G'day, fellow RationalWikians! Don't forget to visit the Campaign page of the 2016 Board of trustees election in order to make your voice heard. Suggested activities include:

  • Endorsing select candidates (lending a hand to your loyal henchmen and/or glorious overlords!)
  • Anti-endorsing select candidates (character-assassinating your hated opponents!)
  • Providing moar goat (please wipe afterwards)
  • Just asking questions to the candidates

Your participation might help other users better direct their votes. More importantly, it'll show the world that we've yet to go full Citizendium in terms of election hype!

from FuzzyCatPotato (Talk), group Site wide (urgent) at 00:24, 25 July 2016

RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the clogosphere?/Archive3

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 24 March 2013. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, (new)(back)


[edit] Pat Buchanan on Evilution

We need a "Creationist Argument Bingo" sheet. Let's see...Marx, Hitler, Piltdown man, Transitional forms, "It's a religion, too!", BINGO! What other "arguments" does it need? 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, but what else?

Oh, yeah--and Buchanan's a tool. But we've known that since he was on the Nixon payroll. --Gulik 18:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Random beneficial change is impossible — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
Yeah, what BON said, something to do with information. Also, macroevolution, polystrate fossils, Haeckel's Embryos... — Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 19:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Creationist Argument Bingo - please contribute. --Gulik 20:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Wow, Pat wasn't even trying, was he? And when did he go YEC or whatever his point is? He used to be a good Catholic boy... like... an old friend of ours... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
All I have to say in response to the above is, all Catholics are Cafeteria CatholicsWilhelmJunker 01:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Reds (In General)

Cut to Debate:The merits of communism.

The irony meter quote (and thus the rationale for this item) makes no sense; the link is to a 4th international group, which means they are trotskyists. Lysenko rose to power under Stalin in 1935 and lysenkoism was made state dogma in 1948; Trotsky was exiled by Stalin and declared an enemy of the state at the beginning of 1928. Soviet biologists who resisted lysenkoism were actually accused of being trotskyists! [1]

[edit] Crappy Christian Marriage Thing

Ok, I don't know which part is my favorite. Section 8, where they warn against some vague concept of "Bad Sexual Things," with no description of what that may be... or Section 9, where they create the first preemptive No True Scotsman arugment I've ever seen. "Only Christians can find success in marriage. Oh, those people aren't true Christians." Classic. SirChuckBPlease Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes 20:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha, "bad sexual things", reminds me of our old editor Barbara Shack's phrasing. I wonder if she is still here? I suspect so.... ħumanUser talk:Human 09:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Open message to WND

<rant> He's eligible. GET THE FUCK OVER IT PLEASE! You're doing yourselves and wingnuts like you no favours at all by concentrating all your efforts on this loose-stool toilet gravy idea. Either that, or just come out and say it straight, you don't like him because he's black. </rant> Scarlet A.pngpostate 12:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think they should keep on saying it. Let'em dig a hole for themselves. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, undoubtedly they are and it is fun to watch but I'm just trying to be fair. I want to take conservative view points as seriously as liberal ones, for example - it's just open mindedness. But they're not helping this. Maybe they really are whacked out of their own skulls and I should stop trying to be balanced but that would feel like giving up. Scarlet A.pngpostate 15:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I get the impression all the Token Sane People were forced out of the Right Wing about 2003 or so. (Edit: I don't think there's anything wrong with being "closed-minded" about people who have proven themselves to be very destructively wrong.) --Gulik (talk) 18:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nutcase wigo

This lunacy surely deserves a higher profile here? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm impressed that they're just picking up on "Sea Kittens" now. That's like, how old? Scarlet A.pngpostate 15:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Conservablogs

Copy of Jpatt's subpage09:

==Conservative blog roll==

I haven't checked these out yet, but will do so. This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 02:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice. I hope there is some good blogs on that list that won't make ours. I would hate to think he reads nothing but crap, although my experiences with him say otherwise. - π 02:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The stupid it hurts

Can anybody think of a way of wigoing this? My brain shut down reading it. - π 02:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

POE. Didn't you reach the footnote:"Note: For those of you who may be “slow,” this entire article was a satire (that means a joke). It was completely made up." This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 02:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
lovely name though "Paul Damascus" This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 02:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
(EC)I was more concerned about the fact that he felt the need to right it at all. Have a read of his site he never seems to have got how the whole "humour" thing works. - π 02:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It is shit like:

Immanuel Iscariot: So would the most famous scientists in history that helped revolutionize the field such as Isaac Newton, Francis Collins, Albert Einstein, etc. have this gene? They believed in God, so does that mean they were in fact intelligently designed?

Dr. Paul Damascus: Absolutely. Nearly all of the intelligent scientists who made real discoveries that helped increase our knowledge did in fact have this gene. They believed in God, therefore they had the genome that bears intelligence. Many of the scientists today do not make bold discoveries. Instead, scientific discoveries only gradually happen over long periods of time due to the lower intelligence of the leading scientists. It takes a longer period of time, and more secular scientists to make any type of discoveries.

That made me think he is a dickhead. It is the only real scientist are Christian scientist that made me want to kick him. - π 02:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think he's quite right in the head. i think he believes what he's writin most of the time (god etc) but thought this was amusing. (it's not) This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 02:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
What is worse is I had to look Francis Collins up, he was the head of the Human Genome Project. A huge international project that took 10s of thousands of scientist a decade to complete. He claims claims he is a great scientist and all the likely 1000s doing the work for him are idiot secular scientists. The man's lack of understanding of modern science is staggering. - π 03:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Possibly the original formulation of Poe's Law in action, it's not necessarily funny but you can't tell right away. But an interesting read, if he hadn't marked it as "satire" so obviously, I wouldn't be surprised if it was bumped up creatard reading lists and then got into ARJ or something. Scarlet A.pngpostate 12:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Oh Julie... if you lurve Me truly

Ok, besides the most egregious use of song lyrics for a heading, I love Hampton Roads' Julie. She is just so wonderfully nutty. --PsyGremlinWhut? 12:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Paraphrase: " I don't have faith; I know". Err ...? This message brought to you by: Toastrespondand honey 04:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes Julie you SHOULD be on a high dose of lithium, stat!! Rad McCool (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I particularly like how she mixes science she doesn't even try to understand and theology she makes up with rational for hate. Also her news links are not to be missed. World Net Daily tells the truth! Me!Sheesh!Mine! 16:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A White Christian can marry a Black Christian...

