On blood salinity, science, proof vs. test, etc February 11, 2007 2:12 AM Subscribe
A fight breaks out in this thread on the evolution of blood salinity because two people agree on the meaning of a word. Meet in here for post-post analysis, connotative denotating, preventative etiquette, homeopathic semiotics, other bullshit, brandy and cigars.
More 'this is why I posted this thread' less twee japery, please.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:14 AM on February 11, 2007 [3 favorites]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:14 AM on February 11, 2007 [3 favorites]
The sunny side of the earth is warmer than the night side of the earth. I had Korean BBQ for lunch. Stavrosthewonderchicken's name is made up of either three or four words, but it's hard to tell because there are no spaces.
Look, we can point out random things all day long. What is your point, wobh?
posted by Bugbread at 3:23 AM on February 11, 2007
Look, we can point out random things all day long. What is your point, wobh?
posted by Bugbread at 3:23 AM on February 11, 2007
I love philosophy people: getting all excited because they've come up with long words for concepts everyone else figured out when they were seven years old.
posted by chrismear at 3:31 AM on February 11, 2007
posted by chrismear at 3:31 AM on February 11, 2007
I'm all for twee japery (what a fine turn of phrase), but am also at a loss as to what this is all about. Though having read the meFi thread in question for the first time, Brain B came off as a right arse. Is that your point?
I shall return perplexed to enjoying the surprising phenomenon of England winning a cricket match of consequence.
posted by Abiezer at 3:32 AM on February 11, 2007
I shall return perplexed to enjoying the surprising phenomenon of England winning a cricket match of consequence.
posted by Abiezer at 3:32 AM on February 11, 2007
There's nothing wrong with Brian B's usage of "proves" in the post (subsequent uses are another matter). In spite of this, Brian B get's ganged up on. Why? Out of concern for the scientific establishment? It reads like a suitors fighting over the hand of Evolution. This can't possibly be for my own entertainment. I believe there's something more tragic and "human interesty" about this conflict. If we were good people we would try to figure out what it is and try to avoid these in the future.
(This twee japery shit is hard work.)
posted by wobh at 3:41 AM on February 11, 2007
(This twee japery shit is hard work.)
posted by wobh at 3:41 AM on February 11, 2007
I did Wol. Shame it was rain-affected. Listening to ABC's post-mortem now
posted by Abiezer at 3:48 AM on February 11, 2007
posted by Abiezer at 3:48 AM on February 11, 2007
Name me one thing we English do that isn't 'rain-affected' in some way. Grey drizzle is in our blood.
posted by chrismear at 4:06 AM on February 11, 2007
posted by chrismear at 4:06 AM on February 11, 2007
Grey drizzle is in our blood.
It is. But we don't have a good word for 'grey drizzle' like the Scots: dreich.
posted by jack_mo at 4:35 AM on February 11, 2007
It is. But we don't have a good word for 'grey drizzle' like the Scots: dreich.
posted by jack_mo at 4:35 AM on February 11, 2007
Because I care, I'll try this again. "to prove" is "to test." "a proof" is "a test". Think of all those old saws: "prove your mettle", "the proof is in the pudding", and (my favorite) "the exception proves the rule."
Science is all about testing things. Does the fact that different organisms have different salinities of circulatory fluid prove evolution? Heck yeah. The article explains how this could have come about using the principles of evolutionary theory. This explanation can be proven with genetic analysis and possibly fossils.
The argument in that thread is a farce of freudian projections of ignorance. Why don't we give each other some slack?
posted by wobh at 4:38 AM on February 11, 2007
Science is all about testing things. Does the fact that different organisms have different salinities of circulatory fluid prove evolution? Heck yeah. The article explains how this could have come about using the principles of evolutionary theory. This explanation can be proven with genetic analysis and possibly fossils.
The argument in that thread is a farce of freudian projections of ignorance. Why don't we give each other some slack?
posted by wobh at 4:38 AM on February 11, 2007
wobh writes "I believe there's something more tragic and 'human interesty' about this conflict."
That was exactly my take.
On the cricket.
posted by peacay at 5:20 AM on February 11, 2007
That was exactly my take.
On the cricket.
posted by peacay at 5:20 AM on February 11, 2007
"to prove" is "to test."
Not in science.
"a proof" is "a test".
Definitely not in science.
posted by grouse at 5:59 AM on February 11, 2007
Not in science.
"a proof" is "a test".
Definitely not in science.
posted by grouse at 5:59 AM on February 11, 2007
"a proof" is "a test"
No, it was a one-day final. IDIOT.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 6:23 AM on February 11, 2007
No, it was a one-day final. IDIOT.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 6:23 AM on February 11, 2007
This is bizarre! At least make the Meta in support of the non-insane participants!
posted by thirteenkiller at 6:35 AM on February 11, 2007
posted by thirteenkiller at 6:35 AM on February 11, 2007
Despite disagreeing with the premise of this MeTa, I think I will also call out lalochezia for an entirely different purpose. He says "lolxtians" but I think it should be spelled "lolxians." Shame, lalochezia.
posted by grouse at 6:41 AM on February 11, 2007
posted by grouse at 6:41 AM on February 11, 2007
wobh is "proving" my patience.
posted by Kwine at 6:44 AM on February 11, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by Kwine at 6:44 AM on February 11, 2007 [2 favorites]
C'mon people, let's skip the jibjabber and cut straight to beer at languagehat's place.
posted by cortex at 7:42 AM on February 11, 2007
posted by cortex at 7:42 AM on February 11, 2007
Oh wait, is this one of those "my dictionary says so" arguments?
posted by chrismear at 8:09 AM on February 11, 2007
posted by chrismear at 8:09 AM on February 11, 2007
wobh: "..... In spite of this, Brian B get's ganged up on. Why? Out of concern for the scientific establishment? ...."
Just a guess here, but it might have something to do with Brian's hostile , arrogant jackassery .
Amirite?
posted by John Smallberries at 8:11 AM on February 11, 2007
Just a guess here, but it might have something to do with Brian's hostile , arrogant jackassery .
Amirite?
posted by John Smallberries at 8:11 AM on February 11, 2007
This thread, and the blue that spawned it, need more grandfather clocks and less self-righteous retardedness. But the amount of cowbell is spot on.
posted by Meatbomb at 8:11 AM on February 11, 2007
posted by Meatbomb at 8:11 AM on February 11, 2007
C'mon over, I've got plenty! And the USians can discuss the fact that spring training is fast approaching while the UKians discuss cricket, and we all enjoy the words mizzle and dreich.
