RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive95

New Fave Webcomic
Dead Philosophers in Heaven Anything that puts Thomas Jefferson in a dildo hat in a-ok by me. -- PsyGremlin  10:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That made me snorfle! Totnesmartin (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I LOLed. "You shall wish your bottom had never been born." Indeed. 17:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Epic! Also check out the conversation between Sartre and de Beauvoir in one of the earlier strips. --Tweenk (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Anachronism in Genesis 7:2-3
Upon reading Number of each "kind" on Noah's Ark, I recalled that Genesis 7:2-3 is actually a very big anachronism. Clean and unclean animals are defined in Leviticus 11. See the article. --Tweenk (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Never noticed that before. Well spotted.--BobSpring is sprung! 12:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * O_O Never saw that before. Wow. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Easily explained to you godless baby-eaters. God was simply revising his plan. He'd just watched Noah store the two unicorns next to the two lions and went, "Ah, maybe we need a few more just to make sure." Of course, this implies that God's original plan wasn't omni-whatever, but that's just because He's testing your faith. -- PsyGremlin  11:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As a "failing-to-really-address-the-point answer" that's pretty good Psy.--BobSpring is sprung! 11:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've used that one on believers before. As usual, they rewrite both reality and their own terms on the fly to justify it.  ... of liberals? (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Suspected crank editor
On February 2011 User:Counteraction (no user page atm) inserted a long section in Aspartame about methanol toxicity. The entire article is written in a way that suggests aspartame may be unsafe. While I have no in-depth knowledge about this, my common sense as a chemist tells me that the concerns about methanol are unfounded; methanol is a classic threshold toxin. U.S. FDA and most food safety bodies agree with me. There are also important methodological errors in studies presented as evidence of aspartame's safety; for example, the diet soda study did not actually investigate what sweetener was used, and apparently did not control for diabetes.

Investigating other contributions reveals that he also added a long diatribe about depleted uranium toxicity which is apparently based mainly on anti-nuclear propaganda, and vaccine woo a questionable hypothesis to the Autism article. [edited] --Tweenk (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah shit, the aspartame thing was something I was meant to look into but that was just before taking a few weeks off. 01:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wasn't aspartame the reason cyclamate got banned? I seem to remember a toxicology lecture where we were told about an experiment whereby sponges were soaked in mixture of aspartame and cyclamate in very high concentration and then implanted into rat's bladders. This seemed to cause bladder cancer and so the recommendation was to ban cyclamate, even though (1) aspartame is the one that has been found to be carcinogenic in high concentrations and (2) the concentrations used in the experiment were so insanely high that there was no possible way an average consumer could get levels like that. Did I dream that? 10:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The study you refer to used a mixture of cyclamate and saccharin, not aspartame, see wp:Sodium cyclamate. WP says the results of that study were not reproduced. I think most of the food additive controversies are just chemophobia.
 * It's counter-productive to ban useful food additives because of a small increase in cancer at implausibly high intakes. Toxicology does not work that way. (Though the radiation protection people still haven't come to grips with that.) The extra risk of diseases from excess sugar and resulting obesity is obviously far higher than the possible risk of cancer. --Tweenk (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, that was it. Cheers. 09:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed
I'm sure not many British RWians were silly enough to say "Jedi" on the last census, but in case any did, please read this.

For non-Brits: the question reads as follows: 20 What is your religion? ->This question is voluntary
 * No religion
 * Christian (including Church of England, Catholic, Protestant and all other Christian denominations)
 * Buddhist
 * Hindu
 * Jewish
 * Muslim
 * Sikh
 * Any other religion, write in

Good to see "No religion" at the top, but it's a bit weird that "Christian" comes before "Buddhist". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Where's Bad Religion? --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Moon-and-Sun-Worship 22:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As much as I really really really really really want to put down Jedi, I'll be ticking the NR box. 23:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Church of Firefox? 03:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What, no Pastafarianism? Clickbot (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Scottish Census
The question SR posted is only for England (and probably Wales). In Scotland, we are getting different questions for our census, the questionnaire is here. The religious question is
 * Q13. What religion, religious denomination or body to you belong to? (This question is voluntary)
 * None
 * Church of Scotland
 * Roman Catholic
 * Other Christian, please state
 * Muslim
 * Buddhist
 * Sikh
 * Jewish
 * Hindu
 * Another religion or body, please state

CS Miller (talk) 10:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Welsh Census
I looked at the census website and noticed that Wales has its own version. I think the main difference is extra questions about the Welsh language. Anyway the religion section is:


 * Q20. What is your religion? (This question is voluntary)
 * No religion
 * Christian (all denominations)
 * Buddhist
 * Hindu
 * Jewish
 * Muslim
 * Sikh
 * Any other religion, write in

I guess they can't be bothered to list all the non-conformists in Wales. 14:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

My POWERS
I am a newbie, so can someone help me use my powers, and for good. I would like a bureaucrat. 21:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You want a bureaucrat? May I direct to you Ace McWicked? 22:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You could browse around here. 22:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * I was told that the desire for such powerz disqualifies you from having them. TeaPartyPlanner (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if I want them, it is just that I have them. 05:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm about to start menacing you menacingly. No rights for you. Ever. 13:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Science Blogs down?
I can't get 'em but down for everyone says they're up. 22:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Works fine for me. I can copy-pasta the latest Pharyngula if necessary. :P Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's up but has response time issues. Lots of connection timeouts. Mountain Blue 22:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been trying for about an hour. I'll catch 'em tomorrow - off to bed now. 22:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * Oh, good. It isn't just me. Seems like my IP address has been blocked by them for some reason, I guess yours has too. Works fine from my server. I'll give em a few days to get their act together, then might email. -- 01:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The www.scienceblogs.com server times out for me at work and at home. CS Miller (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's the same symptoms as the rest of us. Probably some overzealous new security they've added. Hopefully they'll figure out it's broken and fix it soon. -- 11:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hopefully. It's awkward to see good people conservapedia themselves in public. Mountain Blue 12:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Still can't access the site but I get a short feed. I note the following:
 * "This is about the symposium upcoming at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario ... ...I am writing to ask you if you think that it's acceptable for a symposium that you will be a speaking at - The Future of Academic Libraries - to have what appears to be only 3 women presenting out of a possible 21 speakers."
 * What, if anything, is our revered leader doing about this? 13:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]

Just in passing, could someone who can access the site please email 'em with the situation. Thanks. 13:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Down for me, too. I've been getting stories through my RSS reader - but that's at feeds.feedburner.com rather than scienceblogs. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 14:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "ScienceBlogs is experiencing a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack" Sci blogs: Respectful insolence (via RSS) 22:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * I'm not sure if you can read the actual article or not, but:

"We're still working with Rackspace to determine how and why this has occurred, and to get the site 100% accessible again, but in the meantime, we'd like to collect IP addresses from users who are still experiencing problems. Please ask anyone who has brought this problem to your attention to send their IP address to webmaster@scienceblogs.com. If they have trouble locating their IP address, you can send them to this site: http://whatismyipaddress.com/"
 * 22:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * yup! I got that off the feed. Done & Done, thanks. 22:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]

Let's trim our hair...
So, thanks to a link that was put up recently, I was reading up on this. Now, the first reaction of many people would be to think "oh, those silly communists!" or "well, those foreigners are stupid, we would never do that in the Glorious West". But think for a moment. Have you ever seen the average makeover show on US or UK television recently? This North Korean thing looks reasonably tame compared to the mauling people get in the name of fashion. It's pretty much the same thing, ritual humiliation followed by what is essentially a forced conversion to exactly what They say we should look and act like. They may as well watermark all of these shows with screen sized letters shouting OBEY at us. 00:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, only Godless commies would dictate something as personal as hairstyles. P-Foster (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * People trim their hair more than twice a year? ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 02:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why yes Mrs Blue trims her chest hair down to 3mm almost every month. I help her shave her back. Mountain Blue 02:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tell her to wax it. 12:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Charlie Sheen
The active ingredients of the new drug "Charlie Sheen" have been discovered, YEAH! 10:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't it just cocaine and furniture polish. CS Miller (talk) 10:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I dunno but I'm guessing it has to be taken vaginally Joke may or may not have been stolen from Charlie Brooker 10:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Census
Just got my census form through. Looking at the all-important religion question I see "No religion", all the usual options, and then "other". Does "No religion" count at atheist or are we putting it in the other box? 12:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's NO RELIGION! That's the stance of the BHA, Other only applies if you want to register as Zoroastrian or something. Now, repeat after me, "Atheism is not a religion". 12:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought, but of course just wanted to make sure. 14:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Making it optional makes it totally pointless: only the committed will bother. It'll show all the smaller religions (including "no religion") as more popular and Xtianity as lower.

Cookies
Just thought: doesn't RW drop cookies on user's computers. Do we have to get permission? 15:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have speculated that not even the EU government would be so delusional as to cover all cookies by such a law I would have been wrong.
 * I should think that clicking the "Login" button on the RationalWiki login page and checking the box marked "Remember my login on this computer" would constitute the granting of permission; but then again I am not a lawyer. 15:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not that bad. You can do with javascript most of what you are doing with cookies now. It only cripples the nastier uses. --62.142.167.134 (talk) 15:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I hear that the new HTML 5 standards allow Javascripts to store state in one's browser, which allows for worse abuse than the cookie framework. 15:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait, is this the same as the P3P policy stuff? I remember that buggering up the login on a PHP site I was maintaining. 16:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's an excellent rule. I hate that crunching sound of cookie crumbs in my keyboard while I type. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Obamacare
... whose insurance does not pay for crucial treatments for those problems(link grabbed off RSS feed - hope it works. Can someone tell them they've got trubbles please). What's wrong with these republicans? 19:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, but the only change the Republicans would make to that situation is to stop the government pretending that the law requires everyone to be properly insured. 19:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with LX. Obamacare is mostly pseudo-reform. Much like financial "reform" was. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also agree. Bill seemed insubstantial to me. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 21:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * NHS in the US! 21:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh I wish, but without the homeopathy.ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 21:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't hold my breath on that. FIRE has Congress in its back pocket. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, of course. We'll probably have to wait until the Singularity or the alien invasion for a national healthcare system. 21:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think nationalizing the hospitals would be going too far, but free single-payer insurance offered on an open market would not. 21:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * IOW, like the Canadian system. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It's got a great beat and you can dance to it. I give it a 9.
Or a 3.14159. P-Foster (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that kinda sounds pretty good.  03:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I like this one better. 03:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then there's this one.RagTop Gone sailing 11:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * the first link gives me something about being about to watch basketball on a phone. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

More profit for tobacco companies
in the UK they're gonna stop 'em displaying cigarettes in shops and probably make 'em use plain packaging. When the advertising ban was instituted I believe that percentage profits actually rose because of the reduced expenditure.(I think that Private Eye said something about this some time ago.) Presumably they'll get a similar boost when they don't have to pay for flashy packs. 13:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, hopefully in a month, they won't be getting a penny from me again. MDB (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good for you, MDB. I finally managed to quit after forty years and I'm loving the freedom, the health, the cash. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm using this gadget. We'll see how it works. I'm just starting it today, which means that for the next week, it's still analyzing how much I smoke and I can still continue slowly killing myself as often as I want. Speaking of which... MDB (talk) 14:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I like Danny Kaye's line when asked about his quitting smoking (since he was seen smoking at the time of the question):"I refuse to become a slave to willpower!" 22:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC) TeaPartyPlanner (talk)

