RationalWiki:Saloon bar

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Saloon bar
WIGO Bar colour.png

This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
Invision-Board-France-355.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Guinnesssmiley.gif

What is going on?

The Bar
(talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

  1. Articles at end of pages (18:44, 22 Apr 2014)
  2. Book Club (14:59, 22 Apr 2014)
  3. Eckhart Tolle article? (20:12, 18 Apr 2014)
  4. International Society for Krishna Consciousness - page suggestions (from an ex-HK) (19:51, 18 Apr 2014)
  5. Help needed with defenses of Biblical Genocide (17:34, 18 Apr 2014)
  6. Overpopulation (09:41, 18 Apr 2014)
To do list


[edit] Kent Hovind Sues Us

This topic may now be found here. (moved 12:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC))

I find this funny. The man won't even pay his taxes. --GastonRabbit (talk) 02:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Here's a little discussion seed for y'all...

In light of the little debacle in Nevada involving militia, I've been fantasizing about how I would handle the situation, and expanded into this scenario: Through a series of skillful political machinations, your are now Dictator for Life of the United States. The military is unswervingly and eternally loyal to you, and Congress rubberstamps all your acts before standing for a rousing rendition of the national anthem. Same thing goes with SCOTUS. What policies will you enact/actions will you take, and why? What do you hope to see for America by the end of your regime? Captain Wolff (talk) 15:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I would make beer gardens mandatory for each community, although attendance would not be compulsory. And since this is a fantasy, everyone would be super friendly and get along. Leuders (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Single-payer healthcare, confiscatory inheritance tax on any inheritance over $5mm, Massive increase in the gas tax. Hipocrite 15:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Abolish all excise taxes on items for human consumption. Kneecap copyrights and patents. Ban on interstate banks. Legalize psychoactive drugs generally, and widely expand the range of over the counter drugs available. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
While I know where you are coming from, as a writer and inventor I object to your kneecapping my rights to my contributions to humanity. That said, I hate the "Disney Laws". ħumanUser talk:Human 03:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Although copyright may be essential for the profit of some, it amounts to a violation of the public's property rights, which is not acceptable. -- (talk) 20:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Say "April Fools!" and restore democracy. Osaka Sun (talk) 16:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Voter ID restrictions reduced to a an absolute minimum (something like a sworn affirmation or perhaps a single piece of mail); campaign donation limits of $50/year/candidate, and only from individual human beings; radical reduction in defence spending including a reduction of the nuclear arsenal by 95% with a promise to negotiate full disarmament with other nuclear powers; abolition of all right-to-work laws; constitutional amendment banning gender-based pay discrimination; full marriage rights for all consenting adults regardless of gender or number of people entering into the marriage; repeal of all drug laws/creation of an infrastructure for the regulated sale of recreational drugs/full amnesty for any person incarcerated for non-violent drug-related offenses; wages for adults working as stay-at-home parents/eldercare providers/guaranteed annual income; abolition of the death penalty and solitary confinement. TeenageWasteland (talk) 16:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I will answer your questions in order. 1. I would return the so called "United States" to the proper legal control of the United Kingdom. This ending an insurgency which has been allowed to prosper for far too long. 2. I would do this because it would be the right and moral course of action. 3. I would expect the US to prosper under UK governorship and eventually learn the benefits of parliamentary democracy and a monarchy.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 16:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
All money will be funneled into NASA because 1) space exploration 2) spaceships are cool, and 2 all focus given to science. we will be poor, but we will be advanced. --Mikal | lakiM 16:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I dunno Bob, us Canadians probably wouldn't appreciate you stealing our schtick. --Kels (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
