# RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?/Archive2

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is an archive page, last updated 4 January 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, (back)

##  No more linkies?

So that Posner dude wants to make doing this a breech of copyright? Am I reading this right? Not only stupid for the reasons given in the comment piece, but it would basically stop the practice of linking to source material to show that the bloggers aren't making it all up! Would anyone take WIGO:CP seriously without the links? No, of course not. People would assume we made that crazy shit up. I prefer to go with Ben Goldacre's view that there should be more linking, and any blogger who refuses to link directly to the source should be considered untrustworthy. sshole 15:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the argument that bloggers drive more traffic to news sites will sink any argument that the newspapers are being ripped off. ListenerXTalkerX 15:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately the argument that the print media likes to use, especially those parts under the thrall of Darth Murdoch, is that by linking to a news story using information from the article in question means that people don't follow the links to the original host of the news. Bollocks of course, but it doesn't stop that argument being presented time over time.--Precumming Storm 21:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

##  "Competitive medicine"

The market only keeps costs at a minimum if (1) people actually pay for their goods/services instead of having the State pay in their name; (2) people are able to take their business elsewhere without serious hitches if one provider does a rotten job. ListenerXTalkerX 21:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the little problem of true competition. The free market usually fails because without regulation, the owners enter various agreements to prevent competition and consolidate their own power. SirChuckBGo Naked, Hitler Wore Clothes 22:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
That is not so much of a problem as some people would have it; by the time Rockefeller's Standard Oil was broken up, he did not have anything close to a monopoly. In the case of health care, though, you have perfectly reasonable regulations (health/safety, etc.) also unavoidably creating high barriers for entry into the market. ListenerXTalkerX 03:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I would hope that there are always high barriers to entry into the health care provision market (I don't think they are high enough!). Otherwise, hello, you don't know me, but I'm a "doctor". What ails ye? Drink this succussed water and ye will be well. ħuman 03:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
With health care, a bigger problem is that people don't really have the option of doing without. --Gulik (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm hoping the "national health" in this country will precede the collapse of my liver, and my first stroke. ħuman 04:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

##  Obama Sarkozy is an ass man

I lol'd. — Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 17:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

##  Artificial brain

Now, the real question is "how long before it starts using the internet to find porn?" sshole 11:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You got it wrong. The real question is "how much porn is there about artificial brains?". My guess is "a lot". If it exists, there is porn of it. Rule 34. Also, if it is speculated to exist, there is porn of it too. Rule 34 again. If you disbelieve, you have never heard of guro. Dendlai (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
As per rule 34, there is now a porn video of some guy getting it on with an artificial brain. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ do do da de do da de 14:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I won't go into the matter that some searches for "34" of a particularly taboo subject have turned disappointing. Rather, I question what 34 has to do with guro, which probably only makes up a fraction of 34 (although a very disturbing/amusing fraction). Megaten (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

##  Buffalo

buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo. Enough said. ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ yes, JAVASCAP 14:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

We should thank the Bush Administration for not sending troops to Buffalo; If Ken become a casualty we would never have the same level of lulz we are having today. K61824ZOYG I edit like Kenservative! 17:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

##  Climate change photos wigo

Very interesting, but I wish they'd picked a better pair of photos - although sea ice melting is a possible sign of warming, it's not the source of disaster so much as land ice, which will raise the ocean's levels. Floating ice does not raise the water level when it melts. Also, it's cool that Obama is getting this info out that the GWB admin suppressed. When do RWR and GHWB's presidential records come out, eh? ħuman 00:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's only the effect on sea level, which although possibly the most dramatic effect and easily used to demonstrate to people what can happen, it's only the one aspect of the consequences of a warming climate. But because sea ice tends to be seasonal, you get to see some hefty changes when it doesn't grow back the following season! Which is why sea ice is used to demonstrate the effect most commonly. There are a few satellite images of retreating glaciers in Europe I think, but they're much less easy on the untrained eye. sshole 05:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I understand that warming in general can be a bad thing. But the utterly disastrous effect of ocean level rise (wrecking all our cities) is better illustrated by land ice melting. No big deal, of course, we're not "arguing", we're just worrying about what the "best" argument is. ħuman 05:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Of course. Though I'd say the best argument would be all of them together. The disappearence of sea-ice is the most dramatic illustration as far as satellite imagery is concerned. Anyway, I found this which also shows some erosion too, but land-based images are less striking for obvious reasons, it has the sea ice towards the end: http://energy.usgs.gov/flash/AKcoastalErosion.swf sshole 12:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

##  Archiving

• Should we be making archives for June now that July is almost over?

K61824"6+18=24" 01:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Do you want to do it? ħuman 01:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I have a bot that does this at the start of the next month. - π 01:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

##  Anyone fancy an easy \$5000

http://ncseweb.org/cej/2/2/5000-reward-challenge-to-evolution Although as it dates from 1981, it may necessitate a time machine. sshole 13:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

##  Phyllis

"A serious debate requires an opponent of equal intellectual weight and moral force. Schlafly says she can't think of any honorable spokesman for the opposition -- someone of knowledge and integrity with whom she can respectfully disagree -- on any issue. People who think differently than she does are either lying, laughing or not truly confronting the issues, she says.''" —Phyllis, in the article

Explains a lot, really. --Gulik (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Mr. Schlafly has obviously learned a thing or two at Mommie Dearest's knee. ListenerXTalkerX 04:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that pretty much defines his worldview. Sadly, he didn't even get a "talent" egg from Mommy. He got a borken one, and it really shows. ħuman 04:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
"equal intellectual weight and moral force" to Phillys Schlafly? This guy, perhaps? sshole 11:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

##  Reader's Digest

"In June, the company announced it would ... and focus the magazine on socially conservative values" No change there then. Does this mean that I won't be chosen from all the people in Worksop to receive a prize of £2000:00? ever again? I am eating & honeychat 13:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I once won fourth(?) prize in a Readers Digest Spot-the-ball competition circa 1986. It was a Polaroid instant camera. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 15:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

##  Illegal immigrant organs

Is this story for real? I notice that the URL is news-ebc.co.uk and claims to be the BBC news website, but the BBC news website is news.bbc.co.uk. Going straight to http://www.news-ebc.co.uk takes you to what looks like the England news section of the BBC site, only it's last update is 5th June (for the organ story). The actual link for BBC's England news is http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/default.stm (last updated today). Also searching the BBC news site brings up nothing about organ harvesting (the closest matches are China's alledged harvesting of organs from political dissidents, and something about Israel targetting immigrants for organ donation). I also live in England and I don't recall hearing anything of this. I'm fairly sure it's a fake (read the article, it is not written like a BBC article), albeit a good and somewhat specific one, but I don't want to remove it myself in case it's real and I just suck at finding stuff, or if it's some elaborate inside joke that I know nothing of. X Stickman (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right it's a hoax. The root URL leads directly to that story and there are no other sub-pages. Everything else links to the regular BBC pages. If you click on Wales on the left and then go back to England you arrive at the true page. Also the site doesn't have a proper favicon. Even if the BBC did not use their real names it would be unlikely to select Ben & Jerry for the names of two immigrants. Go ahead and comment it out, and full marks for spotting it. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 15:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I've commented it out. I've been looking for a way to let the beeb know, but the Contact Us on their pages just leads you round n circles. I am eating & honeychat 15:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Clicking the printable version of the page shows that this was the original story. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 16:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

##  NASA slaps the moon, moon files assault charges.

Has anyone else been following the NASA probe sent to crash into the moon to look for water? Javasca₧ edits from 37.192.139.102 13:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No...enlighten me please. Tetronian you're clueless 13:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
LCROSS? Yeah, we totally made the moon our bitch. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 14:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
This morning, the probe crashed into its target, a permanently shadowed crater near the Moon's south pole (press conference at 3:00 PM eastern time). The official reason is that they're looking for water, but real scientists know that NASA's actually fired the first shot in the Great Lunar War of 2009. Stu the Foo' 14:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
these two articles may have already done the rounds on RW, but are relevant and quite a good read regarding the impact mission. sshole 14:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
They should have sent it to Totnes, it's been pissing down this week. Totnesmartin 15:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it a case of "They want to find water on the moon?!? The moon can bloody well have some of ours, there's enough of it!!!" sshole 15:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
No more blood for liquid volatiles! US, stop the imperialist bombing of the moon! Not in my name! Charge Delos D. Harriman with war crimes now! --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Water? Bah! They're hiding evidence of the aliens that they diseased in the 1960s. They slammed right into the mass grave. NASA--never trust 'em. Sterile microscope 18:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Science? Feh! This is clearly a misogynistic attack by the privileged masculinists of Earth against the advanced culture of Moon Maidens that are so obviously there! Damn the man! --Kels 13:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

##  Guardian Gagged

I thought this was the better place to put the story (as opposed to WIGO Blogosphere) because although the bloggers are the ones breaking the story, it happened in the real world and isn't just opinion.

With a bit of luck this will provide the kick up the arse our politicians have needed to get them to do something about freedom of the press. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 13:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

… and remind them about the Streisand effect. I am eating & honeychat 13:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
In fact the incident has already made it onto WP's page on that very subject. I imagine Private Eye will be having a field day on Thursday (or whenever the bloody Royal Mail decide to deliver my copy). Carter-Fuck are their favourites. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 14:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
My PE comes tomorrow (wed) so they've probably "gone to bed" before it arose. (Got hung up on ONE crossword answer last issue: couldn't get 18 down for ages Practised by golfer "Lofty' to be promiscuous [ _P_W_N_ ]; didn't half feel stoopid when I got it!) I am eating & honeychat 14:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

##  JROTC

Burn them down! Am I showing my age? ħuman 06:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

##  Interracial couple is denied marriage license

I was about to link this article [1] when I saw the topic already in the list. What really burns me up is that the justice of the peace is defending his refusal to marry an interracial couple for the same exact reasons that conservatives refuse to marry gay couples: because he says these kind of marriages don't last, and that they're harmful to any children that are raised in this kind of environment. And yet conservatives say that gay marriage is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM interracial marriage... - Cuckoo 16:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I just saw this on local news a little bit ago. This is about 20 minutes from where I live, and unfortunately, I'm not remotely surprised by this.--الملعب الاسود العقل We don't need the key we'll break in 16:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
He's promoting excactly the kind of bigotry that he claims to be protecting them from. I LOLed a little bit at the ridiculous defence: "I'm not a racist. . . . I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom." ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 20:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering, when he says he isn't "racist", is he technically correct because what he's describing is "racialist", perhaps? I know there's no difference really but the conflicting attitudes sort of remind me of it. sshole 21:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
It just means that he is not a xenophobe. Many people assume that racists are all of the Nazi sort, unable to stand the company of anyone of a different race. ListenerXTalkerX 21:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I loved the back and forth from the President's Press sec. The guy claims that he worries about the future of interracial children. Quote the white house "What? is he afraid they can become president?" SirChuckBGo Naked, Hitler Wore Clothes 06:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

##  Bible burning wigo

Couple comments - one, don't delete dupes, comment them out, so as not to muck up voting. Two, when wigos are incredibly non-self-explanatory, dupes are gonna happen. How can one tell one is duping when the previous wigo contains nothing that might tip them off? So I commented out the second, but copied some of its text to the first one. ħuman 01:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite amused by the authors these people call heretics. Didn't know that the Left Behind series is among Satan's popular books (see the vid at 58 seconds - "Tim Lahaye", two lines above Mother Theresa )... --Sid 21:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The church has 14 members so they're either an upstart or doing this as a publicity stunt, trying to find a hook to get national media attention the way Westboro Baptist Church has. If they think it'll get them new members OTOH, well, Westboro has been doing their thing for 15 years and I doubt they've grown at all. The list of "Satanic" books they will burn includes James Dobson, Billy Graham, Chuck Colson, Jimmy Swaggart, Rick Warren, Oral Roberts, all versions of the Bible except the KJV...haw haw haw! Is Jack Chick on the list too? Secret Squirrel 11:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

##  Double Posting

The most recent article about the abortion rate not going down when abortion is made illegal (1046) is a double post of Post#1024.