I know it's funny, but that link screams "Poe" at me. Quoting Deuteronomy on whether Christians should marry non-christians? (obviously, when it was written there were no christians!)

"you may have just met someone or something, and want to know more about them." emphasis mine. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Edroso and trying really hard

"There are some occupations that are stereotypically gay, but mechanical engineering isn't one of them."

It's also not stereotypically heterosexually successful, either. Where do you people find these clogs, anyway? ħumanUser talk:Human 07:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think they are found by drawing a pentagram in chalk and chanting "send me to the stupid" five times before clicking Search on Google..... But don't quote me on that.
I read "Sadly, No!" (which is mean but hilarious), and occasionally follow blogroll links, which is a BIG MISTAKE if you value your time and braincells. --Gulik (talk) 19:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, in Edroso's case it's his job to dig up the stupid. Sort of like Carlin, "That's my job, thinking up goofy shit, then coming around once in a while to tell you all about it." --Kels (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Obamacare

Naporack, eat your heart out!

"the government would be allowed to have real-time access to individuals' finances, including direct access to bank accounts for electronic funds transfers"

So does paypal. Actually, so does my fucking bank. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There's actually a really funny story with that. The government pretty much already has real time access to your bank accounts for electronic funds tranfers. First off, anyone who has ever had a government rebate or payment directly depoisted into their account has given them that information. Aside from that, these idiots do understand that the government can freeze your accounts in a second for pretty much any reason they choose right? Anyone can be classified "Suspected terroist finacier" and goodbye checking account. SirChuckBPlease Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes 07:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WND birther petition

At some point in the article they ask to help them reach half a million by signing the petition. Should there be any significance to the number of half a million? K61824What is going on? 01:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really. It still means 306,613,753 Americans think they are dickheads. - π 01:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Right Wing Paranoia

Why is it that the same people who cheered the patriot act and swore that Bush and his government would NEVER arrest an American citizen or detain him without end unless they deserved it are the same people that think Obama is coming to lock them into camps? SirChuckBPlease Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes 07:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Partisan bias? - π 22:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, remember that some of these people believe that when the Constitution (WHICH IS NOT A SUICIDE PACT!!!!) says "President" what it means is "Absolute Monarch". Thus, the only reason they think Bush didn't abuse his unlimited powers is because Jesus was guiding his every action. Obama, being the illegitimate child of a communist and SATAN HIMSELF, will of course abuse these powers to the extent that GRAVITY ITSELF shall malfunction, bringing about the Rapture. Or something.
(And where were these "FEMA camps" when Hurricane Katrina hit and we NEEDED somewhere to put tens of thousands of people? We "know" they existed when Clinton was in office, and Obama's apparently got them again, so did Bush use his Unlimited Presidential Powers to shift them into an adjacent dimension?) --Gulik (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The president was absolute when it was Bush, but have you noticed how all of a sudden states' rights are important? - π
Except for John Lofton over at The American View; he was stumping for states' rights all through the Bush years. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 23:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
At least he is not a party rust on. Nothing annoys me more than people who's opinion changes with the party. - π 23:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Missed this one

This is over a month old, but I missed it when it came along so I am posting it here late. The Holy Plan idiot thinks someone is going to clone Jesus from the Shroud of Turin. - π 10:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I've read at least three scifi stories with that premise, and I know about a lot more. --Gulik (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Because Julie is a petty, bigoted bitch doesn't make a good WIGO

Ganesh with onions makes a perfectly good punchline in relation to a story about a handicapped child and a non Christian religion. . . There is some fun to be had in that Julie thinks funny looking animals are a sign of ID. Julie's post Me!Sheesh!Mine! 15:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Danger

"Hezbollah and al-Qaida are not as dangerous as America's liberals."
Reminds me of something ... Oh,yes: "I really regard this wiki and its ilk as the greatest danger to western civilisation at present. Greater than Al Khaida, greater than North Korea, greater than Iran, greater than Islam, greater than "Hollywood values". "! Possibly a tad over the top but ... Toast 14:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I'm guilty as charged. Bush scared me WAY more than Bin Laden ever could. But at least I got scared over the stuff Bush ACTUALLY did, in addition to things he MIGHT do. --Gulik 20:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WND Obama Hitler

How is everyone on this site(rationalwiki) not clinically depressed? I have to take breaks every couple of days because the world is filled with goddamn crazies who just seem to multiply every day leaving a bitter hopeless future in their wake. These people can't be enlightened by reason, they would only grow more delusional. Their children will hold on their beliefs too because they can't stand having their children hear anyone's point of view that does not agree with them. And they multiply. It's the one rational concept they seem to have some grip on. Math and power through numbers. Numbers number numbers. Ever growing numbers. This lady doesn't seem to understand that the nazis don't control Europe, that the healthcare the Austrian guy admired was in the 40's, that helping other people doesn't equate to murdering 17 million people, and that it isn't 16fucking31. Yorick 03:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC) I'm leaving the internet for a while now.

I hold on to the belief we are making a small difference by exposing this nonsense and we provide a safe place for people who are surrounded by stupid to huddle together to weather the storm. - π 03:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, some use this site as a springboard to the crazy, others use it to huddle 'round the campfire while enjoying a sip of tea with friends, to recover from their battle wounds. Others, of course, just block each other on a daily basis. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I'm better. This helped. Well in that case I could use some tea. I used to dislike tea, but then you spend a couple weeks in England and Ireland and all you drink is tea and Guinness it really grows on you. I got tea at such helpful times as when I cut my hand and required stitches "You'll have to hold it with the other hand, but that can't be helped" and after walking 10 kilometers with a backpack through pouring rain. I'm likely going to catch pneumonia if I stay in my wet clothes but that is the perfect time for tea and digestive biscuits. Needless to say I am now an adherent of Bill Bryson. Yorick 06:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Julie and Jinx