Lunarocalypse
The moon'll be at its nearest since 1992 in ten days, should we worry? 15:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Civilization seems to have survived 1992 just fine. Mountain Blue 15:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah but maybe the moon was just warming up back then. This time it could strike! ONE / TALK 16:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Multi-million year old orbital bodies can't be trusted. Keep watching the skies! MDB (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The best thing to do is what people do every time something big might possibly happen, maybe, but probably not. Run around panicking, yell a lot, and then hide in a hole.  It hasn't happened in the last couple billion years, and if on the one in a quintillion chance it does...no one can do anything.  Get a lawn chair, pop a beer, and watch the show.  ~ Subsound ~ 19:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's at it's closest since 1992 then it obviously isn't as close this time round, otherwise they would have given an older date. So I think that we can probably relax and enjoy the view. 21:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK kids, seriously now. In an average month the moon's distance from the Earth oscillates between 363,104 km (perigee) and 405,696 km (apogee). The perigee of 356,577 km we're going to see this time is 98.2% of the average perigee. The difference between this particular perigee and the average perigee is obviously completely negligible next to the difference between average perigee and average apogee.
 * If it's so negligible, why are people talking about it? The time from perigee to perigee (the anomalistic month) is 27.55 days. This is less than the time from full moon to full moon (the synodic month) of 29.53 days, because of orbital precession and other complications. Due to the different periods perigee and full moon can't always coincide; in fact they coincide only once every 18.6 years, the period of the cycle of precession. This is what's going to happen in two weeks: the moon is not just going be slightly closer, it's also going to be very large and bright. Mountain Blue 23:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at the Sun's quiet, restrained, article. 08:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * A number of those articles have been saying that the tides will be more extreme, but (at least here on the east coast of Oz) the tides are not as high/low this month as they were last month. RagTop Gone sailing 11:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * lol, I know the Sun is not to be taken seriously but I love that article. A giant picture of the moon with the caption 'Danger' ... supermoon ONE / TALK 12:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The sun article is actually very "good". It manages to give an alarmist impression which suggests that there is a major problem - but if you look at each single sentence you can't really pick on one and say "that is false.".  Even the first paragraph about the predicted weather chaos" could be argued to be about the predictions of the unnamed "amateur scientists".--BobSpring is sprung! 14:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Where do atheists get their morals?
Could it be innate?: “We found that adult female birds possess at least one of the essential underpinning attributes of ‘empathy’; the ability to be affected by, and share, the emotional state of another.”. I saw this story all over the web before it clicked that empathy is one of the causes of morality. Tell PJR &Co and all those fundies who say we need a godgiven set of rules. 08:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Clearly these birds are able to read and have read the bible, otherwise where would they get these morals? You probably oppose nest-rearing prayers as well? 09:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * She's probably in favour of beak control too. ONE / TALK 12:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was hoping the answer to the title question would be "Wal-Mart. Normally $12.95, but they're on sale this week for $11.50." MDB (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relevant Sen (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but what are these "more als" of which you speak? -- PsyGremlin  15:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also relevant 17:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They must protest the atheists who want to push abortion. 17:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Running for President
I've decided to run for President, and I'm going to create a campaign based entirely on sound bites that no one would dare rebut (because it would take too long in today's media culture.)

My platform includes:
 * Opposition to the Tariff of Abominations. (In part, because I just like saying "Tariff of Abominations".)
 * "54-40 or Fight!" (Sure, it would mean war with Canada. They've had it coming for years.)
 * Freedom for Communicado. (You're heard about all those poor political prisoners being held in communicado? It's time we went to Communicado and rescued them!)
 * Stopping the suffrage of women. (Do you want women to continue to endure suffrage? Why do you hate women?)

I admit I stole most of these jokes.

MDB (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Party? ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 15:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bull Moose! MDB (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But do you have a mustache? ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 15:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 54-46 was my number. 15:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do, in fact, have a mustache. Not as impressive as TR's, though. (I love Teddy Roosevelt. He may not have been one of America's best Presidents, though he's up there, but damn, he was a cool guy.) MDB (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, in that case, you may be a contender. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 15:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ann Coulter would endorse your candidacy. However, I'm still voting for the Standing at the Back Dressed Stupidly Looking Stupid Party. They're for the compulsory serving of asparagus at breakfast, free corsets for the under-fives, and the abolition of slavery. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tragically, their candidate accidentally cut his head off while shaving. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 16:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, the guy who beat him was at least as smart as George Bush. MDB (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But is Prince George smarter than President George? ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 17:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bull Moose? You could go for the Democratic-Republican Party if you want to raise a dead political party into life. 17:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ahem. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 17:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you from Vermount, if you aren't may I suggest the Rational Party as your political party, or at the one to run for president party. 21:14, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I do not live in Vermont. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 21:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So do you support the Rational Party? 21:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 22:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

David Icke
(Sorry if this was already posted) Someone on the forums has noticed us:

Wtf haha

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/David_Icke

And Lloyd Pye's

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Intervention_theory

Is this webpage a complete joke? I hope so, otherwise this has to be one of the most immature and conservative site ever. Their logo pretty much sums it all up, a brain held captive.

I actually had a laugh

I'm glad we can provide so much humour to the world :) 17:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Um is it just me, or does anybody else see a connection between the Moon being really, really close and people calling us conservative? Either way, I've got me a bunker to dig. -- PsyGremlin  18:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To the loony-left, everyone right of Karl Marx seems to be a fascist, as to the Conservapedians everyone left of Sarah Palin seems to be a liberal. 18:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it was an old Taoist saying that "If the sage's words are only mocked by the village idiot, then he knows that he is on the right path". Something like that, I lost the damn book in a move.  ~ Subsound ~ 18:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, here in the West we have Jesus with his "Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings, thou hast perfected praise." 18:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh I love reading the Icke forums. The total absence of logic and reason beggers belief. It's not the only time they've noticed us. Ydam (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Amazing. Ike has acolytes? Or is this poe's law again?--BobSpring is sprung! 12:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two audiences for this sort of thing: the amused and the nutters. Fortean Times apparently has similar problems with its more concerned readers - David Gerard (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you eliminated civilisation today?
Because Newt says that's what people like me want to do. Shouldn't actually saying these things out loud disqualify people from a political career? Also, I did enjoy the bit about how god forgives him for screwing around, so who gives a shit if his former wives are down with it. Wow, what person in their right minds would vote for this douche? -- 13:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but the day is young. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 14:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The more I see the GOP candidates coming to the fore, the more I see 4 more years for Obama, unless Hillary defeats him in a Dem primary. If Palin, Newt, Huckabee and Romney are the best the GOP have, Gawd help them. -- PsyGremlin  13:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I already see pick ups with Palin 2012 bumper stickers. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 14:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you sure they're not Democrats? Supposedly, the White House salivates over the possibility of a Palin candidacy. MDB (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure, they also usually have "I don't trust the liberal media" and "when liberals die the south will rise" stickers. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 14:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's just something about pretending to be hysterical that's so much fun. I can't wait for 2012 teabag rallies. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, isn't it funny how everyone has forgotten about how much they're taxed, and how many victory mosques are being built now there aren't any elections going on. -- 14:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Election 2008 was one of the most entertaining periods of my life. The way it's going, 2012 could easily beat it. ONE / TALK 15:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with ONE. The media spectacle of the 2012 election will be very fun to watch. Plus, it'll be even more fun to watch SNL and others parody it. 16:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The best part of it is that Newt is/was considered the "intellectual force" behind his party because he was a history professor. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That cbn link was really grabby, using all available processor ticks and launching a handful of npviewer.bin blivets that wouldn't go away without an extra stomp. I am far too civilised to read anything that comes in such an arrogant wrapper. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Courtier's Reply
Hey, sry I haven't been around much lately, but I've been kinda focused on my youtube channel (I changed over from Mustex4 to WatcherAzazel to match my blogtv name, and I just hit 350 subs! Yay me!), but I hope you guys won't mind if I occasionally use you for an outside opinion. I recently did a video, and got a comment accusing me of using the Courtier's Reply, but being too stupid to know that was what I was doing. Now, I don't think what I was saying was an example of this, because the Courtier's Reply means generally discarding someone's entire argument based on claims that they're not qualified, while I was criticizing people who basically said that their hero Thunderf00t didn't need to study religion in order to bash it, simply because they believe that religion isn't true (in my view this is approximately the same as saying "all things that are not true should be treated the same, thus a child with an imaginary friend should be locked in a psych ward the same as a schizophrenic serial killer"). Anyway, point is, could you tell me whether I was using the Courtier's Reply: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4g9JzQQvtR8  --Mustex (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

On March 12, 2011 we have a Block War
Who wants to join me, Commander-in-Chief and General ColbertFan, and my side in the Block War?(Sign your name with ~ ):
 * 22:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

And who wants to join the enemy, the first one to join the enemy is the commander-in-chief and a general(Sign your name with ~ ):

The block war will begin on March 12, 2011 and will end when 2/3s of a team agrees to surrender. 21:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a bot. You don't know what you're getting yourself into. 22:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dick just blocked him for three months. I don't think he knows how to unblock himself. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 22:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ha. Winning. 22:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll offer my services. For 250 internet ducats I will unblock any RW sysop who asks nicely. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Some one blocked me, the weird part is, THE BLOCK WAR WAS NOT TODAY! Anyways, what should we call the block war? 22:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just now it seems appropriate to call it the "Spanish Inquisition." Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My wrath will be terrible. 3... 2... 1... 00:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Lets just call the Block War of 2011, what the War of 1812 didn't just take place in 1812.
 * Wars adhere to no schedule. Wars have but one purpose: to defeat your enemy utterly and completely. The nuclear option is always on the table. This we call brinksmanship. DickTurpis (talk) 22:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women. " ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 22:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I will also give partial credit for "The open steppe, a fleet horse, a falcon on your wrist, and the wind in your hair!" DickTurpis (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well Block Wars are for fun, most people who do it want to end ALL wars. 22:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What if we all preemptively block ourselves so no one can block anyone else. Bring in the Crack Suicide Squad! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, it looks like we have another CUR on board. Or perhaps... 00:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Have I made my point? Power... unlimited power... 00:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems no-one waited to have a block war to a schedule. How surprising.   DogP (talk) 01:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Blue has the biggest e-peen around, apparently. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

