# RationalWiki:Saloon bar

This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
For previous conversations see the automagic barchives.

 World Blogs Clogs CP The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

RationalWiki:Forum
1. Can I get a 3rd party review? (15:04, 23 May 2013)
2. Recommend Smart Action/Sci-Fi Novels (01:06, 18 May 2013)
3. Questions concerning Raw milk (13:51, 15 May 2013)
4. Matchmaking service for the master races (01:48, 13 May 2013)
5. Wherein I try to avoid "whining" (16:59, 12 May 2013)
6. Dream Club (02:09, 12 May 2013)
To do list

## What happens when time stops?

Sorry if I sound ignorant, but I'm curious. What happens when time stops? Would it occur when you are moving at the speed of light (like going on the event horizon of a black hole?)64.180.243.100 (talk) 06:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you're falling into a black hole, you won't notice a difference in your time, but an observer would see your time slow until you appear to stop just at the event horizon. Sam Tally-ho! 06:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
So to me, nothing would seem different? I thought that to an observer, the unlucky person would simply speed up until he is gone?64.180.243.100 (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
well, you'd be dead long before, so you wouldn;t be there to notice. to an observer, what Sam said. --Mikal Harass Follow 06:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
This is why relativity is so bizarre, because the passing of time is based on the frame of reference. What's basically happening, in a non-technical senseread: I don't fully understand relativity either, is that the light of your image will be slowed to immobility on the edge of the event horizon, where it acts like a sign. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 1013 points 07:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Given that you can't accelerate an object with mass to the speed of light, it's a moot point about time stopping. But, in a more general sense with time dilation we - in the sense of a single point - are constantly heading into the future at a rate of 1 second per second. That's fixed, actual perception doesn't change at all because our perception of time is based on chemical reactions limited by diffusion rates and reaction kinetics. Time could speed up, slow down, stop for a bit, reverse for a little while, loop around, go wibbly-wobbly-timey-wimey, and then go back to "normal" and we simply wouldn't notice, we're along for the ride no matter what rate it flows at. What does change is when you start looking at other things at different reference points because then speed and the local rate of time dilation can manifest an effect. I think Red Dwarf is the only sci-fi show I can think of that has portrayed this sort of thing properly, where Rimmer and Kryten are talking faster and slower than each other either side of a rift, but each believe they're speaking normally. postate 07:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, when falling into a black hole the tidal forces would shred you to pieces long before you noticed time going weird. pathetic 08:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
And if it was a large enough black hole (with a correspondingly large event horizon), you'd die of natural causes long before you got anywhere near close enough to the singularity to get spaghettified. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 1013 points 08:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Time could be starting and stopping constantly. If it's happening for everybody, there's no way of detecting it. There's no way of proving that time always flows at the same rate either. From our POV, time flows at a rate of one second per second, which is pretty meaningless. There could be something doing the equivalent of messing with the pause button or playback speed on a DVD and we'd be none the wiser. rpeh •TCE 08:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok I got all this special relativity stuff back in high school, but now it doesn't seem to make sense. If we had no eyes and could only hear, our perception would be limited to sound. Would this mean that, based on the same principles of Special Relativity, we would be theorising that nothing could travel faster than the speed of sound, and that time would dilate the closer we got to the speed of sound. Why is the EM spectrum and its associated perceptions different to other modes of transmitting information? RyanC (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Because sound is a pressure wave dependent on density. It's a very different thing to how photons propagate. postate 09:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Plus, things get very weird close to a black hole. Ochotonaprincepsnot a pokémon 1013 points 09:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
No, RyanC, although it's often referred to as the speed of light the constant c is actually a fundamental relationship between time and distance and not really about light specifically. So our ability to see only biased us to misunderstand the nature of the constant at first. In our thick atmosphere light actually propagates a little slower than c because there's all this stupid matter in the way everywhere. Beings which were somehow unable to detect any type of electromagnetic particles would still be able to figure this stuff out if they could perform a sufficiently powerful experiment with their limited senses. In fact Greg Egan's SF novel "Incandescence" describes a scenario in which the alien protagonists live in an extreme environment where the effects of relativity intrude into trivial experiments (think primary school science class) so that they discover general relativity without even inventing the telescope.
The reason photons (the particles associated with electromagnetic radiation) travel at c in a vacuum is that they're massless, so it doesn't take any energy to accelerate them. If photons had mass (as the particles which make up a sound wave do) they could not travel at this unimaginable speed because to do so would require infinite energy input for the acceleration. The speculation about (and subsequently experimental proof for) time dilation began as a result of uncovering the fundamental nature of c and not when someone first noticed that light has a finite speed. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The question is what happens when spacetime stops. Which is an odd question. Although I suppose you could say entropy stays constant. But even that could be a statistical fluke. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 12:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Time is an abstraction, that is like asking what happens when a different dimension 'stops'. Under very special conditions we define units of time, just the same as the other units of measurement. Could you actually show me a meter or just an approximation? A meter does not exist, it simply describes a different object. A line from point A to B is X units long, you do not describe this measurement as going forward or backward, think of time in these terms. At least that is how I view time, I may be a bit off my rocker. TheCheatI run on alcohol 18:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Im' just going to put this out there - Maybe conservapedias onto something about relativity being crap (but not as far a psuedoscience).
Relativity is probably crap, or at least a very primitive simplistic view of reality. Who knows? Our theory of relativity may be a very distorted view of reality, but hey it seems to work so far! For now I am perfectly happy in my curved fishbowl. TheCheatI run on alcohol 18:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
According to cheesy romance novels, when time stops you fall in love. Radioactive Misanthrope 19:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Bollocks, time stops when you get married. They don't call them eternity rings for nothing. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 20:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
"Spend an hour with a pretty girl and it feels like a minute, spend a minute with your hand on a hot stove, and it feels like a hour. Now that's relativity" - A. Einstein. CS Miller (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

## Those poor, persecuted Christians...

... will now have to deal with the Murfreesboro, Tennessee Islamic Centre opening up... following two years of court cases, arson attacks and bomb threats.

