Nate Kushner is a Sadistic Defamer

March 29, 2005 11:17 AM

Nate Kushner is a Sadistic Defamer. In which a blogger serves just desserts to a self-righteous vigilante.
posted by MaxVonCretin (31 comments total)

Shhh. It'll all be over soon...
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:19 AM on March 29, 2005

Yeah, I think I'll take a nap and then go watch some SpongeBob.

Now if only the Sciavo mess would be over so soon.
posted by Sharktattoo at 11:20 AM on March 29, 2005

This might have been better posted to the previous thread on this.
posted by orange swan at 11:25 AM on March 29, 2005

boy, was I mistaken. I thought Nate Kushner was moderately amusing, but not terribly funny. After reading the linked FPP, I must revise: by comparison, Kushner is a comic genius.
posted by beelzbubba at 11:25 AM on March 29, 2005

Is this really just desserts? Just desserts would be like if he found out something on Nate Kushner and published it for everyone to see, something that would serve to embarass Nate. This is just one more opinion on the matter.
posted by 23skidoo at 11:27 AM on March 29, 2005

This might have been better posted to the previous thread on this.

Ya think?

Noise post. Delete.
posted by Specklet at 11:28 AM on March 29, 2005

Delete. Borrrrring.
posted by agregoli at 11:28 AM on March 29, 2005

WHY DO YOU HATE METAFILTER?
posted by loquacious at 11:29 AM on March 29, 2005

Is "Laura K. Pahl" on her way to becoming the "new Terri Schiavo"? Film at 11.
posted by clevershark at 11:29 AM on March 29, 2005

[this is dumb]
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:29 AM on March 29, 2005

WHY? WHY? WHY?
posted by papercake at 11:31 AM on March 29, 2005

Also, you should be banned for self-linking.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:31 AM on March 29, 2005

MaxVonCretin is a Mild-Mannered Satirist. In which nobody raises a dull circle to the next level of soon-to-be-deleted nevermind.
posted by nobody at 11:33 AM on March 29, 2005

Wow. If no one likes a snitch, what will people say about an especially childish and unoriginal one?
posted by clevershark at 11:39 AM on March 29, 2005

*hangs head in shame*

Sorry, I seem to have overcaffeinated today. Lesson learned. Delete away...
posted by MaxVonCretin at 11:39 AM on March 29, 2005

No, no, I want to see where you're going with this.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 11:47 AM on March 29, 2005

posted by breezeway at 11:48 AM on March 29, 2005

This is a self-link, no?
posted by mek at 11:54 AM on March 29, 2005

Is this Nate Kushmer something you'd need a brand new Blogger blog to know about?
posted by aaronetc at 11:55 AM on March 29, 2005

Or "Kushner," for that matter?
posted by aaronetc at 11:56 AM on March 29, 2005

Is this really just desserts?

No. Just desserts would be pie and cake with no meat and potatoes. It might be just deserts though.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:57 AM on March 29, 2005

Wait guys, lets give this new blog a chance. I'm sure if the author fleshes out some of the story lines and...

Nuke it and fuck it.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 11:57 AM on March 29, 2005

I knew you were going completely apeshit in the other discussion, MaxVonCretin, but I have to applaud you for taking it so much further with this self-link. Whatever happened to the notion that holding private people to public ridicule is "cruel and unusual punishment. Vigilante punishment, no less"?
posted by rcade at 11:57 AM on March 29, 2005

Well, Nate has made himself, and his actions, public. So your complaint of hypocrisy against MaxVonCretin is without merit.

Bad, bad, bad post, though.

And Breezeway, there is an unspoken agreement that we don't post inline images very often because there's enormous potential for abuse and we're damn lucky Matt allows it at all.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:02 PM on March 29, 2005

Aw, come on, he said he was sorry and over-caffeinated.
posted by Specklet at 12:03 PM on March 29, 2005

Apology accepted. Bad post, though. The double post aspect makes it interestingly similar to the kind of ethical lapse plagarism is at a university.
posted by OmieWise at 12:06 PM on March 29, 2005

Over-caffeinated is defense enough in my book for almost anything except murder and unartistic baby-tossing.

I'm pretty sure this falls under unartistic baby-tossing.
posted by loquacious at 12:08 PM on March 29, 2005

Whatever happened to the notion that holding private people to public ridicule is "cruel and unusual punishment."

What fruitcake said that? Oh right, it was me. Well, all that goes out the window as soon as you start writing about yourself on a blog.

That said, I remain extremely repentant for the profound worthlessness of my front page post. No doubt most will agree that I deserve whatever I get.
posted by MaxVonCretin at 12:08 PM on March 29, 2005

Well, Nate has made himself, and his actions, public. So your complaint of hypocrisy against MaxVonCretin is without merit.

I find it amusing that MetaFilter users think that private figures should not be publicly held up to ridicule on a weblog. The number of posts and comments doing exactly that on MetaFilter has to number in the hundreds.
posted by rcade at 12:10 PM on March 29, 2005

there is an unspoken agreement that we don't post inline images very often because there's enormous potential for abuse and we're damn lucky Matt allows it at all.

Yes, he immediately took down the LaShawn Barber picture that I posted. Maybe LaShawn Barber, Nate Kushner and Laura K. Pahl could all get together and do a panel discussion of viral marketing? How to drive traffic to your blog in three easy lessons?
posted by fixedgear at 12:10 PM on March 29, 2005

Well, all that goes out the window as soon as you start writing about yourself on a blog.

To me, that seems like a bogus place to draw the line. If personal blogs are an extension of real life, then we should be able to write about people who come into our acquaintance.

If Nate wants to describe a random stranger who spammed him over IM to write a paper for her, I don't think some perceived "right of privacy" should prevent him from naming names.
posted by rcade at 12:14 PM on March 29, 2005