WTF, Jinkie. It's from an old George Carlin routine which he cribbed from his experience at Catholic school not some atheist tactic to pull Christians away from the flock. The question is nonsense on its face, not some sort of mind-bending trick, you tool. Who's on first, Jinxie? Who's on first. lawlz Me!Sheesh!Mine! 15:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I also love how dangerous Jinx makes us sound in his warning to Julie--as if we could take down the internets. 18:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
whomever posted the response to Jinxie on Julie's blog--one "toffee man"--was wasting their time. Julie won't fall for "clever" word play. It is clearly a trick of the devil. Also Jinxie, you are a jackass, but nobody here really cares. We sort of love that about you. It makes you entertaining. Thanks for the lulz. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 00:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
User:Toffeeman? I am eating Toast& honeychat 00:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
At least we know Jinx still reads us. It's hilarious that he brands us a "hate site" when he was active on CP for so long. A site that gleefully reported the death of Ed Kennedy. Ace McWickedCurrently Lurking..... 01:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The dramatic tone he adopts makes me giggle. I'm reminded of my niece at age 9 (not to insult my niece). 02:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah Jinx.... Come back and talk with us... We miss you. We'll even let you set the terms SirChuckBPlease Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes 07:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Hate site? Really? I'd take that as a compliment, the guys who write ED and contribute to 4Chan worked long and hard at that title and we've barely done anything!!! Scarlet A.pngpostate 09:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
BTW, do we have an article on the omnipotence problem/contradiction? Scarlet A.pngpostate 09:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Julie deleted Toffeeman's post. That is one reason she is sort of a cunt. You can post polite but secular responses to her inanity and she will just delete them, but later make oblique condescending references to them in her posts. She is the nightmare Christian in many ways: fundamentally dishonest, ignorant, incurious, superior, superstitious, irrational and hateful. And worse: she home schools. 13:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
To be fair to Julie my explanation was quite long, at least longer than the 750 character "limit". On the other hand I get the feeling that she’s looked at it, seen the word “logic” and thought that I was one of “tham thar rashnolists trying to make fun of the Lard”. Of course I try my best to be one of the rationalists but I was actually trying to help Julie answer her correspondent. The “can God make X so Y that He can’t Z it” really is just “who’s on first base” and is an unworthy argument to put forward. It’s also, more or less, Ray Comfort's snide little “an atheist is someone who thinks nothing created everything” and we don’t want alleged rationalists stooping to that level, do we?Toffeeman 20:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I was being fair. I've never seen the argument put forward seriously. I come to it via George Carlin, so it is a sort of "who's on first" puzzle in my experience. The 750 word limit is imposed by the site, not Julie, though she can delete comments to her blog. She no doubt deleted your post because you are the devil or his proxie, not becuase it was too long. Notice how Jinx's paranoid responses were spared. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 22:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

hmmm . . toffeeman's post is back. Perhaps I'm getting too worked up. I need to step away from the tubes. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 01:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm missing the "Carlin" routine part of this "joke"... kindly 'splain pleez? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I assume Carlin at some point used the omnipotence paradox in his religious themed stand-up. (Just watched Dogma the other night, I can't quite get over the fact that they cast George "God-is-an-asshole" Carlin as Cardinal Glick, but then again, the cynicism of Glick kind of fits perfectly with Carlin) Scarlet A.pngpostate 07:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
One of Carlin's fairly early comedy routines included a riff on his experiences at Catholic School which included bedeviling one of the priests with questions like "hey Fadda, if God is all powerful can he make a rock so large that he himself can't lift it" I've always assumed that was a silly joke. It turns out it is as serious as determining the number of angels that can dance on a pin. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 13:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
A Catholic priest once told me that He (capitalisation just to avoid confusion) could create a rock so heavy He could not lift, but latter if He wanted to he could lift it. I suggested He could make a rock normal size and just declare that it was to heavy for Him to lift. The priest told me that I was right. It was at this point I realised how counter-logical it is to compare infinite things to finite things and that this line of questioning will just get you no where. - π 02:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
What Sheesh said. He was talking about how on a certain day they had question time with the priest, where the priest would answer theological questions the kids may have and Carlin said it broke down into trying to trick or stump the priest. On another note, the only time I heard this question put forward was the episode of the Simpsons where Homer goes on medical marajuana. He asks Flanders if Jesus could create a Burrito so hot etc etc etc. SirChuckBPlease Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes 23:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jinx's Goatse

Apparently Jinx is redirecting all direct links to his blog from RationalWiki to goatse. I've replaced the links on WIGOClog with a link to Google search, but before I do this for the links in the archive, I wanted to see if there was a more elegant way of going about it. Anyone know of any? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 18:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What is this "goatse"? Link plz. --Ashlafly
It speaks volumes about Jinxy that he uses 'goatse' and not just a link to google, or yahoo, or CMI. But then again, we are talking about Mr PenisBone here, so maybe that's what he really wants his blog to be about. I have no idea how to fix it, but then his "blog" is immensely unreadable anyway, so no loss.--PsygremlinRunāt! 18:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
How about using a tinyurl? ħumanUser talk:Human 18:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Testing... --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 19:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Nope. Hmm. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 19:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
This should work:
So, that would work like this: Shock and Blog. Beautiful! What is it about this way that fixes it? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 19:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
It removes the referrer that tells Jinx from which site the link is. Mindless harmonic Hoover! 19:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok. I'll go through the archives and fix things. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 19:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow, only one WIGO in the whole history of WIGOClog. That's kinda surprising. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 19:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
The first method used a simple meta refresh which worked on Firefox but not on Opera or Chrome. I've replaced it with a slightly more complicated method that should work on all browsers. BTW referrer sending is the decision of the browser, for example there are several Firefox plugins that disable referrers. -- Nx / talk 20:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be working for me anymore. I use Firefox, if that matters. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 20:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't work for me on FF 3.5.3 ħumanUser talk:Human 20:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's strange, it worked on Chrome though. Fixed it. -- Nx / talk 20:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
A pity we couldn't get him to pull the same trick on referrals from CP or one of the blogs that links to him. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 20:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Arcan's link above now works for me. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

How disgusting! He's obviously one of Satan's goons! I call Poe on him! — Unsigned, by: SoldierInGodsArmy / talk / contribs

Wait a minute! This is THE Jinx Mchue? He's the demon-possessed minion who was responsible for kicking me off Godtube! This goat sex thing now makes perfect sense!— Unsigned, by: SoldierInGodsArmy / talk / contribs

[edit] Rapture site

Nice to see East Germany mentioned in the present tense. (towards the bottom) Totnesmartin 19:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

And it definitely passes the Time Cube Test. Scarlet A.pngpostate 19:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Has any one seen flying up to heaven yet?

