@32:

I think you either don't know what Alzheimer's does to one or what weed does.

Fake or not, that was a very funny ad.

As I was waiting for the picture to load, I wondered how one would make a murual in the style of a wireless net encryption protocol.

I'd like to say it all made sense when the pic finally loaded but now I haven't got the foggiest idea what WPA stands for in this context...

Just chiming in to say I'm not a fan of the disemvoweling.

I'd much prefer if an offending post was replaced with a note explaining why or, ideally, if the comment was just hid from view (like on Slashdot and Digg). Those wanting to read the offensive posts could do so with a click of the mouse, as opposed to having to frustratingly decipher the message (thus giving said offense much more attention than it deserves and possibly souring the reader on the rest of the thread).

Upthread someone made a point about violating rights vs. public shaming. Posting crap on a website obviously isn't a right but making posts almost unintelligible does feel akin to public shaming. Not only are you saying that the poster made an offensive comment, you recreate said comment in a way that makes the poster seem unable to communicate intelligibly.

Uh, let me see if I got this straight... The mayor of Mt. Holly is reading MetaFilter, follows a link to a blog post from 2004 featuring low rez scans of old Kirby comics (many of which actually have been reprinted, all of which are probably copyrighted by Marvel) and then said mayor blogs about it. BoingBoing then reports on the mayors blog post.

So, where's the "exciting news" bit that I'm apparently missing?

(Yeah, this comment would have been less snarky if the relevant link actually had decent sized scans. Or if the post office would finally deliver the Amazing Fantasy Omnibus I ordered from Amazon.)