Advertise here: Contact FM.

June 5, 2002
11:29 AM Subscribe

I must admit, I've always had my doubts about some of you...Corporations hire viral marketing firms to spread misinformation and bogus votes of support for their products on internet message boards. With all the front page entries about new movies, new records and new colored cola drinks, are we all being manipulated and duped by the marketing weasels even here on Metafilter?
posted by crunchland (82 comments total)

Gosh, you know you could always look at the folks' past comments...
posted by Wizzle at 11:31 AM on June 5, 2002

I've heard that if you play MetaFilter backwards, you can hear messages about Satan's Altar.
posted by eyeballkid at 11:35 AM on June 5, 2002

Um, you're always being manipulated, by everyone, at all times. You're surprised?
posted by hob at 11:35 AM on June 5, 2002

I sincerely wouldn't doubt it, what with all press this place gets. maybe we should call a moratorium on new movie/album posts?
posted by mcsweetie at 11:37 AM on June 5, 2002

I assure you that my recent posts extolling the wholesome goodness of new Wheat-flavored, genetically modified Pringles© was entirely of my own doing, and not motivated in whole or in part by any sort of compensation from the good folks at Proctor & Gamble©.
posted by pardonyou? at 11:38 AM on June 5, 2002

yes.
posted by quonsar at 11:42 AM on June 5, 2002

Wizzle, that's all part of their plan... they must be first accepted by the herd before they can start grabbing meaningful attention.

Thanks for the link, crunchland. I've wondered about this for years, whenever I read product reviews on Amazon.com, or software reviews on download.com, and the like. I'm not surprised that it happens, but I'm glad to see someone is finally talking about it.
posted by insomnyuk at 11:44 AM on June 5, 2002

No way. There would never be any shills on MetaFilter.

By the way if you're looking for a job or for an employee be sure to check out AppleOne. They helped me. They'll help you too!
posted by willnot at 11:47 AM on June 5, 2002

whenever I read product reviews on Amazon.com

That link was really about lobbying though, more than advertising - which is a bit more sinister, since they can basically lie and mislead and say things they would never claim outright under the guise of some random citizen. On the other hand, there's so much "pro-technology at any cost" anti-environmentalism online anyway, it doesn't seem all that necessary to create a few more voices.

(and of course the half the authors out there will put an anonymous positive review for their book on amazon - I just assume that)
posted by mdn at 11:52 AM on June 5, 2002

Must... buy... colored...cola....
posted by mikegre at 11:52 AM on June 5, 2002

That Bivings Report article, "Viral Marketing: How to Infect the World", is here, by the way.

The fact is, on the web, you don't really know all that much about most of your sources. It's a mistake to think that just because someone is sharing their (apparently) personal opinions that they are therefore your trusted friend. Rather, it's like any other social interaction -- you have to use your judgment.
posted by mattpfeff at 11:53 AM on June 5, 2002

new colored cola drinks

Vanilla is a color?
posted by ljromanoff at 11:53 AM on June 5, 2002

I know I'm being heavily influenced. I almost gave up my liberal values once after reading a right wing fundamentalist screed here on our beloved mefi. Wanna buy a bridge?

Now I wish to influence you and here's my meme:
Jesus was a socialist.
posted by nofundy at 11:58 AM on June 5, 2002

jesus has a posse.
posted by moz at 12:06 PM on June 5, 2002

Vanilla is a color? No, but blue is. (I won't link to the thread that discussed the hell swill, because, don't you see? That would just be playing into their hands!)

I think the best bet is to ignore everything posted by anyone with a user number over about 2975.
posted by crunchland at 12:06 PM on June 5, 2002

i got a pop-up the other day that read:

"I use Hellfire missles
because i don't want to worry about what I kill"

jesus has a softdrink also: 'Jesus'

(love it when threads come together)

on topic: metafilter has marketing weasels? Is there a powder or spray we can use or will we have to lock up ALL the chickens.

'jesus has a posse': bumper sticker of the year sir.
posted by clavdivs at 12:12 PM on June 5, 2002

Actually, I think Barabbas had the posse.
posted by thewittyname at 12:17 PM on June 5, 2002

"Andura Smetacek"? God I wish that was my Metafilter ~~shill~~ user name.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 12:19 PM on June 5, 2002

Dearest Marketing Folk:

if you need someone to sit around the house and post gibberish on forums about your products, give me a email.
i work cheap and i've got quite the cachet.

really. all the kids love me.
posted by fishfucker at 12:22 PM on June 5, 2002

The Kraft corporation is proud to announce our newest spokesman: fishfucker. We believe there is great synergy between Mr. Fucker's well known and loved online persona and the healthy food products of our company.