Off topic: I too can't believe wobh is posting to defend Brian B, who has accomplished the rare feat of posting a great link and then destroying his own thread.
posted by languagehat at 8:12 AM on February 11, 2007
Off topic: I too can't believe wobh is posting to defend Brian B, who has accomplished the rare feat of posting a great link and then destroying his own thread.
posted by languagehat at 8:12 AM on February 11, 2007
Because I care, I'll try this again. "to prove" is "to test." "a proof" is "a test". Think of all those old saws: "prove your mettle", "the proof is in the pudding", and (my favorite) "the exception proves the rule."
So let's get this straight. You didn't like the way the argument was going in the thread, so you thought you'd bring it over here instead?
The argument in that thread is a farce of freudian projections of ignorance. Why don't we give each other some slack?
Welcome to the internet. I'm not sure what you think can be done about what is perhaps the most common attribute of on-line debates, but I assure you that the denizens of MetaTalk (including the moderators) have about as much a chance of putitng to a stop to it as your dog does of bringing about world peace.
Sorry, that's the way it is.
posted by tkolar at 8:36 AM on February 11, 2007
So let's get this straight. You didn't like the way the argument was going in the thread, so you thought you'd bring it over here instead?
The argument in that thread is a farce of freudian projections of ignorance. Why don't we give each other some slack?
Welcome to the internet. I'm not sure what you think can be done about what is perhaps the most common attribute of on-line debates, but I assure you that the denizens of MetaTalk (including the moderators) have about as much a chance of putitng to a stop to it as your dog does of bringing about world peace.
Sorry, that's the way it is.
posted by tkolar at 8:36 AM on February 11, 2007
Sometimes a great thread needs to be destroyed in order to save it.
posted by psmealey at 8:42 AM on February 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by psmealey at 8:42 AM on February 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
Grey drizzle is in our blood.
But what is the salinity of the grey drizzle?
posted by amyms at 9:03 AM on February 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
But what is the salinity of the grey drizzle?
posted by amyms at 9:03 AM on February 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
Stavrosthewonderchicken's name is made up of either three or four words
I'll go with four.
posted by ericb at 9:11 AM on February 11, 2007
I'll go with four.
posted by ericb at 9:11 AM on February 11, 2007
Is this thread idiotproof?
posted by klangklangston at 9:13 AM on February 11, 2007
posted by klangklangston at 9:13 AM on February 11, 2007
I would like to thank wobh for this thread. Without it, I never would have read that other thread, and I would have gone on throughout my life completely unaware of the phrase "stop salivating on your forehead."
posted by Partial Law at 9:17 AM on February 11, 2007
posted by Partial Law at 9:17 AM on February 11, 2007
klangklangston: Is this thread idiotproof?
Isn't there a word for this? A question that answers itself?
Only kidding, only kidding!!
/breaks into spontaneous tapdance routine wearing only a trout duct-taped over his privates and a bit of Turkish Delight clinging to each nipple (for the Brits in the room)
posted by sleevener at 9:31 AM on February 11, 2007
Isn't there a word for this? A question that answers itself?
Only kidding, only kidding!!
/breaks into spontaneous tapdance routine wearing only a trout duct-taped over his privates and a bit of Turkish Delight clinging to each nipple (for the Brits in the room)
posted by sleevener at 9:31 AM on February 11, 2007
Man, I went back and read the whole thing, and now I have even more ammunition for my argument that there should be a limit of 5 comments in an FPP (including the post itself for the OP) per person. It would cut back on this sort of "last wordism" that sounds so utterly childish.
posted by Eideteker at 9:56 AM on February 11, 2007
posted by Eideteker at 9:56 AM on February 11, 2007
Is this thread idiotproof?
Nah. Look at who made it in.
posted by dame at 10:07 AM on February 11, 2007
Nah. Look at who made it in.
posted by dame at 10:07 AM on February 11, 2007
and a bit of Turkish Delight clinging to each nipple
*swoons* How did you know?!
posted by chrismear at 10:09 AM on February 11, 2007
*swoons* How did you know?!
posted by chrismear at 10:09 AM on February 11, 2007
We can all learn a valuable lesson here, I think. Certainly, we could go round and round arguing about who was right and who was wrong, who was a dickwad and who wasn't, but in doing that, won't we miss the big picture? Namely, that despite a fantastic spell in the gloaming today, Liam Plunkett simply isn't an international class strike bowler yet.
posted by flashboy at 10:14 AM on February 11, 2007
posted by flashboy at 10:14 AM on February 11, 2007
Well, it depends on what the meaning of the word "bowler" is.
posted by grouse at 10:17 AM on February 11, 2007
posted by grouse at 10:17 AM on February 11, 2007
"The argument in that thread is a farce of freudian projections of ignorance. Why don't we give each other some slack?"
Because I've been selected over evolutionary time, undergoing tests of fire and osmotic pressure and kinky horizontal gene transfer with some badass archea to be the snarkiest mo-fo in this here primeval swamp.
And who's gonna stop me. You, Mr Protozoa? Ahhhhhh doooooon't think so......
posted by lalochezia at 10:26 AM on February 11, 2007
Because I've been selected over evolutionary time, undergoing tests of fire and osmotic pressure and kinky horizontal gene transfer with some badass archea to be the snarkiest mo-fo in this here primeval swamp.
And who's gonna stop me. You, Mr Protozoa? Ahhhhhh doooooon't think so......
posted by lalochezia at 10:26 AM on February 11, 2007
In spite of this, Brian B get's ganged up on. Why? Out of concern for the scientific establishment?
Brian B. got ganged up on because he was being a dick. I thought that was self-evident.
Though I ought to thank him for the phrase "salivating on your own forehead". That's pretty funny, especially since it was used so earnestly.
posted by LooseFilter at 11:01 AM on February 11, 2007
Brian B. got ganged up on because he was being a dick. I thought that was self-evident.
Though I ought to thank him for the phrase "salivating on your own forehead". That's pretty funny, especially since it was used so earnestly.
posted by LooseFilter at 11:01 AM on February 11, 2007
Hope Salivating On One's Own Forehead becomes the next Olympic sport. Would it be twee japery to call it SOOOF?
posted by Cranberry at 11:09 AM on February 11, 2007
posted by Cranberry at 11:09 AM on February 11, 2007
I would like to thank wobh for this thread. Without it, I never would have read that other thread, and I would have gone on throughout my life completely unaware of the phrase "stop salivating on your forehead."
Seconded. I've already said it twice this morning (once to my boyfriend and once to the cat), and my roommate shows signs of adopting it as well.
posted by scody at 11:10 AM on February 11, 2007
Seconded. I've already said it twice this morning (once to my boyfriend and once to the cat), and my roommate shows signs of adopting it as well.
posted by scody at 11:10 AM on February 11, 2007
Just for posterity, here is the full quote:
empath, I don't need to try as hard as you to believe in evolution and if you want a gold star for atheism, you might want to stop salivating on your forehead because disbelief also has little to do with it.
posted by LooseFilter at 11:20 AM on February 11, 2007
empath, I don't need to try as hard as you to believe in evolution and if you want a gold star for atheism, you might want to stop salivating on your forehead because disbelief also has little to do with it.
posted by LooseFilter at 11:20 AM on February 11, 2007
Many people don't know the meaning of "star on your forehead." The stars were usually licked.