This is a much more likely prediction. Yorick 03:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
WTF is it with these loonies and their complete inability to colour co-ordinate their webshites? I'm about 5 lines down and already my eyes are bleeding. (In other news, I'm horrified that I just used the phrase "colour co-ordinate") --Psy - C20H25N3OYou know you want to 17:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
The amount of work that goes into it (look @ the CSS), it's pathetic. The CSS is nearly as long as the content. All that work to produce an eyewatering mess. I am eating Toast& honeychat 18:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
The huge font may have somewhat to say about their intended audience being geezers who can't remember where I put my reading glasses. Either that, or they realise the readership needs colour-coded help in surmounting some ahhhh, cognitive challenges. Short-term memory loss and early stage dementia, anyone? Sprocket J Cogswell 20:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Julie Julie Julie

Wow..... I know she's completely insane, but really? Wearing thongs is an indicator of demonic posession? I guess good Christians get really hot over visable panty lines. SirChuckBPlease Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes 18:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Nah, my favorite was "thinking you look good in leather pants" means you have a demon. You don't even have to own the pants, as long as you think you look good in them you are possessed. By extension, is she saying you should eat unhealthily and stop exorcizing exercising until you no longer look good in tight pants? Tetronian you're clueless 19:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Art Wigo


Not to get all Jessie Jackson on everybody, but am I the only one who noticed that the only black person in the picture is a modern day soldier, according the comments, he has the name "King" on his fatigues to celebrate Dr. King..... So black leaders don't even get a seperate picture? Weak. SirChuckBPlease Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes 06:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice he was black, although I first saw the picture on my Eee PC so it is hard to see. I thought the only black person in the picture was the black union soldier behind Franklin. Look on the bright side and least the only black person wasn't a pimp or a pornographer at the front, then there would be a lot to complain about. - π 06:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
There is also the college student and Harriet Tubman now I am looking. - π 06:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it just me or does the school teacher look like Sarah Palin? - π 06:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Now I can't get it to load at all.... Oh well, I'll assume you're all correct and apologise for unprovoked race baiting. SirChuckBPlease Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes 07:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I suppose the soldier looks a little like Dr King if you squint hard enough, draw on a mustache and forget about the helmet... but I assume even for some god-botherers it would be a bit of a smack-in-the-balls to put one of the great pacifist leaders in a military uniform. Regardless, the entire thing is a bit fucked-up. Scarlet A.pngpostate 09:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It does beg the question, if he had wanted to honour King in the picture why not just put him in? There is a nice gap between Saint Ronnie and JJ he could have been squeezed in. - π 09:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I looked at it again, and now that I've taken off my Black Panther glasses, I noticed something else... This is a really crappy picture.. I mean really, all of the artists personal enemies are painted as demonic and evil, while other symbols are almost impossible to intrepret without a key.... And, excuse me one moment why I put my Black Panther glasses back on, Why are the Black Leaders in the back? Surely Malcom, Martin, and others did as much for the country as Abigail Adams. One last note, and then I', done: I love how the judge is crying over things like Marbury vs. Madison and Gibbons vs. Ogden, but doesn't seem to worried about Plessy vs. Ferguson or anything like that.... Amazing... Absolutely amazing.... I hope he gets a crippling hand injury and we don't have to see any more poorly painted "artwork." SirChuckBPlease Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes 18:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
It is a shocking piece of right-wing kitsch. As far as I can tell the artist was aware you can make paintings to have a political meaning and so with no regards about how you go about doing it, just rammed in a pile of Republican party talking point. - π 23:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Ames is now blogging about this painting. - π 23:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Frederick Douglas is tiny... How about the infidel apparently Asian immigrant cowering before Jebus' mighty glow? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"Some stars shine brighter than others"??? (US flag) WTF does that mean. And has anyone figured out how to highlight and copy the text without losing one's "location"? Second mowse? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Anyone notice there's no Red Injuns? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Sequoyah, behind Payne and Hancock, far left right at the back. - π 00:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. All is well, then. ħumanUser talk:Human 00:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Hamilton and Adams are about to get kung-fu with Satan. I can imagine people whacking-off at the thought of this borderline revenge fantasy. Ha, take that science! ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 00:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You know what's funny? The painting barely works at all without all those captions to explain it. Wouldn't that be the very definition of bad art - the picture that requires a thousand words rather than replaces them? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Also nice how the School Teacher is captioned with 'the value of qualified, trained and hard working teachers ... cannot be underestimated' but the Professor gets 'smug expression ... educational elite ... no room for God ... nothing next to the intelligence of the Creator' - classy Worm(t | c) 01:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Another fine masterpiece featuring that European Jebus [3] ħumanUser talk:Human 02:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to make sure it's not just me, but is the alt text on the businesswoman empty? I thought it kept flashing, but now it won't show anything. Does he have no judgment to pass? YorickDoing public school work 06:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, there is no commentary on her, correct. She is one of the stranger aspects of the painting. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
There is commentary on the businesswoman, something about equal rights in the workplace. Aboriginal Noise Punkrock 21:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding copy/pasting the text, as it's a mouse-over job, it's all in the source code. Scarlet A.pngpostate 15:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Besides the hypocrisy of the teacher/professor relationship, I send this to a friend of mine who pointed out the caption for the immigrant, which I missed first time around. "In America, we're free to worship as we please, so long as it's Jesus". Scarlet A.pngpostate 15:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
So basically we've got a painting with a bunch of historical figures, two totally fictional characters and a bunch of straw men and stereotypes. Did I leave anyone out? --Kels 22:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

According to his website (scroll down to where he responds to critics) he didn't include MLK directly because of copyright issues. That said, he also claims that he's read the Origin of Species, so he could well be lying his ass off. Bil08 12:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a French sailor beside the continental soldier, since if it weren't for the French navy tying up the British the Revolutionary War probably would have ended up much differently? --Kels 22:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Might as well toss a Hessian in there as well. Aboriginal Noise Punkrock 22:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Why do I get the feeling his comments are responding to this talk page? ħumanUser talk:Human 23:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] America is in the middle of a bloodless coup

These could be so much better if something "funny" was included in the wigo. Or something smart. Or anything other than just some dumb headline. Oh well... ħumanUser talk:Human 08:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] i^i

What is ii equal to, anyway? Phantom Hoover 14:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

-1-1 Nx 16:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I know that; I meant in terms of a+bi. Phantom Hoover 16:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
What is anything to the power of i? Human 20:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It's probably doable, because you can raise things to complex numbers, but I have no idea what it is. Phantom Hoover 20:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
47. Obviously. Nx 20:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
No it isn't. You can't even pull "how do you know?" on me, because I know enough about complex numbers to know that it should be somewhere on a circle 1 from 0 on the Argand plane. Phantom Hoover 21:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Forget that; Google says it's 0.207879576. Phantom Hoover 21:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
See, I was right, it's 47. Nx 21:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
It is exactly eπ/2. Pi 10:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
It is exactly e-π/2. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
So it is. Thanks, Human. - π 02:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
ii is a real number? I am blown away by the utter coolness of that fact. MDB 13:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WND columnists