Look for fishfucker's posts on our delicious new Cool Whip Lite(tm) in a web forum near you!

...

Sounds good to me.
posted by malphigian at 12:31 PM on June 5, 2002

I'm a shill for Adbusters.
posted by Mars Saxman at 12:37 PM on June 5, 2002

Learn The Six Simple Principles of Viral Marketing!

Woohoo! We're all gonna get filthy rich!
posted by mark13 at 12:44 PM on June 5, 2002

DoubleClick here. Ad space for rent. Will do Akamai for premium tequila and Cuban cigars.
posted by nofundy at 12:45 PM on June 5, 2002

AHEM.
posted by crunchland at 12:47 PM on June 5, 2002

As a marketing puke, I take umbrage!

But my umbrage is mellowed by fast-acting, effective Luvox. The smoothest, tastiest Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor ever proscribed for mild to moderate OCD!

warning: Luvox may interfere with judgment, thinking, or motor skills

posted by UncleFes at 12:54 PM on June 5, 2002

Midas Mulligan? Naahhh, way too obvious.
posted by Ty Webb at 12:55 PM on June 5, 2002

I think many of you are shills for Google. and here
posted by vacapinta at 12:55 PM on June 5, 2002

Pardonyou? -- That's "Procter & Gamble," dearie. when spelling our -- whoops, I meant "that" company's name, please do so correctly.

This message sponsored by the letter 3 and the number w.
posted by metrocake at 12:59 PM on June 5, 2002

Oh fine UncleFes, you take all the umbrage, leave none for the rest of us...see how you are? :)

Me, I'm a shill for RTMark and associates, because life without giant Finnish inflatable gold penis suits just isn't worth living.
posted by dejah420 at 1:18 PM on June 5, 2002

Hasn't this possibility been raised in metatalk before?

And secretly I'm shilling for Slurm, because it does a body good.
posted by drezdn at 1:20 PM on June 5, 2002

Be it my place or no, I don't think this idea is true.
Ugly marketers would stay away from the brilliant Blue.
Your theories seem pretty silly.

At the same time, Kafkaesque's sorta suspicious.
ParisParamus, too.
Perhaps there are corporate shills here.
Legally, I suppose they're allowed.
Even if they will get dragged to MeTa.
posted by Marquis at 1:26 PM on June 5, 2002

wow. my job plea is working already! i just got offered the opportunity to complete a market survey and possibly win $5000! also: free internet accelerator!

ps. email-harvester: i hat u.

posted by fishfucker at 1:44 PM on June 5, 2002

I believe this practice is called "astroturfing", from the idea of creating a "fake grass-"roots movement. Is it not? I dunno, I'm so unhip these days.
posted by Succa at 2:09 PM on June 5, 2002

It's true. I am pushing my Chikn-In-A-Biskit agenda.

Also, huh?
posted by Kafkaesque at 2:17 PM on June 5, 2002

I always suspected Miguel of being an evil corporate product-monger for...something. I can just never quite put my finger on what it is.

And I know jonmc gets a cut of all flannel shirt sales.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:43 PM on June 5, 2002

Mattpfeff: Now there's interesting. A line from the Bivings Report of your link:

'Once you are plugged into this world, it is possible to make relevant postings to these outlets that openly present your identity and position. '

Note the use of the word 'openly'. Now look at the bottom of the page and you will see '*Recently edited for clarification'.

Methinks that they may have read the Guardian article recently.

Personally I don't think that this stuff is much of a laughing matter because I suspect that it could become quite sinister, but then again what do I know?
posted by Duug at 2:48 PM on June 5, 2002

Some Kazaa freaks have been hitting my message board. I actually had to ban people who were creating multiple ids so they could have conversations with themselves about Kazaa. Uggh.
posted by elvissinatra at 2:52 PM on June 5, 2002

That is a load of rich creamery butter.
posted by pigasus at 3:15 PM on June 5, 2002

Jesus was a socialist

Jesus was delusional. Can't have one without the other.
posted by Mick at 5:27 PM on June 5, 2002

Psst-- I heard that the vegan posters here are shills for the influential soybean lobby.
posted by sheauga at 5:41 PM on June 5, 2002

I would just like to state that I have not been bought, but offer me some free classic video game stuff and I'll shill for anything except cigarettes or alcohol.