But the questioner did not offer me the opportunity of obtaining Canada's 'shtick". (Whatever it or they might be)--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Just don't mess with our hockey schtick and we're good. --Kels (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Also -- renegotiate all land claims/settlements/treaties with First Nations peoples and implement reparations for slavery in the form of cash grants and community-chosen funding for relevant education/health/jobs training programmes. TeenageWasteland (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Abolish NSA. Hell, abolish the entire intelligence community, maybe except some rumps. Drastically reduce the military, too. As in, only a fragment of the current size. In return, establish true UHC, and expand money spent on education and social help. Oh, and some for the infrastructure, too. But not NASA. Looking to space is a waste. Also, establish a true progressive tax system. Oh, and establish some limitations on any (future :p ) executive. And some actually effective oversight for what the executive does. With public results, at best. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Octo8 (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The US military could run on $500,000 a year. That would be enough to hold off the crazy Canucks and Mehicans. Then defending the Atlantic and Pacific oceans? thousands of miles we could have patrolled my our allies on the cheap. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Fulfill the secret duty of all leaders of The United States. Becoming a patriotic-themed powered armored superhero.--Madman (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)The Madman
Space is a waste? LOL! Ajkgordon (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Who needs satellites? All they do is beep and waste taxpayer money! Frederick♠♣♥♦ 07:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, satellites have a use of course. They're economically usable. But expeditions to the Moon or Mars, or the ISS? Eh. I don't see any great use there. Octo8 (talk) 07:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Humans explore. It's what we do. It's how we find out new things. We won't know how useful they are (economically, artistically, medically, scientifically, culturally, socially, etc) if we don't find them. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
"It's what we do" is not a great argument. It especially shouldn't be here; this community should know about the is-ought problem. And while we can't be sure, we can make pretty good estimations on how worthless Mars is, for example. Octo8 (talk) 11:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not an argument. It's an evolved behaviour in humans that has made us successful. Curiosity has given us our technology and our civilisation, good and bad. By figuring out how the universe works, our species has progressed to where we are now. If you want our species to continue to progress, then you need to let us continue to figure things out. Studying Mars, for example, might help us understand all sorts of things about our own planet. It might be better to study Mars directly with human eyes and hands. Ask a geologist. The moon and Mars are the easiest places to get to. If we don't go there we will never go anywhere else. Sure, there's still lots to discover here on this planet. And we can discover things about the wider universe through telescopes and other instruments right here on earth. But space exploration is an incremental process. You can't just say, oh let's leave it for a couple of hundred years until we're smarter. Technology and engineering doesn't work like that. It needs to progress through step-by-step action. And boring a hole in space in low earth orbit teaches us about long duration space flight. Apollo taught us how to build launch systems, celestial navigation systems, huge engineering project management, public support for big science and so on. It's also inspirational - a useful social pressure. And it doesn't have to be that expensive. Certainly not compared to a lot of other crap we spend our money on. And if as a dictator you cut out space, then you'll lose the race. You might not worry about that - maybe it's China's turn to lead. But at the moment they are an unaccountable totalitarian regime which represents an ideology more than a people. I'd say space is as important as any other human exploration. Kirk out. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
You did use it as an argument, though. Your argument was "We have always done so, so we must continue doing so". This not valid, though; in this "x hence y" there is no real causal connection between x and y. Now, there might be some scientific data to be won on Mars, for sure. But will it be worth the cost? Also, I disagree that space exploration is incremental. What can happen is that if you don't do it for a time, you lose practical hands-on experience in how to do things associated with it. But technology, that's another matter. Like all fields of application it doesn't really drive technology forward; it depends on the level of technology already existing around it. Also, a useful social pressure? What for? To waste money? So give all that, I don't see any "race" happening. Let the Chinese land first on Mars, if they want. What would it gain them? A bit of prestige. Who cares about that? The only thing I agree with is that in comparison to certain other fields (like the military) we don't spend so much on space anyway. So I suppose space exploration could get some minor