I was just thinking about this thread! It was SEK, not Brock, right?
I doubt I'll ever have a more thrilling internet experience than I did watching it unfold that day.
Oh yes! I think you're right.
Did you use to go by a different handle? I didn't realize you'd been around that long.
I had similar uncertainty over whether Ogged Himself posted some comments earlier this year. I couldn't find them when I checked a couple of days later.
No, I don't think I've ever commented under another name. I just don't pipe up very often because I'm shy like that.
So do you all remember what went down?
If it was me, I'm not sure which thread you're thinking of. Although it's nice to know I'm in your dreams.
I think you're thinking of the infamous SEK thread (December 2007, I believe).
I might even have the thread saved on my computer at home.
How frustrating if everyone managed not to tell me! Except I bet you're not that coordinatedly disciplined, mineshaft.
11: No, it was in the springtime, I think.
13: I imagine the statute of limitations on not sharing what went down publicly has not expired.
I agree with toops that it was pretty much the most thrilling internet experience ever.
I sort of remember how it went but since it was removed once and I don't know SEK, it feels sort of weird to recount it here.
14: oddly, I remember it being in the springtime, too. But I never saw the thread.
I once had a dream in which Unfogged comments were falling like blocks in Tetris (down the mineshaft, as it were), and I had to dodge them and avoid getting buried.
I think I missed this thread entirely. Hearing it characterized as the most thrilling internet experience EVER! is frustrating. More exciting than multi-person shooter games? How is that possible?
More exciting than multi-person shooter games?
A close analogue to that, one might say.
It was definitely right around April 1, because I remember suggesting that it could be an April Fools prank.
23/24: That makes more sense than Nov./Dec., and better matches my memory.
If you think you actually read it and are just having trouble remembering, I offer the memory prompt "Photobucket." If someone thinks that in itself is too sensitive, delete away.
I agree with 16. Absent comprehensive anonymization and/or explicit permission of the folks revealing their innermost thoughts, leave it be.
This thread is a test of the principles discussed a few days ago about the internet, privacy and the rest. Perhaps someone should teach folks a lesson by just posting the whole thing and then getting banned for it.
Yeah, it was awesome. It should totally be left alone barring SEK popping in and giving the go-ahead. Way too long a half-life.
Yes, that was when I stopped reading the thread after maybe post 500 and missed the real blow-up.
I missed the thread, but I went to my first unfogged meetup shortly afterward and had it recounted to me by mrh.
That was a heroic thread. I updated people in my office on it as it happened.
There was live, real-time Mineshaft advice soliciting. Legal concerns. Possibly a car chase.
So, with 31, does the thread have to be closed and deleted.
I concur, by the way, that it was pretty good live blogging.
I doubt I'll ever have more severe Internet blue balls than I do today.
This is a very weird and somewhat unfortunate concept for a thread. It was deleted for a very good reason! We shouldn't talk about it! It's pretty damn rude (to a commenter who basically doesn't show up here anymore) to even be talking about it now!
It strikes me as unlikely even as I write this that I should be discovering my inner prude in such a fashion, but you know, tacky.
Ok, Jammies remembered, so I could have just asked him, and then one or two of you guys e-mailed me. So my curiousity is sated.
But I don't it's actually too sensitive to write about now, right? I mean, the married couple has long suffered whatever fallout happened, and "probably" would never stumble across this thread anyway, and if need be we could edit out the commenter's name in this thread.
People could get whacked.
A: Remember that time?
B: Which time?
A: You know: that time.
B: Oh, you mean that time.
A: Yeah.
B: Yeah. That was awesome.
A: Totally.
B: Good times.
Me: Will you two shut the fuck up!? I was there and I don't even remember it! Just stop!
Sifu: He's right. That time was way too awesomely great to talk about now.
Me: Gah!
BTW, I assume this isn't about the time that the couple was fucking in his office. I mean, everyone knows about that. It was, like, in the HuffPo.
I mean, is she talking to herself? Just ask her.
It was the time the famous musician was caught dipping his penis into the yogurt.
35: I believe the anticipated desired statute of limitations, as it were, was discussed in the thread, and was of pretty long duration. Like, years.
Okay, look I'll fix this.
Dear Mineshaft,
I'm about to go knock over a bank and liveblog it. I was thinking of (a) wearing an Obama-Joker mask and (b) taping the yogurt to my penis so I wouldn't have to leave it behind. Any thoughts?
Yours,
Sifu
You could ask the relevant former commenter pretty easily.
47: it strikes me as not properly our decision to make.
If you're using Greek yogurt, it should hitch a ride on your penis without too much mechanical intervention. Good luck robbing that bank!
Are you wearing pants, Sifu? That would complicate things.
If it was me, I'm not sure which thread you're thinking of. Although it's nice to know I'm in your dreams.
It might have been the one where you were talking about how your massive unexplained weight loss and other health problems were no big deal, and people were trying to convince you that it was.
9: Isn't everything?
I have a vague, tantalizing sense that I was around for whatever you all are talking about, but no idea of any of the details. Damn.
50: yes, but then you don't get the yogurt running down your leg, and that's half the fun.
If I taped magnets to the yogurt container, I could maybe then shove some other magnets into my urethra, but would they hold it well enough?
All right, I sent him an e-mail.
56: If he responds with an "all-clear", what then? Will you undelete the old thread and post a link here, or do we have to recreate the entire thread from memory?
57: all the high school drama people will reënact it.
Ooh, I remember that thread. I was transfixed by the post and the first hundred or so comments ... then I had to go somewhere and the next time I looked it had been deleted. I think mike d. kindly emailed me the thread so I could see what happened. IIRC SEK later made a brief tangential reference to subsequent events, maybe on his own blog. Essentially trying to do the right thing got him no thanks from anyone.
The reason given at the time for removing the thread is that it's the sort of thing that a newspaper might have been interested in (especially with the internet angle). I don't think it's enough time that an enterprising reporter might not still be interested.
57: Well, I'd start by posting a bunch of photos.
I once knocked over a convenience store will kefir tied to my scrotum. Good times. So I suggest string, Sifu.
62: will wouldn't let you tie him on there without the kefir?
iz antipos the snglar of antipodes
"any tubular organ for sucking, food-gathering, sensing, etc."
Heh.
Perhaps the relevant commenter's name could be redacted, and we could continue to discuss the deliciously scandalous matter ever so obliquely without offending Sifu's delicate sense of internetical decorum.
I'm suffering from a conflict of ethical sense and prurient interest here. Ethics is in the lead for now, but my cock is remarkably persistent.
but my cock is remarkably persistent
Funnily enough, there was one like that in the story.
72: When I hear back from the relevant person, I'll be totally game to do so if they give it the go ahead.
76: If he says "no", we all need to start pressuring him to not be such a wuss and making fun of him and the like.
I changed up my pseud up in 77 so, um, Essy Kay won't know who instigated the bullying campaign, should it occur.
Not to be a killjoy here, but the major rationale for deleting it on the first go-round was the fact that there were rather a lot of minor children indirectly involved. No matter what titanic stupidity their parents got up to, they really don't deserve to have a bunch of strangers on the internet raking it over, and leaving it sitting in archives for some malicious person to find and run with in a year or three years for a newspaper article.
Actually, I'm should have said I'm happy to be a killjoy. I don't think this should be talked about, period.
||
Hey, there's a new Living Colour album out. Anyone know anything about it?
|>
I'm glad when you kill my joy, Witt. I don't have the willpower to do it myself.
I participated in the beginnings of the thread, so before this one gets deleted (and it sounds like it should be), could someone email me the thread or at least an acount of what went down?
85: Why in the world should this thread here be deleted? People have said that minors were involved and that SEK was involved, and that's it.
This is starting to sound like some Lovecraftian horror. The thread that must not be named! To read in its entirety would drive one mad! They daren't even quote it, or talk about quoting it, or talk about talking about...
82: WaPo review, Rolling Stone review, BlogCritics review.
87: See, it's already in major publications. I think we can blog about the scandal here with impunity.
Cyrus--isn't it enough that the majority of people who remember the details of the thread in question agree it shouldn't be discussed barring Essy Kay's approval? Seriously, there were real-life negative consequences if it got out.
For the non-remembering/unpresent, it was just people showing their tawdry, unfortunate selves. What made it spectacular was the realtime recounting of the action.
I'm not really sure Living Colour's music aged all that well, and I say that as someone who was a big fan first time round. I listened again recently and there were two or three really good songs, and the rest .. meh.
90: I was meh about Living Colour before it was cool.
Speaking of albums, I was amused by this tongue-in-cheek review of the Beatles.
All joking aside, I think 89 gets it right.
89
Cyrus--isn't it enough that the majority of people who remember the details of the thread in question agree it shouldn't be discussed barring Essy Kay's approval?
I never said otherwise. The "Lovecraftian" bit was just an expression of mirth. The question about what, if anything, in this thread could possibly require deletion still stands. (Maybe I'm just forgetting about it, and I have a meeting now so I can't reread this thread to answer my own question.)
I have no idea what the fuck ya'll are on about, since that was one the (fairly brief) time periods when I was paying attention. I'm sure it was very exciting if you like that sort of thing. I've seen so many intertubular dramatics that I can't bring myself to care, particularly since I'm apparently supposed to not recall what I didn't experience, which works out fairly well.
max
['What was this thread about again?']
Shorter max: You kids oughta have seen Usenet back in the day.
96: You're just flirting with max on account of his fedora.
Haven't we had enough drama recently?
98: Indeed. That "The Dressing Room As It Was" thread is, AOTW, already up to 143 comments!
You're just flirting with max on account of his fedora.
Thank God someone noticed. Too bad now lunch is ending and I'm back to work....
I have received word that both gerbils made a full recovery.
