RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive158

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 17 May 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, (new)(back)


[edit] Veet 4 men

Have the reviews of Veet For Men popped up on anyone else's radar? Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 10:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Word of warning - Never veet your balls. It really hurts AMassiveGay (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
True. Shave them. Don't forget to slap on loads of aftershave when you're done. --PsyGremlinPrata! 14:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Shit, some people pay good money for that sort of thing. Scarlet A.pngpostate 17:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Just read the reviews. I can confirm the first one AMassiveGay (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I wonder how this differs from the normal line of Veet? Is it just a different bottle...? ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRlavishly loquacious 14:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
It's got a dude on it instead of a woman. Less embarrassing for macho men to purchase, and it's in a different part of the store, away from all the "lady stuff." By the way, I don't recommend Nad's Hair Removal for men. It's nothing but a glorified waxing kit, and using it is incredibly inconvenient.--"Shut up, Brx." 14:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
But does it compare toi the Male loofah?--il'Dictator Mikal 15:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering if it's more or less expensive. On principle I don't use female razors because they use the pink color as an excuse to jack up the price. ±Knightoftldrsig.pngKnightOfTL;DRgarrulous en guerre 15:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Wait, loofahs are gender exclusive too? Man, this sexism thing has gone too far.--"Shut up, Brx." 15:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
When did it become normal for British men to remove their pubes? I've spent most of the last 15 years outside of my native land, so I'm a bit out of touch. --Spud (talk) 15:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The gays have beening removing their pubes for years. No one likes pubic stuck in their teeth and it can make you look bigger AMassiveGay (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Having a pube stuck in your teeth makes them look bigger? Wow. I'd only heard that it rotted them… ;-)--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 20:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] The Unbelievable Truth

Just listening to TUT and they're doing a piece on Goats. Evidently the Romans used to have a form of torture which involved goats licking your feet. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 17:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The line between fetish and torture is very thin AMassiveGay (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Indeed.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
As an aside, a Google search for "Roman goat licking" brings up RationalWiki at #8. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 18:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
That certainly is a thing. Q0 (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Randy Irish priests

As they've been stopped from fornicating with kids, they've decided they'd better off with a wife. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 17:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

One of the points on which our weird-guys-in-funny-clothing have it better than yours. :p --ZooGuard (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Only one kind of them has it better. In the Eastern Orthodox churches there is a 'black priesthood' where celibacy is optional and which takes care of the churches, and 'white priesthood' where celibacy is mandatory and which takes care of monasteries. The white priesthood also forms the upper levels of the church hierarchy. --Tweenk (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
If they expand their sexual range beyond altar boys, we'll start hearing less whining about contraception rather quickly. Corry (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] I don't get it.

I usually find this webcomic pretty funny, but I don't get this one at all [1] Could someone please explain it?--"Shut up, Brx." 01:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess it's about somebody injecting bleach into a cat, out of curiosity. Unamusing. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
the jokes not really that funny, and explaining it ruins it even more. --il'Dictator Mikal 01:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Oh, that's a syringe. I wasn't sure. Yeah, it's not their best--"Shut up, Brx." 01:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
For a much better visual gag on said idiom... Vulpius (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Gödel, Escher, Bach

I'm writing a page on this book, and would like some input as it's pretty odd right now. Wehpudicabok (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's odd because you seem to be reviewing it from the perspective of a a fairly mainstream philosopher, not a logician. It's grounding in "how to do" logic is perhaps one of the main sections. Scarlet A.pngbomination 17:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Just fucking wonderful