THE BLOCK WAR IS OVER, BLUE WON!!! PEACE, FREEDOM, LIBERTY AT LAST!!!!!!!!!! Also, if you part of the block war you can use the template  18:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Friday conundrum
OK people, take the following scenario: You're playing around with some weird mathematical equations one day, and realise you've created a program that can return all the factors of a huge number (and therefore also tell you which of those factors are prime numbers) and realise you have stumbled upon something that can destroy that nice, safe asymmetrical encryption algorithm known as RSA which is used for just about every part of digital security these days, from SSL to digital signatures. So what would you do? Realise you've opened pandora's box and delete it, never to be mentioned again? Sell it to the government? Make it public? C'mon! 15:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Tell me. 2) Exploit it for every penny you can. 15:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Write paper, win Turing prize, spend prize money. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 15:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Breaking the encryption isn't a huge deal, is it. Whats the Big O for your program? Occasionaluse (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, bogosort and its O(n * n!) average case. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 16:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen the movies - you sneak into the CS block in the dead of night disguised as a janitor and write the code on a blackboard. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If I had some magical algorithm, I'm burst into a CS lecture at some prestigious university, kick something over, grab the chalk, sloppily write my work to a symphony of whispers and fear (forgot to mention that I'd be hammered), say something like "I'm out, bitches" and never look back...at least not until I was awarded tenure. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're close to it, others are. You may as well release early and claim the credit - David Gerard (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * i'd wonder how i ever managed it when i can't even get the cashing up right at the shop. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the standard procedure is to scribble down a note in the margin of a book and let people rack their brains over it for the next few centuries. --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to be a sellout I suppose you sell it either to the military or some evil company in order for them to snoop on people. If you want to help mankind then erasing it is not a good option because deleting knowledge is regressivist, plus because if you found it, someone else will too and he might be a sellout and sell it to the military and evil companies. (and they might not even be part of the same imaginary tribal unit). So instead, I'd say grab whatever mathematical prize and then make it known to the entire world, in order to provide an incentive to switch to new standards. Sen (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You need to consider the possibility that the military already has it. The NSA knew about differential cryptanalysis some thirty years before the scientific community independently rediscovered it. British spooks knew about asymetric encryption and the open key distribution it allows some twenty years before Diffie and Hellman. I say whitepaper. Publishing is easier then selling and fame lasts longer than money. Show it to some competent academic first for a sanity check though. These kinds of algorithms tend to have subtle but catastrophic bugs. Mountain Blue 23:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If it means it can crack NAGRA 3 then the nice people at Eurovox would be a good place to start.  01:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In this situation, I would immediately contact North Korea, and troll the whole world. Imagine it: It is announced that Kim Jung Il has personally done this, and he ACTUALLY can do it... 01:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Ask to be paid in nukes. Mountain Blue 02:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

A story
A poor man lies next to a road, seriously injured. A woman walks by and tells the poor man that if he had only been a strict believer of her personal faith, he would have been saved. The woman walks away. A man walks by, sees the injured man, and stays with him, calling for the best aid possible to this poor soul. Who are we?
 * The man was an Abh. The woman was from the United Mankind. :)--ZooGuard (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WE are the Borg.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Death by Facebook
In the last seven days my grandmother (we really weren't very close) and a close friend from my teenage years died. I learned about both deaths via Facebook -- the first via a message from my old man, the second an hour ago from a status update from my buddy's sister who was running his account for him while he was sick. This is truly a social development I was not really expecting to have to deal with. Do we need a "Miss Manners" for dealing with death in the age of the status update, or is this no different from phone calls, which is the way I was used to navigating these sorts of events? Does the mob have any thoughts/experiences with post-huge events via FB? Or stories where FB or other social media made things easier? P-Foster (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * When the Christchurch quake hit all the news was predicated and seen through twitter. The same with this latest Japan quake and with the situation in the Middle East. The main news channels get their initial feeds through social media. Amazing times we live in. Ace of Spades 22:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 23:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Shit, right. . P-Foster (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * TK was only known to any of us through the internet. It's therefore unsuprising that, if we are to find out that he has died, it would come through the internet. 12:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Could someone unblock me
I hate editing from my mobile - pi


 * Done. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Free, free at last. -  π    10:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You fool, SR! You don't know what evil you have unleashed! Totnesmartin (talk) 10:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wah ha ha ha ha!!!! I'm back!!! -  π    10:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish I had a mobile when I was blocked.

Will the NHS changes happen?
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the coalition simply won't have the majority in the House of Commons to pass their NHS reform bill. After the tuition fees debate and votes, I said to friends that I thought Greg Mulholland (for whom I voted in 2010, but have since moved into the neighbouring constituency) would become the voice of Lib Dems rebels, and it seems to becoming true. Around the announcement of the NHS changes, Mulholland formed the Liberal Democrat Backbench Group and is currently the leader/representative of this group. The Lib Dems abstaining won't do the job, you'd need 10-15 Tory rebels (which seems pretty likely) and then 20+ Lib Dems voting against. Given that the Lib Dem conference has now passed a resolution against the plans (in their current form). Maybe I'm being overly optimistic, maybe I'm putting too much faith in the Lib Dems, maybe I just like Greg Mulholland because he bought me a pint that time.... but I really think that it won't go ahead. And, given how "important" it is to reduce the deficit, apparently, I think Cameron would (embarassingly) move back on the NHS, rather than risk losing the vote in the commons... He knows that losing a vote within 18 months of forming a government would weaken him significantly. 13:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like the Lib Dems went and found a spine, so let's see if they can steer the NHS away from the rocks. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

WIGO: What is going on at FAUX News?
There should be a new type of WIGO, What is going on at FAUX News. Thanks 17:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Leave that to Daily Show interns. 18:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, really. You see FAUX News, like Conservapedia, is so full of stupid that it needs its own WIGO. 19:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's a nice idea, but too specialised, there're plenty of other things which would be equally of their own WIGO, and it may well die of idleness like a couple of other WIGOs. We could, certainly, discuss reforming the WIGO categories to have more: Conservapedia, Clogosphere, Blogosphere, USA, UK, Rest of the World, Bad News. Bad News would be for mainstream news only, with stories misrepresenting the truth in a shocking way, filled with Fox and the Daily Mail. The WIGO entry itself would be a few lines long, explaining why it's so wrong. That's the way I'd approach it, instead of a specific one for Fox. 19:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, w/out Fox WIGO world would be smaller. WIGO ASK is nearly dead, WIGO 4th Reich is dead.ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 19:11, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, Fox is of of very limited interest.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * unless we have a WIGO:Media, for stories where the media itself is the story. It's would fit article 4 of the mission statement, too. Just an idea. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean a specific "What is going on in the Media?" like complaints, changes, murdoch trying to take things over, etc... or the WIGO Bad News idea above, more where mainstream outlets deliberately mislead? 20:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A bit of both perhaps, where questions of ownership overshadow an outlet's output. But not "NBC buys up Seattle Morning Herald" for its own sake. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, people still fail to understand the difference between a clog and a blog.   Moan whine whinge.   DogP (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with DogP. Fox News, for the most part, would fall under clogo. If Fox was dominating clogo, I could see the point. As it is we have media matters any way. -  π    00:03, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We've had the WIGO:Media discussion before. The trouble is trying to get it to work and differentiating it between WIGO:Clog and WIGO:World. It'd certainly be an interesting experiment to try and see what people make of it but it'd need publicising and presence among the other big four (as well as some dedicated individuals to kick-start it) to work properly. Since we're generally highly conservative and don't like major changes on this site, that's going to be hard, if not impossible, to achieve. 00:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We would then be ripping off MMFA if we did a FAUX wigo.--Thanatos (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Unblock Me!
Please - ColbertFan
 * Thanks, whoever did it. 23:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

SUCK IT SCOTLAND
Andy Lee (Ireland) come from behind win with 10th round KO.--Thanatos (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Atheist Machismo
So I'm poking around on the OK Cupid data mining pages - always a good way to spend a dull Sunday - and I come across this. Check out rule #6. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, but you forget, true Christians are already happily dating / mAarried, so don't need OK Cupid. -- PsyGremlin  11:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (starts vegetarian metal zombie band called Sky-breaking Thunderbolts of Zeus) Totnesmartin (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would listen to that. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 12:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then again, I listen to this . ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 12:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah? I listen to . 16:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This calls for some Gunther. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Pussies -- PsyGremlin  16:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fail. You weren't supposed to post good stuff. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait... you thought that was good? Himmel gott... -- PsyGremlin  16:35, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wat? I think you need an education in truly shitty music. Start here. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Like this you mean? Sorry, but I'm genetically indisposed to listen to bad music. Bit of a blessing this day and age. -- PsyGremlin  16:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, singing in a funny voice is not nearly good enough. Try this classic cut from the album Tokyo Anal Dynamite. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * McArthur park is meting in the dark... all the sweet cream icing running down... ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 17:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Those results are quite funny. I also liked rule 1.  It'd also be interesting to find out if it's a result of atheists only mailing (or whatever they do on the site) other atheists, and maybe christians just assume everyone else is a christian (As I'm sure we've all felt in the real world) making them sending their in(s)ane pro-jesus stuff to everyone they talk to making them not only fail to stand out, but being ignored by the substantial part of the community who are not Christian.  (I once had a girl try to hit on me/break the ice with me by talking about how she was such a "good christian girl" going to church 3x a week, reading the bible every day, etc.  This did not go over well with me.)   13:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * maybe she was looking to be corrupted. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Possible. She was in a class of mine.  That first time, she didn't know I wasn't also christian, but she continued to flirt with me after she discovered that, including giving me a call out of the blue to let me know she was getting married.  Which I thought was bizarre, and someone else told me it was a "I'm getting married, sure you're not interested?" call.  So I have no clue.  I was dating my now wife at the time, so even if she didn't come across as creepily religious, I wouldn't have been interested.  One of the best conversations is when she tried to get me to take a "Bible studies" lit class.  "Who knows, maybe if you read it, you'll like it!"  "I've read it"  "Oh?  What's your favorite book?" "Ecclesiastes" *blank look* "you mean Deuteronomy?"  "...No."  Well, I thought it was fucking hilarious.   18:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Atheism is the new black. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But with smaller knobs. (and if I have to tell you "kidding!" you fail forever) -- PsyGremlin  16:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Outlaw Charlie Sheen
The Charlie Sheen drug is a very bad drug, OUTLAW IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am a tween, but I have still heard 'bout Charlie Sheen. A youtuber comment said chuck norris borrowed charlie sheen's brain and couldnt handle﻿ it

So he is replacing Chuck Norris! 01:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Um.
 * A. Prohibition doesn't work
 * B. Nobody cares about Chuck Norris.
 * ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 02:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Somebody cares about Chuck Norris - 🇰🇪. But then he's a nobody, so I guess you are correct in your assertion. Clickbot (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My god, your attention whoredom surpasses that of CUR's. -  π    02:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What. LordSlug Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008 02:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a website full of adults. Intelligent adults. 30 exclamation marks? Come on. 03:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * why did you count them? LordSlug Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008 03:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * why did you? ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 03:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a guess.... 03:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is 30. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 03:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, good guess. Then, sir, I must ask... why did you count them? :P 03:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To check if there were 30. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 03:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * On a side-note, anyone ever see The Arrival? One of my favorite sci-fi movies.--Thanatos (talk) 03:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Intelligent adults." is not a sentence!