crumbs from the table... but nothing more. Octo8 (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Mars is actually of great scientific value. We're looking at a planet that probably once existed within the habitable zone of our star, and could quite possibly have contained all of the building blocks required to support life. Even farther out bodies like Europa could provide us with new information on how life can form. Sure, Europa is very far from the Sun and could never have existed within its habitable zone, but Jupiter's tidal forces heat the moon to a great degree, producing plate tectonics and keeping the vast oceans covering Europa's surface mostly liquid. Here on Earth, we're disadvantaged. The core of this planet is a giant ball of molten metal and rock surrounding a solid metallic core. We can't actually examine the core in any great degree, as the structure of the inner and outer core makes it very difficult to study (specifically the fact that the structure from inside to outside roughly goes "solid -> liquid -> solid"). In a "dead" planet like Mars (entirely solid; no more internal heat generation) with a relatively similar size, structure, and likely history to Earth, this is not the case. Space exploration is indeed incredibly valuable from a scientific perspective, and suggesting that we stop exploring space is akin to suggesting we hobble science just because it's too expensive. - Grant (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually Octo8, I didn't use it as an argument. I was showing that exploration is a corollary of our curiosity and is innate in us as a species. It's what drives us forward. It's not an argument in itself but it's an explanation for how we've arrived where we are and shows just how much we can achieve by exploring, much of the time with surprising unintended discoveries. There are too many huge unintended discoveries that have come about through simple exploration to list here. If you don't want that and see our future as a sort of hi-tech pastoralism then fine. Luckily though you won't be El Presidente! Ajkgordon (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, I certainly wouldn't want to hobble technological progress at least, and for that science is required. But since we only have a finite amount of resources, we need to prioritize. Discoveries in biology, for example, can help with medicine, cure diseases, make us live longer. Discoveries in physics and chemistry can also help us. But how exactly would knowing all that stuff about Mars and Europa help us? Is there any practical use in it? I certainly don't want 'high tech pastoralism'. I do think there are very interesting times ahead. But all the interesting stuff will, of course, happen here on Earth. It will involve such things as biotech, AI development and so on. Space... will not play a great role in that. And no, I won't become El Presidente, sadly, but then, space exploration is only getting crumbs from the table as is ;) Octo8 (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
"...but then, space exploration is only getting crumbs from the table as is This is true! Ajkgordon (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Insights into how life might have begun on this planet could lead to significant progress in biotechnology. Going further, learning how life could develop on bodies that aren't so similar to Earth (such as Europa) could offer even more. As per your point about physics, since this is my area of expertise, I can tell you now that space offers far more of interest than you think. No matter how much you ramp up the LHC, it will still pale in comparison to the energy released by a supernova. Obviously for particle physics, being able to study higher and higher energy collisions is incredibly important. Even now, random cosmic rays are still capable of causing higher energy collisions than the LHC can (though obviously not in a controlled or easily observable manner). The idea that "all the interesting stuff will ... happen here on Earth" is so far from incorrect that it's hardly worth commenting on. - Grant (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I find it difficult to justify massive spending on a space program when there are so many problem- poverty, starvation, homelessness, etc. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
A fraction of the world's money could be diverted to social programs to eliminate those problems, and there would still be plenty of money to divert to scientific research, including a space program. These are systemic issues you're referring to, and if we had to choose which programs to cannibalize first to fund solutions to these problems, I would not be taking money from scientific endeavours. - Grant (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
To put this into perspective, if we ignore economic considerations and only consider the cost to buy bulk food, the U.S. military budget would pay to feed almost half of the people currently considered under-nourished by very conservative estimates. - Grant (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@Octo8: What I mean by hi-tech pastoralism is about looking after what we've already got, a shepherding of finite resources. This is what would happen ultimately if you turn your back on space (i.e. the rest of the universe).