Oh well... this sort of things happens. I guess the only safeguard is to only post "very new" news? ħuman 03:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

##  Interracial

I'm always amazed when these bigots try and defend their actions and end up highlighting their racism. "I'm not a racist. I just don't believe in mixing the races that way"; "I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom..." What a moron. --PsygremlinPrata! 10:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the usual claim by those who call themselves white separatists. Secret Squirrel 11:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

##  e-petitions

Would anyone be interested in cataloging the more important, frivolous or downright hilarious e-petitions that have been submitted to number10.gov? I'm currently looking up some that were "rejected"; this for example, or this, which I find quite amusing because the reason given for rejection is "It doesn't actually request any action". sshole 13:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Global warming denial. Nice sentiment, wrong way to go about it. sshole 13:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This contains at least 98% pure organic paraben-free win - http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Equaltoothres/

"We need more action in out directions than the BrutAL PRISONES ... I HAVE BEEN SUICIDAL 3 TIMES AND NO ONE CARES ... wAKE Up BEFORE I GO TO NEWSPAPERS AND GO NATIONAL AND GET NRESPAPERS AND ALL BAREAVED PARENTS TOIMPOSE PRESSURE ONYOU ... we first--- then the horible people who put us in this position ... Do something about it now!!!!!!! Before many of us may no longer be arounf as we cannot take the pain imposed on us through no choice." (reproduced verbatim)

Surely "Ivan" has been reading Private Eye magazine's "From the Message Boards" :D SҚ_ 10:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh. Obviously a sock of Justice_4_Maddy. The joy of the Internet is that lack of coherence is no barrier to the expression of opinions.--Ask me about your mother 10:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I originally thought that the short name in the URL said "equal tooth res". Harmonic bastard Phantom! 10:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm amused by that one because the reason for rejection is "it doesn't actually request anything". Actually, most of the ones rejected for that reason are quite funny. this is a good one. Although they've wiped everything because it was inflammatory and offensive, the URL gives a clue as to what the request was.... sshole 11:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

##  Nick Griffin on Question Time

Added this, not because it's massively humerous, but politically it's quite important. Desipte the thrashing he got, I still think giving any airtime to these fuckwits is a bad idea. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree (no publicity is bad publicity) but "freedom of speech" an' all that. I am eating & honeychat 08:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Mmmm. I think these people should be asked to explain themselves publicly. I think that "question time" might not have been the best format though. It's too fast-paced with not enough time to get down to the nitty gritty. Better to set him up one-to-one with one of the BBC's attack dogs and see how he fares.--BobNot Jim 09:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was a wasted opportunity and rather anodyne. Griffin's opening whine about "being demonised" made him look like a prize loser chump less than 300 seconds after the opening credits had aired. Straw and Huhne waffled too much, Warsi was bearable, Bonnie Greer tried to act airily dismissive whilst repeating "*I'm* not a politician!" - Dimbleblumbemby was the most incisive, putting Griffin on the spot a few times. That audience of reactive sixth formers from Shepherd's Bush Secondary Modern didn't help either. Straw's closing crow about the BNP having been "scrutinised" seemed dishonest - I don't think it would have been possible given the din of "you're a big fascist, ner-ner-ner so THERE".

Metinks Bob's idea of putting Griffin one-on-one with someone like Paxo or Marr would be a better use of air time. Jeremy Clarkson has comments for one-eyed politicians, as well. SҚ_ 10:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Damn right, Griffin vs Paxman needs to happen now. They want legitimacy and we've (rightly, IMHO) given it to them. Now it's time for them to pay for it. I think QT was a waste of time in many regards (although it make a great drinking game) because it entirely focused on the BNP, race and immigration when it should have gone onto other things. If the BNP want to be a genuine political party they need to be informed of all aspects of government and questioned on those positions rather than be allowed to sit and spin on one issue and the rhetoric associated with it. They at least gave a token gesture to this by giving about 8 minutes to the Jan Moir issue, but I think it was a wasted opportunity to get those people to do what they - as politicians vying for our votes - are supposed to do. sshole 11:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
There's no way around it that the BNP had the right to be on that programme - after the June elections and all, they've basically been ratified as a legitimate minor party, and it doesn't matter how repulsive Griffin or the BNP's platform is, he had the right to be there. As expected, he got the shit ripped out of him for his race/immigration policies. However, I couldn't help but feel that an audience member was casually ignored when he asked why immigrants were still being let in with rising unemployment. I mean literally ignored and then someone else asked a question. SJ Debaser 11:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd like to have seen them treat it a bit more seriously, because like it or not it is an issue. Hence why I wasn't impressed that almost every angle was "let's bash the BNP". sshole 11:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, although inevitably that was going to happen. It was useful for pointing out how sickening they are...
 “”I did share a platform with David Duke who was the leader of a Ku Klux Klan group - a nonviolent one in fact. —Nick Griffin on Question Time
...but it should have asked about other political issues also. SJ Debaser 11:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The Jan Moir question came across as a coded goading to "go on Nick, say something about gayness". The collective shrug of "the Daily Mail can print what it likes" smacked of hypocrisy, when you consider that they would have denied that same freedom to the BNP.

Also, I was amazed by his inability to debate and deal with confrontation. I'd figured that if you could become an MEP, you at least had SOME political skills. How wrong was I. It's not that my opinion of Griffin has dropped (because it's mostly subterranean already), but my opinion of the requirements of MEPs more generally has taken a hit. SҚ_ 12:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I believe the entry level is quite low. But definitely, the Jan Moir thing was planted to basically troll-bait Griffin into make a homophobic comment. They did get him to speak against mixed marriage, though. Quite disappointing really, I'd like to have seen him quizzed on the war; and possibly the greatest question that was never asked of him would be: "Mr Griffin, what is your opinion on giving citizenship to Gurkha's who have fought for this country?" sshole 12:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Jack Straw mentioned about how White Britons fought alongside Black and Asians for freedom in WWII which was the closest we came to anything like the Gurkha question. I loved how he said "skin colour is irrelevant" to him. Bull. Shit. SJ Debaser 12:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I like that idea about the Gurkhas question - where's Jez Pac-Man when you need him? That Moir/Gateley troll-baiting isn't much better than Schlafly's "I dare you to deny 2+2=4", isn't it, and whilst I'm remixing wingnuts, isn't referring to Griffin as a Nazi the same intellectual laziness that gets non-believers at CP called liberals? After all, he's not a member of the 1930s/1940s German political party, he's a poor politician with a fundamentally racist manifesto and few policies to speak of. SҚ_ 12:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Definitely, the Nazi thing is immature and really doesn't achieve much; if anything it sort of downplays how bad actual Nazism was. Although I missed the beginning, the show apparently went into Godwin's Law territory within 2 minutes. sshole 12:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. You could almost say that "back in my day, we had real Nazis, none of this crap you have now!" sshole 13:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Heh you got that right - both those gentlemen were ~6'4" rugby players, and both would likely have chinned someone for referring to a 21st century second-rate Alf-Garnett-wannabee monocular racist as a "Nazi". The show did descend Godwin-wards quite quickly, and by the time Bonnie Greer did her airy dismissive supercilious look for the 10th time, my attention had started to wander to my girlfriend's underwear (she was due home at 11.30pm so I needed to take it off). SҚ_ 14:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Is the protesters picture from the Daily Mail a spud-shop http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1222441/Question-Time-panellist-launches-extraordinary-attack-BNP-leader-Nick-Griffin.html? It just looks ALL wrong ... SҚ_ 15:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I watched Question Time with fascination but also with a feeling that Griffin was given exactly what he wanted - Bonnie Greer is no intellectual, she didn't have a clue about the history she was talking about, and the three Westminster politicians made me want to cringe myself to death. Dimbleby played the role of part inquisitor/part host but either way he did a good job.
Question Time should have invited philosophers, historians and political scientists on to make a mockery of this man. Griffins conception of history is as laughable as his genuine racialist beliefs in the idea of a 'ethnic Briton' - the very idea is absurd considering all humanity derives from Africa, and that from time immemorial people have migrated from one part of Europe to another. Its only in the last couple of hundred years, since science has allowed inter continental migration, that these fears of 'a white genocide' emerge from loons like him. I only wish that I had of got the chance to rollick him on Question time, I really would have tackled him on this racial BS.
And will the people who keep saying 'don't give him exposure' grow the fuck up. You can't be ultra liberals on the one hand and then demand to censor those you disagree with on the other. Griffin is handy to beat in an argument, but the Westminster politicians gave him such a great victory by demonising and cornering him whilst not really tackling his ideas (Which is pretty much what the Susan/Jeeves brigade do on RW, label people they don't like trolls while refusing to engage the ideas). What we needed were people who understand the vacuousness of racialism and who could mop Griffin to the floor with it. All in all, it was an embaressing spectacle for all involved and it will only benefit the BNP in the long run. MarcusCicero 11:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, an opportunity to really challenge them and get the public to see what the BNP is like (rather than just reinforce a childish stereotype and push the persecution complex further) was completely wasted. As for other panelists, I'd definitely like to the see the non-political camp on QT exapanded. A panel with Thunderf00t, Richard Dawkins, Ben Goldacre, Simon Singh or perhaps Lord Drayson (whom I now have quite a bit of respect for after seeing him in the debate with Goldacre) would be fantastic - and I would do a little dance if all of them formed a panel. sshole 11:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I was also annoyed by the many people (including Mrs. K) who got their knickers in a twist by Nick Griffin appearing on QT. Yes, he's a racist prick but sadly he does represent the views of many ordinary people and muzzling him does more for the BNP cause than having rational and erudite refutations of their policies. I like to think that we live in a mature democracy where the freedom of (all) speech is cherished even when we disagree with what is being said. Unfortunately I know that our basic freedoms are gradually being eroded because of fears about "giving offence" and this comes from all sides of the political spectrum. It seems ironic to me that the likes of the Daily Express are disgusted ("Fury as you pay for BNP TV ad") when they espouse many of the ideals, aims and concerns ("Immigrant baby boom costs £1Bn") of the BNP itself. Ultimately it is education and integration that will eliminate this racist canker. That is why I am so opposed to "faith" schools which only promulgate the separation of communities. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 12:10, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Exactly; further segregating the BNP just makes them out to be the victims. As for the ultra conservative tabloids, anyone can see they're just pandering to whoever they can to sell as many papers as physically fucking possible. They will leap on whatever is currently making people's blood boil and make the situation a thousand times worse with their stupid, bigoted, right-wing reporting. SJ Debaser 18:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

##  Distilling the Republican base

This was an amazing read on where the Republicans are as a party and where the might be headed. From a RW perspective, it's quite a positive outlook. Strangely (or not so), the conservative Republicans in the study would probably also see it as positive. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 11:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

##  Too Liberal WIGO

The story behind that WIGO is incredible. I particularly like the quote "Although Wycoff was also armed with a gun, he didn't use it because he didn't want to boost the cause of gun-control supporters, the prosecutor said."

Surely the real reason is that the weapon of gun is largely defensive? –SuspectedReplicantretire me 09:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with America? How did it become so hyper-partisan that people will kill their own family over politics? When I read all this stuff with someone waxing about how the "other side" (both left and right are guilty of this) are communist/fascists I always fell they are just dousing the flames of an already tense political debate that passes for the marketplace of "ideas" (ideas are significantly lacking). - π 10:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I think you mean fanning the flames. Dousing them would put the flames out.</pedantry>
You're not wrong though. Worse, I can see things heading that way in Britain too before too long. Nick Griffin and the BNP are thoroughly unpleasant but some of the "solutions" suggested by their opponents aren't much better. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 10:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
You know, when I first read that, the political science part of me gave way to the Psych side.... Despite what he may say, I think the real problem is that this guy is FUCKING CRAZY!!!!! I mean, he says that because they didn't invite him to Thanksgiving or Christmas, they hated him and were out to destroy him. That sounds like some serious paranoia and possily even some Schizo. problems..... I think the politics kinda takes a backseat. SirChuckBGo Naked, Hitler Wore Clothes 15:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Politics doesn't enter into it. From that report, he comes across as having so many screws loose it's impressive he doesn't fall apart completely. Asking for his fans to contact his advisor for autographs? Defending himself by justifying the killings rather than proving innocence? Of course, I doubt the (presumably right-wing) politics he followed played no part and may well have prompted him to choose his targets and justification that way, but you have to be pretty damn unhinged to do that sort of thing. sshole 16:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I don't think politics was absent completely, but I think the crazy factor played a much bigger role. SirChuckBGo Naked, Hitler Wore Clothes 17:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, ditto. I think the politics probably determined who he was going to go after. Given some different circumstances, I'm sure he could have joined something like the ALF and firebombed some animal researchers. sshole 17:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

##  The British Council and Darwin Now

The BBC news report is an outrageous load of bollocks which does not, repeat not, reflect what is said in either of the reports, either the global one or the UK one. The report starts
A British Council survey into awareness of Charles Darwin and attitudes towards evolution has found that there is a broad international consensus of acceptance towards his theory of evolution
hardly 'teach the controversy'. Bob Soles 16:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

##  Transexual Jesus

The director "trained at Harvard and the Moscow Arts Theatre. She has worked as a dramaturg and director for the American Repertory Theatre, NY Theatre Workshop and Underground Zero Festival in the USA, ..."[2], Someone should tell Mr Schlafly what his fellow alumni are getting up to. & marmitechat 13:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I just spotted this on BBC News and when I got to WIGO:World it was like "damn, beat me to it". I bet that, just like with Jerry Springer, the show itself isn't actually that offensive or even half what the protesters have jerked their knees to think of it as. sshole 16:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

##  Ray Comfort

Did anyone see this about banana man's introduction. YorickCrass. 03:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at the first two examples and was thinking "so what", but the latter ones are quite damning. But I'm not particularly shocked. sshole 19:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Pi's working on a side by side of them at talk:Origin of Species (2009) by the way. ħuman 01:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

##  Army shooting wigo

The wording of that seems in very poor taste. These are realy people that died on American soil for no reason..... I think we can at least respect the dead, especially as we always attack Andy for not doing the same. SirChuckBGo Naked, Hitler Wore Clothes 00:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We sound worse than Andy, trying to spin a story to support our viewpoint. Tetronian you're clueless 00:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Really? 1, 2 (19th down), 3 (7th down), 4 (10th from the bottom}, 5 (21st from the bottom), 6 (12th down). Each and every one a tragedy, each and every victim killed for no real reason, each and every entry spun to support the viewpoint that there should be gun control.-- Jabba de Chops 02:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
All the more reason to police ourselves as tightly as we police those we disagree with. ħuman 05:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm gonna disagree with you there..... Not every "largely defensive weapon of gun" reference has to do with gun control.... and a lot of stories were pointing out the danger of having guns around stupid people. Yours felt like mocking the dead..... For the record, I thought a few of those were in poor taste and I would have objected just as strongly as this one. SirChuckBGo Naked, Hitler Wore Clothes 07:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
In which case we need to start reinforcing the ideas that WIGO entries are not personal property - the community can edit bad taste ones, remove (well, comment out) malicious ones and update or rearrange as necessary. Although taste is subjective, I think any comment that someone would want to change, probably would need it. sshole 10:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
As long as it's not a case of "See? See, Andy???" point making, and the WIGO is carefully worded, I think it's okay to post these on WIGO world. The Far Left Side comic has a good example today (in the commentary, not the 'toon). –SuspectedReplicantretire me 12:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I could be missing something here, but I don't see how gun control is necessarily the right angle. Military standards for "gun control" on a base would presumably differ somewhat from those held in your average neighbourhood. The other news reports indicating that the guy had irrational religious/racist views may be something worth exploring, at least once we have more information.--Ask me about your mother 15:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
They were his own guns, not military issue (or so I hear on the news) so it's at least partly about gun control. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 16:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. It makes sense now. --Ask me about your mother 16:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should just avoid the gun control issue entierly and just note that a rampage happened in Ft. Hood. Also, there appears to be another one in Orlando. Jsonitsac 18:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Definitely, we've already got an unwritten rule that basically says "no Andy baiting" after a short spree of "oh, how long before Conservapedia says something about this?" WIGOs. These stories are relevant and make important points so its best not to ignore them, but there's no need to go taunting wingnuts with them either, because seriously, I don't want to be down at their level. sshole 18:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

##  Halloween joke I heard

"Who did you go as for halloween?"

"I went as the public option - but I never made it out of the house"

Thank, I'll be here all week, try the veal. Or the shrimp, it's fresher. ħuman 05:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

*groan* Wow Huw, I thought I had heard some bad jokes today, but this one takes the cake. Thankfully that joke is moot, though, and I must admit I am a bit surprised that the bill passed. Tetronian you're clueless 05:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Let's see what happens in the Senate. Sterile microscope 05:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Ironically, the joke was dated by the time I posted it. Groans accepted and honored at your local 7-11, or 9-11, if you're that type. ħuman 05:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

##  Iranian math student bit

I saw this mentioned on Colbert; should it be a news item? It's a pretty good sign that the dictatorship isn't as solid as it seems, and also, go math students! Wehpudicabok 23:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

##  "New York Times blames "right-wing foreign policy" for Islamic terrorism..."

Cut to Debate:Right-wing foreign policy at 06:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

##  Kirk Cameron debates UCLA student, poorly

For your amusement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EjEqrmUBMA 19:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

##  10 point list

No mention of School Prayer, however... sshole 22:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

##  Side hug

It reminds me of this guy I know who really hates any displays of affection between people. He's just about alright with hugging, gets really uncomfortable with hand holding, and actively stormed out of the room last night when two people kissed. It probably didn't help that one of them was FTM trans and the other was a big hairy bisexual metalhead guy (who are married, of course). I think that broke the kid's poor brain, who probably ended up back in his bedroom crying, listening to Christian Rock and bleaching his eyes for Jesus, or something. sshole 09:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I know it is not cool to make fun of people's religion, but this side-hug stuff is basically a testing that assumptions. It is almost like they are trying to do something so ridiculous you have to laugh so they can accuse you of bigotry. - π 09:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Apparently they are now claiming it is a joke, but the defence reminds me a lot of Andy's defence of the Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus or Comfort's banana. - π 09:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I can't see the joke from the fundamentalist's point of view. Are they saying that the rap was mocking those who do side hugs? I don't believe it. --DamoHi 09:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Fat Ed's Furry Fucking Guide to Metal is self-depreciating humour, the Christian Side Hug rap was just odd.sshole 09:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I get that it was suppose to be more fun for the conference than an a serious attempt to make music and sell records, but I think the basic message that young Christians are suppose to side hug was something they endorsed and supported, that is still ridiculous. - π 10:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

##  The WIGO format

Can none of you see how crap your shit sense of humour is? Why do you replicate your stupid WIGO format for current affairs? Nonces. MarcusCicero 17:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

So we can see what current events like-minded people are interested in? — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 17:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Seems to work fine. Some are badly worded and clumsy, but that's life. Oh and calling us child abusers because of our writing style is really going to get us on your side, isn't it? Totnesmartin 13:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

##  AIG Greedheads' bonuses

The single best idea I've heard of for dealing with these idiots: Pay their full bonuses...in the 'toxic assets' their companies can't unload. Everyone wins! --Gulik (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

##  We need a better way to promote articles on big current antscience and propseudoscience events

We do very little for "big" anti-science (or pro-pseudoscience) current events, such as climategate and H1N1 vaccine safety denialism. Is there a way we could provide a focal point for these types of events? Sterile microscope 04:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

##  Chris Matthews hectors Bishop Tobin without mercy

16:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Very nice. ħuman 20:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
PS, is that bishop related to the bridge in Boston? (Probably) ħuman 20:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I would have respected the Bishop if he would have just said, "Senator Kennedy said he should never request nor accept advice from the Pope; but the Catholic Church never said that ..." ConservapediaEditor (talk) 12:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

##  Milk thistle

I was impressed by that article. Not because a "natural" remedy has been found to be useful (the opening and closing paragraphs are a little misleading, aspirin is based on salicylic acid, for example, so it's likely that this compound may lead to a more effective synthetic alternative. Most drugs are based on so-called "natural remedies" anyway, that show to have active properties and then are refined from that starting point) but because the paper actually LINKED TO THE ARTICLE. That's amazing. I have never seen a news report do that, ever. And I really am truly impressed with that. sshole 18:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

##  Massacre in the Philippines

The death toll from a politically motivated massacre in the Philippines rose to 57 yesterday after 11 more bodies were discovered. President Gloria Arroyo declared a national day of mourning and pledged to arrest the perpetrators as police said they were investigating a group loyal to the government. The victims, some of whom were found in mass graves, were killed on Monday as they travelled to file nomination papers for the forthcoming elections. A total of 13 journalists were among the dead, leading the Paris-based group Reporters Without Borders to call it "the largest single massacre of journalists ever". Refugeetalk page 16:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: they still haven't done anything about the 57 people killed, among them 2 pregnant women, 14 journalists, and several unrelated people who happened to be travelling along the same road at the time of the massacre.

The government has come under fire from the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) for an “overly cautious response” to the massacre of 57 people in Maguindanao as it attempted to reassert its authority over feuding warlords.

Please tell me I am not the only one who is horrified at this massacre of innocent people, and the Phillipine government's failure to do anything about it... ? Refugeetalk page 02:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
You aren't. ħuman 02:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Human. Update: finally, today, almost 2 weeks after the mass killings, the Phillipine government makes some small moves: Troops in the southern Philippines early Sunday took advantage of martial law to hunt down those believed responsible for last week's killings there. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo declared martial law in the southern province of Maguindanao after 57 people were killed in politically motivated violence. Maj. Randolph Cabangbang, deputy of operations for the Eastern Mindanao command, told CNN on Saturday that searchers have made arrests and recovered firearms and vehicles from a clan implicated in the killings. http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/12/05/philippines.massacre/

Refugeetalk page 23:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It's frustrating to see the lack of coverage of this horrific event in the Philipines - it just isn't in the news, and many people I've talked to are unaware of what happened. I'm not sure if anyone here is interested either, but in case anyone is, here is an update:

MANILA — A mayor in the southern Philippines accused in the November massacre of dozens of people — the worst act of political violence in the country’s history — pleaded not guilty to 41 charges of murder at the opening of his trial on Tuesday. The massacre left 57 people dead, including relatives of the mayor’s political opponent on their way to file campaign papers. But 30 reporters and media workers were also among the victims — the largest number of journalists killed in a single episode, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. - Refugeetalk page 07:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, not much interest here it appears, time to let this one go to the graveyard (archives) then, I guess. Refugeetalk page 20:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

##  GPS WIGO

It just goes to show how dependent we are on technology these days. People are losing the ability to read maps and similar practical skills because of new innovations. I'm not sure it's all for the best. Tetronian you're clueless 15:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Know why I love my gps? Cause it was a bitch to try and read a map while I was driving. --GTac (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I find my GPS usefull, but I know not to reley on it exclusively. Then again, I like to turn it on when I driving one of my usual routes and listen to it have fits when I don't drive it's route. As for the twits in the story, I think it also had the factor of 'We got an SUV, so we can drive on this road even if the snow is getting deep, the road was bad to start with, we don't have any real clue where we are.' I swear, some people think any SUV able to drive in any terrain. (Okay, turning the Snark Knob down away from 11 now.) --Ravenhull (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I remember the same thing was bemoaned of pocket calculators, in that they took away the advantage people who could do arithmetic had over those who struggled with it. And shouldn't we really be building this wiki on paper through a series of in-person meetings? ħuman 20:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article. People too dumb to light a fire? No matches? Use the vehicle's cigarette lighter. As long as they stayed warm, they look too fat to die of starvation for quite some time. ħuman 20:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

##  Shortcut redirect page

I think this page needs a page to redirect to it for convenience - how about WIGO:W? Tetronian you're clueless 23:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Try WIGOW I have just eaten & stiltontalk 04:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

##  Reading blogs you already agree with

This WIGO (4th one down at the time of this writing) brings up a very interesting point. However, I do not believe we are the exception to the rule - when we read CP, we too are reassuring ourselves by re-confirming that our opponents, the far right, are just as crazy as the day before and that we are sane in comparison. It makes me wonder, is doing so morally defensible? Of course, to answer this question we would first have to answer the question "is reading a political blog whose slant you agree with (for the purpose of "reassurance" as the article describes) ethical?" Food for thought. Tetronian you're clueless 04:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I 95% agree with you, with one minor quibble, which is that we welcome (not as well as we should, of course) people who disagree with our mission/our majority consensus, and happily debate with them until the cows come home. ħuman 06:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
You do have a good point there, and in principle you are absolutely correct. In practice, though, we don't get too many of those people, mostly just trolls who write drive-by essays that are deliberately inflammatory. Tetronian you're clueless 14:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, in theory, RW welcomes dissent. But so long as they're not kicked off for "trolling"; and there's a fine line between dissent and trolling, I see. But I see your point, I've thought for a while now that it's best to read things I disagree with as, frankly, my ego is secure enough to not need massaged by people who agree with me. You know, one day someone might just make a good case that ID is correct or that climate change is a scam, and I want to be there when they make that claim because I think I'll be well suited to accepting it - I'm still waiting, of course, but in theory it's a possibility, and I don't want to walk around being wrong just because I haven't exposed myself to enough info. sshole 14:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I get up people's noses around here and there has been no talk of kicking me off, so I can only suppose that the welcoming of dissent is more than a theoretical position. ListenerXTalkerX 03:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I've gotten in some really big fights with people on here over things, so I know dissent is allowed. And my favorite people on here (other than Human, who I often agree with) have been ListenerX (who I often disagree with) and Lurker (who was constantly in disagreement with everyone). Researcher (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

##  Trent Lott Wigo

Conservapedia Editor, I think you're comparing to different events and giving one more power than it actually had. Lott didn't lose his positon because of his support for Strom Thurmond. He resigned his position to go to a lobbying firm. Furthermore, it wasn't that he supported Thurmond, it was that he essentially said that America would have been better if a segregationalist had won the presidency. Reid's remarks, while stupid and offensive, are not nearly as bad half the things uttered by politicians about minorities and there is gonna be no long term fallout because he's apologized and, except for Al Sharpton and a few right wingers suddenly pretending to care about those of us with Negro accents, nobody will care about this. SirChuckBCall the FBI 07:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're confusing Lott's resignation as senator in 2007 to become a lobbyist with his resignation in 2002 from being the Republican leader. Secondly, Lott never said that Thurmond's segregational policies were OK; he just said that Mississippi voted for him and he said we'd be a better country if he had won. Now, I watched that statement live on C-SPAN back in college, but my opinion of it was that I don't think Lott had made the connection in his mind that Thurmond main platform was a segregationalist one; I think Lott was speaking off the cuff giving Thurmond praise at his birthday party without having had given his statement much thought.
Now, to be fair to the Democrats, it wasn't the Democrats that put the nail in Lott's coffin; it was President Bush. Bush never liked Lott; he wanted Bill Frist to be majority leader. Thus, he used a very minor issue, if you give Lott the benefit of the doubt and presume he was not thinking about Thurmond's segregationalist past when he praised Strom Thurmond, to oust him from his job as majority leader. In fact, several Democratic senators, including Tom Daschle, defended Lott. In my opinion, Bush made a petty move and a dumb political move at that.
If the Democrats now would highlight that point that Bush was behind Lott's ouster as majority leader, I think it would get the Republicans to shut up very quickly. Instead, it appears right now they (or at least Tim Kaine) are trying to make the case that what Lott said was somehow much worse than what Harry Reid said, which doesn't hold water logically. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 05:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
He said that if Strom Thurmond had won, we "would not have had all of these problems over all of these years." The only plank of Thurmond's campaign was segregation. The only reason ANYONE would have voted for Thurmond was because of his racist views. If he did not know that, he did not deserve to be in any kind of power. And, it's not like this was an isolated incident for Lott; he'd often given speeches before segregationist groups. Reid made a slightly anti-PC comment that nonetheless most black pundits agree with. It is common for any politician to be able to speak in different voices before different groups, and all Reid did was use an archaic and offensive term for one of those voices. Researcher (talk) 03:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Obama said there was 57 states. Should he not be President? I don't know if the statement that segregation was the ONLY part of Thurmond's platform is accurate, but not realizing a platform position from 54 years ago is not a cardinal sin. Thurmond, like Byrd, had renounced their past racial views and both continued on in the Senate. Their colleagues in modern times did praise them for their longevity of service and both voters and colleagues seemed to forgive them for past viewpoints. Lott arguably went too far in praising Thurmond perhaps, but that was no reason for him to lose his post as Majority Leader. Gotcha politics is one of the reasons nothing valuable gets done in Washington. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 00:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I take up massive offense to this. Thurmond did not "denounce his racial views." That prick continued his ideology of utter hatred until his death. Fuck you for trying to say otherwise...lying prick. δij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 02:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Riiiight, that's why he voted for the Martin Luther King holiday and voted to extend the Voting Rights Act. Now, quit being a troll. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 02:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

When/where/how did he denounce his racial past? Show me ONE time he apologized for being a racist bastard. Just one. δij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 03:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

My big problem with the wigo is that "When majority leader Harry Reid says the President is electable because he does not have a Negro dialect???" isn't grammatical. ħuman 01:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

##  "Churches turn themselves into Sierra Club chapters"

Is that supposed to be a bad thing? Tetronian you're clueless 18:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Pay no attention to that irrelevant God character; let's turn the church into a secular propaganda mill! ListenerXTalkerX 19:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
What, a religious propaganda mill is somehow a better thing? (See: Pat Robertson.) Edit: Anyway, I don't see anything in that article to suggest that they've abandoned Jesus in favor of Gaia. --Gulik (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
(1) The church should stay out of politics. Most problems with religion in the past have been the result of the church getting involved in politics.
(2) A church contains an altar for administering sacraments and a pulpit for preaching sermons, rather than a manifesto on the wall and a soapbox for political stumping.
(3) The (former) text of the WIGO is a quote from the Seven Woes, in which Jesus denounces the Pharisees for hypocrites; specifically, for people who are supposed to be running a church, but are focusing on secular matters instead. ListenerXTalkerX 19:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Is feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, caring for the sick and visiting prisoners a 'secular' or 'religious' matter? Please think carefully before you answer. --Gulik (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Mu. ListenerXTalkerX 23:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

##  Pat Robertson

...is a complete prick who can't get anything straight. I hate to wish bad on anyone, but I wouldn't be upset in the slightest if he was punched in the face hard enough to force him to have his jaw wired shut. δij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 03:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm right there with you. Researcher (talk) 03:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Who gave him a mic? That's what I'd really like to figure out. δij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 03:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The day that guy dies is the day I crack open my 21 year old bottle of scotch. DickTurpis (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Makes me sick. "Love thy neighbor," Pat Roberston. Sterile microscope 21:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
He does love his neighbors; he lives on a multi-acre estate, so his only neighbors are the wealthy. Radioactive Misanthrope 02:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
That, unfortunately for him, is no excuse. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. — Matthew 5:43-45. ListenerXTalkerX 04:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
You know, I'm still unclear on Listener's position on issues beyond communism. --User:Theautocrat/Sig 04:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with quoting Jesus telling people to stop being dicks. Though I suspect expecting Pat Robertson to convert to Christianity is a lost cause - David Gerard (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

(unDent)Coming in late to the conservation, I know, but in response to "Who gave him a mic?" -- Robertson gave himself a microphone. He founded the Christian Broadcasting Network, which became the Family Channel, which became ABC Family when ABC bought it (and I think it wad Fox Family for a while, too.) And CBN aired the 700 Club, which was always Robertson's platform. As part of the sale, there was a guarantee that the 700 Club would air on the network essentially forever. At this point, the only way he loses his platform would be his own death or otherwise incapacitation, him voluntarily stepping down, or perhaps the network itself ceasing to exist (and in that case, I'd imagine he still owns the 700 Club itself, and would find, or even create, another venue for it.) MDB (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