I'm guessing somebody is having a fit. --PsyGremlinPrata! 08:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Fisher claimed Islam wasn’t a religion in an effort to stop the construction of the mosque. --- ooohhhkay. i'll bite. What *was*? They smell of cardamon?--GodotL'important c'est d'aimer 02:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
That and what did he claim Islam WAS, if not a relgion. --Revolverman (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
The argument from the American right is that Islam is a political system, Muslim is a religion.
Don't ask me to explain the distinction. It's readily apparent it's just something some "thinker" came up with so they could explain why they're not violating Muslim's freedom of religion. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 14:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
You're dead serious? That's like saying "christianity isn't a religion, christian is". Muslim is just the adjective for a person who follows islam. --GodotL'important c'est d'aimer 21:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, you could in principle make a little distinction if you buy into "Christian" as an identity used to unite what are effectively a massive range of totally different religions because without it, they wouldn't be able to unify any political power. But yeah, it's a stupid distinction, but let's just not even ponder the logic behind it. theist 21:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
"No martyr is among ye now whom you can call your own"--Bob Dylan --WickerGuy (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

## Coding an online image database

So I need a little advice from any of the resident web-programmers. I'm looking to install a very simple image database on my website. It should allow people to upload images and provide a variety of tags (eg. "author: xxx", "color: yes", "tags: sky, mountain" etc) and also allow visitors to conduct a search using those tags (displaying results as either URLs or pictures). Trouble is I have no idea where to start. Googling hasn't yielded much that is useful to my particular requirements, probably because i can't think of the right keywords. I assume there is free software out there for this, but does anyone know of any that I can download and tweak? ONE / TALK 09:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

allow people to upload images? I'd start by finding a good lawyer, or five. --2.34.113.53 (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
The work has already been done, you are looking for a "Content management system" or CMS. The best is probably Joomla, http://www.joomla.org/ (or if you want something that runs on a Windows server, http://www.dotnetnuke.com/ )VOXHUMANA 11:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Why not MediaWiki? See mw:Manual:Using MediaWiki as a content management system Tisane (talk) 11:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks VOX - I'll look into joomla. I figured such software had already been created but my worry is that I'll be swamped with so many options and customisations... but it looks like joomla could be perfect, if I can find the right extension (will ask on their forums). Tisane: i considered MediaWiki but it comes with an awful lot of fluff that's not useful to me - I worry it would just clutter up the webpages and the server. ONE / TALK 11:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
You can go berserk with customising Joomla if you want, but the plain vanilla version works just fine. VOXHUMANA 11:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
It's probably just the librarian in me, but I'm a fan of CONTENTdm[wp]. It has built in simple Dublin Core tagging and is highly flexible. Plus, it looks pretty too. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 13:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
That looks ideal! But I have a sneaking suspicion it's not free, even as a stripped down version, which is a shame. But yes, judging from the screenshots here, that's basically just what I'm looking for. ONE / TALK 14:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Definitely not free. There is a 60 day free trial though, here. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 14:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────There are a couple of open-source alternatives to CONTENTdm - NotreDAM and ResourceSpace seem particularly promising, but I have no personal experience with them. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 15:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

there are several free php galleries available. try google for php photo gallery Hamster (talk) 00:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

## Olé! Olé! Olé!

Bad news for fundies as the rising tide of atheism threatens to sweep away organised religion! The number of atheists around the world is rising! Evidently fundies like Ken DeMyer who lack machismo are dispirited by this and stay in their intellectual bunnyholes instead of debating prominent atheists like Ace McWicked! rpeh •TCE 15:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

RedC poll (p. 5): "Globally, those claiming to be religious, drops by 9%, while atheism rises by 3%." SecularNews: "the number of self-declared atheists in the world has risen by 9% since the measure was last taken in 2005". Lying atheist scum. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐMethinks it is a Weasel 17:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

## Contemporary music

See, when Cathy Berberian does it, she's a postmodern musical genius. When I do it, I'm told to shut-the-fuck-up-you-drunk-twat.

gnostic 18:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course you are. See, that's the definition of "by definition". --2.34.113.53 (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh great somebody recorded all the funny sounds she can make with her mouth, makes telling bedtime stories to the kids so much easier! --K. (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Eh, I liked 4'33'' better. BTW, are there references to Comic Strip in there or am I just hearing things? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Yep. As Diana Gamet explains, it's based on comic noises and arranged onomatopoeia. 4'33" makes more sense when you think about Cage's experiences with anechoic chambers inspiring it, although I think by the time he tried 0'00" he was just showing off. If you want batshit crazy but without a graphical score, The Medium is pretty much balls-to-the-wall mental. It randomly flicks into plainchant, has stage directions explicitly prohibiting the use of lighting, costume or set, and ends with her shouting "RAPIST!" repeatedly at the ghost of her unborn son. sshole 09:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, this is a masterwork of graphical notation. d hominem 09:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

