RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive28

Homeopathic ER
Corry (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHH hahahaahahahahaaha that's funny that is please add to artiklz! 06:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I shoved it in as a footnote to the Homeopathy article. 19:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hideous internet find of the week
Disturbing Father-daughter purity balls are disturbing. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's... creepy. --PsyGremlinWhut? 13:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We have an article on the creepy. -- 14:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And here I was expecting an actual physical set of balls that girls carry around their neck to warn that they don't give out unless really frigging drunk. I could say something about them being daddy's balls, but that might delve a bit too far into the creepy territory. Vulpius (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that anyone who doesn't immediately think "fucking creepy" when seeing those really should be background checked by the police... 19:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Events like this do not minimize the sexuality of children, as organizers claim. They highlight it." Just had to quote that. Can't agree more.  19:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Poe-tastic Prophesies
A lengthy email about Obama being the AntiChrist landed in my junk folder at work yesterday, & I read through most of it, out of morbid curiosity. the text seems to come from here, at "From the Mountain Prophecies", & is one of a series of dreams by a Linda Newkirk. This one involves Obama, Hitler's boots, tap dancing, speed, the Rothschilds, the Vatican, European Satanists, and "The New World Order Nazi Police State".

Very close to Poe's Law, although it looks like it's probably genuine lunacy. However, Googling Linda Newkirk's name did lead to a half-decent parody article at A Mighty Wind.com (nothing to do with the movie A Mighty Wind, although I can also recommend that). 22:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a weekend at Max Mosley's then. Vulpius (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Darwin Rap
Was listening to the Naked Scientist this morning and apparently, there's a rap version of the Origin of Species been made in honour of Charles' birthday. It's not up on their site yet, but should be within the next few days. --PsyGremlinWhut? 10:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They're going to rap the whole book? Or just gift-wrap it? 10:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole book would be a bit of a task I would imagine.--BobNot Jim 17:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Avenue Q...
...is a very very good musical, and I urge you all to go and see it. EddyP (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please explain? 12:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It has the song The Internet Is For Porn in it. It's awesome. Basically it's adult Sesame Street. 12:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Still don't understand, but sounds better. Must re-enter world one day. 12:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen the musical yet, but listened to most of its songs. And the internet is for porn is just - true ;-) 13:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Who cares about Conservapedia?
Hello everyone, and thanks for the links to my YouTube channel. I won't place yet another link, because I'm not a link-whore (unlike someone I know).

I'm here to share the YouTube Insight data from my channel. For those who are unaware, YouTube offers a service to video owners called Insight, which is actually pretty useful and reliable, unlike the Schlafly insight™ which has no value whatsoever. Well, maybe there's some value in its humor.

The data tells me that a large percentage of the people who view my videos hail from RationalWiki, so this data also helps provide a ballpark figure regarding the demographics of this site, although I get the occasional spike from SomethingAwful as well.

Views by Gender

Views by Age

The majority of viewers are, of course, from the US with Great Britain, Finland, Australia and New Zealand providing many views as well. The majority of my US viewers are from California, followed by Illinois and New York, with a slow trickle coming from New Jersey (I wonder if Andy blocks his students' access to YouTube?). My most popular video is the Lenski Affair video which I am proud to boast currently holds the #1 result on a certain video sharing site starting with Y while using a certain search string starting with C (no, not that word starting with C).

Just thought I'd pop in and let you all know who the average Conservapedia-observer is. Now if anyone ever asks the question "Who cares about Conservapedia?" you can tell them the typical observer is an American Male in his late 30s to early 40s.

Oh and Human, I agree with you on this. Tell me, should I have elevator muzak, or use the Imperial March everytime Andy's name is mentioned? Or I could combine the two.

Thanks for the views guys, keep up the good work! GreatAtheismo (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd go with the March, yeah. Doesn't ring my bell since I never saw the movie, but most will catch on.  Can you get a good PD version to use? Oh, and when you mention RW, we should hear a tasteful goat making goat noises...  19:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it'd be a bit hard to find, as the Imperial March is only 30 years old (You didn't see Star Wars? Blasphemy!), it won't be public domain for quite a while yet. The goat sound idea is a good one, perhaps in future I could put a RationalWiki screen after my "Trus Me" screen at the end of each video, accompanied with a solo from the Goat Orchestra. Anyone with suggestions for sounds I could use in my videos is more than welcome, I've been meaning to make another video, probably about the Bible Retranslation Project. GreatAtheismo (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw Star Wars, escorted on my birthday by three women who had seen it a combined total of 7 zillion times. The print we watched had also been run through a projector 7 zillion times.  Never bothered to watch any other "episodes", not a fan of space opera. OK, a fan of classical music used in space (Kubrick, Clarke, et all 2001, but still)  02:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So do people over 44 not count? 19:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought that too, apparently YouTube doesn't care for older folk. It has the age brackets for those over 44, but there mustn't have been enough views from people of that age to show on the chart. It's unfortunate that YT allows me to download a spreadsheet which goes into great detail about pretty much everything except the age of my viewers, I have to rely on the on-site charts for that. GreatAtheismo (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I watched all your videos and I don't even get a mention even as a percentage point! 21:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By the look of the charts, they round to 5%, so perhaps there just aren't enough people in the other age brackets to push it up to 5%. Either that, or the older people who visit my vids don't have accounts - which I daresay is where all the data comes from, account details. I might need to reevaluate my claim that Insight is reliable, at least when it comes to age groups - the spreadsheets I downloaded regarding all the other information were pretty detailed. GreatAtheismo (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

(Unindent) Okay, here's the deal. I've just created the 'stillframes' (I have no bloody idea what the proper name for them is) for my next moooovie, which features the Bible Retranslation Project. I was going to attempt to use Adobe Premiere to make the movie, but for the life of me I can't figure it out. So, I'm waiting for the Windows 7 version of Windows Movie Maker to download (which is craaaap, but I know how to use it =P). At this point, there's no sound in it, because I can't think of anything to add except generic muzak and a goat sound when the new RW splash-screen thingie appears at the end. I'm not sure what to do about this, anyone have any suggestions? GreatAtheismo (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

To those with PhDs...
So, as I know several of our users either have or are getting their PhDs, I had a question regarding the program. My sister is currently dating a guy claiming to be getting his PhD in computer science, while working at an unrelated (i.e. not teaching) job 60+ hours a week. My understanding was that working on a doctorate was pretty much a full-time job by itself, making holding another job difficult. Would it be possible to work on a PhD, while holding such a demanding job? 17:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Depending on the job, the strength of the program and his determination, it could definitely be possible. But yeah, it is unlikely. &mdash; Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 17:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't pass the stink test, unless dude is taking a year off of school or something--or is maybe in the advanced stages of writing up and waiting for feedback to do revisions. I'm in a doctoral program in history and I'm putting in somewhere between 60-72 hours a week of reading and writing, more come crunch time, and you gotta figure something like Comp. Sci. would be more, not less, demanding. I couldn't imagine holding down a job-and-a-half at the same time. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it would take as much time as a history doctorate. A great deal of time for computer science is spent think tanking and running programs on large datasets and such. Most of my major insights came in the middle of the night or in the shower or while doing laundry or something. If he's a convenience store clerk, it could work. If he has a real job that demands his attention, I'm skeptical. &mdash; Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (Stop edit conflicting me, you shits.) Depends how many years you want to do it over. In the UK, you can spend anywhere up to eight years getting your doctorate part time if you so desire. And, given some of the doctoral candidates in Comp. Sci. I've worked with, they have nice offices (sometimes individual!) and don't seem to do an awful lot in them, so I wouldn't write off his story without further evidence. -- 18:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends on the location as well. Traditional, big science PhD programs are full time (and then some!) and usually paid.  But more smaller schools with mostly undergrads and tiny grad programs do have programs that are part time; there are few people in these programs, however, so skepticism is warranted.  I know nothing about computer science programs.  Sterile 18:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

