warranted as I am not that familiar with the place but let me just say that:

1) My only real prior experience with the site was in a few drive-bys where something I either knew very well or a blog/forum/place I participated in was linked by MF. Those instances led me to slotting the place as one where sometimes obscure topics got a lot more attention. The comments in those instances at MF may have been within community standards, but they did not generally seem more clueful than most random Internet fare, and in several instances seemed to lead to real works of art showing up at either the original Internet location, or the venue where I was following the item. Maybe (probably) not MFers, but in the end, I slotted MetaFilter as yet one more part of the "make little Internet things into big Internet things" industry. That triggered a kneejerk hypocrisy response to this story for me (and still does).

2) Never meant to imply that anyone financially profiting from MF wrote the sycophantic Wiki article. Rather just an enthusiastic member, fan or groupie.

3) I realize that "high quality" is probably a lift-and-drop from MF policy. It struck me as pretentious in that context, not Wiki.

Clearly, I'm still negative. If I took the time and became familiar with it, I might quite like it, who knows? I learned a bit reading about it today and there is clearly more to it than I previously knew of.

The post title might read more clearly: "I'm definitely being an asshole now only because others might be assholes for the same reason in the future."

Personal bugaboo regarding the placement of "only", mind you.

i read occasionally metafilter posts, seldom click on the links if those catch my attention and never read the comments
i'm bitter it rejected me twice, i mean my memory failures, 5$ and it's like my stinginess worked on the subconscious level to block it
i confess i ate yesteday some strange salad with jalapenos, which jar failed to produce the pook sound and the lid inside looked like moldy, but i washed it and it still looked that and i concluded it was not moldy, but has that motley colour to it, very strange, why they don't make it just clear monochrome to make it easier to spot fungi growth or something
but i couldn't throw away the whole just opened jar, so overheated it and ate and then waited for the botulism symptoms to appear, but it seems okay and out now, i'm relieved

r

but i couldn't throw away the whole just opened jar, so overheated it and

...fed it to Brock's baby.

in BL's case i'll cut off the moldy parts and eat it perhaps, but generally i don't eat cheeses, so i doubt it, to fed it to a baby is cruel and inhumane!
i recalled a study on the sewer rats and lab rats, the lab rats having the weaker immunity than the sewer rats
hopefully i have now a stronger immunity regarding botulism

a

i hope people won't read me as if i was suggesting BL's cruel and inhumane, coz don't judge and won't be something
but generally i think babies don't eat cheese too
i was thinking about jalapenos and my ears only as i recall upon rereading

||
I just skyped a friend in Tblisi, another in Kazakhstan, and my sister in Botswana. These here internets are a fucking miracle, I tell you, a miracle.
|>

are you a CIA agent? coz the destinations are that interesting sounding
i remember when i was in the 3d grade summer i read Georgian myths, very interesting with the King David A... i fogot what was the epithet
i feel some weak piercing like tingling pain here and there, perhaps, it's starting now
i was to check how long should i heat it to kill the spores if there were some, but was too lazy avos' like, thinking maybe the pepper killed them all something

Be careful, read. Botulism is a nasty thing to get.

If only we had a TV which aired shows a day in advance, we could confirm if this the outset of a botulism breakout.

According to this site, you have to cook at 121 degrees Celsius for at least 3 minutes. Also, confirming what AWB said, the site suggests death within 2 to 8 days if untreated.

I feel horribly guilty whenever I discard food -- but not so guilty that I'm willing to take chances with foodborne illness. When in doubt, throw it out!!

I've been rigid with terror about botulism since I watched the Good Eats episode about canning. I grew up canning, and knew sterilization was important, but shit, the little digression Brown does on botulism is enough to make you never buy anything in a jar again.

3 minutes? i did 15 and on the frying pan, so hopefully then it's okay
David Sasunskii, i recalled, i have a great memory after all

||

I'm trying to add TV shows to my netflix queue, and Jammies is making it difficult by already having downloaded everything I can think of. (Feel free to point out that I should just discontinue Netflix then, but it's only 1 disc at a time, and I'm piggy-backing on Jammies' account anyway, which he uses.)

Sample of shows I like:
Weeds
Veronica Mars
Arrested Development
30 Rock
Friday Night Lights

Shows I ought to like but just couldn't get immersed in:
The Wire
6 Feet Under

I think I have very conventional tastes; it should be easy to find more shows. Recommendations?

|>

Always Sunny.

