# RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive15

This is an archive page, last updated 27 November 2009. Please do not make edits to this page.

##  Kenny Jr

If this kid ain't on CP yet, he will be soon...But please don't call him a you-know-what.--WJThomas 15:11, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

Poor kid. Religious brainwashing is a terrible thing. Lynad ...Hello? 17:02, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
What the fuck? - User $\scriptstyle-i\ln(-1)$ 20:12, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
If you take the fact that he looks very worried and his voice shakes so much, you can just imagine his pastor or parents pointing their Mosty Defence You-Know-Whats at him and holding up cue cards. Sick bastards. ArmondikoVpostate 08:29, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
His parents and pastor aren't the only people forcing him make videos for them. - User $\scriptstyle-i\ln(-1)$ 08:56, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
Look who I found on my favourite clogo site. - User $\scriptstyle-i\ln(-1)$ 09:10, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
Okay, that is just freaky... and wrong. And at least he could position his camera better so we could see more of him and less of the ceiling. ArmondikoVpostate 09:12, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
I'm afraid I didn't know whether to laugh or cry over that first video link. Also his Severed Friendship was just heart-wrenching. I genuinely feel sorry the kid. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 09:16, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
There's something on Conservapedia's news too, naturally grouping together liberals and atheists. IMO, the kid bit off way more than he could chew, and of course 95% of youtube comments are so mind-numbingly retarded they make Ken seem like an intellectual. ENorman 11:01, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
Yeah, the comments he recieves... The amount of abuse is simply pathetic. It's sad that some people's (indeed, by the looks of this, many people's) first reaction to something they disagree with is this. Aye... poor kid. Lynad ...Agh! Don't hurt me! 11:07, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
"I used to be gay" he says...either his parents beat it out of him, poor kid, or he just likes to think he was. Most of the comments are way out of line - IMO, he's just a stupid kid with a little too much God, and he's just doing what a stupid kid with a little too much God does best. EddyP 11:20, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
Having listened to some of the other videos the kid seems somewhat retarded and definitely needs help of some kind (the song, the religious video), but I don't think that justfies the thousands of 'homo, kill urself' comments. EddyP 11:25, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
It's YouTube, I don't think the average comment on that site even registers on any measure of intelligence. Even my completely politically and religiously neutral videos have took a hammering with the amount on inanity the comments section has generated... ArmondikoVpostate 12:01, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
Which is why greasemonkey, the ultimate firefox extension created by Jesus himself exists. You can block out t3h st00pid with the right script. ENorman 12:07, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
Also, the poor kid already has his own Encyclopedia Dramatica article featured on the front page. ENorman 12:12, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
It think xkcd has already summarised YouTube perfectly. - User $\scriptstyle-i\ln(-1)$ 23:41, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
Again, xkcd speaks the truth. And Rock Paper Cynic also sums it up nicely. ArmondikoVpostate 04:23, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

##  International Piracy

With all the attention that the piracy in Somalia is receiving, there's been a lot of talk of an international naval anti-piracy force. Am I the only one that hopes that if it happens, they shoot Greenpeace and Sea Shepard out of the water? just wondering. SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 02:44, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

Why? Totnesmartin 05:59, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
For the same reason that the animal rights activists that attack the families of vivisectionists, or the ones who dug up and desecrated a grave before holding the remains hostage, should be prosecuted under the terrorism laws because that's what it is, terrorism. Similarly, Sea Shepherd (not so much Greenpeace anymore, reall) attack ships and do some pretty dangerous stuff. I really couldn't see the difference between an environmental extremist ramming a ship and a pirate hi-jacking a ship; both very actively and intentionally endanger the lives of the crew on board. Some people might excuse them based on motive but I think that would be total bullshit reasoning. The outcome is the same; you do something like that and it's criminal no matter how you look at it. ArmondikoVpostate 08:40, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
Greenpeace's problem is their mission is to promote the image of Greenpeace and collect donations. Have they actually done anything substantial the last 20 years besides jump in and claim credit for the accomplishments of other, more serious and science-based environmentalists who were working behind the scenes? They can also be like PETA at times, although not nearly as embarassing. As for Sea Shepherd...Paul Watson is whack. I saw him speak once and he was talking about how a whale telepathically communicated with him that his life's mission was to defend the oceans. He also positively alienates a lot of idealistic kids who volunteer on his ships only to find him parading around in his uniform playing autocratic 19th century ships captain. Neither of them qualify as piracy, but still... Secret Squirrel 08:56, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
Not piracy, but if they're going to be criminal on the "high seas" then any task force out there to protect ships should have them in their sights too. Of course, they don't operate around Somalia so it's unlikely anyway. ArmondikoVpostate 09:16, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
The Sea Shepard just chases the Japanese around Australian waters because the Government is to ball-less to deal with illegal whaling in its own sovereignty. - User $\scriptstyle-i\ln(-1)$ 09:26, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
QFT PI, and Japan can't do anything about it cause Austrialia says any incidents occurring in their water would result in the expulsion of Japanese ships. I just can't understand how somone is willing to overlook such obvious criminal behavior because they think "oh they're the good guys." SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 15:10, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
Precisely, this is what the people who were "against" me last time this discussion came up were on about. It was "oh, they have a good motive, so the potential for them killing a lot of people and damaging property should be ignored, if you think they're criminal, then people who resisted the Nazi's were also criminal." So, apart from the Godwin, they may have a bit of a point. But there is quite clearly a difference because you can stop whaling through peaceful political means rather than force, which is what has curbed it to the considerably low degree it's at now. ArmondikoVpostate 04:26, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

##  Wanted pages - Write the article, or delete the link.

I'm thinking we might want to address this statement that is on the top of recent changes/watchlists. It seems like an order to (new) users to (maybe write) or delete the link. User:Mega went nutso on this, and we can't really complain, since the "box" orders people to do so. ħuman 03:15, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

Most of these redlinks are from copied articles or archived talk pages. As some people don't like editing those then there really isn't much choice but to create a page. I think Mega did a decent job of covering the elements, actually, I think it's just the sheer volume of them that made it look "nutso". ArmondikoVpostate 08:54, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
The elements were fine (I guess, though now they might not get written when "useful". Does mercury have an article of its own?). But some of the deredding led to things that would be on-mission of written being delinked. I'm just thinking the wording is a bit off - how about adding "...delete the link, if it's off-mission." Or something like that? Creating the third possibility of "leave it red" if it would be on-mission? ħuman 15:58, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
Some of the elements, like Arsenic, have extensive articles. I didn't think they were on-mission, but I left those alone and just redirected tantalum and stuff. And it was strange to redirect them to a template but there you go. Oh well, I got a demotion out of it! Mega 16:04, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
You redirected them to a category, not a template, as I recall. And your "demotion" was business as usual. You didn't break the wiki in two days, you got sysopped. It ain't exactly an "honor". ħuman 23:19, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
It was a proof-of-concept thing. I could never get sysopped for shit as myself, so I tried another ident, came in here, just did some housekeeping, kept my nose clean and snagged the demotion. So now I'm out as me, and RW is still here. And now that all those preliminaries are over let's move on. Mega 23:58, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
But all of your previous incarnations were sysopped also, you idiot. Don't you get it? We sysop pretty much everybody. ħuman 00:25, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
On the contrary, I haven't been able to get sysop since last year. Apparently the other RWians took me seriously when I said: "Under no circumstances will I ask for any powers associated with sysop or bureaucrat in the future, and indeed I did not ask for them recently. I have made enemies through my blundering and I cannot forgive myself for doing that. Teresita 19:49, 28 September 2008 (EDT)" Mega 09:31, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Look. You. Are. A. Sysop. - User $\scriptstyle-i\ln(-1)$ 18:49, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
*pssst* I scarcely make any non-talk edits, and I'm a bureaucrat. Getting noticed is the main thing. Evil cubic Phantom Hoover! 18:44, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Just to say, "how many times is X mentioned on wikipedia" is a really bad way to decide if it should/might be an article here. The germ of whether something might be covered here is, well, the mission statement. ħuman 23:23, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
On the other hand, just having CP delete and lock an article like Vagina is sufficient grounds to be an article here, mission or no. Mega 00:00, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Conservapedia aren't the only wingnuts who like to pretend female genitalia does not exits. - User $\scriptstyle-i\ln(-1)$ 00:15, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
And it's probably a pretty good RW article. Mega/Xena/Teresita, quit with your assholish wikilawyering. And, if I can add a personal comment, please to go fuck yourself and the horse you rode in on. Where did you get kicked out of that we have to deal with you 24/7 again? ħuman 00:29, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
As a Taoist I believe that comments such as yours are their own punishment. You disfigure your own standing with your peers by writing so. Mega 09:25, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
I think you fail to realise how many people agree with Human on this point. - User $\scriptstyle-i\ln(-1)$ 18:40, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Neil Young, with a slight change: "Doesn't mean that much to me, to mean not much to you". Again, a Taoist thing. Mega 20:36, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Does anyone else find the XBox 360 ads showing a woman face on who turns out to have a hollow head filled with various things (living room, stage etc) really offputting? It squirms me! and marmite 05:45, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