These comments are kind of along the lines of what I was thinking. As a side note, this is the sister I can't stand, so if she gets sucked in by a con artist, oh well, I just can't stand the thought of a guy as stupid as this one being better educated than me. 18:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've heard many people say "I'm going to law school" or "I'm going to med school" and mean "I plan on going"...could be the case. But yeah, the guy might just be a pipe dreaming dirt bag. &mdash; Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth, I am not allowed to work outside of my University. I get a teaching assistant position as my "employment" and I can make a special request for up to 10 hours a week outside employment if I have met certain requirements. If I am "caught" working more than 10 hours, or without permission it is grounds for my removal from the program. I wouldn't have time anyway...tmtoulouse 18:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My niece who is finally getting her PhD next week has been working full time for a big pharma for the past two years. She was held up because of some minor rewrite of some lab work that was demanded by her tutor. So, yes it could be possible to be in the process of getting a PhD while working full time, it just wouldn't have had to be for the majority of the research. 19:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The guy could be ABD (all but degree) with a job. That is, he could have his thesis done and just need to be defending.  It isn't unheard of.  Sterile 19:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * All but degree seems unlikely, as he keeps talking about classes and classwork he is doing. I'd really love to get more information out of him, but as I said, I don't get along great with my sister and I can't stand this guy.  My next ploy is to find out what university he claims he's going to, then see if he's registered.  Should be pretty easy.   19:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's decades go since I was a student but a PhD doing classwork? Unless he's tutoring undergrads. Maybe some younger ones can disabuse me of this view. 19:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Most in a chemistry PhD program do courses for at most two years, most one year plus maybe a course or two, maybe three years if you have real issues. You may have trouble finding out if someone's registered since the advent of FERPA (and it is a little stalkerish, don't you think?).  Sterile 19:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A little stalkerish, yes, but it's family, so it's okay.  19:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I had pretty significant course work that had to be completed as well. But some of my friends had no course work requirements. That is very program specific. tmtoulouse 19:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Consider yourself disabused: two years of required class work for me. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I had one course in my second year. It was almost worse than having three because time was so much less structured. Sterile 19:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So it just depends on the course. Neither right nor wrong. 21:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Newsbusters
Do we have an article on them? I just looked through their site at length for the first time, and Jeez.... They're almost as bad as WND... 00:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No but they are on our webshite list. 00:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Might as well start here. 00:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Request
I request the community's feedback about interactions between myself and Human. Not knowing the community norms, it seems like Human is making a point of deleting or obstructing much of what I've done. However, what I've done -not much- may not have been appropriate. However, my general impression is that it takes a lot of effort to do anything here, and that mere basic improvements like the deleted article POV are not deleterious to the wiki. Indeed I just got this on my talk page while writing this: "You seem to have an issue with RW  And what is it, exactly? Creating "POV", which may be wikipediaspeak, without even defining it as "point of view" is utterly lame." And if I remember right I did define as Point Of View. I'll look at the deleted page to make sure. Thanks. Tarantallegra (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't. That's why I deleted it (It was POINTy!).  Also, your edit-warring at public school was painful, in that I preserved your addition, researched the quote, found a better source, etc.  What is your complaint, exactly?  06:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did.   And that confirms my impression that you don't read the sources. Tarantallegra (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Content of article: "Point Of View. This is Wikipediaspeak." Explains nothing.  Makes no point.  And is certainly not a good RW article.  Try again?  06:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Will wait for others. But I have to go now. Tarantallegra (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Me too. What's your point?  06:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Just that we probably can't solve this ourselves. People need to look at the history. Here, examine and here is the source, as you see it was an article in Harpers (look at the graphic). Tarantallegra (talk) 07:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just that we can solve it. You are a troll with an agenda.  Your first link shows what I said: "Point Of View.  This is Wikipediaspeak." is not an "article". The graphic???? That does not "prove" that Harper's published it.  And even if they did... what's your point?  08:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I quote your "source": "It was from James Bryant Conant-president of Harvard for twenty years, WWI poison-gas specialist, WWII executive on the atomic-bomb project, high commissioner of the American zone in Germany after WWII, and truly one of the most influential figures of the twentieth century-that I first got wind of the real purposes of American schooling." What does that even mean?  08:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Moar quote: "see him mention in passing that the modem schools" It's just a blog/webshite. And the author does not even fix his typos.   08:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, Human, what you said was "Creating "POV", which may be wikipediaspeak, without even defining it as "point of view" is utterly lame" whereas in reality the whole article was obviously a definition of the term. And the quote you mined above is standard character introduction.  To gain the meaning, you have to have the whole quote:
 * Uh, tarantula, your "article" sucked. It did not even define what it was about.  Nice troll, though - you certainly managed to get my goat.  08:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "It was from James Bryant Conant-president of Harvard for twenty years, WWI poison-gas specialist, WWII executive on the atomic-bomb project, high commissioner of the American zone in Germany after WWII, and truly one of the most influential figures of the twentieth century-that I first got wind of the real purposes of American schooling. Without Conant, we would probably not have the same style and degree of standardized testing that we enjoy today, nor would we be blessed with gargantuan high schools that warehouse 2,000 to 4,000 students at a time, like the famous Columbine High in Littleton, Colorado. Shortly after I retired from teaching I picked up Conant's 1959 book-length essay, The Child the Parent and the State, and was more than a little intrigued to see him mention in passing that the modem schools we attend were the result of a "revolution" engineered between 1905 and 1930. A revolution? He declines to elaborate, but he does direct the curious and the uninformed to Alexander Inglis's 1918 book, Principles of Secondary Education, in which "one saw this revolution through the eyes of a revolutionary."


 * Saying it is just a blog is utterly false, it was on the cover of Harpers. How do you get along on a wiki that is supposed to be reasonable? I have to go to bed, talk to you tomorrow. Tarantallegra (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not your link, it wasn't. Where's the link to Harpers'?  08:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So we're down to quibbling over whether it's a blog if an website has a copy of an article that was published in a (very good) national magazine?  Harpers charges, you have to subscribe.  Just search his name on their site though.  And the article POV was made just for the purpose of linking to it from another article, where "POV" was used without explanation.  It was of use. I guess you also delete redirects? Tarantallegra (talk) 08:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While I hate to interrupt your good old fashioned barney you're having here, why exactly do we need a "POV" article? It isn't on mission in any way I can think of. Better to link to wp:POV if you really need to use the term at all. (OK, also I had a look at the deleted article, and yeah that was a complete load of bollocks anyway. Nobody was going to bother trying to improve that.) -- 11:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Far be it for me to sound trite, Tar, but when a new user who doesn't quite seem to "get" the site has an argument with one of the most established, well-respected editors, who, exactly, do you think we are going to side with. Oh, and it's called lurking, try it. 13:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Our mainpage states that our mission is:   1. Analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement.  2. Analyzing and refuting crank ideas.   3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. I'm not quite sure how your article would have helped that mission, and it might perhaps have been better if you had hung around for a while to get the feel of the place before creating it.  Our RationalWiki:Newcomers's guide has some suggestions.  On the other hand Human's trigger finger may sometimes be a little twitchy, but even if he had gone down the full consultation route to getting the article reviewed and eliminated, I suspect the decision would have been the same. I see no support for your article n this talk page and I also would not have supported its inclusion without a very good reason. So, I'm sorry if you feel that you have been badly treated by Human, but if you read the guide I mentioned and follow its suggestions I'm sure you will feel welcome here.--BobNot Jim 18:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Few people remember that at the bottom of the edit page is a statement, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." People who take this to heart do better at wikis.  Sterile 19:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Well, what I did on the Public school article seemed well within the mission " 3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism."  But any mention of the criticism was deleted for various "reasons" which on closer examination turned out to be baseless and unreasonable (such as that I was using a blog as a source).  But baseless characterization of the quote was not sourced. I would need more support in order to stay around: otherwise it's just an acute version of what goes on in human society, which is that those with social power abuse it, reason be damned. Tarantallegra (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reading your comment, I had thought your complaint was about your "POV" article. Are we to take it you are now accepting that POV was a mistake on your part, but you think we should consider whatever happened at "Public School" instead?--BobNot Jim 21:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If the principle is that an article must be well developed or whatever, rather than just a useful stub, or that being slightly useful is not a good reason to keep it (that is, there is some reason to delete it), then it was a mistake. I don't really care, it was just the last straw.  I was trying to give some criticism of public education, and it seems people here thinks public education is above criticism.  That's probably because fundamentalists have criticized it, but in reality there are other avenues of criticism more in line with this wiki.  I would think.  As I said, " 3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism."  Tarantallegra (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And now I discovered this. First, there is nothing wrong with criticizing public schooling; second, it is not even his website. This wiki is run like it says, as a mob- yet that is inherently opposed to rationality. This wiki therefore has a conflict of means and goals, and thus cannot fulfill its mission consistently. Bye. Tarantallegra (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh what the hell, let it. --Kels (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Actually, it hit my heels, though that may well be a foreign concept to you. Tarantallegra (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, so you're quitting because I thought we should write an article on Gatto? Or is it because we cleaned up your addition to public school?  Now I'm confused...  23:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Human", maybe you should contribute more substantially, and in the future you won't be so confused. 13:26, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