This message was brought you by Glagnar's Human Rinds. It's a buncha muncha cruncha human!
posted by krisjohn at 5:49 PM on June 5, 2002

I was kinda hoping that this thread would turn into a witchhunt...
posted by palegirl at 6:19 PM on June 5, 2002

I wrote a position paper last year for a PR firm on the value of using sites such as Mefi for guerilla PR. The piece made several points: (1) if a story or product or whatever was genuinely interesting, there was no ethical problem in creating buzz in this manner--interesting is interesting; (2) such sites were, undoubtedly, already being used in this manner (3) a a story or product or whatever had a very good chance of receiving bad publicity via sites such as Mefi, thus limiting the dangers of posting with a PR motivation; (4)sites such as Mefi might actually be most useful for disparaging a PR client's competition.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:34 PM on June 5, 2002

P.S I: I have since reaffirmed my college-era impression that people in PR are, on average, loathsome: the lowest common denominator of that "profession" is too lightweight, manipulative and embarassing for my tastes. In contrast, the legal profession, where I aim to stay, has many lowlifes, but offers more room for honorable work (even if honorable, decent, likeable lawyers seem, even to me, hard to find).

PS II: Truth be told: I am paid by the PLO as a disinformation agent. And I will continue to be so paid!
posted by ParisParamus at 6:43 PM on June 5, 2002

I always suspected Miguel of being an evil corporate product-monger for...something. I can just never quite put my finger on what it is.

Charm school?
posted by y2karl at 6:54 PM on June 5, 2002

Guy, Guys relax...you all too smart to be manipulated..

you are under my power...

And it's not like it any of these methods even subliminal ones are ever effective..

MeFemme's..jonmc is the sexiest man on earth..you want him

It just wouldn't be worth the trouble...

VFTC is the best 'blog on earth

So just chill out and go on 'bout your business, OK?

Send money, gifts and naked pix to JonMc at...
posted by jonmc at 7:25 PM on June 5, 2002

Paris, point one is a given. Point two is indefensible, you're essentially saying, "If someone else is doing it why aren't we?" And the next couple points all work off the same assumption that someone is doing it and it would be good business to join and compete with them. Sorry, but if the viral marketers kept the hell out points 2-4 wouldn't matter. Guerilla/Viral markerers are still scum.

I linked this article long ago to my weblog, I'm quite fond of it. The more people distrust the internet the better.
posted by skallas at 7:25 PM on June 5, 2002

Vanilla is a color?

Nope, it's a lifestyle!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:31 PM on June 5, 2002

Skallas: I agree with you. Probably why I've never worked for a PR agency.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:47 PM on June 5, 2002

Very interesting. I raised this possibility way back in November of last year over in Metatalk, and then had my motives promptly questioned by tamim here.
posted by nobody_knose at 7:57 PM on June 5, 2002

Not that I have any deep sympathy for someone bent on such deception, but I do think it seems sort of sad, in a way. I would imagine that it would take several months of posting to achieve any level of what passes for credibility around here, only to have to waste it to announce that Cracked Magazine is back, or that Pepsi now comes in blue, or whatever, like a modern day Sisyphus.
posted by crunchland at 10:02 PM on June 5, 2002

Funny thing - I've always wondered who was actually behind a lot of the Guardian articles.
posted by MidasMulligan at 11:42 PM on June 5, 2002

You know...I dunno why, but suddenly, I think jonmc is the sexiest man on earth..and I want him.

;)
posted by dejah420 at 11:48 PM on June 5, 2002

Midas Mulligan? Naahhh, way too obvious.

How lovely to be mentioned by name as "too obvious". Generally I'm simply responding to one of the daily tirade of anti-corporate postings the seem to be so much a theme here.

Don't suppose - while we're talking about deception, and delibrately using media for one's own purposes - that anyone would care to look at the Ruckus Society's "Media Manual"?

Seems as though perhaps dissent is often manufactured as well as consent.

A few choise quotes:

"A few interesting lines:Wire services also offer a great opportunity for getting coverage even when no reporters show up: If you have a reasonably skilled photographer on hand, he or she can take an action photo and offer it to the wires as a freelancer. If it's an interesting breaking-news photo, the wires often aren't that picky about who took it."

"An essential step in planning your action is to work backwards from the photograph you'd like to see in the next day's paper. (This imagery should ideally translate well to television.) Ask yourself: If the only coverage of this action is one wire service photo, what single image will best convey our message? Consider everything: lighting, camera angle, visibility of the target, size of the banner, even the clothes your activists are wearing. In the absence of a banner, effective messages can be delivered by symbolic costumes."

"Sometimes you have to do an action when it is possible to do it, or when it's safe to do it. But if circumstances permit you to choose the date and time, make your choices with the media's convenience in mind. Again, there's no formula, but there are some general rules of thumb:

Morning is better than afternoon. Almost no event short of a major catastrophe gets covered on the evening news, or in the next morning's paper, if it occurs after 3 p.m.

Combining the above guidelines, we arrive at the theoretical best time for a hypothetical action: 10:30 a.m. on Monday, after news crews have reported to work for the day, but before they've got other stories going. "

"Gut check: Decide if it's safe to tip off key reporters in advance.

"If there are one or two reporters whose coverage is key, and you decide they can be trusted, approach them now - strictly off the record - and let them know what's going to happen. You may find out they'll be out of town, but they can tell you who will be covering in their place. They may tell you they live two hours away, so they need extra notice. They may want to cover the action from a strategic vantage point. Make adjustments to accommodate them if you can, but never at the expense of a safe, effective, authentic action."

Curious definition of "authenticity" methinks.
posted by MidasMulligan at 12:07 AM on June 6, 2002

it looks like those egg council creeps have got to MeFi too ......

you better run egg........
posted by urban greeting at 2:09 AM on June 6, 2002

...Naahhh, way too obvious.

And the point is to persuade--not to annoy--after all.
posted by y2karl at 9:28 AM on June 6, 2002

Seems as though perhaps dissent is often manufactured as well as consent.

Please explain how Ruckus using the media to attract attention to their actions relates to Corporations inventing people to rubbish their opponents on the internet . Also explain how you come to the conclusion that the dissent of Ruckus' members is "manufactured."

No one has a problem with organizations, corporations or NGOs, using marketing firms to bring across their message, but this thread has to do specifically with companies creating false people to post pro- or anti- messages on the internet. If you can find examples of Ruckus or any other lefty group doing this, please post it.

I realize this is just wrestling in the mud, but it never ceases to amaze me how you can use every thread as an excuse to voice complaints about the left. Sometimes you even substantiate those complaints. In this case you haven't.
posted by Ty Webb at 9:31 AM on June 6, 2002

And the point is to persuade--not to annoy--after all.

The people that generally get annoyed by my posts are folks whose annoyance lets me know I've been effective. The minute I stop annoying the y2k's, foldy's, and TyWebb's of the world will be the day it's no longer worth posting.

I realize this is just wrestling in the mud, but it never ceases to amaze me how you can use every thread as an excuse to voice complaints about the left.

As opposed to you and several others, that so often use MeFi itself as your own personal soapbox for complaints about the right? What I do is to use a small fraction of the almost daily barrage of left-wing posts slamming anything corporate to actually introduce an alternative perspective.

Your "amazement", and y2k's "annoyance" really is quite gratifying.
posted by MidasMulligan at 12:41 PM on June 6, 2002

Troll.
posted by crunchland at 12:47 PM on June 6, 2002

y2karl, I'm actually quite curious to know why you're so annoyed by MidasMulligan. Really, you two disagree on almost everything. Why not simply appreciate the polar opposite. His arguments have merit. He's not simply babbling about idiot-Gore or womanizing-Clinton, which is a staple used quite often on this board against Bush.

Come on, you're a middle-aged man acting like you're still in college, trolling for the sake of trolling. And this isn't to say that Midas is without fault, but you did start it by attacking his personality instead of sticking to facts.

You two act like kids when arguing with each other. And the fact is, you're both well-versed and appear to have thoughtful rhetoric. If you two can't grow up, what hope is there for the other 14,000 other posters here whose mean age is around 22-25?

(I apologize if I sound condescending, because I do enjoy your comments, when they're relevant to the topic.)
posted by BlueTrain at 12:55 PM on June 6, 2002

Midas, not to interrupt your now familiar back-patting ritual, but would you care to address the points I raised? You can find them here.
posted by Ty Webb at 2:35 PM on June 6, 2002

He doesn't annoy me anymore, for one. My comment above was not an expression of annoyance but simply noting that if you want to influence people towards your point of view, there are more effective ways than shouting at them. His bombast did get to me early on but I've become inured to it by now.

I have expressed myself on the topic here.

And note hincandenza's first item here--it's something I wonder about, too--what's up with the belittling? And notice how when someone responds to, or refutes, his spurious links with ones of substance--like here or here--how they go unanswered. The second example there is telling--he goes after snarky me in that thread but does he respond to riviera's comment on his kneejerk and patently false Clinton-bashing? No-o-o-o... I have to admit my contributions in that thread suck but I think it can be argued that in my first link in this comment, I asked some pointed questions, yes, but I did not slur him.

His arguments have merit?

When he makes arguments, perhaps. It's hard to separate them from the other garbage--I refer you to the third paragraph in the first comment linked above.

Now, I've attempted to answered your question. When is he going to answer hincadenza's or respond to serious rebuttals like sheuaga's or riviera's as also linked above? And note that in the thread in which riviera made his comment, he chose to ignore it and go after the easy prey--where's the engaging at the level of ideas in that?

I will stand by the baiting-and-bashing analysis for the time being.

And you are one to talk about trolling, by the way.
posted by y2karl at 3:02 PM on June 6, 2002

Ah, gee, and look at Ty Webb's serious question below--see what I mean?

Is it about the ideas or his ego?

familiar back-patting ritual, indeed.
posted by y2karl at 3:05 PM on June 6, 2002

And you are one to talk about trolling, by the way.

Point taken, though I've never been as seductive as you.

Is it about the ideas or his ego?

That's a good question. Midas, any response?

familiar back-patting ritual

Someone has to do it around here. For God's sake, anyone says, "bush is dumb" and we have 20 posters following that agree. Yet, if the administration does something remotely intelligent, a thread of 50 comments is necessary to prove that the Bush administration is doing some good things for this country. You can't deny that, and truth is, I'd rather him pat his own back than others doing it. I'd prefer a confident poster than one fishing for agreement.
posted by BlueTrain at 3:21 PM on June 6, 2002

Well Ty, at the risk of getting in the way of your usual attempts to discredit me (not only initiating a personal attack in response to nearly anything I post, but in some cases - like this thread - actually take a snide little shot before I'd even read or posted to the thread), I'll simply mention that The Bivings Group - which is the one the guardian Article claims is behind the viral marketing that is the topic here - also counts, as one of it's clients, the extremely liberal Center for Policy Alternatives.

So, when this FPP asks, " ...are we all being manipulated and duped by the marketing weasels even here on Metafilter? ..." and we look at the large number of posts that - almost daily - thump on the theme that corporate America is evil, compared to the almost nonexistent ones that mention their positive aspects - I'd say that if anyone is successfully planting things here - it is the left, not the right.

That, by the way, is simply one example ... that it took all of three minutes to find. Am I going to spend an hour digging deeply to "answer your argument"? Nope. Your arguments, brilliant as I'm sure you think they are, simply aren't that important. And on the whole, I generally don't play games where someone else decides they can set the rules. You may wish to keep the topic here tight and narrow - and only discuss it in exactly the way the Guardian framed it. I however, am similarly free to treat the concept as a specific case of a much larger principle ... the manipulation of the media ... and to point out that the left - even the radical left - attempts to do so to every bit the same degree the right does.

BlueTrain ... just FYI, I don't really take any of this too seriously. It's merely a discussion board. I'm on a number of them. Several are quite high-minded, and virtually never see anything remotely resembling a personal attack appear. I'm quite happy staying at the level of ideas. Even here, 95% of the time I don't initiate the personal insults. It has become quite common, however, for a few folks here to almost immediately respond to my posts with not only a response to the concepts, but with an added personal remark or two that are generally quite slimy and derogatory in nature. Now, if people wish to set this tone, I'm fine with it, and will gladly respond in kind - actually, it's kind of a hoot. I do agree that it tends to degrade conversations, and introduce needless noise into what are sometimes quite interesting signals, but I'm also not going ignore people doing so.