@AMG: "I find it difficult to justify massive spending on a space program when there are so many problem- poverty, starvation, homelessness, etc." Does this apply to any discretionary spending that isn't directed at alleviating these things? How about the arts or sport? New roads or railways? How about anything above the bare minimum just to keep the state and its essential infrastructure functioning? Space exploration, even at its height, is a small percentage of public spending. In today's money, the whole Apollo programme cost the US $200 billion. That sounds a lot. But it's much less than what it cost the UK to bail out its banks. Or only a fifth of the cost to the US of the war in Iraq. Or about the same as Americans spend on alcohol every year.
Watch Brian Cox waxing lyrical about this and other things at a TED speech. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, being that I live in Australia, I'd do a few things. Serious stuff first! Firstly, I'd get rid of Australia's "stop the boats" thing, because it's a disgusting violation of human rights. Then, I'd let let the gays get married- do I need to explain why? After that, I'd make prostitution legal, because why the fuck not? Once that was done, I'd make everything (food, water, university, housing) free, and stop the usage of money (except for usage in foreign affairs, imports, et cetera) in a sort of pseudo-communism, because I suck at money, and can't be bothered to actually economy. I'd make sure that everybody had some form of for job for them to do, whether it was cleaning, or hardcore science shit. I'd make it so we only had a very small military force, which would only get involved in the most serious of conflicts. Oh, and I'd have a huge-arse science programme, in which I'd encourage research for EVERYTHING, from space, to microtechnonanonuclearsuperalienbotthingies, to cancer, to renewable power. In other words, I'd essentially create a peaceful egalitarian utopia that would prolly never work IRL. THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER And joyously screams out its pain Dolan.png 08:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Soo ... your first step as effective dictator of the USA would be to invade Australia?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
No, I live in Australia, so I can't see why I'd be dictator of the US, considering that I don't really give that much of a fuck what the US does for the time being. THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER And joyously screams out its pain Dolan.png 23:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I understand you live in Australia. However the question was what would you do if you became dictator of the United States. It was not - what would you if you became dictator of wherever you live. In terms of the qustion asked you would first need to take over Australia in order carry out the changes you wish. But I understand it's all in fun. :-) --Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Constitutional amendments to:
    1. make the house a proportional party elections(and federally run primaries to sort candidate rankings within a party), keep the senate FPTP to help battle conflicts of interest
    2. grant the president the right to replace one supreme court justice of their choice when they are elected(per term, and with senate approval), now fixed at 9 justices
    3. public financing of all federal elections
    4. require SVN/wiki style versining on all bills prior to passage, with the language being inserted being directly tied to the representative entering it
  • then immediately resign, hopefully allowing a bit more of a fluid, modern democracy to emerge, not expecting it to be perfect, but better. Ikanreed (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Ban fedoras, possession punishable by MILLION! YEARS! DUNGEON! lifetime prison. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 20:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Same, but with SnapBacks, wearing pants down to your knees, and anything that says "YOLO" on it. THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER And joyously screams out its pain Dolan.png 23:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I will point out that a well-tailored suit is still quite well complemented by a properly fitting (and matching) fedora. You should be more selective with your fedora-banning. - Grant (talk) 03:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
No. Better stick with a porkpie for the foreseeable future. Fedoras are tainted. EVDebs (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Porkpies are out of style for the most part. While I don't wear hats myself, it's still quite common to see a fedora matched with a suit. That said, note that it's never considered appropriate to wear a fedora without its matching suit. - Grant (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
the horrors of the clothes of someone else's tribe. Truely they are worse than Hitler. Also, you all sound like my dad. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