John & Yoko got there first. WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

## Conference time

Nothing is more fun..err...tiring than the work conference. Lucky for me my profession is in communications and PR therefore I have an excuse, nay, a requirement to sit on my iPad and handle the social media promotion and coverage of the conference. Where posting on RW fits into this I am not sure. Anyway, sharing this pointless data was for no reason other than boredom. Go away. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 23:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

wait ! ACE us in public relations 8=| Hamster (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
errr, yes. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 01:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
why is adolf hitler wearing swim goggles — Unsigned, by: Robert “Billy Bob ‘Thornton’” Timoschenko née Dweezil, LLM of Divinity / talk / contribs
why is eight equals pipe — Unsigned, by: 2.34.113.53 / talk / contribs
Why is a raven like a writing desk? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Big chem conference coming up. Lots of fun. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 02:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
yeah, Roseanne Barr is appearing at it for some reason. AceThe Rep Grows Bigger 03:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

## SCIENCE!

New human species discovered. Theory of Practice "Trampoline" is an Olympic sport now? 03:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Or, its status is better supported now rather.
"The research adds to a growing body of evidence that runs counter to the popular perception that there was a linear evolution from monkey to ape to modern human." In the public's mind, evolution is still pseudoscience, both to the creationists and the Cult of Progress(TM).
"Meave Leakey" Relation to another Leakey I'm guessing? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
"In the public's mind, evolution is still pseudoscience" - Sorry to be offensive but which retarded part of the world do you live in? Steven Kavanagh (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Because the public perception of what evolution is, is mostly incorrect. narchist 11:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
You mean that even if I kill lots of rats, I won't evolve into something that looks cooler? ±KnightOfTL;DRgarrulous en guerre 12:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
It's one of the very reasons "why are there still apes" is asked so often. (honestly, and legitimately, not CSI way). When I was growing up, humans were "the exception" in that "every other species is part of a tree with many branches, but humans surprisingly were a single branch, moving from ape to man". Even when the exceptionalim is removed, there is still the idea that one species replaces the other. I believed that (educated in highschool, early 80s) because we barely really got into evo, and when we did, "one thing becomes another". So yeah, a "new species of man", my first thought is "oh, a new transition", and not "oh a new branch". GodotL'important c'est d'aimer 16:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, good old teleo-essentialism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
This article makes me want to whack the author on the back of the head. These are not new species of humans, but new species in the genus Homo. "Human" is the common usage name of a specific species Homo Sapien. Homo rudolfensis, Homo habilis, and Homo erectus are not human, although they are humanoid, and are in the same genus as we and are among our closest relatives. Calling them human though is like saying there is a species called "ape"; the BBC should know better, this isn't Fox News or CP. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 14:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, but contrast with the Daily Mail entry I dropped on Clogo recently, and you'll see you're confusing bad science reporting with popularised science reporting. For a story like this to really resonate, you have to play fast and loose with your definition of "human" (not that nature doesn't play fast and loose with such human constructs as "species" anyway). So, "new species of human" rather than "new species of homo" makes for a better headline, but it's not outright wrong. It's just a taxonomical nitpick rather than something worth comparing the BBC's science coverage to friggin' Conservapedia over. bomination 15:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
What I see from misusing the word human is another wedge that Creationists can use as an opportunity in their attempt to discredit evolutionary biology by saying, "look they call these species human when clear they are not, which just shows our uniqueness and how so-called secular "scientists" are the pushing junk-science of evolution! Yada yada yada!" I can just see CMI just running with that line right now.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

## Romney proves his RINO-osity.

...by discriminating somewhat less against teh gays. Theory of Practice "Trampoline" is an Olympic sport now? 03:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

If he hasn't flip-flopped on this already... Osaka Sun (talk) 04:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

## In case you thought Michele Bachmann was a nutter.....

Get a load of this psycho who has been running a campaign in my district (which he doesn't live in nor is he running in) just so he can air out his teabagger Islamophobic garbage. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, you Americans let idiots like this have a voice. In any sane country, idiots and bigots like this would be laughed out of town before they posted an advert. But for some weird reason, Yanks listen to these dribbling morons and worse - vote for them. I fear for where the country will be in 10 years' time. --PsyGremlinParlez! 11:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh, nobody in my district is taking this moron seriously (roughly 15% of my district are Muslims). He's got zero chance of winning and knows it, but he's running these ads as a result of a federal law that says, because he's a candidate for office, they have to run his ads no matter what. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
On the pro-life one, as always, my comment is "unless you have a womb, shut the fuck up". pathetic 11:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Could you make that "have or had" just so my wife doesn't feel excluded? ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 18:56, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
"unless you have a womb, shut the fuck up", it takes two to tango, my testicles are irritated and itchy. I thought this was supposed to be rationalwiki!!?!?!?![1] Drink. TheCheatI run on alcohol 17:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
If that's bad, Tennessee Democrats just elected the vice president of a DC-area anti-gay group and FEMA camp nutter as their U.S. Senate nominee. Then there's some guy running in Wyoming for U.S. Senate who Politics1.com describes as a "Retired Neo-Nazi Mercenary". Not linking to either of those shitheads' websites. Secret Squirrel (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