So I'm out there Acing things...
Deep in my cups but perfectly competent to set a fire. A fire built of my neighbor's old spruce deck. A hot fire. Luckily it was idling down, when Johnny Law pulled into my parking lot. My bonfire place is a hundred feet or so from the parking lot. I walk through the deep clover, swinging my 7 LED flashlight to indicate my presence, as he walks towards me. We exchange pleasantries (no, I don't have a permit for the fire. Oh, yeah, but I can see it's not out of control... Hey, officer, I don't drive drunk.  I wish there were more like you!)  Turns out he's looking for some guy, 6'0", brown hair (caucasian?  what else do we have in white hampshire?)  I gab a bit about the frat boy who created some news last week by outrunning the cops and then crashing his car into some trees and spending two days in the woods, then turning up at some guy I know's house... anyway, I guess my fire was illegal but it's ok.  I'll keep my eye out for 6'0" brown haired guys on foot? Fire is down to a dull glow... [I suck at being Ace] 08:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh youtube, now I hate you.
I'm not a big time youtube user, but a little while ago I did make a short crappy video of some software I wrote and stuck it up on youtube to show a couple of people. I didn't realise before, but youtube's related videos section doesn't have a whole lot to do with the video itself, but rather what viewers of the videos that the people who watch the video also watched. The prime viewer of my video being me, that includes some Mitchell and Webb sketches and some stuff from icanhascheezburger, but also that horrible Kendoll-promoted video about how great Conservapedia is. Worse, that video is the top result. I hate you, YouTube. -- 15:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess the remedy would be an RW video/ad, then we all go watch it and the CP one? 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't we have a proper RW video yet? Surely there's an opportunity for some creative spark to cobble something together that isn't too embarassing. Alternatively we could pump goat videos. 18:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We should get Trent to make one, parodying Schlafly's earnest promotions of CP... 18:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we're winning the youtube. A search for 'conservapedia' returns a video from this guy as the top hit (for me at least), plus another five of his vids on the first page. Internet creationists beware, Operation God 's Nipples is underway! Ole! Ole! Ole! 83.170.97.191 18:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's some great stuff. Too bad there's no sound... is that one of us?  They seem to honor our articles very much.  19:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Shameless plug time again. My ConservaHitler video is still going strong at 4.5 stars. I don't know how to pimp it other than here. You can take a gander at my Anonymous070777 channel, as the sidebar reciprocates with a link to our Evolution article. I REALLY want to find out what take on it is, since it's mostly about him. (I'll put the link in when I get home since YT is filtered from my office.) The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's one of my favorite youtube videos. So much that I think I'll favorite it. &mdash; Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 16:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for that great video, Foxhole. Oh, and you should put that picture of you molesting a goat up on RW. Jamie (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha! I almost forgot that pic was in the other video! I Haz Gaot! The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * IraqiSheep.jpg Correction. Iraqi sheep is sheep, not goat. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 11:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I found the OIF video quite moving. 11:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks much, Ghengis. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

RationalWiki: I need your help!


I have mentioned a few times that I have a relative that has drank the kool-aid rather deeply. She actively promotes and works for a major homeopathic company (Heel) which manages to even deny the germ theory of disease (homotoxicology). She has recently jumped on the anti-vax band wagon. All of this matter because she was a 2 year old son who is starting to get lax medical care because her "cleansers" can handle it, or the doctors don't kowtow to her quack ideology.

She sent out an e-mail invite to a seminar of an anti-vax guy to another relative of mine who has a son who will just start getting the vaccine regiment. What I would love to do is find out more about this guy, but particularly I want to "capture" the web seminar for later rebuttal and analysis. Who better to ask for help than you guys?

Here is the info:


 * Vaccines Cause Autism link to the "webinar." It is on Monday, July 13th at 8pm CT.
 * The "doctor" is Andrew Moulden, I can't find that much info on him, there is some videos on youtube and this.

tmtoulouse 19:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh goat he got his MD from McMaster. There goes the value of my degree. tmtoulouse 19:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. &mdash; Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC) "BA, MA, MD, PhD" And do people with MA's usually list their BA as well? Or is he just being pretentious? &mdash; Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I it is credential stacking, I am finding more on him now, and he has a tendency to emphasize superficial achievements like low level scholarships and GPA. Probably to try and cover up for his total lack of success elsewhere. So he is "selling' his snake oil, that much is obvious. And apparently he is a total germ theory denialist, it is only a theory. tmtoulouse 19:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "the Germ Theory was just that – a theory, which has turned out to be wrong, in very fundamental ways." Fuck me, I thought you were kidding. &mdash; Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * [The face of credibility, is he stoned? tmtoulouse 19:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the front page of his site says that ALL vaccines cause autism and other disorders. That should be easy to test, at least.   19:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rumors abound that he never got his MD from McMaster. &mdash; Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, according to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (with which all physicians practicing in Ontario must register), Dr. Moulden is not a practicing physician in Ontario (where by all indications he is based out of). &mdash; Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see a University of Ottawa logo behind him, does that mean he's actually spent significant time here? I'll have to sanitize the whole city now! --Kels (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

"ALL vaccinations cause immediate and delayed, acute and chronic, permanent and transient, disease and disorders that cut across all organ systems." Might as well quote the entire claim... as far as the alphabet soup, sure, there are instances when a person would list all their degrees - like maybe on a resume. Otherwise he's just doing it to fool the gullible into thinking he's smert. We need article on him... 19:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This guy is evil, he links vaccines with everything, including shaken baby syndrome. He is pushing a "neuroimaging technique" that only he can do, that magically allows him to diagnosis all emergency medical situations, including "SIDS" before it happens. What you do is take pictures or videos of the subject, and send them to him electronically. He applies his "magic" to it and makes a diagnosis. In the case of a medical emergency you can purchase a one-on-one internet video consultation! He has gone from insane, to a fraud now. tmtoulouse 20:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe this sort of thing is your forte TMT. Just as well you appear to have a lot more free time at the moment. 21:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The fraud's resume is here, if that's any help. --Kels (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Bit more here, and apparently even John Best doesn't think much of him. Man, what a spiderweb of quack vs. quack they have in the anti-vax community.   There also seems to be something about an anti-vax lady trying to sue a vaccine manufacturer and Moulden left her hanging when he refused to sign an expert witness agreement, but I can't find anything solid on that. --Kels (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't believe we still don't have an article started on this cretin. 03:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Turns out there's a wide-ranging conspiracy against this fella, too, with government facilities putting up razor wire and going on high alert whenever he shows up at their door: Eight minutes and twelve seconds of meth-fueled crazy.

Any actual biology students out there?
What the hell does this even mean?

There is a lot to know regarding biology. If you're not a biology major, you're not going to get it just by reading a Wiki page and watching a YouTube video. There's just too much to know. Not to even mention the fact that you haven't even understood my argument. Regulation of the proteins of a static genome is the norm. Small mutations can produce large changes, but this is because it is more often than not BREAKING a protein to produce that change. Research is showing that mutations do not produce a great deal of change, but regulation does. What is the best explanation for variation? Regulation! Where does universal descent from a common ancestor fit in? Hard to say.