I would only add again that evolution is an observable fact, but natural selection is not, which is a theory about the fact of genetic evolution. If anyone disagrees, they can take the debate up with the many published arguments in favor of genetic evolution-as-fact, even by those asserting intelligent design. As I pointed out earlier, proving a fact is fair usage, and it should be encouraged.
It does not surprise me to see people pretend they know better without committing to an argument either way. I suggest this is due to their theological brainwashing in the culture. This doesn't go away just because they say they don't have it, because many people engage in obfuscation not knowing why. Any conservative does this naturally.
Languagehat, the thread is not destroyed, it is still there. I don't think it even existed in any other state as other than a debate about my right to comment on evolution without permission from those wishing to confuse the issue. My opponents were not raised with enough civility to pass as knowledgeable, and in frustration they repeat epithets over and over to imply that I'm not polite enough to them. This is childhood regression and should be expected as they try to change their minds about something.
posted by Brian B. at 12:15 PM on February 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
I would only add again that evolution is an observable fact, but natural selection is not, which is a theory about the fact of genetic evolution. If anyone disagrees, they can take the debate up with the many published arguments in favor of genetic evolution-as-fact, even by those asserting intelligent design. As I pointed out earlier, proving a fact is fair usage, and it should be encouraged.
It does not surprise me to see people pretend they know better without committing to an argument either way. I suggest this is due to their theological brainwashing in the culture. This doesn't go away just because they say they don't have it, because many people engage in obfuscation not knowing why. Any conservative does this naturally.
Languagehat, the thread is not destroyed, it is still there. I don't think it even existed in any other state as other than a debate about my right to comment on evolution without permission from those wishing to confuse the issue. My opponents were not raised with enough civility to pass as knowledgeable, and in frustration they repeat epithets over and over to imply that I'm not polite enough to them. This is childhood regression and should be expected as they try to change their minds about something.
posted by Brian B. at 12:15 PM on February 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
MetaTalk: Post other post connotative semiotics, brandy analysis, cigar etiquette, denotating preventative, homeopathic bullshit.
posted by loquacious at 12:17 PM on February 11, 2007
posted by loquacious at 12:17 PM on February 11, 2007
Sorry I'm late.
posted by loquacious at 12:18 PM on February 11, 2007
posted by loquacious at 12:18 PM on February 11, 2007
What's the difference between a bowler and a tosser? Basically the same, right? Britain has such a rich cultural heritage.
posted by sleevener at 12:26 PM on February 11, 2007
posted by sleevener at 12:26 PM on February 11, 2007
What's the difference between a bowler and a tosser? Basically the same, right? Britain has such a rich cultural heritage.
posted by sleevener at 12:26 PM PST on February 11 [+]
[!]
I believe the difference is that one is hypoosmotic to seawater, having gills and lungs, but no kidneys (or is that gills and kidneys, but no lungs? It's all so complicated), and the other... is not.
posted by aberrant at 12:33 PM on February 11, 2007
posted by sleevener at 12:26 PM PST on February 11 [+]
[!]
I believe the difference is that one is hypoosmotic to seawater, having gills and lungs, but no kidneys (or is that gills and kidneys, but no lungs? It's all so complicated), and the other... is not.
posted by aberrant at 12:33 PM on February 11, 2007
You can't wear a tosser on your head.
posted by flashboy at 12:50 PM on February 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by flashboy at 12:50 PM on February 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
Many people don't know the meaning of "star on your forehead." The stars were usually licked.
Yes, but the stars were licked, not the forehead itself.
The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in our inability to avoid mangling the metaphor.
posted by scody at 12:52 PM on February 11, 2007
Yes, but the stars were licked, not the forehead itself.
The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in our inability to avoid mangling the metaphor.
posted by scody at 12:52 PM on February 11, 2007
As I pointed out earlier, proving a fact is fair usage, and it should be encouraged.
It's part of the nature of facts that they don't need to be proven, only observed.
my right to comment on evolution without permission from those wishing to confuse the issue
There's only one person in that thread who is confusing the issue.
posted by grouse at 12:57 PM on February 11, 2007
It's part of the nature of facts that they don't need to be proven, only observed.
my right to comment on evolution without permission from those wishing to confuse the issue
There's only one person in that thread who is confusing the issue.
posted by grouse at 12:57 PM on February 11, 2007
Many people don't know the meaning of "star on your forehead." The stars were usually licked.
All this talk of foreheads brings to mind Demian (in Hermann Hesse's book 'Demian') who perceived the mark on Cain's forehead not as a curse, but as a badge of courage, character and power.
posted by ericb at 1:03 PM on February 11, 2007
All this talk of foreheads brings to mind Demian (in Hermann Hesse's book 'Demian') who perceived the mark on Cain's forehead not as a curse, but as a badge of courage, character and power.
posted by ericb at 1:03 PM on February 11, 2007
I was totally convinced Australia threw the first game they lost against England, just to keep New Zealand out of the finals. I was half convinced they threw Friday's match as a revenue measure, to ensure that there would be three finals matches rather than two. Last night's game, I think they tried to win, but got flummoxed by the rain breaks and the inscrutable Duckworth Lewis method.
There's a Hansie Cronje-sized disgrace lying in Ricky Ponting's future, I can just feel it.
Oh, and Brian B.? Get some sleep.
posted by Sonny Jim at 1:23 PM on February 11, 2007
There's a Hansie Cronje-sized disgrace lying in Ricky Ponting's future, I can just feel it.
Oh, and Brian B.? Get some sleep.
posted by Sonny Jim at 1:23 PM on February 11, 2007
My people were fair with the sky in their hair, but now they're content to salivate on their foreheads.
posted by Abiezer at 1:28 PM on February 11, 2007
posted by Abiezer at 1:28 PM on February 11, 2007
Welcome to BrianWorld
How is someone "not raised with enough civility to pass as knowledgeable"?
If one is raised in civility, one can be dumb as a bag of hammers, and if one is knowledgable, one can be un-civil as fuck.
I see.
I take it all back. Brian has different definitions for civility, proof and presumably many other different words than the accepted ones in common use. This is the source of confusion.
Brian is clearly talking a different, superior language to all of us. It would be kind of his gracious, enlightened, wise, omniscient self to pass us on a dictionary, so us untermensch, vacillating, epithet-spewing, pretending, childhood-regressive, Christian-educated, rightwing douchebags (after all, that’s everyone on metafilter who disagrees with him, right?) may learn from his superior position.
posted by lalochezia at 1:45 PM on February 11, 2007
It's part of the nature of facts that they don't need to be proven, only observed.