Seriously for the last week all of them have written an article whining about how Rush Limbaugh didn't get to buy the Rams. Seriously is it that fucking important? I want good clogo, not spoilt children carrying on because some rich load mouth got told to bugger off by a bunch of rich nobodies.</rant> - π 00:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Amusingly, Andy's interviewer on the radio today mentioned it - apparently, Limbaugh lost his bid for the team because of some unsubstantiated lies on the wikipedia article about him. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it was wikiquote actually and they were removed in about 4 minutes, but so long as they have someone to blame other than himself I am sure it is all alright. I can't find the article right now, but I remember someone comparing it to the St. Augusta golf club; you might have the money to be able to afford the membership, but that still doesn't mean they will let you in. - π 01:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
He was going to lose the bid anyway, simply for being Rush Limbaugh. No league would tolerate him as an owner. Why even risk losing goodwill by publicly linking themselves to a person who infuriates half the population on a regular basis? It would've been bad business to accept him.--الملعب الاسود العقل Never betray the way you've always known it is 02:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I think his remarks about how Donovan McNabb was an Affirmative Action Quarterback would have set the players against him, false quotes on Wikiquote or not. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 02:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
As a black man, I was much more offended by his comment that the NFL "looks like a fight between the bloods and the crips without weapons." I'm glad he got dropped. The irony is, it wasn't some liberal conspriacy, it was the free market. The group saw that they had a better chance to buy the franchise and make money without him, so they dropped his flat ass like an ugly prom date. SirChuckBPlease Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes 04:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The fact that his next words were, "there I said it", pretty much means he knew it would be offensive too but went right ahead anyway. - π 05:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, should add "there, I said it" to the "not to be racist, but..." article. Scarlet A.pngpostate 09:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Apparently this is it in "full context". Not that I give a rats-ass about sports at all so I really have no idea what he's saying, but I don't think what appears to be a massive rant about ESPN adds any extra "context" to the "Bloods and Crips" remark. Scarlet A.pngpostate 09:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I love the "I play golf with Bill Belichick" defence. We should have an article on that. So and so can't be a bad person, I know the socially. - π 09:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I know very little about football but I heard some sports guru on NPR say that Limbaugh group didn't have the money to mount a successful bid in any case. I smell a publicity stunt. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 13:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that it isn't a serious bid, otherwise Limbaugh wouldn't have been dropped. Dave Checketts, the leader of that group, is pretty wealthy from what I know. He owns the NHL Blues and I believe he owns a large portion of Real Madrid.--الملعب الاسود العقل Never betray the way you've always known it is 16:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The estimated value of the Rams is about $915 million. I think the group was offering about $700-$750 million for the team. I suspect that the group was trying to see if they could it for a steal, given that they are the worst team in the worst division. The problem was more likely due to conflicting interest. The NFL wants a team in Saint Louis so they can capture the Mid-West audience. Anyone with half a brain would know that the best thing to do with the Rams would be to move them back to Los Angeles were lots of money could be made. I would imagine that was what the group had in mind. - π 02:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
So what happened to the Cardinals, anyway? Do I need to go to WP to fill in the details? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Probably advisable. The teams not only move about but swap names. - π 03:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The Cards moved to Arizona in the late-80s, and the L.A. Rams moved to STL in 1995.--الملعب الاسود العقل Never betray the way you've always known it is 03:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. SO they killed one of my midwest shticks that I learned in my brief sojourn there... "football Cards" vs. "baseball Cards". I once saw a cardinal perched high upon a pine at dawn in MO... very pretty. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
There use to be a time when quite a few teams had the same name in the same city, e.g, the San Francisco Giants use to be the New York Giants just like the football team. - π 05:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Still not as good as the New York (and now New Jersey) Rhyme scheme: The Jets, the Mets, and the Nets. And the Detriot/Chicago scheme of Lion, Tigers and Bears. SirChuckBPlease Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes 05:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
And the NY Sets! Wasn't there a fifth, as well? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh My. pledge I'm going to stop caving in to my turretes syndrome tomorrow. Chuck, you are not helping. I can't beleive you'd bring up that bit of trival and leave off the "Oh my" (lions and tigers and bears). WTF, man? Me!Sheesh!Mine! 03:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Comfort at it again...

The Introduction also defines an atheist as someone who believes that nothing created everything

That's odd. I always thought it meant "one who believes that there is no deity". I also see that at no point does he justify cutting some of those chapters that Scott mentions are missing. Scarlet A.pngpostate 11:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] How to WIGO

Anyone know how I should WIGO this angry reactionary tripe? - π 23:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Kill the RINOs! All of them. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 20:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
This fellow is so far right that he sees moderates as hard left. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 20:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd just word it as literally as possible: Angry reactionary tripe. Or perhaps "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MODERATE REPUBLICAN!" Scarlet A.pngpostate 13:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Anyone know who or what this "Mother Blood" this guy's raving about is?
Personally, I'm enjoying the Republicans' attempted purge of the weak and the faithless. If they go crazy enough with it, maybe they can lose a few more elections and the Overton Window can inch back towards something vaguely resembling sanity.
He's advising his fellow CrazyCons to vote for Democrats rather than moderate Republicans. Okay, fess up. Which of you guys REALLY wrote this?  :D --Gulik 06:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Old extremist tactic. The Australian Communist Party use to do that. They would advocate voting and campaign for the centre-right Liberal Party of Australia until Labor embraced their far-left agenda. - π 08:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Iron Curtain POS post

Wow.... I am speechless...... I now have grounds to sue WND over severe brain trauma and to get that portion of my life back..... I couldn't pick the worst of the wild distortions, misleading arguments and shit he just made up, so I picked some favorites to save you from having to read that shit, complete with my own personal snark.

1. They (Obama and the Democrats) treat the Constitution like toilet paper; they bribe millions of us, including illegal aliens, with cash and free health benefits, while simultaneously bankrupting the rest of us, along with our kids and their kids. You know, unlike that Bush guy who stopped all the undocumented workers from crossing the border... or that St Ronnie guy who gave them all amnesty.