181: I knew you'd recommend that! I almost headed you off at the pass - that's one of the ones that Jammies said, "Don't bother, I've got it downloaded. But you really should watch that." So it's next on my internal queue, if not my Netflix queue.

A friend recommended it a few months ago and I watched every episode in about a week and a half. It's bizarre, because if someone described the show to me, I would refuse to watch it---like all the bad reviews say damning things that I would say, oh I wouldn't ever watch anything like that. So fucking funny though.

Heebie, have you seen Big Bang Theory? My parents watch it, so I've seen it while home, and despite conventional-sitcomminess, it is pretty clever and nerdy.

183: I have seen it - I think it shows up on one of the free channels. Haven't really been grabbed by it, though.

182: I sing the Nightman and the Dayman songs to myself all the time. He's a master of karate and friendship for everyone . . .

184: Yeah, I wasn't at first. But I do appreciate that, for a sitcom about a bunch of physics postdocs, they actually have advisers for the show who do research in the field. Maybe it's the soft bigotry of low expectations that made me like it.

I went through a recent phase with Dead Like Me, much of which can be streamed online through NetFlix. Outside of that, it's been re-watching The West Wing and catching up online with FNL, whose plot more recently seems to be headed towards loony town.

it was Armenian epos, oops

There's a new half-hour Rob Thomas comedy called Party Down that airs on Starz and involves a lot of people who worked on Veronica Mars. I watched the first episode online the other day and was underwhelmed, but with those people involved I'm optimistic.

185: me too.

Heebie, listen to the people. Always Sunny &c.

Eastbound & Down is pretty fucking hilarious if you like that kind of thing, which I usually don't, but... well, what can I tell you.

CA and I have been watching Peep Show, which is also completely hilarious.

Always Sunny is fantastic. It's still in its first season on Showtime so I guess there aren't DVDs yet, but I've also been enjoying United States of Tara.

Apo have you watched Eastbound & Down? Lots of authentic North Carolina flavor.

Peep Show is hilarious, but I did find the later seasons to be a little too gruelingly sappy, like the whole marriage plot. It was like they eventually had to get really invested in the emotional life of these characters and couldn't just abuse them anymore.

Apo have you watched Eastbound & Down?

Never heard of it.

179

Have of tried some of the British shows? I liked "Prime Suspect", "House of Cards" and "State of Play". They have fewer episodes than a typical US TV series season, more like a miniseries.

Ah, it's on HBO. I only have Showtime.

Oh dude. Definitely check it out. I don't even think I should explain anything about it, you should just watch it.

I just asked Jammies if he'd burn me Always Sunny, so that one is definitely next.

But I do appreciate that, for a sitcom about a bunch of physics postdocs, they actually have advisers for the show who do research in the field.

Mostly Dav/id Saltz/berg at UCLA. They get some things right (no lab coats, labs look like real labs, blackboards look like real blackboards), and there's a fair amount of humor of recognition for someone who knows the jargon. The first episode struck me as pretty sexist ("vapid blonde bombshell meets loser genius guys"), but on the occasions that I've seen it more recently they seem to have moved past that. Still, the characters seem a lot more like college students than like postdocs. Though the most amusing part is how Lub/os Mo/tl seems to have decided the most socially-unacceptable character is modeled on him, and takes pride in this.

This is very embarrassing to admit, but I shy away from English comedies because I can't quite keep up with the jokes and disentangling what they said in their funny accents. I really have liked British Office and Extras when Jammies watched them, but they take extra concentration.

I know I just need practice. I'll put Peep Show in the queue.

"State of Play" is really great. I endorse it wholeheartedly. (Warning! If you download it instead of getting it from Netflix, one of the torrents going around has the final and penultimate episodes mislabeled as one another, and you really don't want to watch them out of order.) I saw a preview on Friday for the forthcoming American feature film remake and it made me die inside. It doesn't look good, and Russell Crowe's hair looks even worse.

201

Yes, I have to watch with subtitles on.

198 continued: filmed 100% on location in Wilmington, North Carolina.

All three of the British shows Shearer mentioned are dramas, if that makes them seem more accessible.

Are you only looking for newer shows? Reaching back several years, Freaks & Geeks was worth watching.

Whoops! I forgot that I had lost my browser history. 202 and 205 were me.

206: Older shows are definitely not off-limits, but I already adore Freaks And Geeks beyond belief.

I watched a lot of the first couple seasons of The Wire with subtitles on. Subtitles are awesome!

200: Yeah, that was the first episode I saw and it really annoyed me that Penny was just the straight woman for all these guys. But it seems to have had a similar arc to Dee's role on Always Sunny, in that both of them have become just as bizarre as the men on the shows. Penny is filthy, neurotic, and becomes addicted to MMORPGs; Dee is an alcoholic psychopath, etc.

Gilmore Girls up through the end of season 5 (do yourself a favor and act as if the series ended there).
The new Doctor Who.
2nding Dead Like Me.
Andy Richter Controls the Universe; Andy Barker P.I. (add the two together for one full season worth of episodes).

Sidebar: if they ever put "It's Like, You Know" on DVD I'll buy it.

Dee is an alcoholic psychopath, etc.

And racist!

208: Have you watched Undeclared?

213: I tried, but for some reason I didn't like it much.

I have a theory that in general, high school shows and movies are fantastic, but college ones are terrible.

In high school, everything is mandatory and you have to do it with people you may not like, or people who you lust after but who may not like you back. Great TV!

In college, nothing is mandatory and people settle into homogeneous groups and avoid situations they don't like. Terrible TV.

||
Mormon Jesus: "Stop. Mormon Time!"
|>

Further to 211: Knights of Prosperity.
Also, Jonathan Slavin of "Andy Richter Controls the Universe" and Maz Jobrani of "Knights of Prosperity" both showed up in the premiere of Better Off Ted, which despite the title (and the underwhelmed Slate review) was actually very entertaining. I'm sure it won't last.

Maz Jobrani's website resized my browser window. Axis of Evil is right.

216: Not surprising that Slavin showed up; Better Off Ted is from the same guy who exec-produced Andy Richter.

Camino has a preference labeled "Prevent sites from changing, moving or resizing windows" [lack of serial comma in the original]. I'm especially fond of this preference.

I third the recommendation of State of Play. Double plus good.

Heebie, have you seen Big Bang Theory? My parents watch it, so I've seen it while home, and despite conventional-sitcomminess, it is pretty clever and nerdy.

I hate this show, because it plays math nerds as campy quasi-homosexual theatre major types, when in fact they are exactly the opposite. Massive misrepresentation of the subculture. It's kind of a testimony to Hollywood's inability to even imagine nerd culture.

it admittedly is clever, though.

campy quasi-homosexual theatre major types, when in fact they are exactly the opposite.

Huh. I went to a very nerdy engineering school where all the sciency guys sat around having dramatic quasi-homosexual conversations about nerd shit all the time. YMMV.

Where's Soupy been lately?

There are so many things about 221 that don't make sense to me that I don't even know where to start, from the presumption that there is a homogeneous subculture of "math nerds" to the idea that working physicists would belong to this subculture to the apparent presumption that sexuality is correlated with mathematical acumen.

Whatever the culture is that's represented by the show, it has some nontrivial overlap with my college experience sharing an apartment with physics/chemistry/comp sci people. It has relatively little overlap with my current experience of being a physics postdoc.

But I do agree that they're very undergraddy. It's hard to imagine postdocs acting like that.

Big Bang Theory's geek cred is actually pretty high. Wolowitz is named (but not patterned) after the creator's former business partner in software development, and they have a consultant (an astrophysics prof) who writes all their equations for them.

And their shirts seem to be popular with actual nerds too.

There are so many things about 221 that don't make sense to me that I don't even know where to start, from the presumption that there is a homogeneous subculture of "math nerds"

There is as wide a range of math nerds as there is commenters here on Unfogged.

they have a consultant (an astrophysics prof) who writes all their equations for them.

He's more of an experimental particle physicist than an astrophysicist, though he has moved from collider experiments to astroparticle experiments (cosmic ray measurements) in recent years.

Not that these distinctions probably mean much to most people reading here. But the stuff written on the boards in the show is almost always particle physics.

Heh. I remembered reading a thing about the show that mentioned him, but I couldn't find the link before my own personal fact-check timeout occurred.

They're a colorful bunch. First we have a mathematician, then another kind of mathematician, and finally, a statistician.

Oh and very late addendum to the actual post topic: Gawker writers are no longer paid by the page hit. So imputing that particular motive to Megan (which everyone seems to and rather nastily) won't fly.

More than you ever wanted to know about the science consulting on that show.

228: There is as wide a range of math nerds as there is commenters here on Unfogged.

Heh.