Not when the fact is ignored.
Yes, but the stars were licked, not the forehead itself.
So, then only a deviant would salivate on their own forehead?
posted by Brian B. at 1:46 PM on February 11, 2007
Not when the fact is ignored.
Yes, but the stars were licked, not the forehead itself.
So, then only a deviant would salivate on their own forehead?
posted by Brian B. at 1:46 PM on February 11, 2007
lalochezia, interesting turn, but I'm perfectly happy to be characterized as different from you.
posted by Brian B. at 1:52 PM on February 11, 2007
posted by Brian B. at 1:52 PM on February 11, 2007
Yes, but the stars were licked, not the forehead itself.
So, then only a deviant would salivate on their own forehead?
ARE YOU FOR REAL?!
posted by shmegegge at 2:01 PM on February 11, 2007
So, then only a deviant would salivate on their own forehead?
ARE YOU FOR REAL?!
posted by shmegegge at 2:01 PM on February 11, 2007
All rested up I see.
posted by nj_subgenius at 2:04 PM on February 11, 2007
posted by nj_subgenius at 2:04 PM on February 11, 2007
*dons smoking jacket and ascot*
posted by nj_subgenius at 2:06 PM on February 11, 2007
posted by nj_subgenius at 2:06 PM on February 11, 2007
Languagehat, the thread is not destroyed, it is still there.
Next up, a debate on valid understandings of the word 'destroyed.' Gentlemen, rev up your dictionaries.
posted by desuetude at 2:07 PM on February 11, 2007
Next up, a debate on valid understandings of the word 'destroyed.' Gentlemen, rev up your dictionaries.
posted by desuetude at 2:07 PM on February 11, 2007
Yes, but the stars were licked, not the forehead itself.
So, then only a deviant would salivate on their own forehead?
Only someone who is upside-down and drooling would salivate on their own forehead. While there may be a class of headstandingdrool-deviants, it would only be a subset, and not a fair characterization of the meaning of "deviant." While deviant does literally mean to diverge from a path, there may be completely legitimate reasons that are not intentionally rebellious for upside-down drooling behavior.
posted by desuetude at 2:14 PM on February 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
So, then only a deviant would salivate on their own forehead?
Only someone who is upside-down and drooling would salivate on their own forehead. While there may be a class of headstandingdrool-deviants, it would only be a subset, and not a fair characterization of the meaning of "deviant." While deviant does literally mean to diverge from a path, there may be completely legitimate reasons that are not intentionally rebellious for upside-down drooling behavior.
posted by desuetude at 2:14 PM on February 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
Only someone who is upside-down and drooling would salivate on their own forehead.
20 million australians can't be wrong
posted by pyramid termite at 2:25 PM on February 11, 2007
20 million australians can't be wrong
posted by pyramid termite at 2:25 PM on February 11, 2007
Is this the thread where we point and laugh at Brian B some more?
Because I'm doing it as hard as I can right now.
posted by empath at 2:29 PM on February 11, 2007 [2 favorites]
Because I'm doing it as hard as I can right now.
posted by empath at 2:29 PM on February 11, 2007 [2 favorites]
C'mon, you guys. The only way to instill a proper flame-out is to at least *feign* taking the flamer-outer's arguments seriously and engage him in actual debate, at least for a while. Try that, and see where it goes from there. I'm evolving corn into popcorn in the meantime. Salted.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 2:50 PM on February 11, 2007
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 2:50 PM on February 11, 2007
The only way to instill a proper flame-out is to at least *feign* taking the flamer-outer's arguments seriously and engage him in actual debate, at least for a while.
Just what do you think I was doing? Sheesh, no appreciation for art around here.
posted by grouse at 2:51 PM on February 11, 2007
Just what do you think I was doing? Sheesh, no appreciation for art around here.
posted by grouse at 2:51 PM on February 11, 2007
I just tried standing on my head and drooling and now the cats are making fun of me. I blame MetaFilter. Meanwhile, pass the popcorn, would you, gnfti?
posted by languagehat at 2:54 PM on February 11, 2007
posted by languagehat at 2:54 PM on February 11, 2007
Is this the thread where we point and laugh at Brian B some more?
Because I'm doing it as hard as I can right now.
empath, you tipped your hand here. Nothing more pathetic than someone trying to convince themselves.
posted by Brian B. at 4:43 PM on February 11, 2007
Because I'm doing it as hard as I can right now.
empath, you tipped your hand here. Nothing more pathetic than someone trying to convince themselves.
posted by Brian B. at 4:43 PM on February 11, 2007
I suggest that being fixated ranks quite highly as well.
posted by nj_subgenius at 5:06 PM on February 11, 2007
posted by nj_subgenius at 5:06 PM on February 11, 2007
There was another 'fite of yore
Who spoke of hands, and rent and tore
His tattered threads rhetorical;
Tho minya wasn't quite so dull.
posted by cortex at 5:12 PM on February 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
Who spoke of hands, and rent and tore
His tattered threads rhetorical;
Tho minya wasn't quite so dull.
posted by cortex at 5:12 PM on February 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
"my right salivary gland against his lies" doesn't have the same ring, does it?
posted by pyramid termite at 5:15 PM on February 11, 2007
posted by pyramid termite at 5:15 PM on February 11, 2007
Mister Fantastic could probably salivate on his own forehead.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 5:21 PM on February 11, 2007
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 5:21 PM on February 11, 2007
Brian B. doesn't watch Aquateen Hunger Force.
Or have a sense of humor.
I would test this theory, but since that would necessarily prove it to be true the act of testing it would taint the results.
posted by shmegegge at 5:32 PM on February 11, 2007
Or have a sense of humor.
I would test this theory, but since that would necessarily prove it to be true the act of testing it would taint the results.
posted by shmegegge at 5:32 PM on February 11, 2007
bonaldi writes "Someone set fire to Brian B.'s nipples. Thanks."
Really? Who did?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 6:05 PM on February 11, 2007
Really? Who did?
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 6:05 PM on February 11, 2007
gnifti, that's obviously a use of the imperative rather than the past tense, but I wouldn't expect any more from a christian gill breathing forehead salivator.
posted by Meatbomb at 6:18 PM on February 11, 2007
posted by Meatbomb at 6:18 PM on February 11, 2007
Three cheers for Brian Boitano!