Link? - User $\scriptstyle-i\ln(-1)$ 06:00, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
Telly ad. and marmite 06:07, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
Someone will have uploaded it to YouTube. - User $\scriptstyle-i\ln(-1)$ 06:11, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
Probly. I don't UToob (bandwidth) and marmite 06:18, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
Yes. Glad it's not just me. I think it's the "look of amazement" the actors try to put on just before the camera spins around that's freaky. It reminds me of various cliched shots where someone doesn't realise they have a very severe injury before it reveals they're, like, decapitated or lobotomised. ArmondikoVpostate 08:26, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
Link. WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 08:36, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
Not just a woman, there's a whole series of them. And yes, I found them a bit creepy. They rather reminded me of the scene in Hannibal where HL takes the top of the guy's skull and removes a piece of brain to fry up. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 09:21, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
Absolutely terrifying. Aboriginal Noise What the hell is that thing? 12:17, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
I suppose the victim survived and went on to be an administrator on CP. Mega 23:25, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
?- User $\scriptstyle-i\ln(-1)$ 03:22, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

##  God Delusion Index

This must have been done with Andy in mind. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 13:38, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

Gentlemen, behold!

That now I imagine Ken to look and act like Dr.Weird? It's the constant "Gentlemen"-ing I think. ENorman 14:55, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

Prime symptom of liberal deceit. --Input The ResistorOutput 14:58, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
I always imagine him calling out "Gentlemen" in the style of Sideshow Mel from The Simpsons. WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 05:06, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
I always thought of the 4chan meme, but now I'm going to think of Dr. Weird now, too. Photovoltaic Array 11:48, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
An outdated mac model running Windows 7. Nice. ENorman 14:02, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Well you know, Windows 7 is all about performance so that even crappy computers *cough*well, not quite as crappy as Macs*cough* can use it. The real reason it happened is because I have absolutely no idea what MacOS (or whatever it's called) looks like, so attempting to dress up a screenie I took in Windows 7 would be rather difficult. Besides, Ken has god on his side, and with that he can accomplish anything nothing!-RedbackG'day 14:18, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Just like the word "friend", (when used in the second person singular), means nearly the exact opposite of the word's primary meaning, so too does Ken use "gentlemen" to get the intertube's closest equivalent to a sneer one can achieve without using coding (which he wouldn't know how to implement anyway and if he did, would take him 12 attempts. CЯacke® 00:59, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

##  I'm sorry, but I never paid attention in school

Please dear people, I am in need of assistance. Never having studied microbiology, I am not in a good position to argue the specifics of Lenski's E. coli experiment. However, an online christian soldier has been spotted making some rather bizarre assertions on a youtube channel which was showcased in WIGO:CP. I'm not usually one to get involved in youtube discussions, due to the increased risk of godwin, however I feel compelled to reply to this one.
The comments which concern me were posted by TheJarJam. I'm sure many of you will notice his first three words, I've heard that, pretty much discredit anything he has to say... basing an argument on hearsay, tsk tsk. The bottom line is, this guy says on his channel page that his interests are "Destroying Darwinism Exposing the "Liars for Darwin" cult here on YouTube and elsewhere", that sounds like a challenge, will anyone here step up? -RedbackG'day 01:00, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