My NCSoft Master Account just got permablocked, because according to them I've been trying to sell it (which I'll hasten to add, I fuckin' haven't. The only way anyone's getting my Guild Wars account is from my cold, dead, fingers). I might have been able to refute that allegation if their email detailing this hadn't looked like every fucking phishing email I get (usually 6 or 7 a week) from supposed MMO companies trying to steal my login details. Seriously, what fucking asshat of a company sends out an unsolicited email these days that says 'click on this link and enter your login details'. To rub salt on the wound, I only pre-ordered Guild Wars 2 a couple of weeks ago and tied it to that account, so that could easily be £40 down the drain.
And just to really make things better, their internal support system is broken so I can't appeal the block directly, I can't see the status of the emails I've sent in, and, of course, I can't log in to the account to check it that way either.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 12:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Get more email accounts, preferably at least one with unlimited aliases and then use "throwaway" addresses. The addresses I used on major WoW forums, wikis, etc. are all generated that way. All of them are either actively run by bad guys, their administrators are paid off, the people who own the hardware have a knife to their throats or they get backdoored by script kiddies who want some money. So they all‡ end up sending me these phishing scams (and in the case of the forums they happily deleted my posts mentioning what happened) but they can't touch me because (A) Blizzard got sick of this crap and added a one-time-password feature which I have enabled and (B) I can see by the To: address that it's not sent to the address I gave Blizzard so it's got to be a fake. Thus, any real emails from Blizzard stand out immediately.
‡ Yes all, including big famous sites like Elitist Jerks and Wowhead.
Now, NCsoft isn't as careful as Blizzard, but you can do some of their housework for them and make life harder for the bad guys by having multiple email accounts and not using the "real" account to deal with probably scumbags, random forum owners, etc. (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Similar thing happened to me, was permabanned by EA. Several hundred dollars worth of software ruined, and all because I posted a link to ED on one of their forums.--"Shut up, Brx." 15:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The difference brx, is you did something legiti9matly wrong; he3 didn't. Now, Threaten to sue, that tends to make companies freak out--il'Dictator Mikal 15:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, the good news is, I've got the account back. Time to start changing emails, again. The email I was using was secure, right up to the point PSN got hacked last year. Kinda missed the NCSoft account on the frantic resetting of other sites email and password changes.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 15:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I wonder how much the guys who have to deal with hysterical kids not being able to MMORPG get paid? Not enough, but you'd think it'd have to be a lot. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
On a side note, whenever I look in my main gmail account's spam folder, I'm amazed at how well it seems to be filtering out fake Blizzard emails. Q0 (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Why...

...is the text getting smaller and smaller in the bar? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 20:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

To save space, duh. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Of course, compression! CrundyTalk nerdy to me 20:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Eye candy from NASA

A pretty video from NASA - crank up the sound and watch in HD. PongoOrangutans are sceptical 21:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] 40 of 100

Forty of one hundred of the most recent edits on the site are related to Brx or Rob Smith. Never mind getting past CP, we need to learn to get past these two guys. They sure have us wrapped around their little fingers. --Revolverman (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, you can't make people ignore people they don't like. Sadly I don't think a lot of people here even want to. -- (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi 'hate! YTF aren't you banned? ArchieGoodwin (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I enjoy talking to Rob and have kept my interactions with brx to a minimum. AceModerator 22:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
If i could find a way to hide their edits themselves alongside the recen t changes, i would; but i cant so hiding them from RC doesnt help--il'Dictator Mikal 22:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you use enhanced recent changes, Revolverman. That will reduce the amount of edits you see to mine and Rob's talk pages. All edits to a same page will be put under a tab, and opening that tab is optional. Try it out, see for yourself. You can always undo it. Preferences->Recent Changes->check the box that says Use enhanced recent changes (requires JavaScript) . --"Shut up, Brx." 03:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
he could just hide all edits by you or to your talkpage; using the much simpler x.js--il'Dictator Mikal 03:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I think you guys are missing my point. --Revolverman (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, you could try and convince Mikalos, Ace, and others to leave me and Rob alone, you can try and convince me and Rob to leave, or you can ignore it all and use enhanced recent changes. The last one is easiest, the first is the moral choice. --"Shut up, Brx." 03:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I like Rob, I do not want Rob to leave. AceModerator
I like rob too; i just don't ejoy having to talk to him after a while--il'Dictator Mikal 03:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Brx, I would love the first one. I really would. I suffered deeply by bulling in school, and I would never want that visited on anyone else. It IS a two way street. Spend a month or two just doing clean up edits or work, and let the air clear, and let the bad taste get out of everyone's mouths. It will also prove to everyone if ,after a long time of being productive, they continue to harass you that is is them, and not you. --Revolverman (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
He left for a bloody month. The place was quiet, even a tad jovial.ArchieGoodwin (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] NATs