Hip, hip, hooray! Hip, hip, hooray! Hip, hip, hooray!
posted by breezeway at 6:24 PM on February 11, 2007
Hip, hip, hooray! Hip, hip, hooray! Hip, hip, hooray!
posted by breezeway at 6:24 PM on February 11, 2007
no, you mean a vince gill breathing forehead salivator
posted by pyramid termite at 6:24 PM on February 11, 2007
posted by pyramid termite at 6:24 PM on February 11, 2007
no, you mean a gil hodges breathing forehead salivator
posted by Kwine at 6:46 PM on February 11, 2007
posted by Kwine at 6:46 PM on February 11, 2007
The Salivation Army, the magnum opus of one Scott Treleaven
posted by nj_subgenius at 6:59 PM on February 11, 2007
posted by nj_subgenius at 6:59 PM on February 11, 2007
Smegegge wrote: ARE YOU FOR REAL?!
This is the one to beat. The small-minded shock is unmistakably genuine.
posted by Brian B. at 8:42 PM on February 11, 2007
This is the one to beat. The small-minded shock is unmistakably genuine.
posted by Brian B. at 8:42 PM on February 11, 2007
Only Brian B. has the open mind and intellect to deal with the mass of deviant forehead droolers who must be stopped.
posted by Snyder at 8:57 PM on February 11, 2007
posted by Snyder at 8:57 PM on February 11, 2007
Snyder, I would normally consider your "salvia" comment to be an awkward pun regarding the hallucinogen, salvia, but you give me pause, because of your spelling habits in this recent post to me:
Snyder wrote:
Ok, my increasing bluntness will have no effect on you or your vauge, unclear writing, your use of blantant falsehoods that either come out of disengenousness or a severe lack of reading comprehension, or your insufferably high opinon of yourself, since the more moderate and civil comments of myself and others were clearly ignored or constured to be vile attacks on you and evolution. I'm sorry to everyone else for continuing the derail of this thread.
posted by Brian B. at 9:12 PM on February 11, 2007
Snyder wrote:
Ok, my increasing bluntness will have no effect on you or your vauge, unclear writing, your use of blantant falsehoods that either come out of disengenousness or a severe lack of reading comprehension, or your insufferably high opinon of yourself, since the more moderate and civil comments of myself and others were clearly ignored or constured to be vile attacks on you and evolution. I'm sorry to everyone else for continuing the derail of this thread.
posted by Brian B. at 9:12 PM on February 11, 2007
The small-minded shock is unmistakably genuine.
Indeed, and as a bonus, it proves Kirchhoff's circuit laws.
posted by equalpants at 9:13 PM on February 11, 2007
Indeed, and as a bonus, it proves Kirchhoff's circuit laws.
posted by equalpants at 9:13 PM on February 11, 2007
Indeed, and as a bonus, it proves Kirchhoff's circuit laws.
Now you're trying to impress us, equalpants. That's nice. Good effort. Wow! See, I'm impressed. I thought Kirchhoff was a pie cherry.
posted by Brian B. at 9:21 PM on February 11, 2007
Now you're trying to impress us, equalpants. That's nice. Good effort. Wow! See, I'm impressed. I thought Kirchhoff was a pie cherry.
posted by Brian B. at 9:21 PM on February 11, 2007
I can't believe no one has done this yet:
MetaFilter: Stop salivating on your forehead
posted by deborah at 9:53 PM on February 11, 2007
MetaFilter: Stop salivating on your forehead
posted by deborah at 9:53 PM on February 11, 2007
Snyder, I would normally consider your "salvia" comment to be an awkward pun regarding the hallucinogen, salvia, but you give me pause, because of your spelling habits in this recent post to me:
oh noes teh spellign flame
posted by Snyder at 10:05 PM on February 11, 2007 [2 favorites]
oh noes teh spellign flame
posted by Snyder at 10:05 PM on February 11, 2007 [2 favorites]
oh and your mom gives me pause
posted by Snyder at 10:06 PM on February 11, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by Snyder at 10:06 PM on February 11, 2007 [2 favorites]
Hm. My earlier character assessment was more accurate than I'd realized.
posted by LooseFilter at 10:20 PM on February 11, 2007
posted by LooseFilter at 10:20 PM on February 11, 2007
Brian, what do you hope to achieve here?
posted by boo_radley at 10:27 PM on February 11, 2007
posted by boo_radley at 10:27 PM on February 11, 2007
I reeeeeeeealy want to snark at someone, but I don't have the energy to read either of these threads. Could someone lend me a nice snark?
posted by mr_roboto at 11:47 PM on February 11, 2007
posted by mr_roboto at 11:47 PM on February 11, 2007
Snyder, I would normally consider your "salvia" comment to be an awkward pun regarding the hallucinogen, salvia, but you give me pause, because of your spelling habits in this recent post to me:
This from the guy who misspelled my username when it was RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM.
loos
This is the one to beat. The small-minded shock is unmistakably genuine.
Yes, it's my small mindedness that lead to my comment. It's not that your apparent complete tactlessness and questionable understanding of the English language has lead me to wonder if you REALLY expect anyone to believe that you intended indirectly to call someone a deviant by using the phrase "stop salivating on your forehead" to imply that they'd, in the manner of a deviant, stand on their head and drool to apply a gold star to their forehead. No, it's my small mindedness. That's it. I'm simply so shocked because you've blown my tiny mind.
Although I should say that, small minded or otherwise, I'm rather obviously not that smart. For instance, I have no idea if equalpants was insulting me or not.
posted by shmegegge at 1:11 AM on February 12, 2007
This from the guy who misspelled my username when it was RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM.
loos
This is the one to beat. The small-minded shock is unmistakably genuine.
Yes, it's my small mindedness that lead to my comment. It's not that your apparent complete tactlessness and questionable understanding of the English language has lead me to wonder if you REALLY expect anyone to believe that you intended indirectly to call someone a deviant by using the phrase "stop salivating on your forehead" to imply that they'd, in the manner of a deviant, stand on their head and drool to apply a gold star to their forehead. No, it's my small mindedness. That's it. I'm simply so shocked because you've blown my tiny mind.
Although I should say that, small minded or otherwise, I'm rather obviously not that smart. For instance, I have no idea if equalpants was insulting me or not.
posted by shmegegge at 1:11 AM on February 12, 2007
something to do with shock? is an electrical shock some proven indicator of kirchhoff's circuit laws at work? I'm hopeless at physics and engineering.
posted by shmegegge at 1:12 AM on February 12, 2007
posted by shmegegge at 1:12 AM on February 12, 2007
I totally agree with Brian B and wobh.