He's copy-pasting from a blog comment on Uncommon Descent. \$10 says he hasn't even read it and just thought OOO SCIENCEY! GONNA PASTE THIS BOY HOWDY.
It's the usual creationist goalpost shifting - the mutation isn't different enough, not real evolution, depends partly on machinery already a part of the cell, blah blah etc. It misses the point of the work entirely, which is that an adaptation producing novel functionality requiring multiple independent mutations is feasible and indeed expected in decently sized populations over a long enough time period. Viscount 01:15, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
I actually did read Lenski's paper :D I feel pround and somewhat superior. It does look like he's just copy/pasted some blog entry by someone who also knows shit all about the subject matter. Just jump on the first comment (the one that's clearly his) pointing out how Lenski is happy to share his data. In fact, he did. It's IN THE FUCKING PAPER! As for the samples, they only go to qualified individuals for obvious reasons. His copy/paste thing is just shifting goal posts, but then again, according to ASK, speciation, fricking SPECIATION is now "micro" evolution. ArmondikoVpostate 04:38, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Sort of makes you wonder what's left that isn't "micro"evolution. Crocoducks, I suppose. --Kels 06:55, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Thankyou all for the assistance, and for that rather... odd point of view aSK has about speciation. The author of the videos has responded, and seems to have covered pretty much everything I'd've (yes, I'd've is a word, you're allowed to abbreviate more than once) written having read your rather informed posts. I'll be keeping an eye on this one though, this guy apparently finds it fun to run around youtube and spit creationism on everyone. -RedbackG'day 07:22, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

##  Ten Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong

Came across this via FB, and as it's been copied about 10 times before landing here, I have no idea who the original author is. However, I don't think they'd mind it appearing here.

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

--PsyGremlinWhut? 07:50, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

xD nice. Lynad ...Agh! Don't hurt me! 09:27, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Are you sure that's not a cut-and-paste from a serious essay on CP? Mega 09:32, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
That's sure what it reads like. 10 goats and a year's supply of Stilton to anyone who can get it on CP for more tan 5 minutes. and marmite 09:57, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Stilton? you're meant to offer rewards, not utter dire threats. Totnesmartin 10:15, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Heretic! and marmite 10:21, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
I agree with Totnesmartin actually. In fact, I declare here and now that all cheese is evil, and any who opposes me... shall have nothing much happen to them! Be afraid! Lynad ...Agh! Don't hurt me! 11:07, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Cheese is against the will of the lord.... BAN IT!!!!!! SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 11:33, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Real cheese is intrinsically socialist.
Just look at France! You'd never get this shit there. ->>>
Terry Sita 13:24, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
I think the French use Easy cheese as an insectiside. SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 13:56, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
I couldn't help myself, after reading this, I just had to type "bible cheese" into Google. The end result? The bible according to cheese. Nice find with the list, it's like humor derived from using common sense... those two things shouldn't mix. -RedbackG'day 14:26, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
That is what I call deeply unnatural. It terrifies me.Lynad ...Agh! Don't hurt me! 18:04, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

##  Crime against Humanity Goat.

Hey Cubs fan, what the hell is wrong with you?. TheoryOfPractice 11:14, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

##  OK, what the hell happened?

I have been detached from the internet for the past week, so I would like a summary of everything interesting to have happened, preferably tonight. Evil cubic Phantom Hoover! 13:54, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

MC was annoying, I made an essay on otters, Addison got Checkuser powahs, Martin ate a pickled egg. . . not much else. --Input The ResistorOutput 13:56, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Oh yes: Fall down made a sock called Grawp on Wheels on aSK and used it for vandalism. --Input The ResistorOutput 13:57, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Ed poor liveblogged old Star trek episodes, addisonDM got checkuser... and JINX GOT BLOCKED BY TK!!!! MWAHAHAHAAAA!!!!etc for 28 pages Totnesmartin 14:00, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
You haven't missed a thing - we were just killing time til you got here. Oh, and the above. And Andy stripped Jinx of his powahs, even though he's now unblocked. And we spent far to much time coming up with African puns. --PsyGremlinWhut? 14:07, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Also, I got my blog started and have pimped it at just about every oppurtunity. SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 14:13, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
And it's very good too! (Pssst, you know where to send the cheque, just make sure this one doesn't bounce, capiche?) --PsyGremlinWhut? 14:43, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
And π's intercom message was about..? Evil cubic Phantom Hoover! 14:50, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

##  Mission Creep...

...we haz it. We're getting more and more articles that read like straight-up encyclopedia articles. As someone else, pointed out, CUR is guilty of this with his little version of "Wild Kingdom," but we all are somehow. Is there a conversation we want to have about our mission and what sort of articles fit into that mission--and how having, for example, ONE article on how the natural histories of otters and cats can help debunk anti-evolutionary ideas, but how we don't need articles on otters and felidae per se? Or Julius Caesar? Or do we? Discuss. TheoryOfPractice 13:59, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Well, otters and cats are seperate because they're so different. We could theoretically combine them in a carnivore article, but that would be huge and clumsy. I suggest that if an article can do nothing, nothing at all for our mission, we simply delete. We're running low on articles that are perfectly on topic. --Input The ResistorOutput 14:01, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
(EC)You're missing thepoint, CUR - this site isn't the great online animal encyclopedia, we don't need articles on various families. What we need is a great big melting pot, big enough to take the world and all it's got articles about evolutionary traits, with animals used as illustration. ATM you're doing it the wrong way round. It could also be argued that such traits don't need individual articles. I think from now on I'm going to shoot anything that looks like a poor man's wikipedia entry. Totnesmartin 14:07, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
CUR, see my comment on the otter page that addresses this exactly. Or don't and do whatever you please. Whatever. I'd like to hear from other people on the issue and not just make it about you and your agenda. TheoryOfPractice 14:04, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Why not combine them all into Animals with traits indicative of evolution or somesuch? Evil cubic Phantom Hoover! 14:52, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
It would be too goddamn big. --Input The ResistorOutput 14:53, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
No it wouldn't, if you didn't fill it up with meaningless tripe and appallingly bad jokes. If it was kept to necessary background information and the actual evidence for evolution, it would be manageably large. Evil cubic Phantom Hoover! 15:04, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

And your way there will be too goddamn many. TheoryOfPractice 14:58, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

So what? We stick the Felidae and otter article together and call it Aniamls with traits indicative of evolution? Fine. I'll do it. --Input The ResistorOutput 15:06, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
No. We throw them both in the trash and condense the relevant info into a paragraph of that title in the evolution article. TheoryOfPractice 15:08, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
A paragraph is slightly too small, and anyway, I'll let an unnecessary article exist if it means we get the long sought-after compromise with CUR. Evil cubic Phantom Hoover! 15:24, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Otter is working out fairly well, Felidae is just fine as it is. Unless you're TOP, but the wiki already made its decision. --Input The ResistorOutput 15:26, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
I agree with ToP. CUR, move felidae and otter to your user space if you want a copy to play with. ħuman 15:59, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
This is ridiculous. --Input The ResistorOutput 16:05, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
You know what annoys me? The fact that you all write articles on dolphins, long-eared rodents, mice, etc, and the moment I write an article that, unlike those, could actually further our mission, you go apeshit on me. You write articles that have nothing to do with the RW mission, but if I do so, because I write it, it is evil, cruft, and must be deleted. --Input The ResistorOutput 16:10, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Just don't touch danish

Have I made my point or do I have to delete some more? --Input The ResistorOutput 16:16, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Way to throw a tantrum. Z3rotalk 16:17, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
What? You didn't want articles that weren't dead on topic to be removed? Gosh, I must have misread all those comments at Talk:Felidae and Essay talk:Otter. --Input The ResistorOutput 16:19, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
If your point is that you act like a fucking baby for attention, then no, I think you need to go delete some more articles. When you're done you can go put them back. What's your problem? Seriously. What's wrong with you? Are you retarded? Are you homebound? Do you spend time with others anywhere but online? Thee Nuttish Talk 16:20, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
I propose that after CUR is finished restoring his recent deletion spree his sysop powers be removed. I don't think he has good enough judgment or self-control to justify them. When is this behavior going to end, CUR? Thee Nuttish Talk 16:23, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
(EC x4)CUR you take this way too seriously... If you feel that there are non mission pages, point them out... Add the {{mission}} template and we'll figure out exactly what's going on. However, creating something and crying about how "You guys all do it, why can't I?" is not going to pull anyone to your side.... You also have a horrible tendency to throw hissy fits and stomp around when you don't get your way. Everyone has said that the Otter article is very good and well written, for Wikipedia or Animal Kingdom or whatever, but it has nothing to do with our mission and nothing to do with anything we're getting at. But you ignore that. You just get pissed off because we don't accept everything you do sight unseen and all gather round for a celebratory round of "For he's a jolly good CUR." Haven't you figured out that you're fighting an uphill battle? When everybody seems against you, there is usually a reason for it. SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 16:24, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
I second the distinguished gentleman Nutty's proposal and add an amendment that he is not to receive these powers again for a minnimum time period of 3 months. SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 16:27, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
I third. Hissy fits won't help your cause--especially when it demonstrates how completely you've missed the point. Three months seems extreme, though. Maybe more like a week. --YossieSpring in Fialta 16:38, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

A month? TheoryOfPractice 16:40, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

I say three months because he has demonstrated that his hissy fit powers can relapse for several months. If we wait a week, we're gonna through this whole thing again as soon as CUR gets an idea for another great article. SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 16:43, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Although he certainly seems to be pervasive in this particular problem </alliteration>, I don't think ToP was intending this to be about CUR-drama, so could we use this section to get back on topic? --YossieSpring in Fialta 16:44, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Agree, he's arguing his case on his talk page. Totnesmartin 16:48, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
I don't get what the big deal about mission creep is. We've already got lots of articles that aren't dead-center when it comes to mission. I don't see why, as long as it can do something for us, we shouldn't have it. --Input The ResistorOutput 16:50, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Thanks, Yossy--I think I mentioned that I didn't want this to be about CUR, so to recap briefly: mission--articles--unwieldly expansion into encyclopedia territory--how to deal with that? Discuss.And CUR--sit this one out a bit, let other people have a say. TheoryOfPractice 16:51, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
I don't have a problem with articles that are off-mission, like cat, as long as they are off-mission our style, and not trying to be wikipedia. Z3rotalk 16:55, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
ZERO, I think that's dead-on: there are lots of articles that seem to do that in a natural way, and don't stand out like sore thumbs in the process. TheoryOfPractice 16:58, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Agree as well. I am usually pretty guilty about creating or rapidly expanding articles that aren't dead center mission... But as long as they're funny, they have some use and the article doesn't read like a bad WP clone job, I have no issue. SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 17:00, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
*pokes head in* So what's the problem with Felidae? It doesn't read like a bad WP clone job, it has some use, and it is funny (because cats are that way). --Input The ResistorOutput 17:03, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Sadly to inform you CUR, no, it's not funny. ħuman 02:09, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
I agree that we don't always need to be dead centre on mission. "Funny" and "RW =/= WP" are pretty good overlying rules for this sort of thing. --YossieSpring in Fialta 17:09, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
CUR, I just looked at that article for the first time. The problem is, it is way too informational (that sounds weird) Most of the information in there can be found on Wikipedia. CUR, take a step back and objectively compare your article to Fun:Rat, Fun:Mowse, Fun:Long-eared_jerboa and Fun:Aardvark and tell me that you can't see the difference in tone, style and general what-the-fuckery. SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 17:12, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Random and somewhat vague suggestion: Would it be possible to somehow make a distinction between "on mission" articles and everything else? Lynad ...Agh! Don't hurt me! 18:15, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Meaning, is it possible to make a separation which doesn't "get in the way", but still make it clear what we are doing? Just a thought. Lynad ...Agh! Don't hurt me! 18:17, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Hi everyone! My computer broke earlier today. Fuck CUR, he was under orders not to create the stupid here. If he wants to do "homework" he can use his user space, no problem there. As far as demoting him, if he is abusing sysop powers (what the hell has been WIGOing on RW while I fought my hard drives???) "just do it". ħuman 01:46, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

Quite honestly I don't care what CUR does as long as he doesn't interfere adversely with MISSION articles. I have this amazing power to ignore things that are irrelevant. I haven't looked at the Felidae article since it stopped being a danger to Cat and couldn't care what he does with otters (which I also haven't looked at - not even once). When he starts deleting things though, he needs a smack. His juvenile (quite reasonable given his age) attempts at humour are regrettable but will doubtless improve with time. Desysop him & leave him to his own devices, say I. and marmite 02:03, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
Well put, and I did, and I await the long watch as he grows up... ħuman 02:14, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
I hasten to point out the "Not about CUR" bit has moved back on to that topic... but anyway, when talking about "mission" stuff, the three bullet points can be interpreted how anyone likes. Consider that people wanted to write general science articles, particularly biological ones to prove evolutionary points and these aren't covered by those three bullet points. Then there's Julius Ceasar which probably does come under "exploring authoritarianism" but some are claiming its way off mission (so it's dry, but that's hardly insurmountable). Either lay down a massive document saying precisely what IS and what IS NOT an RW article (and therefore take all the fun out of writing) or let contributors expand the wiki the way they, the users, see fit. Who's to say what's relevant anyway? Sometimes it seems that if it isn't modern American politics, people are way too quick to shout "delete!" or "mission!". Just lighten up with it, if you find it irrellevant, no one is forcing you to read or contribute to those articles. ArmondikoVpostate 19:21, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

##  Humorous Easter Anecdote

So yesterday for my Facebook status, I put the message "Happy Zombie Jesus Day All." Funny little joke, no big deal. Most people just replied Happy Easter or lol or whatever and moved on. But that wasn't enough for one. This girl I knew from high school, not a good friend, just someone I had some classes with who happened to be one of my Facebook friends, decides to chime in and leaves the comment "Hate to break it to you, but Jesus is not a Zombie." I know that a bigger person would have let it go.... But I'm not that big. So I responded with my standard reply: he died and then came back from the grave, I believe that is the very definition of Zombie." Not to be outdone, she comes back with "that does not apply to the Son of God. Zombies do not have life in them or a soul or spirit. My Savior has all those still. He beat death, and He is still alive today and forevermore. So, nope, no zombie." I ended telling her that if she gives me some proof that doesn't involve the words Faith, Believe, bible or god then I would accept it. I am never going to understand how people can live through such blind faith and see no problem with injecting themselves into a situation that has nothing to do with them just to preach. SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 15:25, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Proving that someone is the Son of God without mentioning God is rather difficult, I think you'll find. Evil cubic Phantom Hoover! 15:30, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
Quod erat demonstrandum, I should think. --YossieSpring in Fialta 16:04, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
No it's not difficult at all. It simply means that you either have to prove the existence of God, or posit existence before proceeding. If someone claimed to me that they were able to prove Jeebus was the son of god, then I think that I would be willing to let them posit god's existence (just to see what flavour of inanity they come up with).-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 18:37, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
I suspect pointing out that neither Jebus nor zombies exist, except in fiction, would help. In any case, if either were actually demonstrably real, the proper response wouldn't be worship but a .45 to the head. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 07:49, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

##  Creationwiki

Hmmm... just tried to visit Creationwiki (no, don't ask why) - and I received the following error message:

 “”creationwiki.org uses an invalid security certificate. The certificate is not trusted because it is self signed. The certificate is only valid for plesk. The certificate expired on 19/02/2009 03:27 PM. (Error code: sec_error_expired_issuer_certificate)

very odd. --PsyGremlinWhut? 17:25, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Sadly, it still works for me, which means they're still spreading lies all around.-Diadochus 18:24, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
It's only the https site that's the problem, you can get in perfectly happily through regular insecure http. The cert seems to have been autogenerated by some management software. It has any number of problems, including being only valid for one day over two months ago, being issued to the wrong site, etc. Firefox 3 has hideous paranoia over untrusted certs, to the point where I think they've taken security too far. Protecting idiots from themselves isn't a terribly noble goal when it penalises everyone else. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 07:56, 14 April 2009 (EDT)