I will say - to you and to those who engage in this - that if you wish to converse within an environment of respect, and you cease to initiate personal shots, then the tone of conversations will show a marked improvement. I will respond with precisely the tone with which I'm approached. Y'all want to keep up your apparently personal vendettas, fine - we can keep trading insults. Should you, however, care to elevate the discourse - you'll find me responding as precisely to that as I currently respond to the insults.
posted by MidasMulligan at 3:37 PM on June 6, 2002

Is it about the ideas or his ego?
That's a good question. Midas, any response?

I've never quite understood questions like that. Most things people do are done with "ego" involved. Though many try to pretend otherwise. But seriously, you think y2k posts purely out of a totaly selfless desire to educate the public? That he only wants an honest, open-minded discussion of various viewpoints? That he is open to persuasion? That he doesn't get an ego boost when he sees himself in print, and others agreeing with him?

Now, I've attempted to answered your question. When is he going to answer hincadenza's or respond to serious rebuttals like sheuaga's or riviera's as also linked above? And note that in the thread in which riviera made his comment, he chose to ignore it and go after the easy prey--where's the engaging at the level of ideas in that?

Hhhmmm ... so I'm taken to task for not responding seriously to these people? I do respond sometimes ... just like everyone else on this, or any other discussion board. But I fear I don't see why the names you mention (as well as yourself, and everyone else on MeFi) are at perfect liberty to choose to answer, or ignore, anything they choose, while somehow I have commited some sin because I don't respond to exactly what you want me to respond to. Interesting that you've expended so much effort to dig through past posts for your evidence tho' ...
posted by MidasMulligan at 4:05 PM on June 6, 2002

Hate to interrupt but this entire exchange seems, to me, pointless. I don't think anyone still reading this cares who started it or why... the bottom line is that it is not very interesting to read personal battles that have less and less to do with the original post or topic. So I suggest you try to work it out over email or MetaTalk and keep the comments in the thread on topic.
posted by cell divide at 4:14 PM on June 6, 2002

re: personal attacks.
come on, you engage in them as much as anybody, as a brief examination of your posts will show. Your habit, when out of gas, of interpreting every suggestion that your arguments might be the least bit disingenuous is positively Gore-like. (oops, there's one...)

wait, was that personal? And thus, Midas again sidesteps the argument with the gentle grace of an elephant in a tutu

your pro-corporate stance is well known, and you flaunt it proudly.

OK, I'll say this once more. And I'll say it in a way that you cannot "sidestep". Of course I engage in personal attacks - as I said - in response to someone else starting that level of dialogue in a thread.

And I'll say this once more - in case you've still got your tutu on: If you stop initiating personal attacks, you'll find that I instantly cease responding at what I consider to be quite a childish level. If you want to continue starting that level of discourse, I'll continue responding in kind. Totally up to you.

Oddly enough, by the way, I don't consider that your estimation of when my arguments are "running out of gas" to apply to anything other whatever image you hold of me in your own head. And further, apparently you are attempting to use the fact that "my pro-corporate stance is well known, and I flaunt it proudly" as some sort of justification to bring me up in a thread before I've even commented. Interesting choice of words. Funny, I had actually thought that people were free to have different perspectives here. Shall I mention you and y2k by name in other threads - without even seeing your presence, because your "anti-corporate stance is well known, and you flaunt it proudly"? Is that itself justification to take cheap little shots out of the blue?

PS. Just read cell's post as I'm previewing this. you're right ... this'll be my last. Leaving for Singapore tonight anyway ...
posted by MidasMulligan at 4:20 PM on June 6, 2002

your "anti-corporate stance is well known, and you flaunt it proudly"?

I invite you to back this up. Have a nice time in Singapore. : )
posted by Ty Webb at 4:22 PM on June 6, 2002

I will respond with precisely the tone with which I'm approached.

The evidence would suggest otherwise.
posted by y2karl at 4:44 PM on June 6, 2002

y2karl, wanna go make out?
posted by Ty Webb at 4:55 PM on June 6, 2002

Well, this certainly was an interesting exchange. I truly don't care for either "side". My mind is very much open for argument and that's why I love hearing these discussions. y2karl, make sure you use protection. I don't trust Ty Webb.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:51 PM on June 6, 2002

~chuckle~

Now hell, how'd little ol' me get dragged into this, eh?

MidasMulligan:"...use the fact that 'my pro-corporate stance is well known, and I flaunt it proudly' as some sort of justification to bring me up in a thread before I've even commented. Interesting choice of words. Funny, I had actually thought that people were free to have different perspectives here. Shall I mention you and y2k by name in other threads - without even seeing your presence, because your 'anti-corporate stance is well known, and you flaunt it proudly'? Is that itself justification to take cheap little shots out of the blue?"

Yeah, that's kinda yella when you use someone's name in a thread to which they haven't even posted, heh heh:

MidasMulligan: "The minute I stop annoying the y2k's, foldy's, and TyWebb's of the world will be the day it's no longer worth posting."

And of course we are all "free to have different perspectives here". No one would try to stifle that, now would they?

~wink~

Never confuse amusement with annoyance, my very good friend. As I may have previously mentioned, one marvels (and chuckles) at the doublethink some require to get through the day.

But anyway, I thought this thread was about marketing weasel types in general. For example, the National Smokers Alliance was pretty well known for its use of the internet to push tobacco.

Oh hell, there I go again. I bad mouthed the tobacco industry. There goes my anti-corporate bias again, making me describe their marketing wizards as profiteering swine instead of the samaritans they truly are.

Sorry.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 11:15 PM on June 6, 2002

Yeah, that's kinda yella when you use someone's name in a thread to which they haven't even posted, heh heh:

MidasMulligan: "The minute I stop annoying the y2k's, foldy's, and TyWebb's of the world will be the day it's no longer worth posting."

Hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue.

La Rochefoucauld
posted by y2karl at 12:57 AM on June 7, 2002

What if Y2K, Foldy, TyW and MM are viral marketers trying to derail the thread before they are discovered?

**********Public Service announcement***********

England is now closed for the next two hours.

********End Public Service announcement*********
posted by fullerine at 4:08 AM on June 7, 2002

Maybe they're all the same person.
posted by crunchland at 4:29 AM on June 7, 2002

i'm a viral marketeer and so's my wife ; >

the more people distrust the 'electronic teat' feeding their urge for information with bland assurances and manufactured crises, the better. but, with the technical and complex nature of many subjects, can anyone master a wide enough spectrum of information to see the bigger picture?

MidasMuligan: 'What I do is to use a small fraction of the almost daily barrage of left-wing posts slamming anything corporate to actually introduce an alternative perspective.'

Says more about you than anyone else. More specifically, this says more about your assumptions about other peoples' motivation than it does about their motivation itself.

You'd think with all these powerful wings, politics would fly, soaring up into the stratosphere, lifting humanity with it. However, it seems to spend most of it's time in the gutter. Where it strikes deals with dubious marketing miscreants and corporate types who promise the earth, which is not theirs to give.
posted by asok at 5:14 AM on June 7, 2002

More specifically, this says more about your assumptions about other peoples' motivation than it does about their motivation itself.

Oh, I don't know. I think the anti-corporate bent of many a MeFite is hardly a secret.

However, it seems to spend most of it's time in the gutter. Where it strikes deals with dubious marketing miscreants and corporate types who promise the earth, which is not theirs to give.

Nor is it the politicians to give. Utopians promising the world have a lot of blood on their hands regardless of whatever deals a few of them may or may not have made with "corporate types."
posted by ljromanoff at 7:14 AM on June 7, 2002

Including Utopians of the Right, I assume?
posted by y2karl at 8:01 AM on June 7, 2002

What if Y2K, Foldy, TyW and MM are viral marketers trying to derail the thread before they are discovered?

Maybe they're all the same person.

Looking for evidence......

Oops, I found a whore for King Coal:
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/17631#286592

Hmmm...do utopians of the Right assume the destruction of socialism precedes Nirvana? Wall Street is the ultimate social contract....
posted by nofundy at 10:44 AM on June 7, 2002

Including Utopians of the Right, I assume?

Obviously. Although I don't know many on the right who believe Utopia is achieved through political action.
posted by ljromanoff at 11:29 AM on June 7, 2002

« Older Mozilla 1.0 released.... | the things people will do for ... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

June 5, 2002 11:29 AM Subscribe

warning: Luvox may interfere with judgment, thinking, or motor skills

June 5, 2002
11:29 AM Subscribe