2. This is the doing of the same people who pretended that the Patriot Act, which did nothing more than try to prevent Islamic terrorists from plotting a sequel to 9/11, was the height of fascistic tyranny. Nothing at all.... Except allow the government to do whatever they want whenever they want.... Nope, didn't do a thing.

3. the secret ballot has been sacrosanct ever since our nation was founded. However, we find the current administration pushing for card check, which would deprive American workers of that basic safeguard when it comes to union elections. All of a sudden the right cares for the plight of the union worker.... Wait a minute.... isn't this the group that used to call local police to beat the shit out of striking workers?

4. The truth is, most people are so easily cowed and so unwilling to deal with confrontation that if it weren't for the secret ballot, something as utterly absurd as same-sex marriage and as immoral as abortion without parental notification for 14-year-olds would probably be legal in all 50 states. This is too stupid to be a serious point.... I can only assume a teenage prankster snuck in and edited his copy when he wasn't looking.

5. In the first 10 months of Obama's presidency, Andy Stern, president of the SEIU, paid 22 visits to the White House. It sort of reminds you of the old days when only Monica Lewinsky had such easy access to the president. These days, with Stern running in and out, you can't help wondering who's servicing whom in the Oval Office. Ah, the Lewinsky joke.... The gift that keeps on giving. Honestly, should we really start going back into political scandels over the years? Cause I'll take Bill Clinton and his blowjobs over Mark Foley going after underage pages, Larry Greg going after sex in a public restroom and Newt Gingrich divorcing his wife while she recovered from cancer surgery any day. Not to mention, shall we look at who was visiting Bush during his time in the white house? Kinda hard, as he refused to release the logs. But we do know that lobbiest for oil and gas companies were writing the bills for him.

6. One of the worst things about the House passing Obamacare was having to put up with Nancy Pelosi's patting her own back and gloating, in spite of 39 desperate Democrats who broke ranks in the hope of hanging on to their seats in 2010. Speaking of Pelosi, considering that it's been a very long time since the speaker was able to blink her eyes or to look anything but startled, do you think her plastic surgeon ever tells potential clients that he's the schlemiel who did the job?" The bill passed. Just because 22 Democrats didn't vote yea doesn't make it any less of an achievment, you fuckwit. By the way, very funny joke... One of the finest jokes I've seen in print in years.

7. Frankly, I don't know what it is about California, but we seem to have a strange urge to elect really obnoxious women to high office. I'm not bragging, you understand, but no other state, including Maine, even comes close. When it comes to sending left-wing dingbats to Washington, we're No. 1. There's no getting around the fact that the last time anyone saw the likes of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi, they were stirring a cauldron when the curtain went up on "Macbeth." The three of them are like jackasses who happen to possess the gift of speech. You don't know if you should condemn them for their stupidity or simply marvel at their ability to form words. That's good satire. Actually, it sounds more like something my high school students write when their parents ground them for smoking cigarettes, but hey, thanks for trying. We'll all congratulate you on your ability to forms words (although I can strongly believe the monkey's wrote this one and it just happened to be in English).

Thank you for reading my rant. SirChuckBPlease Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes 03:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Bert is pretty special, he was thrown off TownHall for being an extremist nut. - π 03:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
It occurs to me that if these guys REALLY thought that Obama and company were the murderous Stalinist Muslimofascist tyrants they like to pretend they think they are, they certainly wouldn't be bad-mouthing them in a public forum. Real tyrants don't generally take too kindly to that. --Gulik 20:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Relevant quote here from Roy Edroso:
I don't which would be worse: if they actually believe this shit matters, or if they're just pretending. Maybe we should also consider the possibility that they don't really know what they're doing anymore, and lash out at everything, like young Helen Keller.
--Kels 03:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Little Green Footballs

It's ironic. LGF was once known as a raving right-wing racist hate site and nicknamed "Little Green Fascists."[4] SoldierInGodsArmy 16:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The great Robert Anton Wilson once said that you can go from Liberal to Conservative in 20 years without changing a single opinion. Apparently, as the Republicans craziness gets more compacted, it works in the other direction as well. --Gulik 02:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I was reading Johnson's attack of sanity there, and was surprised to see such a...well, sane is the only word I can use, undercurrent running through most of the comments. Sure, they're still a bit self-congratulatory and have some really funky misrepresentations of the left and Obama, but it's a damn sight better than a lot of sites out there. And a damn sight better than the used to be. I'd love it if people like that took back the right in the US and Canada, they'd actually be decent partners in government. --Kels 02:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] IRONY in malkin's blog

Hohoho, I found a very great irony in Malkin's blog. She have a lead article criticizing the EPA and environmentalism while there is an ad addressing the issue of environmental problems. You guys should check it out her blog site before she realizes and makes Siemens remove the ad. I even made a screenie on this.--Dark Paladin X (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

facepalm at Malkin. BTW capturebot2 will do the screen captures for you. This page isn't watched, so put the <capture> tag here and on capturebot2's sandbox. CS Miller (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
that';s the trouble with those web ads - they latch on to whatever you're talking about, even if you're against it. You should have seen the weird New Age stuff we were getting when we had ads. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's irony. Just annoying mindless adbot garbage. It happens on Democratic Underground all the time. SoldierInGodsArmy (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Farah

As funny a comedian as he is, his mustache always gives me the heebie jeebies. Corry (talk) 08:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

This the polychlorinated biphenyl stuff? As someone working in one of the top chemistry departments in the world, that makes me cry more than laugh. I can tell that I'd put that stuff under Hazard Code 3 just by looking at it. It probably shows no ill effects because it'll be in the Hudson in the ppt range and practically nothing is harmful in that range (unless it's highly bioaccumulative). But he's right on the dredging aspect, dredging rivers is either a good idea or a bad idea, it depends on the circumstances. Near me, it's a very good idea because of all the flooding, in places where you have a lot of crap sank to the ground that you don't want churned up, it's probably a bad idea. Damn, did I just agree with Farah? Fuck... Scarlet A.pngpostate 13:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Stopping Avatar?

I'm sorry if somebody has already taken notice of this, but this blog has some... interesting opinions on the upcoming Avatar movie. Is it a valid potential entry? -- (talk) 21:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

POE! Professor Moriarty 21:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
On the one had, I'd say Poe any day and that they're trying to recreate anti-spore. However, I do know one trans friend who could basically claim anything as "offensive" thanks to having the mother of all persecution complexes. Scarlet A.pngpostate 21:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Identity-politicos can get like that. If they happen to be transsexual they will probably latch on to that as the identity. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
How is it a Poe? It's not a fundamentalist Christian blog (in appearance). They're allegedly protesting because there are no gay characters in the film. Wouldn't it be a like a reverse Poe? An "Eop?" SoldierInGodsArmy (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you were referring to people against the Avatar: The Last Airbender movie, which has come under fire for (literally) whitewashing most of the series' racially diverse cast. --Kels (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, not sure I get this. I guess the movie only shows heterosexuality or something? Does this mean that all works of art (to use the term loosely) must take pains to include every permutation of humanity somewhere in their plots? ħumanUser talk:Human 22:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Must be a Poe. There's just no way it's serious. (Of course, I've said that before and been wrong countless times....) Tetronian you're clueless 23:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I've met some people who would seem to think so. But mostly, people like that need to get the fuck over themselves and realise that the truth is far sadder than "everyone hates you because you're gay/trans/black"... no one really cares. Scarlet A.pngpostate 12:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Eh, given that I've known people who have been beaten, had rocks thrown at them, lost jobs and families due to just that reason, I'd say that a lot have some justification for a feeling of persecution. It still happens a fair amount even today. Although something like the link above there is taking things to a bit of an absurd extreme. --Kels (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cheques

Well, as it happens, I pay all of those things using a debit card each month. So there! — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

And honestly, anyone who uses a check in a retail store is a dinosaur. In this day and age the only reason to do so is if you're planning on committing fraud. DickTurpis (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Best of Conservative Media?

Okay, would this be the place to have fun with Faux News or WND, or should we create a new sister page for things like them, and maybe stuff like Rush and company's broadcasts? --Ravenhull (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Half the WIGOs on this page are WND items. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, there is some debate if WND could be considered 'news media' in any sense of the word, sooo... --Ravenhull (talk) 07:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Quick point about Farah's writing.

In regards to the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT IS HERE! Wigo.

Did anyone notice that every one of Farah's paragraphs contained just one sentence?

I mean, of course, reading text online is facilitated by breaking up long pieces of text much more.

Without the indents for first lines of first paragraphs associated with foramtted text in a book or a MS Word processed file, it's difficult to see paragraphs and how they're broken up.

So you add a line break to make it easier.

But isn't it a bit excessive doing it for every single sentence?

Not to mention looking a bit like a chain email your mother sent you. Scarlet A.pngpostate 17:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

That has actually been bothering me for a while now. I have also noticed that the sentences get shorter the further he goes on (and the more worked up he get on the subject). I have my suspicions that the main reason he runs his own news website is that nobody would hire him to write articles because of their shoddy quality, less than his hell bent hate on for liberals. In fact if he could write well I would image that liberal newspapers would be happy to hire him as he would give the appearance of "balance" in a strawman kind of way. - π 01:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Answers in Genesis let themselves be fooled by a parodist.

Is that link wrong or am I missing something? I am eating Toast& honeychat 22:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Grep the page for "Michael." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 22:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh.Bored.gif I am eating Toast& honeychat 22:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I didn't so much pick-up on the Michael thing, more the confusion behind that article. At the end the author mentions that it could just be a joke, but they still hold it up as an example of the "bankruptcy of Darwinian morality". It's kind of like watching Team America, accepting that it's possibly fiction, yet still citing it up as an example of Michael Moore's suicide bombing tendencies. It's a long tedious read, but I reckon you only need a third of it, and the end, in order to get the lulz. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 22:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Egregious sources

Is becoming a mess and is hard to read. Should we break it down into categories like we did sort of on blogosphere? If so do we group by clogo type or clogo level? Some of those websites don't produces much WIGO-worthy clogo, but are stupid none the less. - π 01:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

A blogo isn't it a separate article? Maybe this list should be peeled off to its own home, and categorized into chunks, like you say? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Well we already have RationalWiki:Webshites and RationalWiki:Blogroll. I like the sources at the bottom because I tend to go "I feel like WIGOing" and then start clicking links. - π 01:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
You do have tabbed browsing, right? ;) If the list is linked from the top of the wigo page it would be easy to access, and also people coming to check out new wigos wouldn't have to load it each time, too. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Rapture has a Date Again

Sorry if I'm slow on this and it's already been done, but our fourth favourite Clogo WIGO now has a date again. Don't bother making any appointments after Monday, December 14th, people. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 09:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Shit, I'm flying to Alaska to visit my parents for the hollidays on the 15th.... Do airlines give Rapture Refunds? SirChuckBPlease Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes 10:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Considering my departmental Christmas party is on the 15th, and considering the state I was in last year (free wine), it's not a bad estimate for the end of the world for me. I'm not sure about rapture-refunds. I've seen plenty of things (a post-rapture pet service, a post-rapute post service and so on) but I imagine they'd call it an "act of God" (obviously) and therefore exempt from your normal statutory rights. Scarlet A.pngpostate 12:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
You wake up with a hangover that lasts for all of eternity. CS Miller (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"Some Internet sites do not allow for the topics of Rapture or Second Coming. They do allow topics like sex, gay, and drugs." This website is comedy gold. Junggai (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

They're predicting February 2010, now--assuming I read that eye-gouging site accurately. (Why are so many nut sites so ugly? But then, there's plenty of 'professional'-looking nut sites, too...) --Gulik (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Buckrush video

(This falls somewhere between the bar, T:WIGO and here. Move if you think it rather belongs elsewhere.)

TerryH again pimps one of his blog posts on CP. On today's menu is a display of "truly spontaneous grassroots campaign power" that liberals at YouTube are trying to suppress!

In short, a rough timeline as far as I get it:

  • User "Buckrush" registered at YouTube (and Break, Dailymotion, Metacafe and maybe other sites) within the last few days and posts a video with quite okay production values. Certainly not your average John Doe camphone vid.
  • HillBuzz picked up the video (yes, by a guy who had pretty much just registered) within the same day.
  • YouTube had issues with its view counter. This seems to be a sadly common issue if you google for youtube view counter frozen. Oh, and something ("for obscure technical reasons") allegedly went wrong with embedding and direct-viewing, but the channel view still worked. HillBuzz (and by extension Terry) is quick to suspect liberals. Apparently someone at YouTube wanted to suppress the video by... uh... messing with the above things... instead of... you know... deleting it.
  • Now the video works again.
  • Terry creates article and hypes it on CP.

I'm sorry, but even when you ignore the YouTube glitch, this strikes me as engineered. A single-purpose account publishes a high-quality video and is instantly hyped by a conservative site? Right, total grassroots movement. The video doesn't even seem to try staying in character: It starts with things like "We trusted you" and "We elected you" and then suddenly switches to "We tried to warn you" and "But you wouldn't listen". Huh? Who made this? The first part makes it sound like a disillusioned liberal, but then it switches straight to the "The things Obama promised are evil!" and "Obama is to blame for everything!" gig. Weird.

And TerryH really sees this as a true grassroots movement that has come under fire by liberals? I... wow. Just wow... This is moving straight past "silly" and instantly aims for "tinfoil hat". I honestly thought that he was a smart guy who just happened to believe in some weird stuff when it comes to Creation (and especially the pre-Flood civilizations...), but this makes him look either gullible or deceiving.

But what saddens me the most is the more global trend by conservatives to be the "anti" side and little more. Are they really banking their entire success on more than 50% of the country hating Obama enough to vote for a party that by now seems to offer nothing but "We hate whatever liberals like!"?

Come on, guys. You could've spend that energy on showing the merits of your positions. Make a video about the things you believe in, not the things you hate. I'm sorry, but Hate Minute is over. You can try to send positive messages again. --Sid (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if I got something wrong or epically misunderstood something, please say so. It is quite late here, so it's possible that I simply missed something here. --Sid (talk) 03:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does TerryH look like a creep? Oh, and, I wish, I long for the old days, when Sid (yes, you) wrote most of the WIGO CPs... ah, "good times" as GooniePunk would say. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I busted out laughing when it was accusing Obama of bringing us into debt and it showed the graph where we suddenly went into the red in 2000. YorickDoing public school work 22:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Coulter, being not even wrong

Ann Coulter: "If you believe Christ died for your sins and rose from the dead, you have no choice but to give your life entirely over to Him. No more sexual promiscuity, no lying, no cheating, no stealing, no killing inconvenient old people or unborn babies – no doing what all the other kids do."

Thirty-Nine Articles: "Not every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism is sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable."

Luther's Small Catechism: "For we daily sin much, and indeed deserve nothing but punishment."

Westminster Confession: "This corruption of nature, during this life, doth remain in those that are regenerated."

Catholic saying: "Bless me, Father, for I have sinned." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait, wait...since when is Ann Coulter against killing inconvenient old people and babies? Or are foreign old people and babies "convenient"? --Gulik (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I've only ever seen Reds try and convince people not to worry about stopping sinning. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
This is why I prefer to sleep in on Sunday mornings rather than get dressed up and apologise for being human. Scarlet A.pngpostate 19:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
(EC) That is only because of their divergent definition of what constitutes a "sin." But at any rate, the mainstream Protestant position is that the Christian can only try to knock it off with the sin, and ought to do that, but they are going to sin anyway, and their faith pardons all of their sins past, present and future. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
I've always thought that if I truly believed there was a God and that he really wanted me to obey all these weird laws, I could do it. — Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
That is probably why the Puritans and their theological determinism went down the toilet. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 20:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Julie backs down

It would appear that Julie has deleted the opinion piece the wigo links to. Anyone have a copy? YorickDoing public school work 06:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the WIGO to include a link to a mirror of her wonderfully offensive and confused opinions. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 16:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Heidi Montag WIGO in retrospect

Thinking on this WIGO, is this necessarily an example of "the self-justifying logical gymnastics of the typical airhead Playboy model devout Christian!", or should the strikeouts be removed as they are the more appropriate reasons. Lets face it, this type of personality would be just as likely to say "Well, since evolution is ongoing, I'm just moving it along faster." Yes, she is a dimwit "devout Christian", but I think in this case, that's secondary to her "I'm a goddess" mentality. - Ravenhull (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Chuck Norris?

Could anyone tell me why and how a second (or third) tier actor is an expert on international relations and law enforcement? As soon as anyone says "I agree with Glen Beck," I lose any shred of respect I may have had for that individual, not that I had that much for Norris to begin with...Historygeek2007 (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

QED. MDB (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] "Atheist hate speech"

What was that sign doing in the Capitol, anyway? It may not be hate speech but it is a violation of the Establishment Clause. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It was near a nativity display. The Establishment Clause never said the government can't promote religion, just not one religion over another. So by having a nativity display they had to allow anyone to put what ever else they wanted there. To be honest it is a bit stupid all round. - π 05:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Fascism = leftism????

What is it with these people equating fascism with the left? Are they mad or what? yummy Toast&  honey(or marmalade) 07:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The whole point of the exercise was to redefine left-right in such a way as to allow all the ideologies Farah didn't like as leftist, then declare himself a centrist and align himself ideologically on par with the "founding fathers". - π 07:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I thought fascism didn't really have anything to do with the left/right line, it was more to do with the authoritarian or nationalistic attitudes. But still, it's as the WIGO says, Farah, and most wingnuts in general, use a very over-simplified left/right line. In fact, it's barely even a line with degrees etched on it. It's all very "Us" and "Them", a mentality that goes well with most right-leaning paranoia. (And still, what's with the big type and one-sentence-per-paragraph thing?) Scarlet A.pngpostate 07:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
I love that he considers Anarchy "far right." That's possibly the funniest thing I've ever read. Anarchists in the political spectrum is like calling athiesm a religion. EDIT: I also agree with Pi, this was simply an exhibition in mental masterbation to declare an Andy-like "I don't agree with these people, therefore they're liberals (or leftists in this case) SirChuckBEl...ipses are Cool... 18:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
That must be the stupidest version of the political spectrum I've ever seen. Complete misconception of what communism & anarchism are about. ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
He seems unable to grasp that totalitarianism can be on the left or the right and assumes that conservatism or the right is automatically synonymous with less government.  Lily Inspirate me. 16:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Brent's TV pitch

It's been done! "Midsommer Murders" had a mad atheist woman murdering clergy a few years ago. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs 14:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit] AFA Geography

Iran/Iraq, they sound similar, they're roughly in the same place, they're both full of ragheads Mulims, they're both trouble whenever they're on the news, they must be the same thing, aren't they? Jack Hughes (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

America has always been, and always will be, at war with Iran, and allies with Iraq. Just as 10 years ago, America has always been, and always will be, at war with Iraq, and allies with Iran. Just as 25 years ago, America has always been, and always will be, at war with Iran, and allies with Iraq. Excuse me while I report myself to the miniluv for having unthinkful memories. CS Miller (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools