Displaying comments 1 to 50 of 59
MeTa post:
Everything here is chatty
I gotta say, it's always really irritating, it's always going to be really irritating, to write out a long post in which you think you had worthwhile things to say ... and then, wham!, the thread's gone out from under you. Arrgh! It happens to everyone from time to time. Don't take it personally. Why not? Specifically and importantly, the thread did not at that time include your wonderful and incisive new comment.
All it means is this: the more... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 8:15 AM on July 4, 2008
MeTa post:
Please, for the love of all that's holy
This troll was permabanned for a long list of good reasons. Aside from the repulsive moral vacuity of his remarks, he does not engage in discussion in the manner of a reasoning adult, he does not present any reasoning of his own (he appears to be incapable of a reasoning process), he does not intelligently respond to anything said to him, he has never changed his mind or admitted error no matter how obvious it is to everyone that he is factually wrong, and he continues to... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 3:44 PM on May 28, 2008
On the one hand he does hold these political views that are well out of the mainstream for MetaFilter,
He doesn't have "politics", he has a series of obnoxious remarks he repeats. A person with politics as such has reasons for what they think and some consistency between their ideas, however immoral or stupid those ideas are. PP does not have that.
but on the other hand he actually likes the wide-ranging topics and... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 3:54 PM on May 28, 2008
So does this mean we can start banning people who use the word "eponysterical" or "fixed that for you?"
Now, there's an example of you and I agreeing. :)
Otherwise, he's just one of the boys here who just happens to have remarks you don't want to hear.
No. You, and Dr Steve Whatever Guy, and dios, and paulsc, and most of the other folk who end up on the opposite sides of many debates with... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 4:07 PM on May 28, 2008
MeTa post:
Mission Accomplished
The most irritating thing about this discussion, to me, is the fact that all the damn data seems to have disappeared from Carnegie Mellon's site into 404-land. >:( Otherwise, they're entitled to talk about us, and we're entitled to talk about them.
Basically the LGF-ers' political views can be summed up as a special pleading position for Israel and the USA. Pretty much everything they say, and the nature and strength of their political alliances and their enmities can... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 5:03 PM on May 18, 2008
Wow. I used to post a lot at Metafilter until I was booted off for not towing the Lefty Line.
Ha! As smart and self-aware as ever, I see.
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 8:03 PM on May 18, 2008
MeTa post:
Mefi Made Me See The Light!
I've learned a huge amount of things here, in the sense of adding to my knowledge, finding out new facts and being exposed to new ideas. Almost every day there's something interesting and cool and enlightening here.
In the course of discussion I've had my opinions changed a lot on a few occasions, I've had my opinions changed a little on many occasions, and I've gotten new perspectives practically every time I've ever been here and read any serious or deep discussion,... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 12:35 AM on March 26, 2008
MeTa post:
Sans quoi?
Thanks, not_on_display. Exactly. Oh great god of game theory, guide my typing hands. So to speak. Sansgras seems a bit fishy to me too, but I'm not worried. I think the question, even if were completely genuine, would warrant good advice; therefore I will advise as if it is genuine. We can do harm by giving crap advice to a genuine case, and we can't do harm (in fact we can even do some good) by giving good advice to a liar. It's not impossible that someone... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 5:00 PM on March 10, 2008
ThePinkSuperhero I certainly don't have any desire to play therapist and/or detective for the amusement of the Metafilter community; what sane person would?
*shrug* I would. That may or may not be an answer to your question, though. :)
Again, it's cost/risk/benefit. Checking out the story costs an hour, tops, and provides an answer which, if not absolutely definitive, at least adds a significant amount of validity to one or the... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 5:38 PM on March 10, 2008
I mostly agree with fuzzbean, actually.
fuzzbean I agree with TPS, and I would be *profoundly* weirded out at this point if I were sansgras.
She started off that way. Her situation, if genuine, is distinctly weird and messed up.
But being asked to show up to prove your veracity? What, does she need to bring report cards too? Transcripts? W2s?
It's unresolved whether she needs to prove... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 5:50 PM on March 10, 2008
ThePinkSuperhero Wrong again.
So ... is it wrong to be nasty to me, and then prissily decry nastiness in general? :)
Anyway we're talking policy, not fact, it's "disagree" or "agree", not "wrong" or "right". But even if we were discussing the fact of whether people will be nasty to a person of dubious reality, I'm not wrong, they will. Before one of... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 7:15 PM on March 10, 2008
Saying you were wrong isn't nasty.
Nonsense, wrong once again, as you oh so often are. Do you practice wrongness before a mirror daily? Read Great Books of Wrong to improve your wrongitude? Enter your many errors into the Wrongness Machine to produce new variations of wrong? Live on wrong bean sandwiches? Surely no-one could be so wrong on purpose, you must have made it up!
Alternatively:
Look, I... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 8:24 PM on March 10, 2008
Aha, well, there we go. Welcome again, bona fide sansgras. :)
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 8:28 PM on March 10, 2008
Please do not misrepresent what meetups are for
All I'm anticipating is, if she wants, someone reliable could become able to honestly say, on her behalf, "yes, she's real, I'll vouch for that." If you met her, and the next thread she posts gets people saying she's a fake, will you stand stoically by, or would you vouch for her? If you would vouch for her (or for someone else thought to be a faker, but whom you'd met), then I can't really see... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 9:15 PM on March 10, 2008
Considering that we have all kinds of doctors & lawyers & therapists & veterinarians here, I'm now wondering if anybody's followed the advice to take it to a professional, and ended up consulting one of our resident experts in real life without realising it?
Nope, not me. New York's a bit far to commute. :) Anyway, looking for the broken pieces that fit is an old, old metaphor, I claim no originality for it. (And I'm not a therapist.)
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 10:04 PM on March 10, 2008
goshling I find the thought of attending a meet-up to verify one's existence to be too creepy and intimidating for words. Even if someone did turn up for such a purpose, would you simply take their word that whatever they say is true or would you require further verification?
Good grief yes, just take their word. You're not proving anything in a court of law. The stakes are tiny, the consequences of not being believed are just ... not being believed.... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 11:49 PM on March 10, 2008
MeTa post:
why are racist questions allowed on netatalk
It's an interesting topic. There's a whole lot of sociology/psychology questions that could be asked: not just black or white people in urban Texas, and not just dogs. It's a subset of cultural variation in attitudes to animals.
A quick story. A few years ago in early spring I was walking to a cafe at uni to get some breakfast. At one of the tables outside were a couple of young female Asian students. (I'm not sure which Asian ethnicity they were, or even if they were... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 10:25 PM on February 25, 2008
.. until people decide to stop being little whiners about every tiny thing that they find offense with.
But after the heat death of the universe, all our questions will be moot anyway.
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 11:03 PM on February 25, 2008
MeTa post:
LOLXtians! No - LOLScientologists!
Some Christians deserve mockery for some behaviors inspired by Christian belief. Same goes for any well-established, well-regarded, traditional religion. However all Scientologists deserve mockery for almost all behaviors inspired by Scientological belief. (I'm being charitable here, and letting Scientology take the credit for "inspiring" some acts of common sense or common decency.) The origins and nature of... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 3:11 PM on January 15, 2008
Optimus Chyme because Scientology is a million times worse than the worst kind of Christianity
Oh, hell no. The Crusades of Scientology, assuming all conspiracy theories about them are taken at face value and the Scientologists themselves given the maximum cynical disbelief, have killed maybe a dozen people, and driven maybe a hundred or so to flee. They have fleeced maybe 10 or 20 billion dollars from a few million fools, driving several thousand of... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 11:21 PM on January 15, 2008
I'm not forgetting the numbers at all, the numbers are highly relevant. Scientology couldn't possibly sustain two billion members in its current form. It's an economic scam. It can't leap that credibility gap. It has to be fringe, it has to be transgressive, it has to be secluded and secretive. If it grew to even 5% or so of the population of any one Western country, it would become subject to intense scrutiny that it simply cannot survive. Public health authorities would crack open the E-meters.... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 1:07 AM on January 16, 2008
MeTa post:
This is not the answer you are looking for.
cortex Well, bolding your entire comment isn't exaclty "some subtle way", to be fair. The intent makes sense, but the effect is retina-searing.
A discreet background effect would be ideal, IMO.
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 3:58 PM on January 15, 2008
tkolar This whole "winner" thing is really alien to AskMe as I understand it.
Ah, tkolar, in that case, you don't understand it. :) The prospect of being picked as "best" is a great motivation to write a good answer. (Of course one ought to write a good answer anyway, but it's nice to be motivated, and it's the closest thing to a prize we have.)
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 3:59 PM on January 15, 2008
There is value in choosing a winner - it promotes participation.
It's not precisely on point, but it's close, and anyone who hasn't seen this before really should, it's probably the most enlightening 45 minutes you'll spend in some time: Luis Van Ahn - Human Computation. It's about how you can get humans to solve problems that humans are good at, and computers aren't good at, by making the process of solving the problem fun.... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 5:57 PM on January 15, 2008
The one who "games the system" can be said to have "won" their particular end, if they got it. Example: every time you play a particular computer game online, you get a score point if you lose and three if you win. The first person to 1000 score points can trade them in for a prize. It being a great deal easier to lose than win, players may repeatedly concede games at the earliest opportunity, and thus accumulate points faster than if they had won every match. So although our... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 7:55 PM on January 15, 2008
MeTa post:
On the unbearable anonymous of being
"I" don't think of myself as entirely "aeschenkarnos". This identity is that sub-part of me that writes on MetaFilter and a few other places. I think of it as a "pen name". To link it to my birth certificate name or "meatspace body" as though it were a one-to-one correspondence kind of obviates the point of having it at all.
It's mainly a control issue. I very much prefer to engage and be engaged in controversy and argument... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 3:55 PM on January 15, 2008
Separation of your online identity from yourself is exactly why civility breaks down: you wouldn't treat someone that way, but you aren't "you" you're SuperAvatar.
But so are they. They're their online identity, with their own freedom of expression towards me and others.
Every one of us has multiple real selves and vary how we behave according to the context in which we are behaving. I bet even you,... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 4:21 PM on January 15, 2008
Which "real self" of yours, though? Granny's grandson, Joe's buddy, CorpOrateCo's employee, Norm Junior's dad? Do you want the freedom to choose which aspects of which "you" you write about? Which voice you write in?
Why would the "site" care? If username "AliciaJPennyOf4WestStPortland" deserves banning, she gets banned. If username "alicia_kitty" deserves banning, she gets banned. No difference.... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 4:34 PM on January 15, 2008
MeTa post:
Rocking Homelessness?
What koeselitz said. The advice in that thread is useful to a homeless person whether the person becomes homeless due to circumstances of life or their own choices (which itself is a philosophical issue beyond the scope of this thread). There's plenty of warning in the thread about the downsides, and those warnings in themselves constitute advice to the involuntarily homeless too.
"Don't swim in the river, there are crocodiles!"
"Whoops, I... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 3:21 PM on January 15, 2008
MeTa post:
WriteLearnThink.pdf
Speaking of ESL, a friend of mine teaches ESL and mentioned that a question she occasionally gets from students is, "What is the difference between 'the' and 'the'?" One being pronounced "thÉ™", th-schwa, the toneless vowel; the other being pronounced "thee". It's a surprising question to English speakers.
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 8:23 PM on January 14, 2008
MeTa post:
Just The Facts, Ma'am
Sometimes, IMHO, the moderators here are over-eager to delete interactions that appear to be motivated by aggression, even though those interactions may have intellectual value. Many things can be learned by reading arguments. Obviously an argument over whether A is a prick, or it is B who is the prick, or both A and B are both pricks, has no little intellectual value. But moral arguments can be both emotionally provoking and intellectually enlightening. People feel strongly... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 9:54 PM on January 10, 2008
(Of course, I'd rather not have just annoyance, either. We've had "just annoyances" in the past. One in particular: "G-d grant he lie still", as the saying goes. I suspect some of the moderators' intolerance for unpleasantry these days is an immune response to the past infection - him.)
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 9:59 PM on January 10, 2008
MeTa post:
GiveWell, or Give 'em Hell?
spiderwire So I lost count of how many times Holden and/or Elie tried this little trick. Are you guys going to stick with the "sleep deprivation" story that's still on the GiveWell blog, now that it's clear that this was done over and over again over the course of weeks, by at least two people?
The only thing I would believe is that they've been suffering sleep deprivation. :)
This thing looks to me... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 10:47 PM on January 1, 2008
This is getting awfully long for a thread that has nothing to do with sexism, don't you think?
Most definitely. Although I must say, looking at the picture, I wonder if Holden and Elie are dog owners, and if so, how well they treat their dogs; and also, by the time this blows over, either or both men will be obese, and if so, to what extent they could be held personally responsible for their obesity. ;)
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 11:16 PM on January 1, 2008
Nonprofiteer whatever his transparency or lack of it in marketing stunts, his method for assessing charities is completely opaque.
I'll take a shot at it. My guess for Holden's Magic Method is: (1) Talk Lots Of The Big Talk; (2) obfuscate the assessment process in a crapcloud of meaningless marketroid buzzwords and indecipherable metrics; (3) declare whichever charities offers the most potential for Givewell to gobble up "overhead" out of... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 10:27 PM on January 2, 2008
One does not attend a PTA meeting and shit in the punchbowl because you think it's a "new" or "unimportant" or "not real life" community.
Particularly not if one is the manager of a business whose motto is "punch is the most delicious drink".
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 10:46 PM on January 2, 2008
Though it's bloody amusing to watch his friends gather around the punchbowl commenting on how much of the punch is still drinkable and it wasn't a very big one and it's a good thing he keeps to a wholefoods diet.
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 10:48 PM on January 2, 2008
Jesus this is depressing. One misguided kid with underdeveloped ethics I could live with. The sheer quantity of people giving it a shrug and a suggestion that he be given a second chance? Pathetic.
And suspicious. I think these guys are defending one of their own.
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 2:57 PM on January 3, 2008
MeTa post:
Rethinking comment deletion
Email notification should suffice IMO. I don't think I've had a post deleted yet, although I'm curious to see if that's still the case by this afternoon. Anyway I'd like to know if one was, though, and I'd like to have a chance to re-state what I had to say, perhaps more civilly or perhaps more subtly sarcastic. But I think we tend to do that anyway, if we actually had something to say. A comment worth flagging rarely goes without reply.
Regarding... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 6:26 PM on December 17, 2007
MeTa post:
Buying a WoW account is against Blizzard's TOS.
Danila He didn't ask whether or not he should do it. He asked how to do it. He also seemed quite aware of the social ramifications, what with all of the caveats in the question.
I totally disagree. It's the sort of question that a person aware of the social ramifications simply wouldn't ask. There is no way to answer him correctly without incidentally telling him not to do it. He simply can't get what he wants to... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 11:13 PM on December 5, 2007
liet The "just go play on a free server" answers are the equivalent of "just go torrent it" answers for other media.
Not exactly, there's a meaningful difference here. He can't do what he wants to do, ie play WoW, have fun, be taken seriously (I mean at the "fellow human being" level of seriously, not the "that's a great point" level of seriously), play the game properly, on the legitimate... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 11:42 PM on December 5, 2007
What he wants to get is, in his words, "the most badass" character he can buy. That's it. You don't know anything beyond that, and that question is answerable.
No, actually it is not answerable - this is the point I am trying to make here. There is no "most badass" character. If he wants to put up actual criteria, sure, we can answer that. But whatever he buys will become no longer badass, rendered so by the... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 1:59 PM on December 6, 2007
I don't have a problem with the use of analogies and no I'm not trying to provoke you simply by disagreeing with you.
Not you, the OP. Also, I don't think we disagree so much.
Fair enough. Anyone interested in buying WoW characters may discover means of doing so through a simple google search for the terms: "buy wow character". This will bring up dozens of websites whose proprietors will gladly say they will perform... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 9:59 PM on December 6, 2007
Assumptions about why I want the Bible may very well be made, but they shouldn't be posted to the thread, except in the form of clarifying questions.
You're advocating taking a questioner completely at face value. This diminishes the advice as opposed to mere answers that can be provided, and it asks answerers to become to some extent complicit in proposed stupid (but not illegal) activity. In... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 3:17 PM on December 7, 2007
MeTa post:
AskMe screws the pooch
Your concerns are very much valid from an ideal point of view ikkyu2 but I don't think there's anything that can or really should be done about it in practical terms. Some points in response:
(1) Almost all medical questions that get posted here won't be about life-threatening conditions, at least in the short-term, for the simple reason that almost anyone with a short-term life-threatening condition who is smart enough to work the 'net will go to a doctor... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 10:44 PM on December 5, 2007
Mental Health questions should be deleted with a nice letter sent to the poster about seeing their own physician. There is no upside to having them stay and a very large potential downside.
Why mental health specifically? Care to provide a draft of that "nice" letter, which all persons with mental health problems will take as not in the least contemptuous or patronising? How do you clearly distinguish mental health... [more]
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 11:22 PM on December 5, 2007
MeTa post:
Are YouTube playlists self-links?
An argument against the playlist idea: the poster can subsquently edit the playlist, can't they? Now this can be good, in that a new clip that belongs with the others can easily be added; but it also has bad possiblities, eg the poster's account is deleted, for whatever reasons he/she removes these clips, or points them to something malicious or annoying.
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 10:51 PM on December 5, 2007
I suppose that's the case for every webpage though, but on the other hand, playlists are supposed to be more like bookmark lists and scratchpads, ie more personal and more frequently edited ... aren't they?
posted to MetaTalk by aeschenkarnos
at 10:58 PM on December 5, 2007