J0nnyL (talk)

If your Aunty had balls...

[edit] How do we solve a problem like Kevin?

Kevin Martin's back, legal threats, egomania and all, on his talk page. What do we do? EVDebs (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

We make sure things are cited or factually provable. Make sure that he can't A. prove it is false or B. Prove actual malice. Also, I am breeding combat goats. P3A58NT86 01:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
EVDebs; I think the best course of action would be to tell him to Die In A Fire, call him dumb, call him an "unhinged thug" and then threaten him with some vague "extortion" charge. I'm pretty sure that if we do that, he'll be prepared to settle down and discuss things like a grown-up. TeenageWasteland (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Send him off to Von Trapp's, of course.--Madman (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)The Madman
TW, go look up his track record. He is incapable of acting or unwilling to act like a grownup. If someone could talk some sense into him, it'd have been done before any of us had ever heard of him, before he managed to set pretty much everyone who's ever discussed weather on the Internet against him. But yes, I stand by "unhinged thug", because that describes his pattern of behavior, and extortion, because I'm pretty sure that's what he's trying to do. EVDebs (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Kevin is at least slightly bonkers, and obsessed over our page on him. If it is him. He did post a crappy jpg on his site to sort of try to prove he is who he is. Let's invite him in, ask him to do his proving, then we can construct a dialogue, perhaps? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Has anybody considered acting just as childish against him? Next time Kevin goes on a little butthurt-rant, responding in kind may throw him off. We gonna sue you Mr. Martin! The Internet Tough Guys of RW will not stand for this vile slander and libel and we have connections in the government to prove it! We'll take you all the way to SCOTUS and ruin you for ever and ever and ever and ever!!! Captain Wolff (talk) 05:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
If anybody think we're ever going to have a reasonable dialogue they should listen to this. (It's linked from the article page but I only listened to it when I was taking copies of the youtube vids we link to.)--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 08:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Fuck… THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER And joyously screams out its pain Dolan.png 08:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Official RW policy says that he should be banned from editing, since he is making legal threats. Moreover, he clearly is only here to troll and is not interested in anybody trying to be reasonable. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I think that sourcing and citing all the claims meticulously is worthwhile doing, but we must realise that this is only half the battle. The guy is relying on the threat of suing us, not the threat of him winning against us. Frankly we are between a rock and a hard place. We cannot concede to this fellow or we will end up conceding to everyone, but we also don;t want to antagonise him into suing. There are no good options for us. DamoHi 09:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Good options for us are checking the article for quality, accuracy & sourcing (some of us have already done this but the more the better) and trying to establish what aspects of the article are being disputed (what we're trying to do on the talk page). This is why I don't think banning people the moment they intimate legal action is a great idea, as it cuts off any opportunity to resolve a dispute through normal discussion & editing. In Martin's case, he isn't doing a very good job of intimidating editors with threats or of being clear about what statements in the article (if any) are false. He has listed a bunch of sections he wants removed (most of them, in fact) asserting that they're damaging to his reputation but not that they are untrue as such, so there is no need to concede to his demands. I don't see this as any sort of crisis. Keep calm & carry on. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
He now says Time for talk is over and says he'll sue for cyberstalking unless the entire page is deleted. Spud (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
That's what he's been saying for the last four days. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I really don't think there's anything we can do to stop him now. He's not gonna listen to reason, so all we have to do is wait for him to try to sue us. Or not. THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER And joyously screams out its pain Dolan.png 13:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
can we ban him yet? It isn't like there's anything that's coming from not doing so at this point. --Mikal | lakiM
Is he actually a problem? Hasn't he threatened to sue loads of people? I was under the impression that it was just publicity to drive people to his website for ad revenue. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Re normal discussion and editing, he says no more talking I'm suing, it's all or nothing. But then, he comes back with a list of nutty demands, like he wants us to add a para comparing him to Albert Einstein, or say that his weather talent comes from God. He thinks registering his website name as a trademark prevents people from referring to it in public. The man is not in touch with reality. Leuders (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Silver Bullet: Ignore him. Zero (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Good ol' pseudolaw. Pseudolaw is so great, it's just like the essence of magical thinking, with all the stops for reality just pulled out. Ikanreed (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
How about some of you stop running your mouths and follow the good advice of people with better judgment and initiative than you to simply make sure the article provides good citations for claims made. Fin. Stop pontificating about the RMF getting sued. You're not lawyers, you don't know the law, and you suck at it. Nutty Rouxnever mind 16:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Nope, but we are know-it-alls, isn't that just as good? Ikanreed (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I said it over on the talk page, but I'll say it again here. Tell you what - if RW gets sued by this blithering monkeybutt, I will foot the bill and provide the attorney. No sweat. You have my guarantee on that. I have one lined up already just in case. --Castaigne (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Kevin said "Since any article such is not on my server, that will be tough to prove in court." You don't say!. --Daniiieeeel (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] I probably shouldn't be even bringing this up