##  X-Presidents

Meh. Bush did the same thing after the 2004 tsunami. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, but I just HAD to make that joke Jsonitsac (talk) 18:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

##  Creationism in UK universities

That Guardian article is from 2006, is it still relevant at all? I haven't heard anything about similar issues since, at least not with the same strength behind the claims. X Stickman (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The next step will be to spin anti-creationism as an "Islamophobic" doctrine; then creationists can SLAPP evolution supporters with hate crime charges under the new blasphemy laws. ListenerXTalkerX 17:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't notice the date as I also saw it handed to me from another source. I assume it's been digg'd or something. sshole 18:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

##  PETA

Don't know if its right to be here, but PETA's new ad has been banned. For good reason. --Seantalk 09:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

##  Dowsing for bombs

That WIGO is pretty grim. The quote from Major General Jehad al-Jabiri is a classic of black comedy: "Whether it's magic or scientific, what I care about is it detects bombs". I hope that the courts well and truly nail McCormick, and perhaps those in Iraq who gave the okay to send their people out in with the field with those pointless sticks. The UK may be more secular than the US, but we have a nasty habit of embracing woo. --Ask me about your mother 18:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Could it possibly be the "love for an underdog" misfiring? I mean, what shows the idea of an underdog more than someone putting forward an idea that sounds like it can't work and takes on big corporations? sshole 17:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if it's really true, but we do have a reputation for punishing success. I find it ironic though that people would see this company as being the underdog when he clearly has a vested interest in selling those things, yet the people who've long criticised him gain little from stopping him, and risk their reputations and money in the effort. --Ask me about your mother 10:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

##  Minnesota "climate change alert"

We have a saying here: "If you don't like the weather in Minnesota, just wait a day." The temperature fluctuations are nothing unusual. ListenerXTalkerX 17:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That's funny, here in New England it's "wait two hours". For extra funny, I listen to a MN radio station a lot on line, and I pretend their weather predictions are for me. They're roughly as accurate as the genuine local report. ħuman 22:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Where I live we have a saying: "If you don't like the weather move. Here is a weather forecast fo the next 50 million years; it is going to be fucking hot, and when it is not fucking hot, it is going to be fucking hot and raining". - π 10:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
I've heard it said about Scotland also but I'm pretty sure that it's universal - If you don't like the weather wait for ten minutes. However, when I have been to Scotland the weather has usually been foul and everyone says "Och, you should have been here last week, it was glorious". ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 14:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
PS Just looked out the window and it's starting to snow. However, I doubt that we'll get anything near what you Americans have just had. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 14:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't all of America, but of course if the weather mucks up Washington it's gonna be Big News 'cause the city is stuffed to the gills with reporters. ħuman 21:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Re. Scotland: "If ye can see the Cuilins then it's goin' ta rain. If ye canna see the Cuilins then it's a'ready rainin'." [Cuilins: range of hills on the Isle of Skye] yummy &  honey(or marmalade) 21:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

##  Daily Caller

Regarding the story about Democrats considering amending the constitution, someone posted a link with the Daily Caller's take on it, and I gotta say, having read it and the comments, it's pretty right wing, shouldn't it be posted in the clogs section in the future? Also it's wikipedia article isn't very reassuring. (188.220.123.87 (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC))

##  Snow

We now have

Whilst the US has blizzards, the Olympic men's downhill is cancelled due to "slushy" snow."

and just 4 entries below this

While conservatives use recent blizzards in the United States to mock the idea of global warming, record high January temperatures in Vancouver force the Olympics to import snow.

Don't people read what's been posted before or is it that they have to get their own special WIGO? ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 12:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes you see a story and think it's worth sharing. Not everyone checks the full WIGOs below it. Unless we have one single editor doing all the posting, this is unavoidable and I don't think it should generate complaints. sshole 15:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
World is also a bit strange, as it may be several days or even weeks between person a seeing a story and person b seeing the same thing.... It sometimes leads to duplicates. Just comment out the newer one with an explnation and we move on. SirChuckBGentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin 18:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Being a good editor means that you read as well as write. Not reading what other editors have written, especially only four entries beforehand, is disrepectful of other contributors. It's like those bores in the pub or at dinner paries who are so intent on having their own say and making a contribution that they don't listen to what other people are saying. It's rude and egotistical. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 09:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Or it was a mistake. --Seantalk 09:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Laziness more likely.  Lily Inspirate me. 14:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

##  Pew forum

is interesting. New Hampshire appears to be the least religious state in the US. Huw, what have you been doing? yummy &  honey(or marmalade) 08:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, they lumped us with Vermont, they're all commie scum atheists. Also there's the field projector in my attic... ħuman 18:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

##  UFOs

I highly recommend reading through this one. sshole 19:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

##  Secular Coalition Poll

Okay, looking at the Secular Coalition Poll references in the wigo, I see this option:

Religious Refusal : Repealing “religious refusal” laws that keep people from receiving needed medical attention

I'm confoozled. Are they talking about repealing the laws that allow medical personnel to refuse to provide treatment (I'm generally for that), or are they talking about repealing laws that allow patients to refuse treatment on religious grounds? (I'm vehemently opposed to allowing medical care to be forced on an adult capable of informed consent.) MDB (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It'd almost have to be the former...although I do have problems with nutjob parents letting their kids die. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 16:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, my concerns were addressed in another option, so I'd say it has to be the former. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 16:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, you raise a good point MDB, they've phrased that poorly. My guess is they're talking about repealing laws e.g. allowing doctors to refuse to provide contraception counseling or something on religious grounds. DogPMarmite Patrol 06:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

##  Muslim food laws

Aren't Muslim and Jewish food laws much the same ? If France starts picking on Muslims for Halal stuff where will it end. Hamster (talk) 04:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have some pretty serious reservations with regard to France's odd anti-religion stance. I could understand the problem if it were a state facility, such as the canteen in a school, that banned pork in order to avoid offending Muslims and Jews, but this is a private business. This is just as ill-considered as the headscarf ban. There is a grain of wisdom there, but it seems to me that it's buried under a mountain of anti-Islamic thinking. --Ask me about your mother 12:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The basics are similar, the prohibited foods are about the same, except that Muslims also prohibit anything with alcohol in them, whereas Jews (and the French) consider alcohol a blessing. The slaughter requirements for Kosher are a lot more strict though. Here, Uncle Cecil will straighten things out. Jsonitsac (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)