Note: Just like Brian B and wobh, my definitions of words are far different than their conventionally understood meanings, because I am so much more massively intelligent than you all. Thus, what I wrote above may not mean what your educated stupid minds think it means.
posted by Bugbread at 2:54 AM on February 12, 2007
Note: Just like Brian B and wobh, my definitions of words are far different than their conventionally understood meanings, because I am so much more massively intelligent than you all. Thus, what I wrote above may not mean what your educated stupid minds think it means.
posted by Bugbread at 2:54 AM on February 12, 2007
If you hung upside down on one of those exercise-bar thingies, and started drooling, wouldn't your nose fill up? I guess you could just hold your breath and keep on drooling until your nostrils overflowed, but then all the good stuff would just sorta roll down onto your forehead, which seems to me more like salivating over your forehead rather than onto it.
You could do it if you had a concave face.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 3:07 AM on February 12, 2007
You could do it if you had a concave face.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 3:07 AM on February 12, 2007
MetaFilter: You could do it if you had a concave face.
posted by Kwine at 5:55 AM on February 12, 2007
posted by Kwine at 5:55 AM on February 12, 2007
/finishes tap dance routine with big smile and wiggly "jazz hands"
posted by sleevener at 6:12 AM on February 12, 2007
posted by sleevener at 6:12 AM on February 12, 2007
....The next feeding time is approximately 5:00 PM GMT....
Thank you. Whilst waiting kindly visit the merchandise shop for souvenirs of your visit.
posted by nj_subgenius at 6:17 AM on February 12, 2007
Thank you. Whilst waiting kindly visit the merchandise shop for souvenirs of your visit.
posted by nj_subgenius at 6:17 AM on February 12, 2007
*purchases I Read MeTa 13638 And Have The T-Shirt To Test It ringer*
posted by cortex at 6:41 AM on February 12, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by cortex at 6:41 AM on February 12, 2007 [1 favorite]
Don't miss out on the 13638 Commemorative Forehead Wipes! Made from 30% post-consumer recycled dictionaries! "Drool is cool" when you've got these babies! And hey, if you don't need them, the person below (or above) you probably will!
posted by sleevener at 6:57 AM on February 12, 2007
posted by sleevener at 6:57 AM on February 12, 2007
I'd like to hijack this thread to talk about split infinitives.
To that end, I say "dios" to you!
posted by Mister_A at 7:10 AM on February 12, 2007
To that end, I say "dios" to you!
posted by Mister_A at 7:10 AM on February 12, 2007
i think what brian b meant to say was that he was salivating on his foreskin ... which leaves the circumcised out again
mutilation! MUTILATION!!
posted by pyramid termite at 7:40 AM on February 12, 2007
mutilation! MUTILATION!!
posted by pyramid termite at 7:40 AM on February 12, 2007
Snyder: "oh and your mom gives me pause"
She's died in a car accident, was hit by someone who couldn't read the stop sign, thought it said "pots."
schmeggege, you've exceeded the allotment of words that I have reserved for reading you (about a sentence). And the tone has changed anyway, it seems you want me to know something. I wish it was shorter. I bet you read this far.
lalochezia, that pie looks like your metafilter face about now, only a few strips left. Get the recipe next time.
nj_subgenius, your material is drying up. I'm in it for the skin, buy you seriously want the attention.
bugbread, our last exchange didn't go very well, did it. I thought you were thumbing these messages from a phone? You pleaded crippled and helpless last time, but I feel like Jesus now.
posted by Brian B. at 7:45 AM on February 12, 2007
She's died in a car accident, was hit by someone who couldn't read the stop sign, thought it said "pots."
schmeggege, you've exceeded the allotment of words that I have reserved for reading you (about a sentence). And the tone has changed anyway, it seems you want me to know something. I wish it was shorter. I bet you read this far.
lalochezia, that pie looks like your metafilter face about now, only a few strips left. Get the recipe next time.
nj_subgenius, your material is drying up. I'm in it for the skin, buy you seriously want the attention.
bugbread, our last exchange didn't go very well, did it. I thought you were thumbing these messages from a phone? You pleaded crippled and helpless last time, but I feel like Jesus now.
posted by Brian B. at 7:45 AM on February 12, 2007
I feel like Jesus now.
we don't have to wait forty days for you to disappear, do we?
posted by pyramid termite at 7:52 AM on February 12, 2007 [1 favorite]
we don't have to wait forty days for you to disappear, do we?
posted by pyramid termite at 7:52 AM on February 12, 2007 [1 favorite]
pyramid, my name is on the invitation, who invited you?
posted by Brian B. at 7:58 AM on February 12, 2007
posted by Brian B. at 7:58 AM on February 12, 2007
i'm crashing this soiree ... hmmph ... since when are white robes and depends formal wear?
posted by pyramid termite at 8:02 AM on February 12, 2007
posted by pyramid termite at 8:02 AM on February 12, 2007
i'm crashing this soiree ... hmmph ... since when are white robes and depends formal wear?
Fine with me, but everyone in the last thirty or so comments is gay, except for me and bugbread (who merely has a small score to settle). Just so you know.
posted by Brian B. at 8:36 AM on February 12, 2007
Fine with me, but everyone in the last thirty or so comments is gay, except for me and bugbread (who merely has a small score to settle). Just so you know.
posted by Brian B. at 8:36 AM on February 12, 2007
Fine with me, but everyone in the last thirty or so comments is gay
no ... you did NOT just go there
posted by pyramid termite at 8:38 AM on February 12, 2007
no ... you did NOT just go there
posted by pyramid termite at 8:38 AM on February 12, 2007
Wait, we do flameouts by invitation now?
Musta missed that memo.
posted by Floydd at 8:42 AM on February 12, 2007
Musta missed that memo.
posted by Floydd at 8:42 AM on February 12, 2007
*continues to not work so that he can read this thread and split infinitives*
posted by taliaferro at 8:44 AM on February 12, 2007
posted by taliaferro at 8:44 AM on February 12, 2007
hey pyramid termite, how's it going ;-) ?
posted by nj_subgenius at 8:44 AM on February 12, 2007
posted by nj_subgenius at 8:44 AM on February 12, 2007
So, was it:
1. An attempt to bait homophobes into expression an aversion to "gay",
2. An attempt to bait PCnicks into anti-slur protestations, or
3. A stab a mocking the discourse of the thread by associating it with 14-year-old Counter-Strike discourse?
Or a scattershot mix of all three? It's hard to suss out, exactly, but I'm not going to presume it was uncalculated—Brian B., if nothing else you have shown excellent dedication to the dot-flamish rhetorical technique. It's like reading a USENET playbook with illustrative examples.
posted by cortex at 8:44 AM on February 12, 2007
1. An attempt to bait homophobes into expression an aversion to "gay",
2. An attempt to bait PCnicks into anti-slur protestations, or
3. A stab a mocking the discourse of the thread by associating it with 14-year-old Counter-Strike discourse?
Or a scattershot mix of all three? It's hard to suss out, exactly, but I'm not going to presume it was uncalculated—Brian B., if nothing else you have shown excellent dedication to the dot-flamish rhetorical technique. It's like reading a USENET playbook with illustrative examples.
posted by cortex at 8:44 AM on February 12, 2007
it's going fine, nj ... just fixing up some popcorn here ...
if nothing else you have shown excellent dedication to the dot-flamish rhetorical technique
he wouldn't last in alt.flame for a week, trust me
It's like reading a USENET playbook with illustrative examples.
meow
posted by pyramid termite at 8:50 AM on February 12, 2007
if nothing else you have shown excellent dedication to the dot-flamish rhetorical technique
he wouldn't last in alt.flame for a week, trust me
It's like reading a USENET playbook with illustrative examples.
meow
posted by pyramid termite at 8:50 AM on February 12, 2007
Well, I did say "dedication", not "mastery". I'm not sure he'd have kept up with wpi.flame even, but you can't fault a body for trying.
