User talk:Nx/talksandbox

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 15 November 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (new)(back)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

, (new)(back)


Stuff. — Unsigned, by: Nx / talk / contribs 19:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Human, User:Blue stuff -- Nx / talk 19:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Moar.-- Nx / talk 19:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate how assiduously Philip is sticking with RATE in order to continue claiming radiometric dating suffers demonstrable inaccuracies. I wasn't aware of any, only that RATE was a joke, but hey I'd do the same thing if it was all I had and the real evidence suggested variability more likely suggested by machine or operator error. What's more interesting is what happens when you apply the same heuristic to Philip's apologetics. If one tiny bit of it's off, doesn't the whole thing have to go out the window and get hatefully attacked without mercy as the folly of those who reject evidence in favor of blind faith? On a completely related note, my neighbors think I have Tourette syndrome from all the swearing that comes through the walls. Nutty Rouxnever mind 14:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

stuff-- Nx / talk 20:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I was at a news years party once and I split a small amount of highly intoxicating fluid all over the back seat of my car, my resulting outburst caused a woman to whisper to her friend "Does he have Tourettes?". Aceword up 19:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
testt-- Nx / talk 20:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
MOAR-- Nx / talk 20:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
MOAR MOAR-- Nx / talk 20:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

hm-- Nx / talk 20:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

test-- Nx / talk 20:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Moar stuff-- Nx / talk 20:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

West— Unsigned, by: Onion / talk / contribs 20:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm.. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
— Unsigned, by: Occasionaluse / talk / contribs 21:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

 — Unsigned, by: Occasionaluse / talk / contribs 21:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
It's actually detecting this last line as a modification of the previous one (added one extra :), while the previous one as a new line... which is already signed, so it doesn't need to sign it. -- Nx / talk 21:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Got it. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
It also seems like it's still not detecting edit conflicts properly, or rather it's forcing its edits through when there's an EC. -- Nx / talk 21:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

So if I do this... — Unsigned, by: Occasionaluse / talk / contribs 21:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

One last time
— Unsigned, by: Occasionaluse / talk / contribs 21:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
test -- Nx / talk 10:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)