Ah yes, that thread. As long as we're reminiscing (this is like "Where were you when Kennedy was shot/the Challenger exploded?", right?), I'll share my story. You see, it was only a couple months after I had come across this place called Unfogged. I still wasn't quite hooked. I still was learning the personalities. I started to read the thread in question, and at the beginning it only seemed like an unfortunate-yet-hardly-shocking tale of life in the Internet age. Then I went to the airport and got on a plane. By the time I was able to get internet'd again, there was a post in my RSS reader along the lines of, "Whoa, we better delete that." So I never found out why it was such a big deal. And then I looked in my wallet and--whaddya know!--I found five dollars.
85: Done. Also, what I remember from the follow-up;
The "victim" did not take the course of action we all assumed was inevitable but decided to go with the status quo.
There was apparently a background of competition in this type of thing between the "perpetrator" and other similarly-minded friends and they collected evidence of their, um, achievements.
The original poster was threatened and harassed for his actions by several people in that circle.
I would vote for letting sleeping dogs lie.
Most dogs wake up when you shout "YOU LIE!" at them.
Dalmations not so much, but most dogs.
All joking aside, I think 93 gets it right.
Why do we need to put joking aside?
I would love for someone to email me the thread. I will hold it close.
The "victim" did not take the course of action we all assumed was inevitable but decided to go with the status quo.
There was apparently a background of competition in this type of thing between the "perpetrator" and other similarly-minded friends and they collected evidence of their, um, achievements.
People are so weird. Sometimes I wonder if they are worth the effort.
108:
I agree with Shearer. Let's move forward, not focused on the past. (geez, that sounds a little like, "we shouldnt investigate torture"....)
Actually, I'm should have said I'm happy to be a killjoy. I don't think this should be talked about, period.
Yes please. I was there for part of the thread, I don't think I saw the whole thing, but based on what I remember this discussion makes me uncomfortable.
There's simply no good reason to dig it up, other than as tawdry entertainment, and that seems wrong.
Sheesh. Sorry all for posting this. I don't think any harm has been done by the existence of the thread. If you're curious, e-mail me, and as long as I don't think you're an intrepid reporter, I'll share the skeleton of the story.
Is this not covered by the established rule regarding the sanctity of off-blog communications? Given that the communication was taken off the blog.
Also, it is my understanding that SEK is not a fictional character and my firm conviction that his expressed feelings -- which have not been withdrawn -- ought to be respected.
There's simply no good reason to dig it up, other than as tawdry entertainment, and that seems wrong.
Oh for crying out loud. Tawdry entertainment is like half my life.
The other half is breastfeeding.
People have said that minors were involved and that SEK was involved, and that's it.
Also some goats, three peaches and a strong opinion but hey, what's done is done.
96 cracked me up.
I do recall the thread and will simply note the thrill I got when apo and I were standing outside a for-reals formal event, tuxedos and everything, smoking cigarettes while he told me about it.
I am never closing this tab again.
I'm only the 40s of this thread, so maybe someone has said what I'm about to say already, but please do stop talking about this. In fact, I'd urge you to delete this thread. Having recently (well, a few months back) talked to the commenter in question about this story, I can tell you that he remains very anxious about the whole thing. So, absent direct permission from him to talk about these events, why do it?
Again, perhaps someone has already said all this, or perhaps someone has e-mailed the commenter in question (with a question, no less), in which case, sorry for being such a scold. But given the known knowns, I really don't think this discussion makes much sense.
Having now arrived at the end of the thread, I'd second 89. And I'd note that 92 suggests that Witt and I are like-minded. Who knew?
118, 119: you know, you can combine the two!
Every time you kill a joy, a sleeping dog lies.
(Which is to say I agree with Witt et al.)
How come Witt gets all the credit when I was first to suggest we shouldn't talk about it? It's the fedora thing, isn't it?
126: Because it's such a pain to scroll on this phone.
Wasn't 92 about Klosterman's Beatles review? Yes, yes it was. It was in that regard that Witt and I are like-minded. You needn't worry, jetpack: I took approving note of your prudishness.
Well. I'm kind of late to the party here, but as someone else who remembers the thread (and even archived it on his own computer) I'm going to agree with ari, 89, and assorted other commenters that it should NOT be repeated, and that probably even this post should be deleted.
I love that there's Unfogged samizdat threads being emailed around the globe. Anybody who wants to forward me a copy at the email address ascertainable from my signature can be assured of their anonymity.
126: Because courteous discretion is so uncharacteristic for you, they assumed it was some kind of double-backflip sarcasm?
133: so I wondered.
We all have our pet discretions, though.
118
Oh for crying out loud. Tawdry entertainment is like half my life
Then this is the blog for you.
I feel as though a deal can be worked out: I e-mail the relevant thread to other commenters in exchange for them explaining to me the enormous number of Unfogged in-jokes that I don't get.
Actually, here's the solution: We post the thread on Standpipe's other blog.
(And yes, in addition to all of the wise suggestions above that we drop this, I want to add this disclaimer: I feel bad about goofing on a matter that was so painful to the people - and commenter - involved.)