Well, you can, but, yes.
posted by cortex at 8:53 AM on February 12, 2007
Well, you can, but, yes.
posted by cortex at 8:53 AM on February 12, 2007
Well, I did say "dedication", not "mastery".
true ... although he might pass for a scholastic version of gilbert t sullivan
posted by pyramid termite at 8:57 AM on February 12, 2007
true ... although he might pass for a scholastic version of gilbert t sullivan
posted by pyramid termite at 8:57 AM on February 12, 2007
taliaferro: tee-hee!
To fucking think I thought I was going to fucking get some work done.
posted by Mister_A at 9:16 AM on February 12, 2007
To fucking think I thought I was going to fucking get some work done.
posted by Mister_A at 9:16 AM on February 12, 2007
Probably should have added 'you cheeky devil' to increase the gayness. What can you expect from one who's material is dried up and isn't in it for the skin. Have fun you kids.
posted by nj_subgenius at 9:18 AM on February 12, 2007
posted by nj_subgenius at 9:18 AM on February 12, 2007
Infinitives are like butts: everyone's got one.... to really be gay with....
posted by sleevener at 9:25 AM on February 12, 2007
posted by sleevener at 9:25 AM on February 12, 2007
MetaTalk: I'm in it for the skin, buy you seriously want the attention.
posted by moss at 10:16 AM on February 12, 2007
posted by moss at 10:16 AM on February 12, 2007
Well, I, for one, am disappointed. I like to see some good, mean insults, or at least witty rejoinders that convey a conciliatory mood without having to actually say so, on the part of the flame-ee.
Brian B. is providing none of these things! Just weird, semi-sensical, occassional replies...sigh...disappointing.*
*to the rest of you: hilarious. Stop making me not work.
posted by LooseFilter at 10:41 AM on February 12, 2007
Brian B. is providing none of these things! Just weird, semi-sensical, occassional replies...sigh...disappointing.*
*to the rest of you: hilarious. Stop making me not work.
posted by LooseFilter at 10:41 AM on February 12, 2007
Also: I thought that split infinitives were sort of grudgingly acceptable these days? I mean, to knowingly do something like that would be shameful, to actually see one and just leave it on the page....that shows no ability to really care about what you write. Shameful.
posted by LooseFilter at 10:43 AM on February 12, 2007
posted by LooseFilter at 10:43 AM on February 12, 2007
Hear hear. Between that and the rampant sentence-terminal prepositions, I don't know what the world's coming to.
posted by cortex at 10:45 AM on February 12, 2007
posted by cortex at 10:45 AM on February 12, 2007
I don't have time to wade too far back into this. What the hell was the salivating forehead thing about? Did that ever get explained?
posted by klangklangston at 10:51 AM on February 12, 2007
posted by klangklangston at 10:51 AM on February 12, 2007
I'd like to this thread hijack to about split infinitives talk.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:53 AM on February 12, 2007
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:53 AM on February 12, 2007
DevilsAdvocate is really Yoda! Get my spaceship outta the swamp please. Also, can you give me a 12-inch pianist?
posted by Mister_A at 10:55 AM on February 12, 2007
posted by Mister_A at 10:55 AM on February 12, 2007
If you want to really, truly, and without any hint of faintheartedness or any fluttering of the will (and I say this without singling anyone out, or pointing fingers, because that's only partially what this thread's about), in other words sincerely and shamelessly about splitting infinitives talk, then let's do it, you maggots!
posted by sleevener at 11:31 AM on February 12, 2007
posted by sleevener at 11:31 AM on February 12, 2007
Soon Jessamyn is going to show up and call someone an ass. And you know what? She'll be right.
posted by boo_radley at 12:16 PM on February 12, 2007
posted by boo_radley at 12:16 PM on February 12, 2007
I have a feeling the salivating on my forehead thing will haunt me for the rest of my life.
posted by empath at 12:57 PM on February 12, 2007
posted by empath at 12:57 PM on February 12, 2007
In case you're serious, klangklangston, all is revealed here.
posted by cgc373 at 1:30 PM on February 12, 2007
posted by cgc373 at 1:30 PM on February 12, 2007
Wait, stars on your foreheads? What the fuck? That's, like, two butcherings of cliches all rammed together.
Whatever. I have a feeling that brainhurt has already been hashed out, and no one wants to go back.
posted by klangklangston at 1:34 PM on February 12, 2007
Whatever. I have a feeling that brainhurt has already been hashed out, and no one wants to go back.
posted by klangklangston at 1:34 PM on February 12, 2007
That's, like, two butcherings of cliches all rammed together.
I butchered two cliches all rammed together?
On the dorksquad scale of 1-10, what would that rate?
posted by Brian B. at 1:53 PM on February 12, 2007
I butchered two cliches all rammed together?
On the dorksquad scale of 1-10, what would that rate?
posted by Brian B. at 1:53 PM on February 12, 2007
I've read this entire thread and still can't figure out what "twee japery" is.
Oh, and Brian B. should go choke on a bag of dicks.
HITLER!
posted by slogger at 3:16 PM on February 12, 2007
Oh, and Brian B. should go choke on a bag of dicks.
HITLER!
posted by slogger at 3:16 PM on February 12, 2007
I've read this entire thread and still can't figure out what "twee japery" is.
It's a typo, referring to a now-deleted comment attacking woven-fiber jackets.
posted by cortex at 3:21 PM on February 12, 2007
It's a typo, referring to a now-deleted comment attacking woven-fiber jackets.
posted by cortex at 3:21 PM on February 12, 2007
So when will we have a MeMeTa to call out things in MeTa? Is tuesday good for everyone?
posted by Skorgu at 3:51 PM on February 12, 2007
posted by Skorgu at 3:51 PM on February 12, 2007
So when will we have a MeMeTa to call out things in MeTa?
I wish I'd kept track of all these (here's just two, uno and dos—praise Google!) over the years, so I could post a pre-emptive reverse callout of metametatalk and so end such nonsense. And you, Skorgu, would be first against the wall.