## This is a thing, apparently

The things you find on idle tours of wikipedia. Think how much more touching the euthanasia scene in soylent green would have been on a rollercoaster. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That actually sounds like a very scary way to go, to be honest. Basically, it's a rollercoaster that crushes you to death. Not as pain-free and humane as I'm sure the designer would like you to believe. Conservative Punk (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I guess it depends on how afraid you are of heights, because you'd pass out long before you feel anything else, then just die while passed out. Cow...Hammertime! 14:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I buy that. I've heard the claim that people who jump off buildings are unconscious or even dead by the time they hit the ground, but I've also heard that debated. And obviously, there aren't many people to ask first-hand. MDB (the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear) 14:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Jumping off of a building doesn't exert much acceleration on you (i.e. 1G until you reach terminal velocity, then it's at 0), so yeah that's extremely unlikely. It seems this thing would put enormous amounts of acceleration on you (10Gs, which is enough to black anyone out even with training), so this definitely would make you pass out. Cow...Hammertime! 15:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I always chuckle whenever I see "terminal velocity" used in relation to people dying. Guess I'm immature that way. Radioactive Misanthrope 09:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm personally terrified of roller coasters that aren't designed to kill you on purpose. I can't imagine how scared I'd be of one that was designed to kill you. Sounds just as inhumane as every other method of execution, in that someone is aware they are about to be killed before they are killed. Hipocrite (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Only if you assume they are aware beforehand. If they haven't been told that it's a death ride, & don't understand the physics involved, they might just think they're in for a fun ride. Not that there wouldn't still be some ethical considerations in this case. WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
"As for practical applications of his design, Urbonas mentioned 'euthnasia' or 'execution'" Execution? The sick puppy! Now I've got the image of a mad dictator wearing a military uniform covered in medals and a pair of shades, sending 24 of his enemies off on the "Death Coaster".--Spud (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised Kim Jong Il never built one. Vulpius (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Un looks much more like the sadistic Richey Rich type. Maybe he'll have a secret funfair of death built. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Urbonas also mentions "dealing with overpopulation". Video & write-up here. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 18:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
In which case, he's even sicker than I thought.--Spud (talk) 07:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
This seems like alot of work when almost any Euthanasia method I've ever heard of was just pumping someone so full of painkillers that they just pass out and never wake up again. That seems more plesent then Montezuma's Revenge 2.0 --Revolverman (talk) 07:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, one of the most popular methods is terminal dehydration. If you don't particular mind the physical discomfort involved, it's not so bad. Then again, I've only made it about six days. Tisane (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Made me think of this. Quaruarcade - You can't explain that! 22:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

## New stats on the decline of religiosity...

Ole! Ole! Ole! Oh No!. --DinsdaleP (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Olé! Olé! Olé!. rpeh •TCE 15:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

## What the shit is wrong with Americans?

This absolutely baffles me. How do you get so terrified that you can't engage in passing chit-chat with strangers without being worried they're going to shoot you? People are generally nice, would it kill you to say "Hi" rather than fingering your concealed 9 milli? Fucking paranoids, the lot of ya. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I would say that this letter is hardly descriptive of most Americans, let alone Michiganders, let alone Kzoo citizens...but not unexpected of an American Christian police officer, current or former. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Bleh. Having been threatened at gun point by an American for having the temerity to knock at their door (hint, criminals probably wouldn't knock, folks!) and having seen the signs they put up telling people to stay the fuck away from them, I beg to differ. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
As an American, "Been to the Stampede yet," is what I say before I start shootin'. Just sayin. Hipocrite (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Sounds awfully judgmental based on limited experience. Also, if your assessment were true, the Aurora theater shooting would have gone quite differently. As someone who lives less than ten miles from that theater, I can tell you...the mall across from that theater is probably the least safe mall in the area, well-traversed by "gang-bangers" and the scene of many shootings and bomb threats...and yet, not one other person in Theater 9 had a gun or the temerity to shoot back?
Since you want to go off anecdotes, as someone who has lived here all my life, you know how many times I've had a gun drawn on me? Zero. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Given that the Aurora theater shooting took place in a CS-gassed environment vs a gas-protected assailant wearing full body armor with superior firepower, if someone were to have been armed in that theater, and was not amongst the slain, they probably would have been added to the total. Just sayin! Hipocrite (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
That's exactly what I meant by "quite differently". -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
So, er, not differently at all then? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) You think that adding one valiant defender to the casualty total is "quite differently?" Because I don't think the difference between "70" and "71" is that different. An armed defender in the theater would have been at a massive tactical disadvantage, what with all the unexpected tear gas, the random innocent bystanders running about, and the target being in full-body armor with a rifle, pistol and shotgun. Also, what he said. Hipocrite (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
You seem to think I advocated another shooter/gun-owner in the theater. I didn't. Nothing could be father from the truth. Quit making assumptions...you too, Jeeves. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Er, no, I think you were saying that the fact that no one had a gun in the theater is indicative of how abnormal this one nutter was. I was merely noting for the record that, in case anyone thought that having more guns in the theater might have helped, that it wouldn't have. Best wishes! Hipocrite (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Then you and I are in agreement. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence or not, the right is pandering to this mentality in the States. Scalia's rocket launcher addiction is...well... Osaka Sun (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
You're still talking about a very, very slim majority, not the "Fucking paranoids, the lot of ya" that some would say comprises of the United States' voting population. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
While not represented in a number in the population these people are the tip of the iceberg indicating an underlying issue with a feeling of personal physical insecurity in the US population. I'm not quite certain whether this is carried over from earlier centuries of Wild West and farmers relying on self-defence or if this is a hype caused by decades of media-overreporting these issues and a seeling point of reported violence, but it is clear it is a problem. The result of this feeling of phyiscal insecurity are these sayings like "If guns are illegal, only criminals will own guns" or having half a dozen safety locks on your door or — and this is the most cancerous result — an increased gun-ownership because well, then you can fight back. Such behaviour doesn't constitute paranoia, but very much a moral panic about criminals in general.
For Americans to get a clue how foreign this constant fear is to Europeans let me make an easy example: when you walk into a supermarket behind somebody who is openly carrying a gun, your first thought might be "fucking gun nuts" but what is your second thought? Probably something like "Oh, well he won't go around shootin' people". In Europe "only criminals own guns" is used in reverse "she/he has a gun, doesn't wear a uniform... oh shit this fella's up to no good [because why else would somebody cary a gun to a supermarket?]" And over here, pretty much everybody thinks this way, can you imagine how it is going to the States with this mentality? "Scared-shitless" would be and understatement. I have no idea how Jeeves has to feel after being held at gunpoint, but I for one in my over 20 years of living in a European country and even traveling to other European countries can exactly tell the number of guns I have seen in my life: 4, one of them being a semi-automatic rifle (I think, I really don't exactly know what it was, but it was big and fucking scary) from a special forces police officer at an airport, the other three being owned by normal police. So, not a single privately owned gun in 25 years. Now that makes me feel safe. --Rutherford (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