I think the guy is basically trying to say - in the part I've emphasised - is that evolution happens, but not in a way that he accepts as evolution therefore I don't come from no monkey (the guy is taking great pains to stay away from Goddidit). It's certainly true that a lot of mutations will break proteins, but that usually just produces non-viable embryos (or non-viable gametes so you don't even get that far) so anyone who is actually born will probably have a beneficial one or something. I'm not too concerned about my own mental superiority (though I do say so myself) has here's a previous quote regarding the fossil record: What we see is basically today's animals, just buried and only minor variations on the same basic design So, if anyone knows what this "regulation" stuff is without using Wikipedia or YouTube (which, IMHO tend to be fantastic resources because they're contributed to by geeks who aren't afraid of dumbing stuff down like news reports or "learning" websites) then please let me know, this is genuinely interesting stuff. 09:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did this stuff you're quoting come from? 22:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure if it is what this person means exactly, but changes in "regulation" of genes could most certainly be a major player in variation. Check out this paper I published a few years ago Noise in a Small Genetic Circuit that Undergoes Bifurcation it is available online with out the need for university access. The basic idea is to suppose that genes can be either turned on or off, and that certain "on" states of genes always lead to other "on" sets of genes. So if you describe the total state of genes being on or off as a binary variable for a 4 gene system it might look like: 0101. This says gene 1 is off, gene 2 is on, gene 3 is off, gene 4 is on. The system then moves on time step forward, obeying "rules" that say if "x gene is off and y gene is on then turn z gene on" as an example so the next time step might look like: 1001. You keep moving through time and eventually you might come back to the original state of: 0101. At which point the system is "closed" off and loops with the same genes on and off forever.


 * This is a stable state, but slight perturbations can push the sequences out of the stable state, at which point they start "moving" rapidly through state space. The system can either settle back down on the original state once again, or it can move to a new stable state. The paper above explored the conditions under which a new state is formed.


 * This approach assumes that the network is completely random, but in its rule sets and initial conditions. It also assumes that all genes can interact with all other genes. It is a nice simplification for to work out properties of the model. However, the next step in this is a "medusa" network. In this case there is a small subset of genes at the "head" that regulate all the rules for switching genes on or off. Under a medusa network perturbation of non-regulatory genes requires substantially more changes to bump from one stead state to another, compared to perturbations in the regulatory genes.


 * This is all part of the idea behind self-organizing-systems. If you are really interested in SOS then check out some of the books by the co-author of my paper, Stuart Kauffman, they can be some dense reading but he the "father" of a lot of those ideas.


 * Now outside mere modeling, there has been a lot of work in what are known as HOX genes. HOX genes are regulatory genes that are phylogeneticaly conserved over many many species. For example, most of our HOX genes have almost identical counter-parts in fruit flies. Work has been shown that these HOX genes tell other genes what to do, particularly during development. If you take hox genes that normally form a wing or an eyestock, and move them to a new part of the fly embryo a wing or eye stock will form from that part. There are many fascinating elements to HOX genes and if you are interested in a more hands on biological approach rather than theory building check out Sean Carroll's book Endless Forms Most Beautiful it is very good.


 * So as for evolution, many people hypothesize that things like self-organization, compartmentalized development signals like in HOX genes, and other form of regulation are the greatest source for variation. Vast sweeping morphological changes can take place in a very small amount of time with very little variation of these genes. So in this view the biochemistry of the cell stays constant, but the pieces are moved around to paint a different picture. Now which forms of variation survive to pass on to the next generation is still decided by inclusive fitness. So selection is still the mechanism for filtering variation, just that the sources of variation maybe greater than merely changes in protein structure. tmtoulouse 16:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Crescent of Betrayal
Has this been covered anywhere here? Has anyone heard about it before? Does it need debunking? 10:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PS I stumbled upon it at Caos blog where there is a You-Tube prsentation.


 * First I've heard of it. Looks like it'd be worth looking into as either Article of the Weak (it's certainly formatted like a contender) or as one hell of a case of pareidolia. 10:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting the video, that's the most hideous music I've ever heard. 11:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is simple rebuttal about the design at the National Parks Service. 11:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Tha National Parks Service is part of the federal government, so they're obviously part of the conspiracy. Obviously. 86.167.86.226 12:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I heard of it a year or two ago. Probably on RW, but maybe not.  03:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * @Armondikov - the music is part of Enrico Morricone's score for C'era Una Volta Il West (Once Upon a Time in the West). Maybe out of context it loses something but musical taste is a personal thing and, for some of us, Enrico Morricone is some sort of god. 08:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. 09:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As the book is due to published soon I expect it to get a lot more attention and it's already being pushed by the loony Chright. 18:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit detectors needed
Hey, folks, I need to borrow everyone's bullshit detectors. Here's the deal: myspace group I moderate has recently come under assault by trolls saying Harry Potter is Satanic and that goths are demon worshipers. They then leave their website URL at the bottom of their post.

What I need to know is: Do people here think their website is legitimate batshit craziness, or do people think it's deep cover parody? Let me know.The Goonie 1 (talk) 04:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Parody, under not-so-deep cover. Specifically, a parody of the old frontpage at Fred Phelps's website, godhatesf**s.com. 05:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See, and that's what we were thinking, but the person spewing it (claiming to be a Baptist minister) was so goddamn serious sounding/acting, that I almost believe he buys that crap. And the best part: he's spewing it on an anti-Phelps forum.The Goonie 1 (talk) 05:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When people play "internet characters" they try to play them as best as possible - ie, to the hilt. Essentially, net 2.0 has become the largest MMPORG - think of the efforts people go to create believable "sockpuppets" on conservapedia - backstories, websties, myspaces perhaps, even, say ballsing up and emailing or IMing creeps like TK "in character".  Also, think of the people who come here, even, trying on new "personas" in hopes of shedding their previous history.  Some do well, others are embarrassing. The ones who do well are our new "storytellers" - our playwrights and actors of the roles they create.  It's  a great new art form.   09:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We should not forget the Poe's Law aspect of this. Somebody may be doing it as a spoof but the shitferbrainz may latch onto it as something real. Let's not forget how stupid most people are (Barnum's Law). 10:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is why Poe's Law was originally formulated. It's really hard to tell, but most of the "God hates..." stuff is parody, based on Westboro. (My favourite being God Hates Musicals as that does some interviews with real fundamentalists who don't quite notice that the "Pastor Phelps" is abolutely raving gay). 12:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "JESUS CHRIST DIED ONLY FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE HE IS THE TRUE SON OF GOD. ALL THOSE WHO DO NOT BELIEVE AND ACCEPT HIM AS THE TRUE MESSIAH (IE. GOTHS, JEWS, WICCANS, BUDDHISTS, HINDUS, SATANISTS, CHILDREN TOO YOUNG TO UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE, PEOPLE BORN WITH MENTAL RETARDATIONS, ABORTED FETUSES) WILL BURN IN HELL."
 * Does that fall under the "winking smiley or other blatant display of humor" clause of Poe's law? 13:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not even that is too outlandish to be 100% sure to come across as parody. 15:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's good to know that Muslims will go to heaven, though. -- 22:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks for your rational input guys. My BS detecor isn't as good as it used to be these days.The Goonie 1 (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hypnosis
So, I noticed our hypnosis article is essentially content free. Does anyone know anything about the subject? I've always considered it to be one kind of woo or another. I mean, there are obviously ways to influence people, in terms one might almost call suggestion. These are tricks that advertisers know and utilise, and they're pretty obviously effective. However, I get the impression that hypnotism is simply the same tricks repackaged with a bunch of stage showmanship. Is that accurate, or is there actually some physiological basis to hypnotism? -- 19:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a definite psychologocal/physiological effect going on, hypnosis has been used as an alternative to anaesthetics for many years, especially in dentistry. try these links, they look legit: (sorry about the last one, one of those "pay to read science articles" ripoffs - no wonder the public is ignorant about science). Totnesmartin (talk) 20:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it kinda depends on what form of hypnosis you're talking about...... Hypnosis does have vaild scientific applications, the bigger question is exactly how it does it. Most would agree that hypnosis simply opens the mind to things we may be blocking with our rational thinking.  20:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See, none of those links screams "we've tested this, and it works" to me. It looks just the same as homoeopathy to my eye, anecdotal evidence only. Are there actual controlled studies? (Plus, Chuck, please tell me you were being ironic there...) -- 20:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know, my skeptic gland is tingling, I would like a better of idea of what exactly is being meant by "hypnosis" and what the specific claims are for what it can do. Operational definitions are extremely important in assessing claims. Hmm, I will take a look at the research I can dig up on it and then reevaluate my feelings on the topic. But at first pass I am very skeptical that it does anything beyond helping people relax, just like any form of relaxation therapy. tmtoulouse 20:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a subject I am quite interested in though can't claim to be any sort of expert. I was hypnotised at school by one of our physics lab technicians who used to be a stage hypnotist it was a strange feeling, but something that I was quite comfortable with and the only suggestion was that I would "enjoy the maths lesson" later that afternoon. Can't say I noticed much difference. I'm a great fan of Derren Brown and in his book Trick of the Mind he discusses the hypnotic trance. (He also talks about belief - he used to be a Pentecostalist - so it's a relevant book for RWians.) He doesn't believe that hypnosis send people into a "trance" but rather a heightened state of suggestibility. Now I've read many pop-science and magic books where the issues of suggestibility and misdirection are discussed. It would appear that the human mind is quite maleable and we are often tricked into ignoring something or perceiving something that isn't there. This is what religion and other woos exploit, although after extended debates with AKjeldsen I concede that it maybe not always a deliberately false deception. So we can be manipulated in ways that we don't always realise and this is all done by "hypnosis" some of it is with your eyes wide open and other times it is with your eyes wide shut. (See DB's "instant conversion" video on YouTube.) Some of the allegations made against Obama were that he used mass hypnosis but these were mainly just techniques used by most successful orators, advertisers and religious preachers, especially on the evangelical circuit. One thing that hypnosis and suggestion is good at is pain suppression. I knew a girl whose father was a dentist and he routinely used hypnosis instead of anaesthesia on his patients and there have been operations performed under hypnosis. This is one reason why religious people have been able to withstand torture, it often is their "faith" that is acting to suppress the pain. Although the subjects weren't hypnotised, in DB's show The Heist people were programmed to commit a bank robbery. It's incredible stuff.  20:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: The Heist, watching it now, segment 3 includes a "rerun" of the Milgram experiment as part of the process of conditioning the participants. 23:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

There is research out there into it, I have been reviewing some meta studies, here is one that I think is available to anyone. The general consensus is that the dominate form of research into hypnosis is of mediocre quality, but that there is a subset of research that meets quality standards. This research has, overall, shown a slight efficacy for hypnosis for pain management, not huge, but not non-significant. Other areas of application have been far less favorable. A handful of studies have shown some efficacy in weight loss, and phobias.

If you then compare this against research looking at meditation, or any other relaxation program it is pretty comparable. To me the story seems to be that hypnosis is good at getting people to feel "relaxed" and being relaxed helps people deal with certain issues, such as pain. There is nothing special about hypnosis, that some basic deep breathing exercises couldn't also fulfill. As far as increased "susceptibility" I haven't found much research into it. I will focus more on that specific claim next. tmtoulouse 20:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it would make sense to split "hypnosis" into at least two separate sections for analysis - one, the relaxation/trance/pain avoidance thing, and two, the whole "post-hypnotic suggestion" arena. 20:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Re the "susceptibility", I think it is a heightened state of relaxation when the mind lowers its defences. This can be a semi-conscious thing such as when a therapist encourages you to relax and think of something pleasant or it can even be while asleep. When my wife snores (which she denies) I often just say in an audible whisper, "roll over, you're snoring", she does it but has no recollection of it. If someone doesn't want to be hypnotised then they will not be. Most stage magicians actually screen their subjects to find which ones are more suggestible (not susceptible). When I was hypnotised the technique was to close ones eyes and then fall backwards, a bit further each time until you are almost on your back. You have to trust the other person and in doing so you lower your guard. There is a well known response in rescue victims where say two people are injured and one is unconscious. The conscious one may be badly injured themselves but as an act of survival they stay conscious and protect their partner. When they are both rescued the medics focus their attention on the unconscious rescuee; having been rescued the conscious one then stops fighting to stay alive and dies while the rescuers are occupied with the other one. Does this sound wooish? That's what I was taught at my marine survival course. To back this up (I must find the ref) many people who are dying manage to stay alive until after a special event, such as a birthday, anniversary or the birth of grandchild etc. 21:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Too bad Obama's grandmother (or was it mother?) couldn't hang on the last few days to see him win the election... 23:12, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My recollection on the death point is the exact opposite, again, I will have to find the source. But several large scale studies looking at death rates found them to be randomly distributed over the course of a year, so holidays like Christmas, or New Years, Thanksgiving didn't have an effect. I don't know if they checked birthdays. Worth finding the research on this. tmtoulouse 21:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the research abstract they did include birthdays. It was cancer patients. tmtoulouse 21:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The refs I have (from a book) are:
 * D.P. Phillips, C.A. Van Voorhees,& T.E. Ruth -'The birthday: Lifeline or deadline?' Psychosomatic Medicine #54, pages 532-43, 1992
 * D.P. Phillips & D.G. Smith - 'Postponement of death until symbolically meaningful occasions', Journal of the American Medical Association #263, pages 1947-51, 1990.
 * W. Kopczuk& J. Slemrod - 'Dying to save taxes: Evidence from estate-tax returns on the death elasticity', Review of Economics and Statistics #85(2), pages 256-65, 2003.
 * S.A. Everson, D.E. Goldberg et al. (too many to type)- 'Hopelessness and risk of mortality and incidence of myocardial infarction and cancer', Psychosomatic Medicine #66, pages 382-6, 2004
 * Unfortunately I don't have access to these journals. 22:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I shall take a look. tmtoulouse 22:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I looks like Phillips has been the primary supporter of the hypothesis since the 70s. His work has met with a lot of criticism for its statistical approaches, several researchers claiming that reanalysis fails to show the same effect. Overall it appears that the research is at best mixed. Here is a nice meta study that I think is free to access that summarizes much of the research. Their conclusion is that the data to date have failed to show a significant effect. tmtoulouse 22:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I'd like to analyse some of this stuff for myself. Maybe when I retire (if I don't die the day after, that is). 22:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (EC)Human is spot on. When most people think Hypnosis, they picture bad movies and crappy pron, but hypnosis does have some valid use.  As Genghis mentioned, it;s used a lot in place of anaesthesia, and it has been used to great effect on burn victims.  The problem is, it's difficult to do any real reasearch as it's nearly impossible to isolate one variable to test.  21:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree, if there is a specific claim made that "X treatment helps with Y" that is easily testable in a controlled double-blind study. Now if the claim is made that "X treatment" has some special property that makes it resistant to controlled study, then we are clearly headed in the pseudoscience direction. tmtoulouse 21:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But it's not.... Any reputable hypnotherapist will tell you that hypnosis is not magic. It doesn't work for everybody, most I've spoken have told me straight up that Hypnosis is almost an elaborate placebo test.  But the problem is, Hypnosis works best on things like phobias, pain, addictions and other mental issues.  How do you test that and ensure that you're only testing the hypnosis variable?   21:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) I'm not sure that's actually true for hypnosis. I'm having troubling thinking of how to effectively blind a hypnosis trial. Since I don't think anyone actually knows the mechanism behind hypnosis, how do you guarantee that you're not accidentally hypnotising your control group with whatever handwavey placebo you come up with? -- 21:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How would I design an experiment? Probably through the use of deception. I would tell the subject that we are testing the role of hypnosis in a given therapy, and that they will receive the latest in hypnotic techniques. To one group they would receive a standard hypnotic technique, and the control subject would receive a technique that did not induce relaxation in the subject, perhaps white noise interspersed with random toneals that active a low level "startle" response. Or you could do tasks that generate low level "frustration" or other forms of mild arousal. Might even toss in a third group that gets a relaxation therapy that is not considered hypnosis. You could even do all the techniques "blind" so that the experimenter didn't know what was used. I am just thinking off the top of my head, but there are many ways to do these experiments. tmtoulouse 22:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you'd have trouble finding something that simultaneously fulfilled every patient's expectations of what "hypnotism" was going to be, while at the same time satisfying every hypnotist that what you're doing did not in fact produce a suggestible state in the patient. -- 22:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well again we are dealing with operational definitions here, what the patient thinks doesn't matter if the treatment is "real" it should work regardless. You could test out any number of "techniques" you wanted, but there seems to be a bunch of standard approaches that are all ready used. If you found a null effect and someone came in and said "well that's not real hypnosis you should try my technique" you could do so just as easily. If they kept up the same "well that's not real hypnosis" then we are smack dab in the middle of pseudoscience. Traits that would make it impossible to study are when the subject/therapy have to have some kind of "special" interaction that can not be controlled for. Under those conditions (such as often claimed by homeopathy) then we are once again smack dab into pseudoscience. tmtoulouse 22:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But what the patient thinks is all important in establishing whether the treatment is indeed efficacious or just a very effective placebo. A placebo must actually fool the patient in to thinking they have received the treatment, or your experimental design is flawed. The question is, can you design your experiment in such a way as to avoid the possibility that if your placebo group preforms in line with the group actually receiving the treatment that the advocates of the treatment can't turn around and say your placebo group actually also received the treatment? Until the hypnosis camp actually gets together and decides how they think hypnosis works, I don't think you can. -- 22:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, I would focus on inducing mild arousal through startle response, or frustration. You could also play up a new hypnotic treatment that relied upon the subject performing some sort of active mental proccess. Like presenting them an audio or visual stimulus that "induces hypnosis" and to tell the subject that their focus is paramount, and to test their focus when the experiment is over you will administer a test asking what was in the hypnotic stimulus. If subjects are engaged in active rehearsal and memorization they are not "hypnotized." I do not see how it could be argued that subject that is mentally aroused through whatever mechanism is "hypnotized." Hell, stick an EEG on the scalp and show that beta waves are dominant during the control task. tmtoulouse 22:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely then you have the opposite problem. The placebo is now so substantially different from the treatment, that you have too many uncontrolled variables. Again, patient expectation management comes in to play. If the treatment satisfies the patient's expectations of what hypnosis is and the placebo doesn't you may have the problem that the treatment is simply a more effective placebo than the administered placebo, and mistake that for a significant result. -- 23:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't think you have to go to far on this, and people are inclined to believe a lot if you tell it to them in the right way. I gave one example, tell people you are testing "audio hypnosis effects on x" then give them the "latest technique." They put on headphones and listen. You could then start up some sort of white noise, interspersed with a startle signal. Or have some kind of "hypnotic mantra" and tell people that you will test them on the mantra afterward just be sure they were focused on it. Doesn't sound that far off from many hypnosis techniques to me. tmtoulouse 23:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Would that be LIBERAL deception, Trent? Typical public-school Canadian practice, I imagine...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Deception is actually a really fun debate in social sciences. In some fields, such as psychology, it is widely accepted as perfectly fine. In other fields like behavioral economics it is considered a high crime. The same study that sails through ethics approval in a psych department, would likely get a student kicked out of an economics department. tmtoulouse 22:17, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I love all those psychology and economics books. Psychology is so entwined with economics, game theory is really the acknowlegment of that. I've just finished The Logic of Life by Tim Harford. Some great insights that Andy probably wouldn't like, nor some liberals. 22:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you read Paul Glimcher's book on Neuroeconomics? tmtoulouse 22:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No. How can I save that for offline reading or do I need to buy the whole thing?
 * Not sure, google books also hides the majority of the content, it is basically a nice "sample", as always I would encourage checking with your local library...but to get the whole thing you will need to get the book. tmtoulouse 22:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Tobacco companies and creationists
I'm reading The Cigarette Century about the rise and fall of cigarettes in the 20th century. It's amazing how many parallels there are between how the cigarette companies attempted to discredit the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer and how creationist organizations attempt to discredit evolution. Doing their own "research", creating research societies, creating a "controversy," questioning valid statistical evidence, etc. It's a little disturbing actually. Sterile 00:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't be true, big tobacco is one of Schlafly's favorite analogies when talking about global warming or anything. 01:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)"
 * And there it is:

[PR fitm] Hill & Knowlton had served its tobacco clients with commitment and fidelity, and with great success. But the firm had also taken its clients across a critical moral boundary that would have two important impacts on American society. Trust in science, confidence in the media, and the responsibility of the corporate enterprise were all substantially harmed by Hill & Knowlton's efforts on behalf of the tabacco industry. By making science fair game in the battle of public relations, the tobacco industry set a destructive precedent that would affect future debate on subjects ranging from global warming and intelligent design. [Emphasis added.]
 * Too bad he didn't develop that more, although it is a book about cigarettes. Sterile 01:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I need to see a copy of that book. Sounds interesting--Tabris (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, not a new thesis: (Sorry for hogging up a thread for my own self-exploration of this idea.)Sterile 01:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is this by?--Tabris (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the cigarette companies and their enablers mainly on the Conservative side of things? --Kels (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I remember seeing a "educational" film staring Reagan saying there was no health risks with cigs. Granted, it was from the 50s, but they haven't changed much since then. No to mention Meathead does anti-tobacco work--Tabris (talk) 02:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting topic. Can we gather evidence that all these anti-science movements are the work of a cabal of advertising executives?  10:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I remember reading a New Scientist article a while back which - if I remember correctly - drew parallels between the use of science, and scientists to show: that smoking was not harmful, that lead in petrol was not harmful, and that global warming was not going on. I think their point was about scientists' ethics, but it was an interesting comparison. Just tried to find the article but couldn't. --BobNot Jim 17:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It may just be human nature that people will often compromise their principles if the reward is sufficiently great. I certainly did when I fell for a Colombian girl who smoked (in several senses of the word). 10:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Upton Sinclair's Law strikes again.
 * I really do think scientists and politicians should be required by law to wear sponsorship stickers, the way NASCAR racers do. --Gulik (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Breakfast
Hot buttered crumpets with damson jam. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fucking crumpets are so hard to get here in the colonies. I was thinking of having some breakfast before going to bed, though.  Yours sounds yummy. Mademoiselle Jam, though?  They don't sell that "over the counter" here.  I need to move to Totnes!  09:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Soft scrambled free-range eggs on wholemeal toast & Fair-Trade 100% arabica dark-roast coffee (although my cardiologist says I should be sticking to decaf).  10:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Bowl of Lucky Charms, with whole milk.--WJThomas (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Breakfast... what's that? Anyway, thanks for reminding me that I haven't eaten today... Coffee is food right? 12:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Weetbix for me (same thing different name) and thanks to the fact our Woolies didn't go belly-up, crumpets are plentiful here... although strangely most outdoor eateries here confuse crumpets with drop scones, so be careful. --PsyGremlinWhut? 12:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I made onion pan bread, with lots of melted butter. I am going to die at 40. -- 13:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds tasty. Can you email that stuff? 13:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but it's really trivial to make. Fry some finely diced onion until it's more or less translucent, make up some dough from plain flour (or half plain, half wholemeal), a little salt, some decent olive oil and water. Fold the onions in to the dough and smoosh it out flat in a dry frying pan, and cook until nicely browned on both sides. Eat hot. Takes about 15 minutes. -- 13:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Bowl of healthy bran-y grain-y flake thingies with soy milk, toast with fake butter and Marmite, and two triple espressos. KAPOW!  --DogP Marmite Patrol 15:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Back in the day: Any good single malt. Now: Coffee, black, the first cup w/ sugar. BITD:Misty120 Menthol. Now:Skoal Apple blend (pouch) Food must not be consumed afore dinner time....8-10pm then a "snack" @3am or so. 17:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC) CЯacke ®
 * 18 stone? That's more than two slices of toast and a case of Marmite!  18:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A pretty large waffle, a bowl of grits with a little bit of cheese, a few links of sausage, and a tall cool glass of OJ. --PitchBlackMind (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Souls. 20:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Clepper FTW! 03:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 Lucky Strikes, bourbon with a Bud back, and a piece of dry toast. 23:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ew, toast? That make your tummy feel ill later, ya know.  23:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Tagging photos on Facebook...
...is one of the most sinfully boring things ever invented. Unless anyone can think of anything else apart from this. 22:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How about listening to your sister ramble on about the greatness of the Twilight books until you want to impale yourself on a Spaghetti Fork? 22:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean something like this?--WJThomas (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is so not cool... As for Facebook, don't tag them. Let some other tagging pedants do the work for you!! 09:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thomas... what the fuck? 13:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fear not--Smokey is recovering nicely.--WJThomas (talk) 22:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

American English
Could some kind person tell me what a "condo" (housing) is. Here in t'UK we have three basic house types:
 * 1) detatched; where the house is on its own and unconnected to any other house:
 * 2) semi-detatched; where two hoses share a common wall:
 * 3) terraced; where three or more, often whole streets, are built as a solid row, often with tunnel like "ginnels" or "entries" every so often allow access to the rear.
 * Does a condo fit any of these or is it something completly different? 00:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A condominium is property you own that shares some common property with others. Most are like apartments (multi-dwelling building), but some are stand-alone housing.  The common space and facilities are managed by the condo association, and often there are rules and restrictions on the "private" part of the properties as well.  00:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, H. 00:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To simplify: An apartment that you own. -- 00:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, except they don't have to be "apartment" - they can be row housing, ala "town houses", or freestanding buildings (rare). Oh, and they can also be office or industrial space.  I suspect WP has a good article on condominium.  01:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To make it more abstract, a "condominium" is a form of legal device to allow for shared ownership while retaining private control over specific portions of the property. And then there's timesharing... 01:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The UK (and Europe) has time-share as well. 05:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

While we are talking about the States could someone also answer this. Is it true that a lot of the elderly move to Florida or is it just a joke I picked up while watching Sienfeld? Rad McCool (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When I was in Florida I saw loads of weirdos and vietnam vets but that was about it. Ace McWickedi9 01:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In general, the past few decades have seen a migration pattern from the wintry north to the sunny south. This migration is more prominent among the elderly for two reasons - one, the cold really starts to bug them (and cleaning snow sucks worse), and two, they are often retired and no longer tied to their jobs. The rest of my nucular family all moved south (well, my brother via LA, same deal) over a decade ago, for example.  01:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou Human, you are a wealth of information. Rad McCool (talk) 01:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Lotsa elderly folk move to the warm weather as Human noted, and it's speculated this is why my state of Arizona has the worst public education system in the country, with Florida also doing poorly. Too many selfish old people that would rather have less taxes than educated youth, as their grandchildren are still up north with the rest of their family. In case you missed it, our senator (not McCain, the other one) recently stated the Earth was 6000 years old. Twice. As if it were common knowledge. The video was posted in a lot of blogs, Pharyngula and TED being some. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtzJhTfQiMA 03:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Once again, Clepper FTW. Those old people in AZ or FL don't want to pay for schools, since they don't have kids in them.  06:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * She says the earth's been here 6000 years, but we should mine the uranium and use it, sell it, even though "THE BIBLE DOESN'T TELL ME SO" Sorry, read too much CREATARD crap tonight to absorb any more... 06:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ultimate Proof of Creation
PZ Myers has been blogging about AiG's newest book with the bold title The Ultimate Proof of Creation. The first chapter is online, usual we look at the same evidence and interpret it differently crap we have been getting for a while form these people. But given the boldness of the title a new book review after we finish Ray Comfort's book? 02:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Gee, their bias isn't obvious from the picture on page 26. Sterile 02:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This thing looks like my homeschool "science" text. Preach to the choir, let them feel smart, even smarter than those silly evolutionists ASPLODE  07:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * At leas they are some what truthful at the top of 27, although the creationist having anything in his wheelbarrow is a bit of a stretch. 03:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "The powerful techniques detailed in this book will revolutionize your witnessing. Share these important faith-defending methods with your family, friends, and church … and save more than 55%!" Uh, I'm embarrassed to even think I have to argue with these IDiots.  06:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Indeed, there are many evidences that confirm that God did create the heavens and earth supernaturally several thousand years ago, just as the Bible teaches in Genesis." Brain asplode... Fucking yikes, let's rip this IDiot a fifth hole?  06:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

ASPLODE!!!! An I'm only on the third paragraph:

"Information Science

One of the most compelling, commonly used scientific arguments for creation involves the field of information science. In this technological age, we are inundated with all sorts of information every day, but few people stop to consider what information really is, and where it comes from. Scientifically, we can define information as a coded message containing an expected action and intended purpose. Under this definition, the words of this book qualify as information. They are encoded — the words represent ideas. The expected action is that the reader will read and act upon the words, and the intended purpose is that the reader will become better at defending the Christian faith.2"

Footnote "2" says: "Whether or not the recipient of the information does these things is not relevant to the definition. Only an expected action and intended purpose are required."


 * I am fucking IDioted and blinded by science. Oh, yeah, except I think they are  IDiots and just churning out crap using words that "look like" science.  Aaaarrrrggghhh!  06:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Would be rude of me to say: "Author is a GodTard"? Seriously. This crap is worse than preaching to the choir: It's a further attempt to dumb down the hymn by pretending to be smart. Seriously I am pissed and angry and this site if fucking warped and sorry for my outburst but, cap.n, the engines, they cannae take it nae more!!!! 06:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "One of the most compelling, commonly used scientific arguments for creation involves the field of information science. In this technological age, we are inundated with all sorts of information every day, but few people stop to consider what information really is, and where it comes from." SSSCCCCCREAMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!  Well, what is it?  Why is there so much these days, IF YOU CAN'T CREATE IT?  06:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Engaging an unbeliever, even a staunch atheist, is not difficult when you use the proven techniques described here." AAAAAAAAAAAAGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!  06:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my asploding all over this page, but the stupid, it ruptures my appendix.

"Whenever we find any sort of information, certain rules or “theorems” apply. Here are two such theorems: 1. There is no known law of nature, no known process, and no known sequence of events that can cause information to originate by itself in matter. 2. When its progress along the chain of transmission events is traced backward, every piece of information leads to a mental source, the mind of the sender."

Wow to warp the minds of the tiny minded FFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKing IDiots. I have to walk away now! Before I puke more crap on your screens.... 06:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, mate, I admire your fortitude in even ploughing through what you did. Don't apologise. RagTop Gone sailing 11:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I flicked through it over breakfast this morning and haven't gone back because I've got real-life stuff to attend to. Otherwise I would be echoing Human. The wheelbarrow thing caught my attention though, it's pushing the old trick of pretending the eveidence is equally weighted and therefore there is a controversy. As for using the rocks to prove a young age for the Earth, well musing about it on my bike to work I think a geological map of the UK is enough to discredit that. Creatards seem to use just the Grand Canyon and Mount St. Helens. Aaargh, must stay away I've got too much work. 11:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, this type of gray argument, the whole "we have the same evidence, just different views!" is actually pretty persuasive to people who don't care. My MIL, for example, is religious, but not overly so, and a creationist. Not a diehard, evolution is a lie creationist, but a god made the Earth and I don't care how kind. And this is the kind of thing she loves, and if needed, would trot out to justify her position. Oh, and I loved the part that carbon dating proves evolution wrong. Way to fail, guys! 15:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The info stuff is Gitt all over again, and certainly not science. Sterile 18:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it particularly distressing because the author is "Dr. Jason Lisle", with a foreword by Ken Ham, but the ENTIRE THING reads almost like a verbatim transcript of Ken's "seminars", right down to the rehashing of the "same evidence different conclusions" and (this one is an actual Hamquote) "Once we put on our Biblical glasses, we can see the truth..." (The creatard then goes on to claim that before the fall from grace there was no death, so therefore the dinosaur bones were buried in the flood.)
 * Anyway, back to the point. This is obviously ghostwritten by Ham using the "Dr." title of the other guy for an appeal to authority / argument from authority stance. Ham should just shut his two cock garage, for fuck's sake. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That may be the case but here's his bio. 19:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Brian Kilmeade, "Fox and Friends"
A little rant here from Brian Kilmeade discussing genetics in a rather appalling manner, not only expressing his prejudices but his complete lack of understanding of the topic (note his use of the word "species"). And just look at his co-hosts squirm as they try in vain to stop him. Jammy (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Jesus fuck, I cringed like hell watching that.
 * Relevant link http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm ENorman (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Creationist dice
SMBC is always a bit hit and miss for me, but the creationist stuff never fails to amuse. 12:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's obvious that they need more faces to the dice.  18:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to make a conspiracy theory
I have been mulling this over for a while now, and have come to the conclusion that there is something malevolent going in the "new thought" circles in the US. Take a close look at Hay House, every major quack, kook, crank, woo pusher seems to come out of this firm. We are talking Deepak Chopra, Sylvia Browne, Esther Hicks, Wayne Dyer and many more. I would be hard pressed to find any major new thought woo that hasn't passed through the hands of Hay House at some level.