Fallen Soldiers and Charlie Sheen
You may have seen this if you're on Facebook.

"Charlie Sheen is all over the news because he's a celebrity drug addict, while Andrew Wilfahrt 31, Brian Tabada 21, Rudolph Hizon 22, Chauncy Mays 25, are soldiers who gave their lives this week with no media mention. Please honor them by posting this as your status for a little while."

Here's an article on just who those four soldiers were. MDB (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This aint no earthquake, it was Charlie Sheen smoking a mass of rock. Ace of Spades 13:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It bothers me that soldiers dying deserves media attention. Whilst Sheen's antics are really not newsworthy, is the death of someone doing a dangerous job with a high risk of being killed all that important? MARCVS ANTONIVS 13:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, if I had to choose between a story about somebody dying for his country (even if I disagree with the reasons for his fighting) and the antics of a drug-addled fuckhead, I know which I would choose. Then again, I don't write newspapers - the war is old, and a downer. Let the unwashed masses salivate over Sheen's latest crap. That's what sells papers. -- PsyGremlin  14:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't want to sound like a dick, and it is tragic... but four people dying in Afghanistan simply isn't headline news anymore. It is expected, sadly. 14:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not like news is an either/or situation. It's possible to report both. 14:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, also, reporting on fallen soldiers requires a little bit of actual old-fashioned journalism. The CNN piece I linked involved the reporter actually talking to the family of one of the soldiers, and he tried to contact the other families, too. Charlie Sheen, you just have to run the latest video of him making a fool of himself. MDB (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems well-intentioned, but shallow. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Whilst I agree with the sentiment, I often find myself explaining to people who say things like this that it's quite simple; the media exists to sell newspapers / attract viewers / listeners / readers (and thus sell advertising) and that is the kind of shit the majority of people want to read about. Similarly, when I hear "footballers are on £100,000 a week, they don't deserve that when policemen are only on £30,000 - it just isn't right", I have to retort that there aren't millions of people who will pay to watch a copper do their job.  Football clubs pay these obscene wages because they thing the players are worth it. (although the bubble is going to well and truly burst very soon - but that's a different subject.....)   14:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If people really want the death of soldiers to be big news, they need to get it on tape. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Like many of the "post this status if you agree" things, I agree on the well-intentioned but shallow comment. If you really care about soldiers so much, you should be doing something like donating to Help For Heroes or joining one of the schemes where you can send them things in the mail (as my mother has been doing for a few years now, she's practically adopted the entire RDG). A silly little meme isn't going to bring people back from the dead or make the world just, that sort of thing requires something we call "effort". 20:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sheen is far more worthy of attention. The guy is a genius. Albeit a fucked up one. Ace of Spades 20:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC and outdent because of stupid Ace who is stupid) Honouring someone's memory in a status is nice, but the post-this-if-you-agree-this-is-fucked-up irks me for the reason that people often do it to seem "deep" and "have opinions" about stuff, although I'm very biased against social networking sites because status updates make people look like whiny, self-centred bitches. Like Armondikov said, if you really want to try and make a difference, donate, join schemes, etc., and do it for the reason that you truly want to help things, not to make it look like you care.
 * On Charlie Sheen, I've never actually minded the guy, though I do think Two and a Half Men is absolutely terrible however, and I feel embarrassed for the US that it's one of your top rated sitcoms. 20:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Josh - Two and a Half Men is fucking awful. But Sheen is a genius. I think it's a hoax. Ace of Spades 20:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thirded. 2.5 men is absolutely shite, but Hotshots was fucking superb.  23:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's a hoax. Chuck Lorre is pretty fucking pissed off and I don't think they need it for publicity or anything. Anyway, on the original Facebook-based subject I'm trying to pluck up the courage to write something as a FB status involving the words "self indulgent pricks", or perhaps kindly direct everyone to the Help For Heroes donation page or perhaps the British Forces Post Office or FAB. I'm split on whether to do it that publicly because they do actually mean well, and it's a cunt-ish thing to do to attack people like that - but at the same time it really annoys the fuck out of me. But you know what the real damming hypocrisy about it is (this sort of thing genuinely pisses me off), it's that the soldiers named in that silly little meme would have gone completely unnoticed if it wasn't for Charlie Sheen. So Sheen is, in fact, responsible for extra publicity for their deaths. Yeah, could anyone recite their names before that? Better still, will they be able to recite the names a week from now? I fucking doubt it. 00:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I want not approve on it. I think good post. 00:56, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ADK, you will be pleased to hear that when that stupid "change your FB profile picture to a cartoon character to support the NSPCC" meme was doing the rounds last year, I changed mine to a screenshot of me donating money to the charity, and extremely cuntishly wrote that this is more likely to help them than a picture of a cartoon character. Once again the irony is that were it not for the dumb meme I probably wouldn't have made the donation...  01:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's good irony. But still, point made. 06:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The future - it's frightening.
So somebody sent me this youtube video which shows the wonderful technological future which awaits us. It seems to be a promotional video but I think it's simply frightening. Thoughts? --BobSpring is sprung! 21:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That looks like an iPad 3.0 ad, but it's not going to be the future because everybody knows the future is portable. --62.142.167.134 (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Kind of like an iPhone --Idiot numbre 188 (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, they had phones with their magic glass, too. I think it looks awesome.  And I cannot wait for our glass overlords.   23:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the idea, but I'm not so sure about the public interfaces. They'd get broken right away. 01:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking things like: learning curve for all this stuff? Bandwidth? Energy consumption?  What OS? Look everything works perfectly every time! Receiving emails and friend requests while I'm shaving! How not convenient! The future is certainly full of beautiful people!--BobSpring is sprung! 16:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It would likely be OS independent. The most important stuff for most of that is the interactivity between devices, and would be better filled by good communication standards.  Most of the energy consumption for that would be less than you'd think.  I know around me, the streets are already full of LCDs, and these glass displays should take less than those.  Bandwidth is always a problem, but is always expanding.  IPv6 would need to be in more wide use by then.  And I'm sure you could just, you know...  not get friend requests while shaving.  I think the SPAM filters would have to be improved.  I'd like to get the e-mail from my wife while shaving, not so much an offer for viagra.   22:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it kind of assumes a Utopia where there aren't mindless vandals. Still, it's fucking beautiful. 00:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * On a similar futuristic CG interactive note, watch World Builder. 07:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Science Fiction/Double Feature
I just saw the Rocky Horror Picture Show for the first time and here are my thoughts: I am not quite sure of what I saw, liked the energy of the film, loved the music, Janet was hot, Brad looked alot like Clark Kent, got to get my own copy. I feel mildly mind-fucked.--Thanatos (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dr. X. will build a creature. See Androids fighting Brad and Janet... I love that movie. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 03:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I really can't imagine just watching RHPS like a normal movie: unless you're in a theatre surrounded by girls in lingerie throwing toast and raising umbrellas and doing the pelvic thrust, what's the point? P-Foster (talk) 03:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Trolling grandmothers. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 03:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Alot.jpg
 * headdesk. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 03:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If I ever see a midnite screening, I will go. For now, I have to settle for when it is on IFC.--Thanatos (talk) 03:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll prolly have to wait for Halloween for that. P-Foster (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * RHPC and the stage show are two different experiences. It's certainly worth doing the latter if you ever get the chance. 06:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Rocky Horror saved my life. It helped me embrace the freak and the gay in me. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Even having watched it in a theatre, I never saw the big deal about it. MDB (talk) 11:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen both, and agree that it's not all it's cracked up to be. The fun comes with the "extra" lines said by the audience, the atmosphere and the whole show surrounding the show. I still recall being part of a group heading into a typical Edinburgh bar after seeing the movie. We were all at least wearing outrageous makeup, and the memory of my good friends Claire and Rosemary in their... special... costumes is one that is often with me... –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I saw the stage show and, at around the same time, the stage show of Little Shop Of Horrors. For me Rocky Horror has always come second to Little Shop, both on stage and on screen. Feed me, feed me now! Jack Hughes (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My girls saw the movie while sleeping over at a friends place. They were about 9 & 10 at the time. They came home raving about this weird movie and I was able to dig out my old vinyl and sing every word. What credibility in their eyes! RagTop Gone sailing 11:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree that it is not particularly polished and the picture show is not a great piece of cinema, but this all adds to the charm. Besides, the tunes are all fabulous (I love the Floor show/rose tint my world). It is certainly the first thing that I saw that made me think that it is alright to be gay and that being the freak that I have always been made to feel was a positive thing. It helped me through a very dark period in my life and allowed me for the first time to be really gay. For some time afterwards I tried to approach life like frank n furter (and to some degree Sally Bowles) and I no longer feel so ashamed of my baser urges and wear the taunts of 'freak' as a badge of pride. If you are well adjusted you may not really 'get' Rocky horror. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That reminds me, a friend at work asked if I could fix something because he has alot on his plate at the moment. 12:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Bank of America email leaks!

 * you guys (and girls) should check this out bankofamericasuck.com, it contains delicious leaks. LordSlug Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008 08:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "The documents indicate that Bank of America improperly foreclosed on several homes during the height of the financial crisis in 2008 that began one of the worst recessions since the great depression. The report came from a former employee with Balboa Insurance — a risk management and insurance firm. The employee reportedly corresponded with Bank of America employees and was told to falsify loan numbers on documents to force Bank of America to foreclose on homeowners." LordSlug Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008 09:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to steal your thunder, but we've got a page for this: foreclosure mill. Good to see that BoAsuck is up again -- BoA closed down a bunch of sites with variations on BoAsucks or [BoACEO]sucks last year. Julian Assange has been threatening to release documents from one of their hard drives for a while now too. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "The documents indicate that Bank of America improperly foreclosed on several homes during the height of the financial crisis in 2008 that began one of the worst recessions since the great depression. The report came from a former employee with Balboa Insurance — a risk management and insurance firm. The employee reportedly corresponded with Bank of America employees and was told to falsify loan numbers on documents to force Bank of America to foreclose on homeowners." LordSlug Proudly flopping onto the couch since 2008 09:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to steal your thunder, but we've got a page for this: foreclosure mill. Good to see that BoAsuck is up again -- BoA closed down a bunch of sites with variations on BoAsucks or [BoACEO]sucks last year. Julian Assange has been threatening to release documents from one of their hard drives for a while now too. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Wondering how many people will get this joke...
My iPad 2 is shipping all the way from Hong Kong? Phooey. MDB (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Really, you needn't have bothered. 11:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it an all-around super guy? Quicker than the human eye? Fan-riffic? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Very good. You get ten million bonus points, delivered to you by the ghost of Scatman Crothers. MDB (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Am I and can I stop?
Lots of people are complaining that I am annoying, why and can I stop it? 16:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest maturing a bit. Unfortunately that takes years. In the meantime perhaps you can be a little more selective with what you say in discussions? Read what you've written a few times before hitting the save page button and ask yourself "does this add anything to Rationalwiki?" DickTurpis (talk) 17:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry that much about it. I joined here 2 years ago and was incredibly annoying back then. Now I'm just a bit annoying, rather than incredibly. The longer you stay here, the more we get used to you. Like a puppy. Or a rash on your genitals. 17:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your message suffers from poor phrasing - do you want to be less annoying, or do you want the complaining about you to stop?   If the former, well, just be less annoying.   If the latter, you could try hunting us all down and murdering us in our beds?   (PS - I'd rather not be murdered, thanks, so if you could just try the former option first?   Kthxbi).   DogP (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was almost as annoying as you when I first joined RW. Best advice would be to RESPOND TO PEOPLE'S COMMENTS WHEN THEY TRY TO ENGAGE YOU, that would be fantastic. Apart from that, years of the wonderful public school system can do wonders. 19:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, you use the same color scheme for your signature as I do, which is a bit annoying. 19:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Everyone on the internet is annoying. Just... I dunno, it sounds daft... but 'friendly blocks,' is a joke that goes back years, much longer than I was here. So when someone tried to ORGANISE a block war and fills Recent Changes with it a lot, I can imagine people would get a bit annoyed. Plus, if somebody engages you in a discussion, and questions your opinion, I can also imagine it'd be really frustrating if they write 300 words and get a 15 word answer which shows it hasn't be read (possibly some exaggeration). So yeah, it's fine, don't stress... just don't try too hard. 19:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I will change the sig-color scheme, as soon I learn how. 22:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not nor never have been annoying on the internet. Ace of Spades 22:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine... "Everyone is annoying on the internet while sober." :P 22:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not fair, I'm a bit drunk and I'm very annoying. See the 3 month block I just dealt you, Dalek! 00:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I said that all sober people are annoying, but not that all drunk people are not. wp:Denying the antecedent, bitches! 00:55, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey. Hey. Hey. Everyone complaining about high gas prices.
I got my bike. *zooms away*

Of course, now to make a more serious point. A lot has been said about the increasing gas costs, and it continues to stagger me that the rest of the United States, rather than doing something', to just fill up at the local gas station. It boggles my mind that people keep using propane, that only a handful of people opt to plop solar panels on their roofs, re-insulate their home, buy a bike, or do anything to cut down on gas, and hence, expenses. It is herein that I ask this question: What are you doing to cope with rising gas costs? How have the increased costs affected you? 14:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it is up to $3.29 a gallon here. I take the bus to college, and walk to the grocery store. My car gets horrible mileage, but my sister is worse off at 9mpg. She is not happy. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 14:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I work about 10 minutes from where I live. It'd take about 30 to do it by bus. My big ass SUV gets like 12mpg, so the price hike has cost me like $1 a day. I've had to consign some oil paintings and switch from beluga to serguva caviar, but at least I'm maintaining appearances. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Public transport, bitches. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The day I kicked the second car into touch and got a push bike was one I'll never regret. I'm healthier, happier and much, much richer. OK, so I only live a couple of miles from the office which helps. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a Prius and a seven minute commute to work most days. On the days when I have to work on our customer's site, I make a fifteen minute drive to catch the DC Metro. Gas prices don't concern me much. MDB (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems to be quite an American thing. Watching CNN or Diana Sawyer, everyone is 'angry' about it, where as it's just reported like bad economic news in the UK. The things is that, yes, there will be up and down trends, and sharp spikes above predictions, but the only way is up. Oil is going to increase and increase until it runs out. We're addicted to it at as nations, and it'll be our undoing. We need to get unhooked before it goes too high. I always chuckle to myself when people are angry about the prices. Who are we angry at? We're incredibly dependant on a substance whose prices are wildly volatile and increasing, and we get angry when it goes up? Wow. I drive a Citroen C1, it's incredibly fuel efficient, doing 43mpg by the US scale. It's got a 1L engine and is incredibly light, but doesn't drive like a 1L, it's pretty nippy. 16:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, in most European countries, gas is so heavily taxed anyway that oil price spikes don't affect the gas price as much. Sure, it's noticeable, but it won't drastically alter your economic situation. When people buy their cars, they already know that they'll have to pay much higher prices than in the US, so they'll tend to pick models that are more efficient and consume less overall, which also lowers the total increase in expenditures. Personally, I don't even have a driver's license. I've always lived in or very near major cities, where public transport is easily available and affordable. Röstigraben (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the European model is right? Want people to stop smoking? Gradually, year on year, increase tobacco taxes. A sudden increase will turn people to the black market. Same with petrol, alcohol, probably other things. Simply put, people will only decrease their oil use, turn away from cars, or buy efficient cars when it is very economically incentivised. 18:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bought a diesel car that gets on average 55mpg, on a good run it gets about 70. Tax is only £30 a year as well. I'm also working from home now so I don't drive anywhere (except for occasional evenings) 09:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we've got a couple of small-engined HDi Peugeots. Very economical. Both get better mpg than a Prius. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. First, a sudden increase in fuel prices isn't going to turn people to the fuel black market, because there isn't one. Second, I think a sudden increase will shock people into making an investment, whereas with slow increases they might just put up with it for longer. Of course, there are plenty of problems with a sudden rise in fuel costs, which is why it'll never happen, but I'm just debating the logic of the incentive. ONE / TALK 10:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Honda Civic: 40 MPG, 6 mile commute one way. Still, may get a bike, carpool, or start taking the bus if it's cheaper. (Oh, and I agree about the black market: ????) Oh, and I'm converting to a natural gas boiler ASAP. No more heating oil. sterile 14:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

How has the site been today?
Got hit with a massive traffic spike today, and no one complained or seemed to notice, that is good news! Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is good, I have always wanted to be famous . 05:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why the spike? Mountain Blue 05:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been fabulous down here in the Antipodes. Moving as slick as shit through a muscovy duck. MtD  Pinko Scum   05:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The spike is to say is that I really believe that but won't tell my parents. 05:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Combination of some internet press coverage of poe's law and facebook and fractal wrongness, with a dash of twitter as well. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems a mite SLOW? maybe? C ® ackeЯ
 * yeah, there is a bit of thrashing going on. The spike is just getting bigger, at least the site is still usable. Previous incarnations at this traffic load became completely unusable. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sluggish-ish, here in flyover country. P-Foster (talk) 21:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * yah trying to tune some apache parameters to get a bit better performance but really just gotta weight out the spike. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Extremly slow around 2 hours ago, much better now. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 22:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I did notice a slowdown. If you look at twitter we're still the number 1 goto for Poe's law. I noticed fractal wrongness yesterday. 22:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]

Anti-BNP FACTS
Name an anti-BNP FACTS. I will start.

It is fascist political party --
 * Yes, and?  DogP (talk) 06:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Facts aren't "pro" or "anti" anything; they're just factual. The concept of "anti-BNP FACTS" is no more valid than "conservative facts".  Whether BNP being "fascist" is factual is another issue, since there are any number of varyingly vague or specific definitions of fascism which it might or might not fall into.   14:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The BNP are not a fascist party. Why is it that so many 6th form-middle class-right on-look at me I'm so politically aware-pricks seem to think that 'fascist' simply means 'not very nice'?   22:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Technically not, but I was under the impression that neo-Nazis and skinheads use the BNP as a cover for spreading fascist ideology. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The institutionalized racism that the BNP advocates does not equate with fascism, though honestly, the BNP aren't far off. 23:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct, Blue. Racist and fascist are not synonyms, and neither are racism and xenophobia.  The way in which these terms are now used is extremely annoying to pedants like me.  23:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The BNP is a neo-Nazi group. It was formed by neo-Nazis and still contains enough of them that you seem to me to be splitting hairs - David Gerard (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Combat 18 is a neo-Nazi group. Blood and Honour is a neo-Nazi group. The British National Party is not a neo-Nazi group. It may have originally formed as an openly racist neo-Nazi group, and it is definitely a party with institutionalised racism, but it doesn't campaign on an openly racist platform. See their constitution. 23:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand that racism and fascism are separate conepts (though they often come in the same package). That's why I said fascists often use the BNP as a cover for their operations, because the BNP is not explicitly fascist. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Y'all bein trolled, sez I. MtD  Pinko Scum   00:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Poe or No?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UmotTE-VlY -184.76.13.16 (talk) 05:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I cannot tell you how much I hope she is for realz and not for play-play. MtD  Pinko Scum   05:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have listened to creationists, so I honestly believe that this is a true Christian. 05:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Lotsa people still think Pastor Harry Hardwick is a real life preacher so, y'know. MtD  Pinko Scum   05:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that's the most "dislikes" I've ever seen on one video. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "This video is no longer availible due to a copyright claim by LaughAloneTV." Dendlai (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A copy exists here. 17:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If she's a Poe, then her act is very convincing. If not, then that right there is some seriously messed up stuff. 18:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Shove "Laugh Alone TV" into Google and it will probably give you a few hints. 20:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And the answer is...Poe! 21:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thick Politicians
I think it is fair to say that the intelligence of GW Bush, Palin and Bachman has been called into question, along with many other of your representatives in the US. Here in the UK I am struggling to think of any many Politicians, certainly on the front benches, who are or have been (I am sure someone could find examples but the frequency I think is much less) called thick. My point is this: Is it better to have stupid people in government making policy that you do not agree with, or is it better for competent people making policy that you do not agree with? Is it better for an unpopular policy to fail due to the incompetence of the policy maker or for the policy to succeed do the competence of the policy? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair to say? That's an understatement. I'll take competence any day. For example, I disagreed with both Gulf Wars. However, Papa Bush's was a fairly well-run, quick affair and he had the prescience not to invade Iraq directly. (Ironically, you can find old clips of Dick Cheney justifying this by saying invading would have created a quagmire.) Dubya's Gulf War? Massive fuck-up. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that this is the result of the difference between a Parliamentary and a Presidential system. In the parliamentary system, we elect Members of Parliament, and the person who can command the support of the most Members of Parliament becomes Prime Minister. In a Presidential system, we elect a president directly. Now, when I elect a representative, I want judgement, not loyalty. Sure, I want them to implement what they've promised, but in two or three years, they'll still be representing me, and I want them to be wise about what comes up. In the Parliamentary System, somebody like Diane Abbot, could never become Prime Minister. She stood for leader of the Labour Party, but had to get the support of Labour Party MPs, and did not. This system, ultimatley, leads to the political parties putting somebody who is wise, can command the party, and is experienced forward. In the Presidential system, this simply does not happen. Somebody like George Bush, or even Palin, can be elected President - even though the Representatives and Senators would probably support somebody else more. Direct election could be argued to be more democratic, while indirect election will generally produce better candidates, in my opinion. There is, also, a real difference between Britain and American culture, which applies strongly to politics. An American politician could cry on camera, and talk about how much they love their country. They could talk about how God influences their daily life. The British are more reserved. We don't want to know about people's emotions and religion. If David Cameron or Ed Miliband started crying on television about how much they loved Britain, or told us about how God influences their life on a daily basis, we'd all run a mile. So yeah. I reckon it's two things: The Parliamentary vs. Presidential system, and what we judge candidates on. The Americans want a patriotic, "someone like me" kind of person. The British want a sincere, reserved, intelligent kind of person. Saying that, I think Bush was a lot brighter than most think. 16:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nadine Dorries would give a couple of short planks a serious battle in the IQ stakes - David Gerard (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's just made me think, there's a third leg to this, other than the systems and the culture. Prominence. The UK media is a lot less biased. Sure, we have some right-wing papers, but nothing like Fox News. And so Members of Parliament become prominent in the mainstream news as they move up in the party, perhaps joining the frontbench. But the wingnuts and idiots on the backbenches, like Philip Davies, only get quoted occasionally once or twice. In the US, Fox News gives huge prominence to the idiots on the right of the GOP, and so they're so much obvious than our quiet, unheard idiots. 17:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think the parliamentary vs. presidential system makes much difference. First, primary elections weren't instituted until the early 20th century, before which the national party conventions nominated candidates. The national conventions still hold a lot of sway and non-establishment candidates are given less air time on debates and funding and get tossed aside pretty quickly (see Mike Gravel,Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul). Shrub had the benefit of being the son of a former president and having ties to high-profile energy corporations, which gave him assloads of money. Goopers in Congress adored Bush while he was in office as well, so he definitely had support from his party. Palin doesn't stand a chance in hell of winning the general election (I'll give a small chance for the primary) because she doesn't have the support of the establishment. Having party support is still a big factor in presidential elections. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The primaries are an incredibly important feature of the US system, they're mostly responsible for the weak party discipline and for the fact that even back-benchers can maintain a considerable degree of independence. They'll have to take care of their own reelection and must appeal to the constituencies directly, so the influence of the leadership is rather weak. This also means that less-than-ideal-candidates (looking in your direction, Tea Party) can succeed if they can obtain decent funding and the support of a small, but dedicated part of the parties's base voters. In the UK (at least to my knowledge), despite the absence of list voting, party gatekeepers have much more influence over candidate selection and grooming. Röstigraben (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Definitely true for Congress, but I'd say not so much for the presidency. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Stopped Clock
I'm sure this can be seen as a metaphor somehow, but I'm not sure for what... –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The first tween president
Nothing to see here folks. If you really need to see it, press the edit button. 21:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Twitter
Who was operating the RW Twitter account two years ago? 22:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, who's running this? 22:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]