How does it happen? Simply, gun culture breeds paranoia. This is especially true in rural areas and the south, though it applies in general. In Florida, this is a reality everyone understands: one out of every twenty people has a concealed weapons permit. That's a staggering statistic when you realize that it's based on total population (so it includes everyone under 21, who can't get a permit in the first place), that you don't even need a permit to actually buy most guns in Florida to begin with, and that you also don't need a permit for guns you won't regularly be carrying on your person in the first place. So it's hard to be surprised when things like the Trayvon Martin killing happen, or when you see things like this happen so regularly (these are just a few random stories I've seen in the past couple weeks). Gun sales themselves, are, of course, primarily motivated by fear. The NRA feeds on this, telling gun owners that the government is going to take their guns away. The Republican Party follows suit; this isn't an isolated phenomenon.
As far as the actual fear goes, it spreads quickly to those of us who don't even own guns. Some of my own friends have been bitten by this bug, afraid one day they'll bring a knife to a gun fight - literally. The crazy guy over there has a cache of firearms, while you don't even have a single one. That's not a fun scenario. Even worse though, it produces an atmosphere where it's hard to ever feel like a part of a community, especially for anyone who doesn't fit the usual mold. How does the peaceful atheist, who generally wants to help people, do so in a community full of gun-toting, paranoid Christian fundamentalists? For that matter, how does the peaceful Muslim feel, or the pacifist Indian (who is mistaken for a Muslim), or the gay couple, or even the (Christian) churchgoing Latino who still has to deal with blatant racism? When each person is an island, it turns the next into one, and the next, and the next... soon, it feels like a risk just to go outside, because who knows when your neighbor is going to be drunk out there with his shotgun looking to shoot the next person he disagrees with? It's not long until you yourself are packing heat and freaking out every time a stranger actually talks to you. Q0 (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

"Since you want to go off anecdotes, as someone who has lived here all my life, you know how many times I've had a gun drawn on me? Zero." Hey, me too. I once told someone I was from NY and she said "New York, eh? Ever been shot?" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Pft NY crime rate has nothing on ours. ТyNot updated with a witty slogan this week 21:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I had a friend from Japan who was terrified to come visit Chicago because he was under the impression that all Americans carried guns everywhere. This is especially entertaining, because Illinois doesn't allow concealed carry under any circumstances, and at the time handguns were banned for everyone in Chicago. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 13:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I actually feel safer in Chicago and DC when I visit than I do in BR. ТyNot updated with a witty slogan this week 13:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I guess it depends on the area, but wasn't DC the murder capital of the US/world at some point in the recent past? LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I have many American friends, and not all of them are mass murderers. Doctor Dark (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

## Historical/World War II articles

Is there any place for historical information here? I didn't see many historical articles here. Maybe ones that serve to suppress biased views could be good? Having slightly encyclopedic content could help attract readers. Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Not so much no. If we was going to do a series on a war I'd like to tackle the War of Northern Aggresion firstly. But that ain't going to happen. C®ackeЯ 00:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
History is good. Another version of the Hitler Channel is probably not what we have in mind for the site. Theory of Practice "Trampoline" is an Olympic sport now? 00:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
RationalWiki isn't an encyclopaedia. Things need to be at least vaguely defensible as on mission to stay around for very long. General history doesn't really qualify, but I dare say you can dig out any number of historical psuedo-sciences to write about if you're enthusiastic. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not like we have nothing: See our history category and WWII. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If it has pseudohistory surrounding it, like, say, the Civil War, I'd say it's a good candidate. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I suppose I could to an article about Ilya Ehrenburg. The Nazis and plenty of other people blatantly took what he wrote out of context, attribute completely fabricated and horrific writings to him, and claim that he incited "genocide" against the Germans. You can look at the biography on him at Metapedia, totally wrong. Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Sounds familiar.... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