While it's probably best to let sleeping dogs lie, aren't we WAY overdue for a moderator election? Is the moderator system still active even? It seems we haven't really needed them of late, which is A Good Thing, but we do still have them, right? DickTurpis (talk) 13:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Good thinking. (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
See here. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
So… after reading that, I'm still confused… are we having them or not? THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER And joyously screams out its pain Dolan.png 23:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Haha *meow* *flappity flap* When youz wasnt lookin the Bat and I (Cat of the endtimes) haz taken your wiki. All your base belong to Us ! We have graciously ceded day to day power to the mods. ALL HAIL NUTTY !!! That is all , resume yur debatin. Terror Trinka (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Daaaaamnm Trinka, you still around? I thought you left when Maratrean/Zack Martin decided to stop peddling his wannabe cult crazy ass ramblings stupid diatribes disguised as essays religion.- --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 22:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
If elected moderator, I promise to moderate exactly jack and shit. Nutty Rouxnever mind 22:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I trust that promise. Perhaps you're just trying to lull the wiki into a false sense of security so you can, in fact, moderate everything. - Grant (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
MOOOOOOOM!! Nutty stole my platform! --Kels (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I think i've only ever used my mod status to give myself ninja rights, so i'd say i've had a successful career.--Mikal | lakiM 03:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Logically if elections are due we should have them. Either that or abolish the institution. Doing neither of these means that we simply have confusion.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
We have that either way. and hey, we were elected, sure it was for a term a year ago but i can predict any further election would amount to "i will not really moderate if elected moderator." so why bother. As for removing them... i like titles :c --Mikal | lakiM 20:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
It's been a long time since any moderator intervention (in any meaningful sense) was needed. Some of the abilities that are assigned to moderators may be needed occasionally. Personally, I've no issue with the people who've already got those abilities keeping them, nor with other people who've got a good track record of being mostly harmless gaining those abilities. I've never supported them being consigned to such a small fixed number of people, & the election ritual always seems like a fatuous indulgent waste of time. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 02:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
That has the effect of leaving the existing moderators as "Moderators for life". I just think that's a bad principle.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 13:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
If we follow weaseloids idea of officially just making moderator the new version of Bureaucrat, then chances are some of the people with that title atm would be made them anyways, and those people get life terms too, barring abuse, so why feel bad that us existing 7 get life but then be fine with any new people also get life? I think it's been long enough since the days of may 2011 tjhat we can trust more people with power. --Mikal | lakiM 15:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm only interested in clarity. If the will of the majority is that the existing moderators be ensconced for life that's fine by me. My objection to the "do nothing" proposal is that, if any problems arise, then anybody being censored by somebody claiming to be a mod could simply claim the mod had no authority.
I don't honestly think life mods are the best solution but if it's what the majority want then I'm cool with it. I would suggest that such a change should be at least put to a vote though.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
It's harder to change these poorly drafted rules than it is to have an election. Nutty Rouxnever mind 19:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I just don't see the point in any more elections if it's just "vote for me i wont use my mod powers!" x 9. And i'd like to beleive we have gone on enough as a community we could avoid why we restricted these powers to 7 people in the first place :P If we did change and people didn't like me staying with those powers, ok, ill remove them and be given them later if people feel it's ok. --Mikal | lakiM 20:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
But I want to be a moderator! RW's "community" is toxic to new qualified editors interested in actually advancing RW's mission. I don't see what that has to do with moderators. In the interim, yes, please do go ahead and remove your moderator rights. Nutty Rouxnever mind 13:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Cliven Bundy (what a great name!)

Should we have an article on him?

[1] And I think our favorite lesbian commentator had a go at him, too. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

If we have articles on other "anti-government whack job"s, then we can have an article on him. It depends on how significant he is though, since I've never heard about this dude until now... but again, I don't know a lot of people in the first place. ^^' What kind of significant "deeds" has he accomplished to warrant an article? What makes him different from the literally thousands of other whackjobs in this country? LEFTYGREENMARIO 04:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
At the moment I don't think that this warrants something more than a footnote or a bullet point example somewhere. This may change if the situation degenerates into violence.
And any such article should be about the dust-up, not about the person. At the very least because they are not the only wacko involved.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
That's why I asked, instead of banging up some crappy stub. Keep an eye on him, he's probably going to do something really stupid soon. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler and evolution

PZ tries to melt the RW server again, by recommending Hitler and evolution. Anyone want to review and polish it a bit? - David Gerard (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

We should probably have an article on Salon. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 21:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC) (link brackets added by human 22 April)
Well, at least he's giving us free publicity. --GastonRabbit (talk) 03:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Upgrade complete, error fixing

Okay the main thrust of the upgrades are complete though there is some clean up that needs doing so there might be some erratic behavior off and on today. But hopefully not.

In addition to the upgrade I have attempted to address three major issues that have been lingering for a while.

  1. The permission error as stated above
  2. The subst signature issue
  3. Gadgets not working properly

Hopefully these issues have been resolved, but if not please post to the technical support page with any information you can provide. tmtoulouse 16:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you--"Shut up, Brx." 17:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
So that thing i've been noticing about my sig wasn't just on my end? Wooo--Mikal | lakiM 17:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I've been finding that the Watchlist page locks up Safari on iOS. I'm not sure what information I can give you other than that though. EVDebs (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Nutty saw this on aSK as well. Sounds like something MediaWiki of a certain vintage is doing, hence would be a bug for Apple - David Gerard (talk) 07:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
"Recent changes" on my iPad haven't worked for about a month and my watchlist (even on my Win7 PC) has been broken since January, despite having completely cleared it all I get returned is a completely blank screen. At least my subst sig is working again. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. Moderator 08:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Watchlist is individual (and we have no idea what the bug is, but I suspect Liquid Threads which I would happily throw away if we didn't have piles of discussion stuck in it). How is recent changes on other tiny wikis not running the very latest, e.g. aSK or Conservapedia? - David Gerard (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
It looks all right on Teflpedia. SophieWilderModerator 12:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Genghis Khant