Is it okay to tag shared IPs with a note reminding sysops to assume good faith Wikipedia does? DMorris, on the EIP Network 1 855 282 2882 00:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] I know i shouldn't read the lower half of the internet...

but i was reading comments on maurice sendak's obit on the beeb and I made the the mistake of looking at the worst rated. Sure the comments were voted down, but still - what a bunch of pricks. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

hey japan... 'Member Ww2?--il'Dictator Mikal 02:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I do not do facebook. It is a lot of arseAMassiveGay (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I mostly use it to talk to friends i dont actually know in RL or my ex's--il'Dictator Mikal 02:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank Christ I don't use nor have a facebook. --Revolverman (talk) 02:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Britt expression - knocked me for 6

So I was watching a review on youtube by some brit, and he said as a side note that the drugs (medicine, not illicit) he'd taken last week had knocked him for six. I googled, and found it other places, all meaning some sense of "wiped me out", "made me sick", "emptied my tank" etc. But i was more curious what the expression comes from/refers to. anyone? --Green mowse.pngGodot 17:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Cricket. A "six" is the number of runs (points) you score when you hit the ball over the boundary without it hitting the ground first. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Interestingly, although hitting a six is the "home run" of cricket in the expression "being hit for six" the speaker is the ball, not the batsman. therefore it is not a "good thing". Bad Faith (talk) 18:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
It could also be interpreted - perhaps more logically - as being from the point of view of the bowler. His ball was "hit for six".--Bob"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." 18:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Of course it's the bloody bowler! Balls are inanimate objects and cannot talk. Do get a grip!--Feline1 (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
(EC2) In the US it would be something like 'out of the park' meaning you'd been hit really hard. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 18:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. When I first heard this expression I assumed it was related to "six feet under" (dead), i.e., something that hit you so hard it nearly killed you. Doctor Dark (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Sachin Tendulkar, the Indian cricket god knocking some one for six--Buscombe (talk) 19:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Well I'm showing my age but I remember watching this live on TV, back in 68. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 22:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Genghis, I didn't click on the link due to download limits, but i'll bet my house that was the Gary Sobers over.--Brendiggg (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Unimportant Tech Question

Why is it that after I log into my user account and then return to the Main page, the "featured article" has always changed?--WickerGuy (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's (supposed to be) randomly selected out of the 'cover stories'. The usual complaint is that it has not changed, btw. Peter is procrastinating. 04:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
And my complaint is that we haven't had many new ones in ages. Uke Blue 05:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
And that. Peter is procrastinating. 05:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
You can't please everyone. It wasn't that long ago that we had someone moaning that the featured article wasn't changing when they reloaded Main Page. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 08:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
We're not like CP where the featured article is just Ken's latest turdpile. PongoOrangutans are sceptical 13:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
May I point out that "CP" stands for "cheeze pizza"(child pornography), although only /b/tards and deepwebz surfers use it much. Makes me snigger every time I see it here though.Z3100x (talk) 04:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Farting

Finally acknowledged as important in our planet's history. El TajDon't make me do stuff 11:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I hope that is a warning for you to cut back on your own contributions. PongoOrangutans are sceptical 13:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Well I'll be damned, Dana Rohrabacher was right! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
If anything, I'm more inclined than ever to break wind in epic proportions; I must not be beat by some long-dead lizards! Beans and cabbages everyday!Z3100x (talk) 04:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Just installed Trillian 5.1...

It's. Fucking. Hideous.

Apparently they got rid of all the eyecandy in the free version, making it look only slightly more appealing than if it was running on command line. Why must everything nice be ruined? Vulpius (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Go whine somewhere else.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
No need to be rude. It's not like there are rules about what people should/shouldn't post here. Cow...Hammertime! 19:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
There is the 90/10 rule against memes, memes, memes, though it doesn't apply here. Uke Blue 20:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
is that what that block reason is for?--il'Dictator Mikal 20:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Dolan.png mkials pls Uke Blue 20:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
That's what you get for using closed source software. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Correction: that's what you get for using software. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 02:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, yeah. It was petty bitching, but when a program looks less appealing than Excel I just can't help myself. Anyway, I downgraded to an older version and will just ignore the update prompts from now on. Hooray. Vulpius (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Tyson smacks down a denialist

Say you're a climate denialist. Now say Neil DeGrasse Tyson is sitting across from you... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I cannot believe the audacity of these people, standing there in front of someone who does "science" for a living, and telling him how "science is done". I would not stand next to an Imam and say "preaching is done this way". I would not stand next to a chef and tell her the theory behind being a "chef". --Green mowse.pngGodot 19:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
But Climategate! You lose, Mr. Scientist. Better luck next time. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] spam

How has it been since the captcha change? Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Lessened, but not entirely gone. Seems a successful experiment, at least if you've sorted out the side effects that were discovered by the BoN at RWW. Peter is procrastinating. 07:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Am I not special?

Why don't I get a welcome? Even Nobs, Brx, and Newton got welcome templates?RandonGeneration (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If those are your role models then you're better off without one. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?Moderator 16:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism explained!

The evolutionary cognitive science of religion atheism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Academic.edu isn't even giving an abstract or title name. care to help those of us logged in from places other than school?--Green mowse.pngGodot 19:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Try this. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm barely 'decently read' in this field, much less any kind of an expert, but I bristle at the idea that we can find athieism or religion in "the mind" in the way these articles seem to be doing. That our minds want to give cause to everything, is one thing - and i suspect a very real thing. But to say we can "find" atheism or thesim leave me cold. Of course it's cultural, it's how we are raised, adn what things we experience in life, and how those around us tell us to interpret what we experience. even so-called "rationality" is a creation in some sense; a perspective of how to interpret thigns, that is not as "rational" as we sell it. "Rationality", beyond such laws as 3*3=9, or 2+2=22 which can be proven, without doubt, by anyone trying, "Rational statements" are not proveable. Almost ever. But are still still based on the way we deal with input, which peices of information we select to inform us, and in some ways, how our day went. :-) Religion will be the same. you believe or do not believe far more by how others help you frame your world, than any inborn part of your brain, i suspect. it is of course, just suspicion.--Green mowse.pngGodot 19:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
It's not literally in the mind, it's the combination of certain cognitive mechanisms under specific circumstances that produces "religious" ideation. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

2*10+2=22. Have I missed something? Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It can also equal 24 ir you ignore the rules of operation--il'Dictator Mikal 20:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Speaking of Civil Unions

Colorado Republicans won't even give over that much. Knowing our state house and senate were ready to put CU into law this week, they fillibustered on another law to prevent this one from coming to a vote before the end of the session yesterday. oh. joy. 10 republicans ruined a vote on 30 different laws, to prevent one group of people from getting some access to legal recognition of their identity and their right to a "union". I hate that kind of tactic. Especially when they then turn around and say things like "respect the vote of the people. people want Prop 8".--Green mowse.pngGodot 22:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

we already lost the battle here in nebraska; 12 years ago; we dont even have CU's. --il'Dictator Mikal 22:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
We have an anti marriage law (might be constutional amendment, bad of me not to know), but it didn't specify that you could not have CUs. The majority of Colorado (which means, the urban centers - we are 'purple'. nice dem urban centers, and the rest of the state is good ol republican... sigh) is for some kind of protection for gay unions. but the minority knows how to work the system. Green mowse.pngGodot 22:48, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Can I come back?

Personal tools