## Do you know what sucks?

Having 33 pages that have no links in to them. Come on folks, let's step our game up. Theory of Practice "Trampoline" is an Olympic sport now? 01:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Some of those are fork pages, at least. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
On it. ТyNot updated with a witty slogan this week 04:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
33 isn't bad. Consider that when you start an article you don't know if a) it'll languish in obscurity b) be taken up by others and grow or c) (this is the important one) be marked as irrelevant and deleted. Because of the third option, sometimes it seems wrong to go about adding in links and connections because they'll become irrelevant. Once you realise no one is going to delete it, usually adding into those links is a forgotten task. Keeping an eye on Special:LonelyPages every month or so is the best we can do. theist 12:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I'd say only 33 is pretty good. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
And now it is 16. ТyNot updated with a witty slogan this week 14:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

## Atheistic Puritanism

Not content to fail at atheism, Alain de Botton decides to fail at sex as well. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

He fails to explain how my odd fetish for having sex with people of the same gender ties back to my childhood. Radioactive Misanthrope 09:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
There's a little Christian Grey in all of us. bomination 12:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I always have sex with people of the same gender, but surely that is normal for both homosexuals and heterosexuals? Steven Kavanagh (talk) 14:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
But not for bisexuals? Damn dangling modifiers... theist 21:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
My modifier doesn't dangle - well, not while I'm having sex with either gender. Bad Faith (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

## From the depths of the wingnut e-mail forward folder...

Moochers, looters, and lancet Flukes. ('Cause lancet flukes are parasites, geddit? HAR HAR HAR.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Someone with an avatar of an eagle and the stars and stripes just commented "We have our heros and they have their sluts." and it got upvoted. Please, never link to that site ever again. pathetic 00:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey, you read the bottom of the internet, you're responsible for the facepalm. (Parasite.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
That's like throwing someone off a cliff and saying it's their fault because they were the one that hit the ground. moral 00:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
More like their fault they didn't pull the parachute before they hit the bottom half of the internet, amirite? Q0 (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

## Happie the skateboarding goat

[3] That is all. sterilesporadic heavy hitter 12:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow! A video featuring a skinny American! That is some kind of record. --PsyGremlinParla! 12:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
-- Seth Peck (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

## Macro magic

For the photographers here, I just found some wonderful macro photos. ГенгисGum disease 19:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The HDR balance is underexposed, it needs more chromatic aberration and f-stops, and besides it's all obviously photoshopped. --2.34.113.53 (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I do have a fondness for macrophotography. How people pull it off with insects like that I still don't know. narchist 21:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not all that hard. The trick is to find insects small enough to fit on a macro photograph. --2.34.113.53 (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't even get myself to sit still long enough to take an emo MySpace picture in the mirror. moral 22:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I take this to mean you're doing jumping jacks while posting your comments here. Radioactive Misanthrope 09:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Am I the only one who looked at that first pic and went "That bug has light/images coming in from a 1,000 different sources, plus those water drops are distorting half of those - that dragonfly probably has one hell of a headache right now."
PS If you have the urge to explain just why dragonflies can't have headaches... don't. It was a metaphor. --PsyGremlinPrata! 09:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I thought, "Gee, I didn't think bugs could sweat!" C®ackeЯ 10:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I thought it's dead. --2.34.113.53 (talk) 12:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

## UK Olympics

You all threw a pretty fun party! and for a country your size, coming in 3rd in total medals behind US and Canada is damned impressive!!--GodotL'important c'est d'aimer 20:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Trust me, it came as a surprise to us, too. sshole 21:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Canada? Cow...Hammertime! 21:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
LOL china. sorry. --GodotL'important c'est d'aimer 21:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Easy to confuse. Both huge countries where people speak impenetrable languages. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I guess that's the secret: a hosting country apparently has a greater motivation to medal in the events, and spends more time and resources to their athletes as a result. Maybe India should try to get the Olympics themselves to break out? --CoyoteSans (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Undoubtedly a good solid motivation, but still a surprise for a country that considers itself small and bankrupt. pathetic 00:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
It seems to be a very good one, since at 2010, Canada out of nowhere, came to rule the games at Vancouver, topping it off with gold in Men's Hockey. --Revolverman (talk) 00:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I've been really getting into the field hockey. Fuck football, that should be the national sport. moral 00:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Any sport with Jason, Hannibal Lecter, and Terror masks gets a thumbs up from me. --Revolverman (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
They say that the host country sees something like a 50% jump in their medal count. Sam Tally-ho! 06:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

## Rep. Paul Ryan is the VP nominee for the GOP

...reports NBC news. Really, a very surprising choice and probably a foolish one.--talk 06:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