Can you try your watchlist again and let me know if it works? tmtoulouse 14:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd love to have mine back.... Oh well. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Is yours not working again? I had fixed your a few months ago and you never mentioned it was broken again. tmtoulouse 13:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, it "works", but we lost 6 years of work. That's what I meant. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Behold, the ever changing tides in the rivers of Schizophrenia.

This interesting woman has a little conspiracy about Egyptian religon, Left-hand path The Temple of Set who secretly worship a Egyptian who is a shapeshifter named SETI(Yes, she does factor that in) who is also Apep, The Atenist heresy, a war in the 18th Dynasty and you know, this is too stupid to describe. This makes David Icke's escapades look sane, though I am unaware of his mental health status.--Madman (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)The Madman

That's actually a link to someone selling Hobbit stuff. TeenageWasteland (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Merchandise for a Smaug/Bilbo shipfic, at that. Oops, I'll edit the link to normal. At further examination, it's worst than I thought.
I was trying to be discreet. I guess you have "no idea" how that link got there. Must be "a virus" or something. TeenageWasteland (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
It was a accident. For example batshittery:
Today I discovered Amen Ra/Maitreya being torn apart by his throat in segments by Quantum Computer technology. Is this Sandia labs/NSA signal or the Earl of Sandwhiches group>
I fought for 4 hours straight trying to save his life. I was joined by one of his relativees.
My current health is this: There used to be a few labs that watched my deteriorating health or goverment/military special ops who would come into this program to try to rescue people. I don’t know where some of these people are, as of two weeks ago someone from the CIA said one group who was trying to take care of me was put in a simulated reality.
I have found genuine crazy, my fellow RWians. And this is the SFW segments.--Madman (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)The Madman
Still more sane than Witchwind. Well, only marginally so.--Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 20:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
That appears to be the blog of Diana Napolis, infamous promoter of Satanic ritual abuse and stalker of Elizabeth Loftus. There is an entire blog dedicated to her lunacy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Okay, pseudoskeptics

A new user on the FB group showed up with some stuff "debunking black-holes". However, he's also touting on his personal page an Austrian guy named Viktor Schauberger - the "water wizard" who I had not heard of and on whom we do not have an article. Anybody know anything or is he just too obscure? Redchuck.gif Генгисevolving Moderator 03:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Just looks like garden variety free energy/holism/Wunderwaffe crap. Doesn't seem very notable. Frederick♠♣♥♦ 07:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I like how notability is still an unwritten rule around here... Nullahnung (talk) 09:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)(was being off-topic) Nullahnung (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Learning about black holes reduces bible-reading time, therefore they don't exist. Aschlafly 14:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
But bible-reading time reduces church-attending time! Therefore, the bible doesn't exist. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 16:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
But Church-attending time cuts down on goat-milking time! Therefore churches don't exist. SophieWilderModerator 12:48, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Global Views on Morality

Well, this is fun to play with. Find out how attitudes to things like premarital sex, drinking and abortion differ around the world. Seems Spain is the most liberal place for gays for example.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 15:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

It's cool to see "not a moral issue" as a possible choice, as, with perhaps the question of extramarital affairs, I don't see any of those issues as really having a moral dimension. TeenageWasteland (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Interesting stuff. It's nice to see that so many of the traditional Catholic countries of Europe & South America don't really care much about the Church's POV on contraceptives. A shame about the countries in Africa that really need contraceptives/prophylactics and still disapprove of them so strongly. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I do find it somewhat interesting that only three countries seem to lie above the 50% mark on that though. I would have expected there to be more. Of course, I also realize that even without a strict majority, there's little to no chance that these countries will change their policies on this, but it's interesting nonetheless. - Grant (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The percentages for "ok with cheating" worry me.--Mikal | lakiM 18:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I was surprised by the idea that significant percentages of people in some counties thought that cheating on your spouse is not a moral issue.
And what's this about Pakistan not liking birth control? I thought that was a catholic thing? Is there a Muslim prohibition too?--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much, yeah. The Islamic view is much like the traditional Catholic view: sex is something that must only take place within marriage & for the purposes of creating children. Also, Pakistan disapproves heavily of everything on this list and actually disapproves of contraception significantly less (at 65%) than most of the other things. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I think that must depend on the country. Indonesia (about 90% Islam) seems to have no problems with birth control, though it objects to everything else. So I think there must be something additional which puts Pakistan at the top of the list.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 06:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Local cultural stuff gets bundled into the religion, people from that region will swear up and down that local practice X is religiously justified and necessary. Horrible, deeply unethical practices are welcomed as new aspects of the religion (but uh, just don't tell people from far away because they'll freak out) as part of the deal to "convert" people from whatever religion they had previously to whichever major evangelical religion reached them first. For lay people there is no distinction between actual tenets of a religion (e.g. Jesus dying and rising again) and stuff they remember seeing in a kids book once (e.g. Talking donkey at the birth of Jesus). Why would they distinguish between veil wearing (local custom) and pilgrimage to Mecca (core tenet of Islam) ? Tialaramex (talk) 09:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I find it vaguely amusing that France is the only country on the list without a majority against extramarital affairs. Compro01 (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Just following the example set by numerous French leaders I suppose.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 06:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] I Was Told Today That I Should Take the Red Pill: "True" Histories

So I asked a (infamous) website to convince me of the "anti-zionist" movement, and I was presented with an entire pastebin, and a video!

First, the pastebin: let me introduce the Holy Grail of anti-zionist theories:


I was astounded at this pastebin because it goes ON AND ON AND ON...and I'm thinking, should I even bother going through any of this to fact check? It might kill a few hours of an afternoon. Also I love the bit in here where it says "As much tinfoil has been removed as possible..."

And then here's the video, (but the pastebin was the best part in my opinion):

1932, A "True" History of the United States

Again with the length. But I guess it's that redpill truth that needs a lot of groundwork to get going?

So I start watching it, and some of the experts that are shown are of a similar background. For example, at 7:07 there's a guy named Nick Walsh who is a part of the LaRouche PAC, aka Lyndon LaRouche. Surprised? Neither was I. -- (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
So... ShopPING is when you buy stuff, whereas ShopPANG is a a composer. Right? -- (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

You can't assert that Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing without ending up in bed with a bunch of crazy racists. But that doesn't mean the country isn't engaged in ethnic cleansing. Ikanreed (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a nice article on the subject. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 15:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay? I'm not familiar with everything in that article, but most of it, and I... don't know what you're trying to say? Ikanreed (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Should you find yourself in need of a source of such topics without all the crazy antisemitism in tow. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 20:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Am about to read the article he posted but I assume he's agreeing with your statement about being in bed with crazy racists with that article.-- (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Meanwhile, in Birther Land.......

Supreme Court Judges Say Obama Birth Certificate A Fake. And by "Supreme Court judges," we really mean 2 out of 9 Alabama supreme court judges. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, they could ban Obama from entering Alabama... and nothing of value would be lost. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 14:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Snow job

A conspiracy theory leftover from this winter that I just found: The gummint is geo-engineering fake snow! Right up there with chemtrails -- both of which HAARP is responsible for, no doubt. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, we got a saloon bar discussion of that when it was proposed, I'm pretty sure. Every time anyone mentions weather control, I'm always mystified as to what they think anyone gets out of the Sahara continuing to exist. Ikanreed (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Probably along the lines of "Something something environmentalists/conservationists". Compro01 (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Snow! Zero (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The Sahara is where all the heat gets put when they steal it from the USA. Whis going to notice the desert being a bit hotter? Hamster (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] It's Happening Again

There can be enough terrible movies, and I can't wait for this one. One day I'm going to grab a 30-rack and just sit down and marathon them. Shadow of Lords talk 21:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Do private schools just not exist?--Mikal | lakiM 21:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Make it really cheap, no-brand beer. They don't deserve much better. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 22:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Or make it something real strong. You might need the alcohol. Compro01 (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
You can have both. Just try some Olde English (warning: might turn you into a redneck). --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 00:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
That movie's supposed to be a comedy, right? It's been a while since I took a biology class but I don't recall there being any rubber chickens. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 00:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Not only is there a chicken, but he's choking it. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 00:52, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools