A bit cold, and only two pages, but amusing.

_zee_ posts a Greasemonkey script to lj_nifty. Said Greasemonkey script goes here and allows you to view the "friends of" lists of people who have selected "Hide friends list.".

Some highlights!

Isn't that sort of a violation of their privacy and choice not to show it?

If I find you in a public place and zap you with my magic ray that instantly removes your clothes, you're going to feel that I've violated your privacy by stripping you naked in front of the whole world.

I do pay for my account after all, and if I want some privacy, I think I deserve it.

I think doing something that goes against the intention of Livejournal in such a way is clearly not honorable.

It's unethical at best, a potential Terms of Service violation at worst.

There's a couple jerks/morons out there who add everyone they possibly can, whether they know them or not, whether they really have permission or not. (I didn't realise you needed permission to friend someone these days, wow!)

Say you're driving along the road, and a pedestrian walks out in front of you. You're like, "Well, I'm where I'm supposed to be" and you run him over and keep on going. And you blame the pedestrian for walking out in the middle of the road. (You bastard! You looked at my friendsof! I kill you now with my big car!)

Clearly, having someone friend you is violating your privacy! Friending = rape.

(13 comments |comment on this)

from clairvoyant My baby's grown up!

OP

Over on WTF_INC there's some nasty brewing comments over this post on the New York Craig's List.

Some loony on an airplane got a bit squeezed in her seat by a plus sized neighbor and wants said neighbor to cough up $34.63 to compensate said loony for the space she had to share.

orangsoda has the best analysis:
Why should "Fat ass" have to pay for an extra seat? Because some whiney bitch is so desperate for money that she calculates how much her seat neighbor owes her because they rubbed thighs? Sorry airplane lady, sometimes people are crammed in, see iluvhyperboles reply. It probably wasn't that pleasant for the "fat ass" either, who was most likely uncomfortable, too.

Of course, raylette suggest the best solution (tongue in cheek, I hope): Why don't we just shoot the fat people?

But the best wanker in the group is misshellion, who apparently is absolutely perfect. No self control, glandular problem, whatever the case is, I don't really care. It's not MY problem. And I don't want to pay for it.

Next on the stupid wanker list: vampslayer who says fat people suck and that acceptance of fat people should be viewed as "fucking up a billion years of evolution.".

And awaaaaaay we go!

ETA: the original post now up to at least 75 comments, so I moved it here.

More highlights: (from fruitynutcake): That's very assumptive and narrow-minded of you.

Then the two of them engage in dueling "Thank you for proving my previous comment" comments.

(36 comments |comment on this)

(16 comments |comment on this)

Our month of Wank, LJ, Wank! continues with, believe it or not, wank on the usually low-key community </a></b></a>suggestions. </a></b></a>camomiletea starts it off with a perfectly reasonable and innocent idea--increasing the limit of people you can friend. Some people agree, but other people think the idea is just silly, because they can't see ever doing it, so why should anyone else be allowed to?

However, things start getting truly fun when </a></b></a>kentox enters the mix. kentox, it seems, doesn't merely think this is a bad idea--he thinks it's no more or less than an assault on the entire LJ way of life. He has his own proposal instead: "Really, nobody should be friending more than 200-300 people in the first place. If you want to do more, build a community. That's what 750 people with access to your private entries is, in the first place. "

And the wank is off and running.

Highlights include some incredibly dubious logic, backpedaling, the idea that no one should ever want or need to friend more than 300 people, the fact that 'friends' on LiveJournal should mean the same as 'friends' everywhere, dammit, and, as the ice sculpture in the middle of this bewildering feast, this little gem:

"That's rather overgeneralizing, and quite incorrect. I think people should use LJ as it was intended to be used. For example, if the suggestion was for something more extreme -- an LJ child pornography ring, for example -- would you still feel comfortable with the contention, "Some people use LJ in other ways than you do and you need to be tolerant of that" ...?"

As a special bonus, join in the speculation: if all of that is standing free and proud, what must people have said in this thread to result in screened comments?

(18 comments |comment on this)