Personal wiki
So I'm toying with the idea of using a wiki as a way to organize my thoughts/sources/writing/notes as I begin the dissertation research/writing process. Can anyone help me by pointing me in the direction of a standalone, can store on my own drive, works in Linux, follows basically the same coding and isn't a giant pain in the ass to set up wiki package for someone with 🇰🇪 - like computing skills?P-Foster (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you could get by with Tomboy. It's no wiki, but you don't really need one. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll check it out. Does it let me make internal/external links on pages? P-Foster (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Automagically. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not familiar with Linux, although I tried WikidPad once on a PC. Tiddlywiki is good for PC and Trunk Notes for iPhone, iPad, etc. are goods.  Wikipedia's personal wiki page lists a bunch.  sterile 17:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I use Tiddlywiki in linux/Firefox. Ya basically browses a single local interactive html page. It can do internal and external links, and lets you "tag" things, roughly equivalent to categories. Actually pretty sweet; the markup is a little different from WM, but no biggie. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you ask nicely I can give you a little bit of shared space on my commercial server, and there's a plugin which installs mediawiki for you. 09:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the offer, Crundy, but I need something I can always access w/out being hooked up to the web, for when I'm taking notes in remote archives. P-Foster (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not use Open Office? You can do tables, outlines and versions, include spreadsheets, link to databases and loads o'stuff. Probably a bit over the top for what you need? 00:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I use OO as a word processor/spreadsheet thing (but will prolly migrate to Libre Office when Natty comes out in April). I wanted something withg linkability so I could easily jump fro one page to another (ie, a page of notes on a political group I'm writing about will have linked refs to pages of notes for each member, on tracts they put out, etc). P-Foster (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've not used it but I think that you can hyperlink within a document. 14:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * Forget the above (OO): looking further, OccUse seems to have it: Tomboy seems to be what you want. It's defrault installed on Ubuntu Gnome. 14:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]

One commandeers the topic for his own request
Is there anything even simpler than TiddlyWiki? What I'm looking for is literally nothing more complicated than an editable 'guestbook' comment that will still support html links. Basically I have a link on a webpage and I want to change it pretty much every day... at the moment I have to change it locally and upload the new file. ONE / TALK 13:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tumblr? Occasionaluse (talk) 12:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, can someone explain Tumblr to me? From what I've seen of it, it seems to be either a blogging application that actively discourages commenting, or Facebook with longer entries.  I'm not sure why I would want either one. --User:Kels@school
 * Yeah, blogging. "Microblogging", to be exact. Which sounds a lot like what you want to do, which is why you would want it. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I guess what I'm looking for is not a service, but a php script I can put on one of my webpages which allows me to edit a link from the browser. ONE / TALK 13:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What the fuck is going on here? We need a table of who is looking for what and expertise level. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * lol sorry, I made two BON comments and then decided to log in and re-sig them. Here, I'll split my request from the thread. ONE / TALK 14:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You might be able to do a guest book thing in Google docs (although it's not easier than TW), but I suspect you'll get a lot of spam-o. sterile 00:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

and back to the note-taking app again
Tiddly wiki is really easy; I can't imagine what else you need. I think you can essentially have a free website if you go to. sterile 14:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Aye, and since a lot of the processing load is carried by the browser, the content is a single html file that can live on a USB thumb drive when away from the home machine. Since it's html, I expect it to sashay across platforms in a cheerful, robust fashion. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * and it's Tiddly Wiki. Thanks, Mob! P-Foster (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Now don't be so hasty, young feller... other choices are available. Ulrich's was still selling those (for a hefty price) in the early seventies. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I know it's not Linux but I found that the best tool for something like this is OneNote. I used to use a freebie called Evernote but got OneNote with a version of MS Office and much preferred its organisation. A quick Google showed that there are some Linux-based alternatives but I've no idea how good they are. 13:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

CP on WP

 * "For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception:"
 * "Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If you know that an external website is carrying a work in violation of the work's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." Conservapedia, anyone? Oh well, it was worth a try. 02:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * Ohh, I never looked at it that way. That technically would not be valid reasoning to not link to Conservapedia, though, since it is simply Conservapedia in general that is being linked to, not a specific work on Conservapedia that knowingly contains copyright infringements. Otherwise, Wikipedia wouldn't be able to link to Youtube on its article on Youtube, for example. ~Super Hamster  Talk 03:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's tempting to fight for it out of spite, but let's face it: the most damage one can do to conservapedia is not by hiding it but by linking it as much as possible. Sunlight, disinfectent, etc. ONE / TALK 09:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not like removing or keeping the link would actually do anything in terms of Conservapedia's traffic, though. Removing the link would stop all of, oh, perhaps 2 very lazy people who can't be bothered to type something in their URL bar from going to Conservapedia, if even that. But I don't think that reducing traffic is the reason why Susan brought it up, more so just to bring up something interesting (but I may be wrong). ~Super Hamster  Talk 19:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Prepare to be depressed and tearful
If your a dog/animal lover that is...good ol' man's best friend. Ace of Spades 02:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know about "depressed", but that is heart warming. Japanese dogs and their loyalty.  :p   02:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it rather depressing. Ace of Spades 02:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it depressing if the photographer did not go help the injured dog. Hamster (talk) 04:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not just for an aw-shucks moment, adds the LifeWithDogs blog, which has the video posted on site. "Yesterday, we asked you to consider donating to relief efforts for animals impacted by Japan’s natural disasters. Today, we show you why."
 * I love animals, but really? Moving video nonetheless. ONE / TALK 09:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Protecting the Bible in Texas.
Link.. Maybe they will start to consider making Christianity the official religion of the state next.--Thanatos (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do creationists need protection, they are GOD'S own children. Right? 22:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 22:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I tink that's a valid comment Ty - the template is being overused, instead of Occasionaluse. Ace of Spades 22:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 22:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * One thing has always bugged me about the Abrahamic religions and that is their desire to require protection and impose punishment for offending their sensibilities in the present world rather than let god take care of it in the hereafter - which is what they keep telling us he is going to do. Don't they trust him to do his job properly?  02:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't even know why they bother doing anything at all. While toil away at work and home when you just lay back and wait for heaven when you'll have a whole eternity to get things done, why start now? Ace of Spades 02:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In remarking upon this bill, I can only say, Comrade, you asked for it. 02:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) I do recall some people on RR thinking that way, but it probably has never occurred to them. If you are so right, why are you so afraid? ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 03:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Meh, I thought Rick Perry had already seceded and re-instated the Republic of Texas. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) To answer the question about the need to impose temporal punishment, one must draw a distinction between premillennialists and postmillennialists. The premillennialists (e.g., most modern-day evangelicals) believe that Jesus is coming back at 2:00 tomorrow to burp all worldly evils out of existence; the postmillennialists (e.g., Dominionists) believe that humans have to prepare the way for God by cleansing society of sin. It is the Dominionists who are most in favor of temporal punishment. 03:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Defamation Bill
The UK government has published its defamation bill, which will reform UK libel law. It's an excellent step, and while there's still some way to go, I'm very impressed with it.

It will effectively end libel tourism, with Section 7 reading:

''(1) This section applies to an action for defamation against a person who is not domiciled (a) in the United Kingdom; (b) in another Member State; or (c) in a state which is for the time being a contracting party to the Lugano Convention. (2) A court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine an action to which this section applies unless the court is satisfied that, of all the places in which the statement complained of has been published, England and Wales is clearly the most appropriate place in which to bring an action in respect of the statement.''

So, everyone outside the EU will no longer be affected by our stupid laws. The defences to libel will also be completely changed. 'Truth' and 'Honest opinion' will now be the defences in place of 'Justified' and 'Fair Comment'. 'Absolute Privilege' is also extended to every government and every court in the world, and honest opinion takes this into account. For the 'honest opinion' defence, you must show:

1. It is a statement of opinion, not fact. 2. It's an opinion on a matter of public interest. 3. An honest person could have held this opinion based on a fact or something said under absolute privilege (courts + governments).

It also provides specific cover for scientific and academic conferences.

So, all in all, a good step forward. 17:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So we can now start calling Tom Cruise gay? 20:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You guys are finally catching up with the rest of the civilized world (read: 'Murrica)? ;) Always found it strange how strict the libel laws were in the UK. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, guess we are. Must resist temptation to list ways in which the UK is ahead... :P   21:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Our crazies are the envy of the world. 22:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This bill is, for the most part, crowd-pleasing at its very worst. The UK's defamation laws really aren't all that strict in the grand scheme of things, they're just less lax than those of the US, where the press can effectively peddle any old shit and get away with it. It currently, in my view, only really has two problems: that of inherently high costs and that of libel tourism (the importance of which has been vastly overstated, considering there were supposedly about six cases last year which could be qualified as such - looking for my sauce again nao). Costs haven't been addressed in the slightest, and the wording of the rest of the bill is so bloody waffly and subjective that most judges will continue to apply much the same tests and procedures which they did before with some slightly different names. Boo, I say. Step in the right direction as far as tying up loose ends and vaguely protecting scientific publications is concerned (though I doubt 2a will really be given much importance by the likes of Eady), but a tiny and over-hyped one, and one which will probably serve to stop any further useful reforms for the foreseeable future as the government can now claim to have done something about it and can't be expected to do any more.


 * Simon Singh incidentally deserves a punch in the balls for peddling his badly-researched, alarmist bullshit through the Guardian. If he thinks defamation is OTT in the UK, I urge him to have a look at how it works in Europe, where it is often a criminal offense. If he thinks Australian defamation is more relaxed than it is in the UK, he deserves a punch to the less painful testicle for clearly not bothering to actually look it up. Webbtje (talk) 08:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

"doesn't go far enough"
Is there a name for this fallacy? (Is it even a fallacy, strictly speaking?)

Suppose there's an unpopular public issue which can be addressed by A (doing nothing), B (alleviating it a little with a moderate policy), or C (solving it completely with a draconian and contentious policy).

Now, imagine a group hates the issue and wants C, and wants C so much that they will oppose B, even though its an improvement over A which works in their favour, because implementing B over A may drain away some public support / momentum for C.

Is there a name for this train of thought? Bonus points for naming some political issues that match this situation perfectly (I suspect there are a lot of them). ONE / TALK 09:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Dunno about "as a fallacy", but what you're describing is "the perfect is the enemy of the good" - David Gerard (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sounds a bit like the perfect solution fallacy, where you dismiss any solution which isn't a perfect, idealised (and often impractical) solution. I don't think it's quite the same as your example though.  By the way I'm a long-term lurker and have no experience editing wikis, so sorry if I haven't met a convention or something when posting this comment. 94.193.6.146 (talk) 11:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "This is a classic example of black and white thinking, in which a person fails to see the complex interplay between things, and as a result, reduces complex problems to a pair of binary extremes." Sound like anyone we know...? ONE / TALK 11:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Certainly sounds a lot like the current debate on the election reform in the UK. A is staying as First-Past-The-Post, B is moving to the Alternative Vote system, and C is full Proportional Representation. Many people will not vote for B in the referendum because they see it as lacking the full depth of C.  12:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As a side note, I've found myself slipping further and further into this line of thinking recently and it's starting to annoy and depress me considerably. X Stickman (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is there an 'all or nothing fallacy'? But as Lao Tsu said "A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step". We need to take that step! 13:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Weird
This is kinda creepy. 19:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really.  18:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Holy fuck!!!
I witnessed this happen live on my commute home from work! 15:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's nothing, I stubbed my toe on the desk this morning. 15:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you obviously didn't see it so it doesn't count. 15:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You don't know man, you weren't there! 15:36, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you're either blind or stupid. Which is it to be? 15:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Both, duh! 15:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

So anyway, back on topic. Did it blow as you drove past or was it burning as you noticied it? 16:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It blew up when I was, maybe, a mile or so north of it stuck in rush hour. Then traffic not only slowed down, but was stopped completely. By the time I was about a half mile up the interstate from it, the cops and MNDOT were looking for ways to re-route traffic around it, but traffic otherwise was halted completely for about 20 minutes, and then only 1 lane was allowed to get off the highway. So, I finally get off and have to wade not only through all the emergency vehicles, but tons of gawkers and shit. Fuckers! I just wanted to get home from work, damnit! 16:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

AV + the Conservatives.
I've been thinking about AV recently, a lot. I support it over FPTP, regardless of how it will affect individual parties. The conventional wisdom seems to be that it might help the left, as Labour and Lib Dem voters may naturally side together, and that SNP and Plaid Cymru voters would go Labour over Conservative. But I'm increasingly thinking sticking with FPTP would completely screw the Conservatives over. I say this because UKIP is becoming increasingly mainstream, and the Conservatives being in coalition with the Lib Dems will mean they can't do ANYTHING about Europe in this parliament. So, come the next general election, the Conservatives will have been in power for years, and the Daily Express and other shitty rags will have been publishing anti-EU stuff as regularly as usual... and even a small swing from the Tories to UKIP could mean an electoral disaster. Any three-way marginal would be lost to them, with enough of a swing, as that swing certainly wouldn't be coming from Labour or the Lib Dems. Even Labour-Conservative or LibDem-Conservative seats could see the Conservatives severely harmed. I'd need hours to do the calculations and mapping, which I may well do - "What'd have happened in the 2010 election with an X percent swing from Tories to UKIP?" and I think it'd be telling. 23:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting, because FPTP tends toward party duopoly/throw-away vote city. What's the deal with Ukip anyway? They seem like Conservatives + euroskepticism and Christopher Monckton (screw you guys for inflicting that douche on us, by the way, but it was hilarious to see him get owned by Jay Inslee at the climate hearings). Is EU hatred on the rise that much over there? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Its about the same as its always been. UKIP would be just conservatives if the conservatives hadn't realised such an anti-eu stance would mean political death. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Basically, the deal with UKIP.... Slowly but surely, the main three parties are in agreement on the EU. Sure, there're people in the main two parties who have problems with it, but the consensus is there. And now that the consensus is there, all the EU-bashing points non-racist people in one direction: UKIP. It's hard to convince people with, "The amount that the EU helps our economy is great due to X, Y, Z!!! If all of Europe are going to manufacture things to a single set of standards, we need to be on the inside, arguing those standards to help the British, not outside, having to conform." Not easy, catchphrases and talking points. But we are more powerful by giving some of our power to the EU. It's easy, on the other hand, to rant about silly EU decisions, and the like. 00:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You can't reject the principle just because you might not like a possible outcome. Either you support AV for being fairer than the current system or you don't. After all, it's about getting a more representative legislature not stifling one group you don't like. 13:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure you can. I, for instance, having seen AV in Australia lead to entrenched safe seats pretty much just as FPTP does in the UK, nevertheless think it would be a good thing for the UK on the basis of shaking everything up every few decades to avoid complacency, that being the big problem - David Gerard (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Giving up slowly killing myself
The gadget I bought to help me quit smoking started telling me when I can and can't smoke today. It's tapering me off over the next three weeks. It had me wait fifteen minutes after getting out of bed to have my first of the day. That was the worst. I found I didn't miss my usual cigarette while walking across the parking lot at the Metro station.

My two questions are:
 * 1) Will it work?
 * 2) How big of an asshole am I going to be as I give up nicotine? (Considering I've been in a nasty mood for the past week or so anyway, I may end up heading down to the tourist areas in DC and mauling a few visitors, just to relieve some stress.)

MDB (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In my experience of giving up smoking (about ten times), the best way was simply to decide to give up. Get fed up with it. Accept that your clothes stink. Visualise tumours growing in your lungs. In short, be disgusted by it and really want to give up.
 * Worked 100% more successfully than all the nicotine patches, gum and even hypnotism I had tried previously. Anecdotal, I know. But maybe worth sharing. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ever consider the smokeless cigs? Your nicotine addiction gets to run wild without the health effects of smoking, so you still have the craving/satisfying cycle. Definitely the lazier option. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The biggest problem for me was forty years of Pavlovian conditioning - for forty years every time I smoked I felt relief from the otherwise endless craving. Now, three and a half years smoke free, I am no longer addicted to nicotine but I still miss that feeling.
 * Having said that, whatever route you take stick at it. In a very short while you'll feel so much fitter, you can run for a bus again, you can climb stairs, you can live. You don't have to go out and stand in the rain every so often, your life no longer smells like a used ashtray and the cash, oh my god the cash!!!!! I'm so much richer!. Finally managing (like Ajkgordon I've "quit" several times) is one of the best things I've ever done. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In my enthusiasm I forgot to answer your main question. Well, the lack of Pavlovian satisfaction did affect me - and for much longer than I thought it would - three months or so. Fortunately those that love me understood and the others - well the can fuck right off, CAN'T THEY UNDERSTAND I'VE JUST STOPPED SMOKING. So, yes, but it's worth it in the end. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How big of an asshole am I going to be as I give up nicotine? There's like an 85% chance you'll have a psychotic break and cut of your own or someone else's penis. If that's what you want then by all means... 15:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm still happily vaping away. Only been told I can't use it in one pub so far. Still on the maple syrup flavour :) 15:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC) Crundy smokes eCigarettes - he doesn't shut up about them (as you can see from him ECing me above, you bastard Crundy) - you should ask him about them. I used to smoke quite frequently, especially in my first year at uni - new place, new life, a weird and somewhat stressful time - which would probably qualify as addiction, and spent numerous times giving up for a week or so and then giving up that and buying a pack. If you run out of a pack of smokes, see how long you can go without buying a pack. I haven't bought one since early January and I made that last about 5 weeks. Apart from that, I just can't afford it anymore. I had about £3k saved up for my first year at uni and I spent most of it on beer and smokes. This year I'm skint which is better for my health I suppose... 15:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I love that I EC'd you talking about how I bang on and on about my eCigarette by talking about my eCigarette :D 15:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I "gave up" after a serious 16 year habit. When I say gave up I still manage to get away with smoking at a party or out in the pub but I haven't smoked as in habitually for over 2 months. I went to a hypnotist and while it didn't work fully what it did do was make my mind "click". It's very strange but I have worked out the mind game behind it all. Once you figure that out it;s easy and now I can get away with having the occasional cigarette without having any desire to be a "smoker". Ace of Spades 22:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd smoked since 1980, quit cold turkey about a decade ago, and was very happy.  Then a new girlfriend who smoked like a trooper moved in and six months later it was back to ten a day for the next five years.   Then finally, my Doc eyeballed me four years ago and told me that people like me (genetically high cholesterol) really, really needed to quit, and he looked me straight in the eye, asked me if I was listening, and I have never smoked even a puff from then on.   So get a scary doctor to shout at you, or get a debatably irrelevant genetic condition.  DogP (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember reading somewhere that stop/start (or on-off) smoking is worse for you than smoking. Something to do with the lungs being caught off-guard while repairing themselves. Not sure how true it is though. 11:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not worried about my lungs; I plan to die from from hyper-cerebral electrosys anyway. MDB (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Get to my age and you'll worry about your lungs - and every other part of you. With every passing year I take my health less and less for granted. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

So far, so good
My little gadget is very gradually increasing the time between cigarettes, and I've been sticking to it. (Well, mostly. I've been having the last cigarette of the day a little early.) I'm at just about half a pack a day now. (To be fair, I rarely smoked more than a pack a day. It usually takes me about two weeks to go through a carton.) I've not yet turned into a complete asshole. In fact, my mood yesterday was the best it's been in a couple of weeks, but that's because I got my iPad 2 yesterday, and a new tech toy always improves my outlook.

The hardest times for me have been early in the morning. I always had one right before going into my office, and that's not when the gadget tells me I can.

I think the fact it's practically Spring is going to make it a little harder, since it's now rather pleasant spending time outside. (I only smoke outside, even at home.) MDB (talk) 11:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Damn you RationalWiki.
Just wishing a friend of mine a happy birthday via Facebook. "Happy Birthday! ~ " Damn you RationalWiki. 10:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, that'll teach you to use arsebook, or something. 11:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been signing my emails with that for a few months now. 11:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fucking facebook n00b..... 11:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You can tell who types the tildes rather than using the button. I admit that I also do the same thing in emails. :( 12:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow Josh, sounds like you need to start using Liquid Threads :P 13:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I keep typing tildes in LT as well. I now have an irrational fear of signing a greetings card with four tildes. 13:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I shall never succumb to liquid threads. Nev-arr! 14:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I hate the bloody tildes. As far as I can tell, and after an extensive search, my (Spanish) keyboard doesn't have them.  I do have one of these ¿ though.  So there.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I used to use the button, but then we reinstalled MW and the button disappeared so I started typing. Now that's just there as a habit. 17:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's ok, they'll just think you're a Wikipedia nerd - David Gerard (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Redirects
Just found a quadruple redirect on this site. Andrew Schlafly/Anagrams --> Andrew Layton Schlafly/Anagrams --> Conservapedia:Andrew Layton Schlafly/Anagrams --> Fun:Conservapedia:Andrew Layton Schlafly/Anagrams --> Fun:Andrew Layton Schlafly/Anagrams. Futhermore, the fun article is just Fun:Andrew Schlafly, so Fun:Andrew Layton Schlafly/Anagrams isn't actually a subpage of anything. About to clean it up, but can we as a site please try to be more careful about easily avoidable stuff like this? ThunderkatzHo! 18:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow just wow. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 18:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's always one. 06:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Naw, katz, the RW way is to make it into a quintuple redirect! 02:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Crazy night
I popped out for a few drinks this evening with a few of my friends. As the 6 of us were walking home, my mate sees a girl he's friends with walking past us and says jokingly (his sense of humour) "What the fuck are you still doing here?" The girl turns round and starts beating the crap out of him with her handbag. I was standing a fair distance away and didn't get involved as I didn't know her and I thought she was just pissed off or something. One of my friends who did know her calmed her down, and for about thirty seconds she stood still, breathing heavily saying nothing. Then she starts screaming at the top of her lungs and literally chases my friend around a few houses. I run around the back of them to get security (this was all happening on my campus) and found my mate on the other side of the houses, having gotten away from her. I thought she was tripping on some shit, but apparently she was schizophrenic. And that was her on a good day, apparently before she's on weed to even out the voices in her head. First experience with schizophrenia = pretty fucking horrible. 01:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, at least your friend got some exercise. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 01:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Josh, you have clearly stolen a night out of the life of Ace McWicked. I suggest you give it back. DickTurpis (talk) 02:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And I want an apology for ruining my Thursday night. Instead of that experience, which you so callously stole, I sat at home and watched "Ready, Steady Cook". Ace of Spades 03:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you think it's possible your friend may have slept with her 'by accident', and then expected her to forget about it?  'Cos that's what it sounds like is going on.   DogP (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, schizophrenia my arse, that's a woman scorned. 15:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not likely, when they'd found her boyfriend and we left them the guy she attacked was on the phone and some skinhead friend of the girl's started shouting at him for saying something along the lines of "I just got fucking attacked by her, she went mental at me." I didn't even realise they still made Ready Steady Cook. Or has it only just arrived in New Zealand? 17:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't believe for a second that she doesn't have some reason to be very pissed off with your mate. Don't bandy around terms like schizophrenia unless you really know that's the case.   And just 'cos your mate says she's schizo, doesn't mean she is.   I still reckon he tried to fuck her.   DogP (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm relaying the information as I was told. Several people I was talking about it with after who knew her said she was schizo, and she'd been in institutions. I don't think mental illness is remotely funny or something that should be taken lightly, or "bandied around." If you'd seen the way she acted, you'd know she wasn't "very pissed off." If I didn't think she acted out of the ordinary I wouldn't have bothered posting here about it. 19:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fairy snuff. 22:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mental illness can be scary stuff and it often comes out for the first time in college. I was checking the mail off to one side my freshmen year, and in full view of the staff and the dining hall one guy (I had kinda seen around) steps in behind me and punches me right in the back...still not sure exactly why.  His friends jump in and calm everyone one down saying he was just diagnosed with schizophrenia and was just starting meds.  I was pissed but let it drop.  He left soon afterwards though, not sure why.  Personally I have no problems with those who have mental illnesses.  It happens like any illness that needs treatment.  I do have problems with people who make it everyone else's problem but theirs to deal with.   ~Subsound ~ 05:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

T-shirts
So I'm going to be in Atlanta for a couple days next month. I really want to wear one of these, but I don't think it's worth the cost for a one time thing. Or is it? DickTurpis (talk) 01:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Do it. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 01:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You might be able to get away with it simply because a lot of people will have no idea whose picture that is. 01:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In Atlanta, Yankee are you crazy? ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 01:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is he that recognizable down there? Up here in the Union we would have no idea who that is. 01:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * General William T. Sherman burned most of Georgia to the ground, and founded the college I attend(in LA). He is quite recognizable. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 01:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I know who he is by name, but I wouldn't have been able to recognize him by his picture. So I mistakenly generalized from one example. (*scolds self*) 02:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd recognize him, but we should keep in mind I'm about 1000 times smarter than your average Georgian, so that isn't a terribly useful datapoint. So I'd imagine most people would be clueless and have no idea who is on my shirt. But those who do... DickTurpis (talk) 05:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to add that my desire to do this pales to my desire to find a redneck bar in Mississippi that has an internet jukebox so I can play Phil Ochs' "Here's the the State of Mississippi". This too is overridden by my desire never to set foot in Mississippi as long as I live. DickTurpis (talk) 05:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt you'd be able to "step foot" anywhere in your wheelchair afterwards if you did that. They still send out torches and pitchforks in the mail with samples of Tide in Atlanta don't they? 10:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Politically incorrect
I know politically incorrect is usually just bullshit-ese for "Allow me to be politically incorrect for a moment and say [insert massively bigoted statement here]", but posting an article on the Jewish-American Princess stereotype set me a-thinkin'. That's a stereotype that's in a very gray area, but, having grown up with one side of my family Jewish, I don't really see it as that offensive because I heard way worse growing up than your average JAP joke and stuff that would be considered really anti-Semitic coming from a non-Jew. Other cultures also have a reputation for self-deprecation (hey Brits?). Bigots try to claim this is a double standard to excuse their bigotry. Others say that this sort of thing enables bigotry, and I can see the point there. I remember Dave Chapelle cancelled his show because he was worried that the jokes would be taken at face value (correct me if I'm wrong on that, didn't follow the show very closely). On the flip side, though, it would be completely ridiculous to cleanse all stereotypes out of media — you'd end up at the point where something like just showing a black guy eating a watermelon or KFC could be considered racist. So how do we define what crosses the line into bigotry? Thoughts, opinions, flames? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a classic pattern: "You outsiders can't make fun of us in that way, only we insiders can!" This is exemplified by the controversy (in the US, at least) over the n-word and who is allowed to use it. My favorite opinion on this issue is Tim Minchin's. 02:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This Seinfeld joke is also mandatory: Jerry: Oh good. Anyway, I wanted to talk to you about Dr. Whatley. I have a suspicion that he's converted to Judaism just for the jokes.

Father: And this offends you as a Jewish person.

Jerry: No, it offends me as a comedian. And it'll interest you that he's also telling Catholic jokes. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, that's a classic. Ultimately, though, I think the whole "politically incorrect" thing just comes down to human psychology and our desire to be a part of a group that excludes outsiders (and to be xenophobic towards groups of which we are not members.) 02:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that political correctness puts altogether too much emphasis on the form and entirely ignores the substance. What really matters is whether a person is bigoted or not, rather than what words they use, as the "euphemism treadmill" demonstrates.
 * Some people talk of a "double standard" with political correctness, noting that it is all right to stereotype some groups but not others; this is true in some cases, but it is not a double standard, simply a misconception of the underlying theory, which makes use of the principle that "bigotry equals prejudice plus power." Hence, if an ethnic group is perceived to be among those holding "power," stereotyping it is not a problem for people holding to that principle. 04:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I generally agree, but the problem is how do you know whether or not someone's a bigot? If it's something like cracking a politically incorrect joke among old friends, that's one thing. But if you do that in public or around people you don't know, you're asking to become a "nigger-guy." (As an aside re the Tim Minchin song: Am I alone here, or is "ginger discrimination" a regional thing? I never even heard of people being made fun of for being a redhead until that ginger episode on South Park. The term "ginger" was almost never used where I've lived. In fact, the only stereotypes about redheads I had heard before then were positive ones.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * When I was a teenager my mum told me that she didn't mind what sort of girl I brought home so long as she wasn't coloured, a redhead or a Catholic. I never had the nerve to take a redhead home. 06:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Damn. Is is it some kind of anti-Irish/Scottish thing? I've lived in the northeastern US and seriously never heard of this. I wasn't sure whether ginger discrimination was some kind of parody of racism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of ginger jokes over here, but not so much discrimination (as in would be turned down for a job because they're ginger). Speaking of which:
 * I was standing by the self-checkouts at the supermarket the other day, when the machine a ginger guy was using said "Unexpected item in bagging area".
 * Condoms.
 * 10:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ginger (pronounced with two hard "G"s) men are universally loathed. Auburn haired women OTOH are universally (apart, apparently, from Genghis's mum) adored. 10:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * Sort-of the same vibe down here. Red-headed men= Maniacs/Idiots, Red headed women = sort of meh. ТyUser_talk:Tyrannis 12:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think anti-ginger discrimination can be traced to Jabez Wilson and his cushy sinecure at the Red-Headed League. DickTurpis (talk) 13:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Gingers have it easy. They should try having having hair like mine which is the blondest (read: almost white) hair you ever did see. I have endured years of 'fuck of back to Germany/Sweden' or more commonly 'Albino'. I have had people run out of pubs to shout abuse, and I fear for my life when ever england plays germany. Even when people are being nice, I get a look of disappointment when they find out I am essex and not sweden. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Being blond gets you more hassle then being from Essex?--BobSpring is sprung! 14:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * AMG: I hear there's this new fangled stuff called "Hair dye" you could try. Why not give this colour a go (seriously, I couldn't actually find any ginger hair dye! Just goes to show)? 14:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oddly no abuse for being from essex, though that would be justified. It was mostly from essex people that I received such abuse. Been ok since I moved to london, though I do have to explain to people to people that viking colonisation years ago as a possible source of my looks at least once a week. Essex is a dreadful place. I receive similar stick whenever I venture up north though. As for hair dye, I consider the whole concept akin to defeat. Besides, I look pretty amazing as it is. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

AGGGG!!!! Homoeopathy for radiation!
It looks like somebody is setting up a homoeopathic regime for treatment and protection if the Japanese fallout comes your way. But your water now!--BobSpring is sprung! 12:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't all water good for homeopathic radiation treatment, given incredibly low background radiation levels? ONE / TALK 14:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess that as long as there is no actual radiation then it's a fantastic treatment.--BobSpring is sprung! 14:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I took placebos for my cold. They worked even better than expected.  02:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)