So besides being a "Rising Star" and some plan for Health Care stuff, whats notable about this guy?--Mikal Harass Follow 06:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Two words: Ayn. Rand. Obama just got lucky. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
He's the author of the Path to Prosperity, the "Ryan budget" now nearly mandatory for everyone in the GOP. He's the chairman of the House Budget Committee, and he was already going to be one of the most powerful people in the world because of that and his ideological dominance. But he's never won any statewide office.--talk 06:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Given that cynical opportunism is Romney's only abiding character trait, it's hard to imagine this could be true. I think he will almost certainly pick a woman and/or Hispanic. Doctor Dark (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Who then? Name a popular RINOish woman/visible minority in Congress, the gubernatorial or mayoral field. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
So which one is Gordon Gekko? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
It's being echoed by too many places not to be true. Ryan is the nominee.--talk 07:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
It was almost impossible that it would be a woman. Ayotte doesn't bring enough to the table, Martinez can't do it because of a family issue, and Haley is a disaster in her home state. A Hispanic, in the person of Rubio, was marginally more likely, but still not very likely. By a wide margin, the smart money was on Rob Portman, who is safe and boring. Romney's best bet all along has been to just hope for a Euro disaster or something similar, and otherwise hold the line, but I guess his campaign saw that the fundamentals just weren't going their way. They decided they needed a big risky change, so they picked a very personally gifted member of the House with an incredibly polarizing legislative record. Ryan proposed the Social Security privatization plan that went too far for President Bush, and a variety of other really partisan things. He's never held a job outside of Congress, which he joined at 28. Really, really, risky decision here, but conservatives will love it.--talk 07:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Conservatives will love it, and Obama will win a second term. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
One wonders if Ryan will tell all those seniors who are now collecting their social security checks, that they're all leeches according to Saint Rand. C®ackeЯ
Does Romney really have that much of a problem with conservatives? Yes, it was talked up during the primary season. But since then it's become clear that their hatred of Obama is so deep that they'll turn out for Romney anyway. And it's hard to believe he needs to shore up his support in the middle-aged white guy demographic. From an electoral standpoint he has the most to gain from choosing a Hispanic (even an obscure one). Maybe Ryan is it, but it does look like a dumb move for Romney to make, and he's not dumb. Doctor Dark (talk) 07:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Romney needed a centrist to garner the moderate vote, he choose to appease the base and will have a nice retirement...unless this is a ploy, I.e. Ryan isn't THE pick but a placeholder for the real (wo)man he's going to pick @ the GOP conwention? C®ackeЯ 07:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Why would he bullshit this? The fact that he even considered Ryan will turn off purple states either way.
Or we're underestimating his flip-flop powers... Osaka Sun (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
NBC has three separate sources, and there's confirmation all over the place. Ryan is definitely the pick.
It is a mysterious choice, though, to be sure.--talk 08:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Not as mysterious as Sarah Palin. Rennie McGreet (talk) 08:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This is a decision born from desperation. Romney realises he's losing his base and is trying to bring them back. The trouble is that he just turned the election into a vote on Medicare. People like Medicare so Romney will lose (he was going to lose anyway but this will make it worse). Nate Silver wrote a great article on possible running mates and only Portman came close to being a sensible choice. This pick loses Florida for sure. rpeh •TCE 08:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

More than just Florida. 99.235.129.26 (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but Florida especially given the Medicare thing. You're right, though, that if Obama's team plays this right he could end up with a bigger win than in 2008. rpeh •TCE 09:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

What I don't understand about this is what's in it for Ryan? It seems like as vice president he'd have considerably less latitude for doing the crazy stuff he enjoys doing now, and it's my observation at least that being vice president is about as big a political career ender as being president, but without the resulting prestige. Does he view 8 years as Romney VP as a stepping stone to his own presidency next? That seems like a bit of a wild throw of the dice compared to plugging away in congress. Is there any good reason for Ryan to actually want to be VP? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Simply being chosen to run has guaranteed that Ryan is one of the top GOP candidates for 2016, even if they lose. The GOP has a tendency to nominate those who pay their dues. If they win (which is very possible) then he becomes a lock to be the nominee in 2020. Plus, he doesn't stand to lose anything. Running on conservative principles and losing is not a mark of shame to the GOP (thus Santorum), so the only way he will lose is if something really embarrassing occurs. And that's not likely.--talk 22:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Romney can't even announce his running mate without getting it wrong. rpeh •TCE 14:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Maybe Romney knows he's going down for tax evasion.... --PsyGremlinSpeak! 14:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

What the hell is Romney thinking here? Even McCain's choice of Palin had a certain political logic; they just didn't vet her closely enough to see what was (or wasn't) under that poised and confident first impression. But this choice looks dumb on the outside, and even dumber when you look more closely. Doctor Dark (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

In many ways Ryan mirrors Palin. He's a Tea Party favorite, he's young (compared to the 65 year old Romney). Unlike Palin, he is influential in the House of Representatives, and he can be made to look smart on TV. Mr. Anon (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
LMFAO! The Romney campaign is already going into damage control mode over Medicare. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm always amazed when I read this type of shit. Line after line without ever actually saying anything. Here are your talking points; repeat them continuously, and don't ever get bogged down talking about the details. It's so fucking transparent, and yet people apparently buy into it year after year. Q0 (talk) 06:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm unsure what you might think is different? (So, yes, it's going to look very similar.) C®ackeЯ

### A Paul Ryan theory that I just pulled directly out of my ass.

The Republicans know they are going to lose this one. By putting Ryan on the ticket, they get some of their key economic ideas out there in a big way, get people writing columns about them, get people used to the idea of gutting Medicare and Social Security, and maybe get Obama and the Dems to move a little bit towards the right on the questions that matter to them. Theory of Practice "Trampoline" is an Olympic sport now? 20:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe Romney threw a dart. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll go with the dart. Ryan is the posterboy for everything that is wrong with the business side of the GOP.
Remember the Path to Prosperity and how many years it would take to get back into surplus? The VP debates will be something. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
My first thought - Romney is trying to flip Wisconsin and the other upper midwest states. He knows he will not win the electoral vote even if he wins every one of the tossup states. Idiotic move if so. Ohio and Pennsylvania are the bigger fish he should have gone after. Second thought - Republicans have a long history of picking weak and sometimes outright imbecile VP nominees. Agnew, Quayle, Cheney, Palin... Secret Squirrel (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Cheney is no imbecile. Evil personified, and a mean drunk, but not weak either. 68.116.168.154 (talk) 14:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. Bush-Cheney is the ticket where they put the imbecile in front. Vulpius (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Ryan will speak to the specifics of the President's failed economic program. And unlike the President (and Senate Democrats), Ryan has had actual specific budgets and proposals on the table for years. (Spoiler alert: I gave serious consideration to running against Paul Ryan in the GOP primary for the seat vacated by Les Aspen in 1993 when Aspen resigned to become the Clinton's Defense Secretary; Wisconsin's 1st District is/was heavily union Democratic dominated with a unique conservative respect for free enterprise bent (we saw this in the Walker Re-Call, when private sector unions voted against AFSCME schemes). Aspen held the seat for 25 years, largely because of no creditable challenger. But Aspen had enough sense to keep arm lengths from Democratic, liberal and progressive economic policies, so he focused on National Security. Is Wisconsin's 1st District representation of the nation as a whole? From a social-political perspective perhaps not. But it's full of ex-unionized unemployed Democrats who know their problems were not caused by Scott Walker, George Bush, or Barack Obama. And they've voted to return Ryan 8 or 9 times now. The job Ryan's done helps me to not regret running for that seat back then. nobsCorporations are people, too 17:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Looks like the Ayn Rand KoolAid Stand is doing a booming business. Doctor Dark (talk) 18:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Well I regret you not running, Rob. You realize by not doing so you've deprived the world of one of the most hilariously entertaining things ever, right? DickTurpis (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Rob, what the fuck are you talking about? Paul Ryan was only 23 in 1993. Why do you lie and not expect to be called out? FlamingModerate (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It's really confusingly phrased, but Rob is saying that he is now okay with his regret over not seeking the seat in 1993, because in 1999 Ryan took it over. The implication is that Rob believes he would have been better than the two interim congressmen, but not as good as Ryan.--talk 00:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

### Paul Ryan: Climate Conspiracist

The dirt on his denialism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

## Another evening spent among other ways...

...missing our dear friend Susan.

ħuman 07:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure if there is a heaven, she ended up in cheese and wine heaven. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 13:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
with kitties! But no, if Susan found herself in heaven she'd've headed out of the first door towards oblivion, such was her strength of (non) faith that these things don't exist. C®ackeЯ 13:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

## The death of Fox News comments.

Earlier this summer, I noticed that the comments section on Fox News stories was no more. From what I can tell, NewsCorp killed it with no statement or fanfare. Did anyone come across anything from the company explaining the move? I can sort of see the logic--say what you will about the company, and the end of the day it's still run by rational human beings who understand that it might be hard to maximize shareholder value with a website that hosted gigs and gigs of anti-black, anti-Jewish, and anti-Muslim, hate speech. Theory of Practice "Trampoline" is an Olympic sport now? 14:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing that's the case. It's one thing to cater to idiots and bigots, but quite another to have them running wild in your shop. Doesn't explain though why YouTube still allow comments. The general idiocy there is one of the things that soured me on YouTube. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 14:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
YouTube runs on a near-monopoly of effortless video hosting, so no matter how stupid the comments everyone will still flock to it.
That Fox has banned comments is new to me - I avoid the site just as much as I do msnbc.com. That doesn't give them any credit though. If NewsCorp didn't want to attract the nutters, they should have never framed their content for them in the first place. An implicit admission that they're beginning to regret Fair and Balanced, maybe? Osaka Sun (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Regret "fair and Balanced"? NEVER! Remember Newscorp went to court (and won!) for the right for "fair and Balanced" to ≠ "truth". C®ackeЯ 22:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not trying to give them credit for seeing the light and doing the right thing for humanity's sake--they probably just saw it in terms of cost/benefit analysis. Theory of Practice "Trampoline" is an Olympic sport now? 14:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I didn't know that they banned comments entirely -- I mostly stay away from the bottom of the internet -- but I have noticed a pattern of them disabling comments and shoving them down the memory hole on stories with racial or immigration angles. Also, obligatory. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Thankfully, if it concentrates in one place, we can hit it with one precise tactical strike gnostic 20:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Wow, an app that makes YT comments intelligible -- I didn't think it was possible! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

## People who have not watched any of the Olympics

The second goal of the women's Gold medal round football doesn't count as I was comparing TVs at cosco, soitenly less than ten minutes. C®ackeЯ 21:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I watched some, it managed to brush aside my usual disinterest in sport almost eradicated my cynicism. Thankfully, the closing ceremony brought it back. gnostic 22:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Why would anyone want to watch them? ТyNot updated with a witty slogan this week 22:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Didn't intentionally watch any, but my new housemate insists on telling me who has won medals (people I've never heard of) & making me watch bits of footage, even though I've told him I have no interest in watching sport. WèàšèìòìďMethinks it is a Weasel 23:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Jeez you people are dense. Look on the bright side of life. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
But that was three hours of my life I won't get back! I'm so pleased I wasn't playing the "drink every time it's shit" rules. sshole 23:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Blast it, my stream cut out just before the Rio preview, and I wasn't able to find another working one until the IOC President was in the middle of his speech. That was the part I wanted to see the most! I mean, it's Rio, if there's one thing they know how to do it's host a party. Now I have to watch it on NBC's time delay. Glorious. --CoyoteSans (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)