And yes, Tuesday's fine.
posted by cortex at 4:01 PM on February 12, 2007
I wish I'd kept track of all these (here's just two, uno and dos—praise Google!) over the years, so I could post a pre-emptive reverse callout of metametatalk and so end such nonsense. And you, Skorgu, would be first against the wall.
And yes, Tuesday's fine.
posted by cortex at 4:01 PM on February 12, 2007
I butchered two cliches all rammed together in Buffalo once. Twee peter-puffers all jape-ing and shit. They were asking for it.
posted by nj_subgenius at 4:04 PM on February 12, 2007
posted by nj_subgenius at 4:04 PM on February 12, 2007
Four more. Maybe I should have Refied this.
tres, quatro, cinco, seis.
The last one features a link to a thread-about-the-thread that was quickly deleted.
Google suggests more cites for "meta-metatalk" as well; I wonder what other constructions people have used for this joke in the past? One of those things you can't search for until you know what to search for.
posted by cortex at 4:21 PM on February 12, 2007
tres, quatro, cinco, seis.
The last one features a link to a thread-about-the-thread that was quickly deleted.
Google suggests more cites for "meta-metatalk" as well; I wonder what other constructions people have used for this joke in the past? One of those things you can't search for until you know what to search for.
posted by cortex at 4:21 PM on February 12, 2007
Whoops, maybe a little late, but:
shmegegge: Although I should say that, small minded or otherwise, I'm rather obviously not that smart. For instance, I have no idea if equalpants was insulting me or not.
Nope, not insulting you; just Brian-baiting. Sorry for the confusion...
posted by equalpants at 5:09 PM on February 12, 2007
shmegegge: Although I should say that, small minded or otherwise, I'm rather obviously not that smart. For instance, I have no idea if equalpants was insulting me or not.
Nope, not insulting you; just Brian-baiting. Sorry for the confusion...
posted by equalpants at 5:09 PM on February 12, 2007
yay!
posted by nj_subgenius at 6:22 PM on February 12, 2007
posted by nj_subgenius at 6:22 PM on February 12, 2007
Brian B: bugbread, our last exchange didn't go very well, did it. I thought you were thumbing these messages from a phone? You pleaded crippled and helpless last time, but I feel like Jesus now.
Whoa, I think you mightily misinterpreted that last exchange. I wasn't upset with you at all, and I was under the impression we were having a pleasant disagreement. The only reason I was getting on your case and not the other guys was that he didn't provide any evidence for his statements, so there was nothing to disagree with.
And regarding the phone: no, I pleaded crippled and helpless regarding reading stuff on cocaine.org. I can read and post to metafilter from work (or home, as I am now) just fine, but I had to read your link to cocaine.org from my cell phone.
posted by Bugbread at 6:38 PM on February 12, 2007
Whoa, I think you mightily misinterpreted that last exchange. I wasn't upset with you at all, and I was under the impression we were having a pleasant disagreement. The only reason I was getting on your case and not the other guys was that he didn't provide any evidence for his statements, so there was nothing to disagree with.
And regarding the phone: no, I pleaded crippled and helpless regarding reading stuff on cocaine.org. I can read and post to metafilter from work (or home, as I am now) just fine, but I had to read your link to cocaine.org from my cell phone.
posted by Bugbread at 6:38 PM on February 12, 2007
More 'this is why I posted this thread' less twee japery, please.
japes slogger's twee, whatever it is
Twee peter-puffers all jape-ing and shit.
japes slogger's twee, whatever it is
Twee peter-puffers all jape-ing and shit.
"Twas brilling, and the slithy tovesposted by ericb at 8:26 PM on February 12, 2007
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
'Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!'
He took his vorpal sword in hand:
Long time the manxome foe he sought--
So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
And as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
'And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe."*
PS Click to enlarge. Proves a lot. Nudge, nudge.
posted by lalochezia at 8:51 PM on February 12, 2007
posted by lalochezia at 8:51 PM on February 12, 2007
Nice pecs, Brian B.! Are they a sort of evolutionary adaptation? Do they help you to pick up gay men as well as straight women?
posted by cgc373 at 9:32 PM on February 12, 2007
posted by cgc373 at 9:32 PM on February 12, 2007
No way, dude. Those abs! That fiery crown! I cannot contain myself.
posted by cgc373 at 9:42 PM on February 12, 2007
posted by cgc373 at 9:42 PM on February 12, 2007
Not even wrong, Brian, not even wrong.
posted by lalochezia at 10:23 PM on February 12, 2007
posted by lalochezia at 10:23 PM on February 12, 2007
lalochezia, I think I know what you mean. You had more than a dozen choices in your search, but only one was right for you.
posted by Brian B. at 11:37 PM on February 12, 2007
posted by Brian B. at 11:37 PM on February 12, 2007
If the MeFi Detective Contingent catches you linking to a site for profit, even here in the gray, Brian B., I think they're gonna be pretty peeved. It'd piss me off, anyway. I really hope that 'stache dude has nothing at all to do with you.
posted by cgc373 at 1:17 AM on February 13, 2007
posted by cgc373 at 1:17 AM on February 13, 2007
Yeah Brian B., you really don't want the MeFi Detectives testing anything bad about you.
posted by Kwine at 6:12 AM on February 13, 2007
posted by Kwine at 6:12 AM on February 13, 2007
cgc373, are these detectives as stupid as the rest of you?
posted by Brian B. at 9:17 AM on February 13, 2007
posted by Brian B. at 9:17 AM on February 13, 2007
Probably not. In any case, I'm only mildly flaming you, because I don't care very much. I'm "flaming" in the same spirit I believe you are, Brian B., which is somewhat lighthearted if I'm reading the thread correctly. (Of course, if I'm reading correctly, you can't respond in kind and agree with me; you'll have to pretend you have no idea what I'm saying, and insult me somehow. 's okay by me.)
posted by cgc373 at 9:59 AM on February 13, 2007
posted by cgc373 at 9:59 AM on February 13, 2007
(Of course, if I'm reading correctly, you can't respond in kind and agree with me; you'll have to pretend you have no idea what I'm saying, and insult me somehow. 's okay by me.)
cgc373, I was only mildly flaming you too. See, "you" is obviously plural, and "you" (singular) was the least portion of it.
< sigh> such a happy thread in the end < /sigh>
posted by Brian B. at 10:24 AM on February 13, 2007
cgc373, I was only mildly flaming you too. See, "you" is obviously plural, and "you" (singular) was the least portion of it.
< sigh> such a happy thread in the end < /sigh>
posted by Brian B. at 10:24 AM on February 13, 2007
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by TwelveTwo at 2:16 AM on February 11, 2007