Perhaps it would have been better if I had associated nerds with engineering culture rather than pure mathematics. Anyway, there is a wide range of theatrical types just as there are a wide range of science geeks. But the two tribes are still totally different. Engineering/science geeks take themselves very seriously in a way that cannot be represented by standard theatrical camp, which is what Big Bang Theory more or less does. (It's a good sitcom, but well within the form).

The science/engineering geek version of playful campiness would be *building* something funny, which can indeed by very funny but is still at core serious because you are building something, ideally something that works. (Along these lines, Burning Man is the major successful and genuine fusion of theatrical and nerd culture).

Basically nerdiness is depth and truth-driven, while theatricality is surface and beauty-driven. (Of course, each subculture redefines beauty and truth to meet their internal standards, but I'm saying by normal human standards). So the classic nerd dresses like crap, has no surface polish and distrusts people who do, is compulsively and awkwardly sincere, blurts out whatever is on their mind, cannot play social games, and has little self-irony. The actors on "Big Bang" mime these characteristics entertainingly but are so far from them by nature that they can't do it in any resonant or genuine sense.

Nerd culture is such an interesting and significant development, it was disappointing to see a major TV series treat it in such a surface way. Maybe I'm just faulting it for being a light comedy though. It's *theatrically* skillful.

to the apparent presumption that sexuality is correlated with mathematical acumen.

camp is associated with out gay culture, as is theatre. I don't know if this is just a cultural thing or has any deeper relationship to homosexuality. In any case, this isn't about individual mathematical acumen but life choices and which subculture you choose to belong to.

Basically nerdiness is depth and truth-driven, while theatricality is surface and beauty-driven.

This seems to me to be based on a fundamental association of "masculine" activities with value and "feminine" activities with frivolousness, and it's also one of the things being actively undermined for humor's sake on BBT in a way that I find compelling. It would be totally boring sexist crap as a show if, say, Sheldon is hyperlogical and Penny is hysterically emotional. Although those are the stereotypes each of them might fit into, the basic irony of the show is that Sheldon's obsession with order and logic turns him into a hysterically emotional trainwreck while Penny's ability to accept irrationality is what allows her to be calm and methodical.

You're not saying the "depth and truth-driven" and "surface and beauty-driven" stereotypes have anything to do with higher or lower levels of emotionality, are you?

Basically nerdiness is depth and truth-driven, while theatricality is surface and beauty-driven.

Are you serious about this?

it was disappointing to see a major TV series treat it in such a surface way

Are you serious about this?

Huh. I've heard the show criticized for portraying people too stereotypically, but 236 seems to be criticizing it for not treating the stereotype as some sort of genuine ideal to aspire to. That's... different.

(Are you an engineer, PGD? I know very few engineers and a lot of scientists. I suspect it's a mistake to think the cultural similarities are very strong.)

So the classic nerd dresses like crap, has no surface polish and distrusts people who do, is compulsively and awkwardly sincere, blurts out whatever is on their mind, cannot play social games, and has little self-irony.

Also, this does not align with my experiences as a biochemical technician (past life), nor with science-n-math roommates and best friends. The "nerd" IME, either thinks he dresses well ("his" style) or has some kind of ethical/aesthetic defense of not dressing well, crafts elaborately formal social rituals in lieu of actual ease with people, is often compulsively ironic (to the point of losing track of his "sincere" feelings), vacillates between being absurdly self-censoring and then blurting out what can often be extremely trite expressions of feeling, invents elaborate social games that he can control, and is in a fundamentally ironic relationship with himself.

I like nerds, though. I wouldn't have been able to stand the past fifteen years of my life if the physics students, statisticians, cryptologists, mathematicians, and lab rats who have been my best friends acted the way you describe.

Are you an engineer, PGD?

PGD, as far as I recall, is a man's man.

To quote one of the world's great theoretical physicists: "Nerds suck".

In my experience as a biological research type person, about 95% of biological research type people make no effort or claim to have any sort of personal style, and are suspicious of those who do. There's always one guy who is sort of cool-looking with cool hair and interesting shirts, and everyone else sees him/her as trying too hard to be noticed. So, maybe there are geographical differences or something.

You're not saying the "depth and truth-driven" and "surface and beauty-driven" stereotypes have anything to do with higher or lower levels of emotionality, are you?

no, not at all. In fact, taking yourself too seriously can make you much more emotional (you have no distance from your own emotions, they lock you up, etc.). Theatricality can be associated with emotions not being deeply felt, even as it's also associated with emotional expressiveness. There's no simple correspondence at all.

This seems to me to be based on a fundamental association of "masculine" activities with value and "feminine" activities with frivolousness

right, and a sharp rejoinder. I do think that nerd culture can be seen as hyper-masculine in certain ways. I'd question the judgemental "value/frivolousness" thing. Although this is how nerds themselves sometimes view it.

It would be totally boring sexist crap as a show if, say, Sheldon is hyperlogical and Penny is hysterically emotional.

as I said above in response to Ned, I wasn't at all trying to draw an emotional/logical distinction. I think counterposing the two as mutually exclusive opposites is about as wrong as it gets psychologically.

I thought PGD was in a field that aspires to be a science, is fascinated with mathematics, thinks it can engineer society under the guise of criticizing social engineering, but is simply a social science with no more and possibly no less basis for authority than any other; that is to say, I thought he was in economics.

244: Naw, that's what I mean, a really concentrated sense that dressing "cool" is somehow inherently wrong, and so instead making a point of wearing either the same thing all the time or whatever someone else buys for him.

I guess the use of the word "guy" in 244 reveals that there is exactly one such person of that type whom I am thinking about at the moment.

Stuff like this makes me realize how out of touch I am with what's on TV these days, where by "these days" I mean "since 1996".

247: No, it's not "making a point of" anything. It's wearing whatever the default clothes are, with no thought put into it. The default.

Also, out of touch with the thread for about 50 posts.

247: I don't think those are the only two choices. There's also simply not caring (which isn't the same as making a point of wearing the same thing all the time).

This strays from whatever's being said about BBT, though, which I've never seen.

250: What does "default" mean here? I am like this in a lot of ways, in that I often find myself out with other grad students who are wearing exactly what I am--V-neck sweaters over T-shirts or button-downs with comfortable jeans--but I still have to go to stores and make a decision not to buy something sexy or trendy, but find something instead that will make me disappear. Maybe this is something that a woman has to think about more while shopping?

even if you make a point of dressing like crap, you're still dressing like crap.

The sincerity/irony point in 241 is interesting and recognizable. Maybe I should rethink.

246 is true but since I agree 110% with everything eb said about the field I would ask to be excused from the standard negative stereotypes.

I know very few engineers and a lot of scientists. I suspect it's a mistake to think the cultural similarities are very strong

I make no claim to total knowledge, but I found many cultural similarities between e.g. computer programmers (a variant of engineers) and scientists. And by the standards of, say, the marketing department I don't think that engineers and scientists are as far apart as you may think from within academia, where disciplinary differences loom large. I once had someone give me a very elaborate explanation of the vast cultural gap between chemists and biologists. It was all totally true, and reflected in the culture of the departments, but not the kind of thing a civilian would really notice.

252.2: I think it's relevant to the show because Penny wears "normal" 20-something-woman clothes, while the guys (except for Leonard) each have a unique "style."

Here's a handy map of the structure of connections between the sciences.

How does "Big Bang Theory" (which I have never seen) compare to "Numbers" (which I have)? Numbers is a fairly standard cops and criminals show but I have a soft spot for shows with a mathematician as a hero.

257: The link in 234 is interesting on that point. The physics consultant for BBT talks about how careful the writers are to get the "hot topics" right, in comparison to Numb3rs, which he names as particularly prone to getting the math (and pronunciations, etc.) wrong. I like the idea of a mathematician hero, too, but I lived with a crypto guy for a few years, and heard him gripe enough about misrepresentations of crypto and math on shows like that one that I can't watch it. Is it not as bad as I thought it was on that front? It seemed a little too "Beautiful Mind" to me.

I look forward to the day when there is a show about humanities academics that actually hires a consultant instead of making all college English instructors look like we're auditioning for Dead Poets Society 2.

"Sciences" in the sense of Wissenschaften, I take it.

258

I haven't been bothered by mispronunciations on Numbers (there are lots of names in math that I have no idea how to pronounce myself). The main problem is Numbers often presents an exaggerated to the point of total fantasy picture of what mathematical analysis is capable of doing. And similarly of how long it would take to write and debug a complicated computer program. The first season may have been a little better but I think at some point they abandoned even the pretense of realism.

I was only able to watch one episode of Numbthreers before deciding that it was really, really stupid, whether or not it got the math right (and I suspected it didn't).

259: Classicists function in popular culture basically as stand-ins for a dying way of life.

262: But, but but ... it's supposed to help teh people get over their knee-jerk anti-intellectualism!

261: Yeah, Saltzberg compares Numb3rs to those forensic crime dramas where they, like, swab a wound and then, after the commercial, twenty minutes of narrative time have passed and they've proved with "DNA testing" that Billy couldn't have been the killer.

I did watch it once with my crypto roommate, who couldn't be asked to comment on the "math" because he was busy shuddering at the use of glass instead of whiteboards.

Glass seems much beloved among motion picture makers. Who knew so many people do their work on mirrors and windows?

I did watch it once with my crypto roommate, who couldn't be asked to comment on the "math" because he was busy shuddering at the use of glass instead of whiteboards.

Maybe they want to avoid the sort of vituperative debate over blackboards vs. whiteboards that can tear apart friendships and destroy families.

because he was busy shuddering at the use of glass instead of whiteboards

What? Glass as whiteboards is so cool!

I have a whiteboard over my bed.

Early episodes of the first of the CSIs have sections where the characters go on about how what they're doing is science and everything that came before is just soft interpretative evidence gathering. Then they proceed to take 40 minutes to learn from the larval stages of insects what they might have been able to figure out with some public records searches and a bit of interrogation. Instead you get "we don't have any questions for you, we just want to stick a Q-tip in your ear." This is not to say that there haven't been real scientific advances, but the show really lays it on.

I look forward to the day when there is a show about humanities academics that actually hires a consultant instead of making all college English instructors look like we're auditioning for Dead Poets Society 2.

Alternatively, we could all incorporate standing on our desks into our teaching repertoires.

Important Last Comic Standing update: It's actually more uneven than I thought at first (ie not relentlessly horrible. At this point I would prefer a crappier show that was 40 mins shorter, though.

Alternatively, we could all incorporate standing on our desks into our teaching repertoires.

Bah, that's for lightweights. The best teachers stand on their student's desks.

I've taken to lecturing while tucked into a little ball on my chair, but only during my third class of the day. During my second, I pace and tug on my ears while I talk. First class of the day, I don't have to do anything weird to keep myself alert.

If only Robin Williams had spent more time with you.

One of my long term pedagogical goals is to deliver a 20 minute lecture as an aria, and then use improvised vocals for the questions and discussion.

i just watched a nice French movie A Grocer's son, very realistic, nice people and scenery, uplifting finale, i liked it
the final song is in English, i thought how human, different seems perhaps more meaningful

i like that movie too, read. just a simple story that you never see in american movies.

and clotilde hesme is super cute.

I'm really in love with Kings. But it is new so you can't download it.

Hasn't that show only had one (1) episode so far?

the first one was double length! and the second one is on now! So there's been like 2.5 at least.

yeah it may be a premature infatuation.

I was in love with that show "Smith" two years ago. It turned out to have three (3) episodes. Don't commit before you know it will commit to you, Cicely!

well, I am a sucker for retellings of old stories in general. I love modernized Shakespeare and teen-drama-novel fairy tales, so weird modernized Bible stories are bound to be my favorite, no matter how short lived they are.

Really my tastes seem not to be very common so almost always the shows I love are cancelled way early. It is very sad.

I am also tentatively a fan of Kings, so if it gets canceled, Cecily won't be alone in mourning.

278 yeah, she's so cute and only 26 and going to Spain, i'm a bit envious, kinda
the sunny shots in the mountains were so great, as if you are there, i liked it so much, a little bit different from our scenery, nice, soft looking
i recalled the sky in Japan and here sometimes when i'm outside at that time, right before dark, is very deep greenish blue, that, emerald like perhaps, our's is more like violet, just a tinge, bluish-blue, then i got it it's b/c of the altitude

I am also tentatively a fan of Kings

I'd pay good money to see a film of AWB and her buddy tearing 42 impious boys into shreds (2 Kings 2:23-25).

I have a whiteboard over my bed.

I can't decide whether this is hott, or really, really hott.

I can't decide whether this is hott, or really, really hott.

Depends on what's written on it.

I should hope it's initially blank.

If I had such a whiteboard, I would write thereon grocery lists, puns, ideas for projects I would pursue if I had infinite spare time, puns, and the seceret formula for Coca-Cola.

It's "seceret", because it's secreter that secreet.

286: My favorite Bible passage!

I last wrote on my whiteboard in the middle of the night. It's a bunch of stuff about Hume, but it's almost completely illegible.

I'm in fine form tonight.

290: Sweetheart, that is just sick. Never mind the typos. I don't want to see your lists: that's what your bookshelf is for.

AWB's ceiling is like 2 feet above her bed?

290: Save for the last element, these are just the things written on my chalkboard.

294: It's on the wall above my bed, the perfect height if I stand on the bed.

I didn't take "over the bed" to mean "on the ceiling".

Also, blackboards are totally sexier than whiteboards.

297.1: Oh! Then 269 is not as amusing as I originally found it.

The blackboard vs. whiteboard debate is one of the things the tedious tenured professors in my department (that would include over half of them) have taken up as their newest tool to gain power over each other. The debate which one we would install in the seminar room lasted an entire academic year.

We ended up with one of each.

When we were still small kids, my sister and I had our own individual whiteboards in the hallway outside our room. I can't remember when we stopped using them.

You should have one of those sliding board set-ups: whiteboard, blackboard, pane of clear glass, mirror.

Does anyone here have an informed opinion on the works of John Dominic Crossan?

I get why the clear glass appeals so much to TV and film directors: more shooting angles. Haven't you guys seen that incredible Picasso documentary where he's painting on glass?

In other news, I just came across perhaps the skeeviest Craigslist job posting outside of the adult section: see here.

We ended up with one of each.

That's hilarious.

I don't have an incredibly strong opinion, but the floor-to-ceiling blackboard in my office is beautiful and there's no way the room could look as nice with a whiteboard. On the other hand, chalk destroys my hands when I get dry skin in the winter.

but it's almost completely illegible.

What's the legible part?

"Free food and crunk juice"? Ha!

Yeah, chalk makes my hands feel filthy. I have whiteboards at the school where I teach my first class of the day, and chalkboards at the other two. I wouldn't resent the chalkboards so much if the math prof who teaches before me would have the decency to erase the goddamn board before leaving.

305: Well, I can read it fine. I'm giving a conference paper next week.

If, on the margin, you prefer lung disease, choose the blackboard. Otherwise, if, on the margin, you prefer sniffing things and getting high, choose the whiteboard.

That's it! I have settled the dispute. I will address all further argument with the aid of my airhorn, Leibniz.

I'm giving a conference paper next week.

Good luck. Have fun. Don't let them give you any guff.

The classroom where I teach Linguistics 101 this semester has a whiteboard, but it is directly behind the pull-down screen where my lecture note powerpoint thing is projected. It's a brand new building. I cannot figure out why someone thought this design was a good idea.

You're bringing your whiteboard with you to the conference?

Well, I can read it fine. I'm giving a conference paper next week.

I wonder if I can sign up and ask crazy questions.

303: "You must be willing to T-bag and bottom from the top and dance experience is a plus. "

is "bottom from the top" a thing you are supposed to be willing to do, or are "bottom from the top" and "dance experience" things that are pluses?

I love free crunk juice.

Doesn't the marker make a squeaky sound when you write on a whiteboard? Perhaps not. Also, the marker cannot be as expressive as the piece of chalk (thicker, thinner, more pointed, flat-faced). Or perhaps there's a choice of thicknesses of whiteboard marker. Also, aesthetically, as essear says! Black (or grey) over white.

This is tough.

There's a scam going around craigslist offering jobs selling art for the Dulwich Picture Gallery.

Depends on what's written on it.

It would make me happy if you'd put Apo in a heart, even just for one day.

This is tough.

LEEEEEEEIIIIIIIIIIIBNIZ

314.--According to Urban Dictionary, t-bagging and bottoming from the top are not dance moves.

It's just ludicrous. "I wanna be your thong" by Ghetto Blood Drinka? Is he a vampire gangsta? And aren't thong-themed songs so 2002?

It's just ludicrous.

I think it's a brilliant reimagining of the Twilight series.

318: Hey. It took me 6 months to write that Leibniz paper.

Abandon ship!

For a while I was writing with a bar of soap on the shower wall.

311 - This way you can project your powerpoint (or whatever) onto the whiteboard with less reflectivity but more interactivity (so you can mark things up with the dry-erase marker).

It's a great idea up until the moment some absent-minded instructor forgets the screen is down and writes on it with a dry-erase marker, which then turns out to be permanent. Sadly, the set of instructors for computer programming classes (where this sort of setup is common, and useful) seems to have a lot of overlap with the set of people absent-minded enough to make this mistake.

You should submit a headshot, Standpipe! They say they're looking for men/women, and I'd say you'd certainly qualify.

If I had such a whiteboard, I would write thereon grocery lists, puns, ideas for projects I would pursue if I had infinite spare time, puns, and the seceret formula for Coca-Cola a blog.

If I had a whiteboard, I'd whiteboard in the morning.

Ain't gonna study 'boards no more.

Berlin Alexanderplatz is a great television emission. I am about to watch the epilogue.

He's writing on that midwhite board to Georgia.

AWB is secretly an engineering student:

With graph paper, when you're not working on your problem set, the problems are not in view -- they're in your backpack, desk drawer or, most likely, on your floor. In any case, you're unlikely to glance at them when you're eating or chatting with friends. But if the problem exists on a whiteboard just next to your breakfast/lunch/dinner table, in the room where you and your friends spend 75% of your time at home, you're bound to gaze upon it from time to time. Chances are also that at some point you -- or one of your friends -- will have a breakthrough. And when you do, there will be no delay before you can start working again.

That last point is key: Whiteboards operate in realtime and thus have no "startup time" -- i.e., there's no pause between when you want to start working and when you can actually start working. The few things that might actually slow you down, like not being able to find a marker, can be eliminated with a little thoughtful design.

My brother's family is moving into a new house and the 2 things my 10-year-old niece has decided about her new room is that 1) it will have one wall in blue, one in green, one in yellow, and one in white; and 2) she'll have a whiteboard in it.

Any number of profs of my acquaintance have used permanent markers on overhead projectors, whiteboards, and even projection screens.

If I had such a whiteboard, I would write thereon grocery lists, puns, ideas for projects I would pursue if I had infinite spare time, puns, and the seceret formula for Coca-Cola. goofy illustrations of puns.

Ah for the heady days of two days ago, when Blume's chalkboard was covered with this sort of thing.

The advantage of chalkboards is that you can get that chalkboard paint and make them WALL SIZED.

I should ask the lady of the house if we can get some of those panels that can dry erase. So great.

Write that funky thesis, Whiteboard.

"You want to fight, you do it on your own time, in a parking lot somewhere. Not in a school, surrounded by books."

Following up on 190 oh man Eastbound & Down is great.

Wait. What? Chalkboard paint?

Yes?

I'm enjoying Kings as well. It's doomed.

The people who lived here before us had a hard-on for magnetic paint. But they used really weak stuff that was only strong enough to hold all their billion commemorative collectible magnets, but not strong enough for a magnet to actually hold a piece of paper up. So not being magnet fiends ourselves, we just have nice big patches of gray paint.

Never heard of either. Amazing and awesome!

330: Yeah, that's sort of how I work through my thought process before writing. Lots of charts and arrows and stuff.

Chalkboard paint is awesome. Literally. You know what other paint is awesome? The "brightest glow paint sold anywhere". Also appears to be the most expensive glow paint sold anywhere, but I figure a half pint should be enough to do a star map on the ceiling of the girls' room.

Further to 343, if that stuff weren't so expensive, I'd seriously consider painting my house with it. How great would that be?

Wow. The white is the most expensive, but not the glowiest by far.

How great would that be?

Radioactively great? Hazmat suit great?

Jesus, that *is* awesome. Thanks!

Radioactively great? Hazmat suit great?

Apparently not. It looks like this is the phosphorescent kind of glow-in-the-dark, not the tritium kind.

Just the highlights then.

The hell with chalkboard paint: whiteboard paint!

350: I have waited my whole life for this moment.

I did a little more whiteboard writing at 2am in the dark again. I really need to be more purposeful with the whole thing. Whiteboard people are supposed to be organized engineer-types keeping track of a series of ideas in progress. I am a crazy person who apparently needs an easy way to stand up in the dark and scrawl absurdities on the wall.

304.1
That's hilarious.

Meh, it would be if the chalkboard vs. whiteboard debate was an ideological thing, but if it's a pragmatic question of which would be better for this room given the people likely to use it and their preferences, why not compromise and have one of each?

Hilarious that it took a year to arrive at that compromise, though, sure.

The first time I encountered scented Dry Erase markers was at an all-day offsite meeting. The kind where you are either at the board yourself, or bored shitless back in your seat taking little unobtrusive hits off the markers. Harry Chapin in his taxi had nothing on my by the end of the day. (That was many years ago, have they "toned down" the solvents these days?)

This thread prompted me to get up and clean years-old crap off my whiteboards. They're white!

352: Hahahaha. I'm sure all involved in the debate thought it was a pragmatic question. Whereas it was actually a question of who would get his way.

Ooh! I could probably paint my bathroom glow-in-the-dark red with just one gallon. So only four hundred and something dollars! Though I wonder how many coats it would take to get a really good glow on.