Got me started thinking about manufactured celebrity. Whenever a new pop singer or actress or actor pops up 10:1 odd say they were milled out of Disney. Disney is a manufacturing firm for producing pop singers. I don't own a TV and never watch it, but when I was back home a few months ago I was hanging out with a younger cousin and she was watching the Disney channel. You could see the proccess in action, Disney has multiple thematic programs that fit a particular "age" for the main actress or actor. So you start them in one theme when they are young, then just move them to the next theme when they reach a threshold age, and the next, until the "last" threshold is reached. It is at this point you move them into musical themed programs and start having them sing during "commercials" on the channel. And then before you know it you have the next pop idol, good for 3-4 years, and when they are washed up you have another to take their place.

I have combined these two ideas and now decided that Hay House is a milling ground for New Thought icons. They manufacturing these people based off of templates and cycling through them as popularity wanes. A lot of the old school woo cranks are getting on in years, it is time for a new generation to emerge. I make a prediction that the next generation woo is going to emerge out of Hay House, just like the next pop singer is going to be a Disney starlet. tmtoulouse 16:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting theory. Though I don't know much about the New Age movement, your analysis of Disney as a Pop Star Plant is fairly spot on, though they've been doing it for quite some time if you want to do some past digging. -- CodyH (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That thing about Disney is actual reality described better than I've ever seen before. I suppose your extrapolation ot the bullshit industry is reasonable considering that. It might also be a bit like a selection process, if they're suitable for the next level up, they stay, if not, they get booted out and only the best and most able get to that top level and get circulated around before outspending their usefulness and being replaced from the next round of selections. 17:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well my conspiracy theory makes a specific falsifiable prediction, that is testable. Unfortunately, it might take a little time for the next data set to emerge. But it can't take too long Sylvia Browne is looking old.
 * Don't know about Disney (plus film/tv production and book publishing are completely different processes), but I guess Hay must have a really good commissioning editor who understands the new age market and knows which writers to call on to write for that market. Many new age writers start off on small, specialist magazines, and maybe Hay subscribe to these to cream off the writing talent. Not so much a conspiracy as good organisation. Darn, I've just debunked a conspiracy theory whose feathers hadn't even dried yet. Sorry.Totnesmartin (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I remember Kirk Cameron, back when you was a young actor, went through pretty much the same process. Not particularly good-looking, terribly average acting talents, nothing really inspiring there.  But the teen magazines like Seventeen and Tiger Beat and so forth pushed the hell out of him, every single cover of a half-dozen mags, and oh my!  He's suddenly a heartthrob.  Based not so much on anything about him, but the fact that he was pushed relentlessly by these media sources.  Pity he became such a fruitcake when he grew up, though. --Kels (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe.....but it is mere hand waving! Where is the evidence, huh? huh? I haven't even begun to spin the whole thing. See there is a patient zero here. Hay House was started by Louise Hay who was a follower of Florence Scovel Shinn, Shinn pops up again and again as a major seed sower in the modern New Age movement. Shin was a product of the influences of Charles and Myrtle Fillmore who started the Unity Church. We are talking Priory of Sion for the Unity Church here. So really the Law of Attraction and The Secret are mass control mechanisms for the secret knights of the Unity Church......hey this is fun. tmtoulouse 21:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is just like the Jonas Brothers/the Britney Spears episodes of South Park. These actors are going to have it hard after their shelf-life is over. Hilary Duff is trying to prove herself as a serious actress and Frankie Muniz left showbiz for professional racing. I'm sure Miley Cyrus will jump over to country music once she loses power over 14 year old girls and Zac Effron will get less important parts till he is just an supporting cast member. And, my sister will kill me for saying this, no one will remember any songs by the Jonas Bros in 10 yrs because they will be another forgotten pop-band--Tabris (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know any songs from the Jonas Brothers now. 02:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was talking fans, but then again, how often do you hear them on your local rock station?--Tabris (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of seminal local rock stations, WBCN will be leaving the rock world forever in mid August. WBCN! a total flagship DJ-controlled AOR station from so long ago.  Shows named "Nocturnal Emissions" and some other funny one I forget.  I have tape of a DJ clumsily yanking the needle off the "short" version of "Twilight Zone", saying this is WBCN, we play the album version.  05:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But will they go out Airheads style? 12:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Insane or a Fraud?
So I have put started condensing my research into Andrew Moulden into an article. I keep oscillating on this guy, is he crazy like Gene Ray or a fraud like Esther Hicks? What do you guys think? tmtoulouse 18:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Does it really matter? I've always treated quacks and hucksters the same way regardless of their motives.  No matter how crazy the stuff will sell, so does it make a difference if they're delusional or just evil?   18:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done tmtoulouse! I'm sure whatever you decide, it'll be the correct decision! MarcusCicero (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you were taking a break? tmtoulouse 18:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I've read, I think it's safe to conclude fraud. &mdash; Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wondered whether I should take a break, or make an effort to right my wrongs. I'll be honest, my heart and my faith in Jesus Christ compells me to right the mistakes of my past. MarcusCicero (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finally getting that started (and finished??). I vote fraud.  21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

AHHHHH HULK SMASH!!!!!
I feel the time for physical assault has come.... Rise my brothers, help me locate anyone involved with this disgusting, racist schlock and beat them till they stop kicking. Thank you 22:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I watched the trailer and it wasn't quite clear to me--is the movie revealing the links between eugenics and American racism in order to counter racism, or--as I get the feeling from your post--do you think it is somehowpromoting those ideas? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically it's throwing out a bunch a provocative language the ultimate point of which will be to say that abortion = eugenics = racism!!!!OMGELEVENTY!!!! Stile4aly (talk) 23:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Right. Of course. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty clear that they are beating the dead horse of "OMG, those pro-choice people are really racists in diguise who want to destroy black america." 04:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not an argument that I'm familiar with, so forgive my ignorance. How much quote-mining is there involved with people like Margaret Sanger--people who seem to have said some pretty reprehensible things re: not only race, but such things as poverty, which they seem to blame on the reproductive habits of certain "types" of people? It strikes me that at least at some point, there were important links between the misude of science, racial ideas and reproductive policy, and that those links bear looking into--even if that coincides with some people trying to make ugly contemporary politics with those ideas. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but if one, nowadays, is in favor of "planned parenthood" etc., is Sanger one's "god"? Does she speak for one?  Or is she just an historical figure?  This is what the Bible thumpers do by their very nature - assume that others revere old books and ancient leaders without critique.  Hence the quote-mining of 100-200 year old crap as if it applies today.  05:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly what Human said... This is like calling everyone who drives a Ford out because Henry Ford was Anti-Semetic (He like Hitler Too... Maybe Ken should get on that). Or saying anyone who admires Washington, Jefferson or any of the other founding fathers is racist because those men owned slaves.  This is an age old argument and a really really really stupid one.   05:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

J.C. Fact or legend?
Has anyone read 'Misquoting Jesus' by Bart Ehrman? 03:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't, but I want to.... I have read Jesus Interpreted though and it was an excellent book. 04:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that I have a pdf version of it. I also have some of Bart's audio lectures. 05:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I read this book back when it came out, but I can't recall a whole lot about it. I do recall it being very interesting, though.--WJThomas (talk) 10:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just got finished watching Ehrman's talk on the subject for the Heyns Lecture series. Quite good, and the question period is very entertaining.  Worth a watch if you have an hour and 2/3 to kill. --Kels (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Innumeracy....
Okay, it IS Fox News, but still: This story starts out by saying that the amount of 24 quadrillion dollars "rivals the national debt." No it doesn't--it's about 24 000 times the amount of the national debt, not anywhere close. Douglas Hofstader used to go on and on about innumeracy being as serious a problem as illiteracy, and he was right. When people are blinded by a bunch of zeros, as in this case, how are they able to engage meaningfully with the politics represented by that sea of zeros, especially in the wake of huge public bailouts of private interests and mounting war debt? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What they are really saying is that by the end of Obama admninistration the national debt will approach 24 quadrillion. deny that and lose all your credibility.   17:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That guy has a sense of humor; "I saw the charge and thought someone bought Europe with my card" awesome.  17:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * More like 2000 times the ND, which is around 11 trillion now. Anyway you look at it, that's one hell of a sin tax.  It's also about 2000 times the US GNP... making it about 600 times the entire planet's annual economic output.  Which would make it easily more wealth than the human race has generated since Creation!  20:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

didn't the deficit just top one trillion? Where does the 11 come from? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The national debt is about 11 trillion now. The deficit is the annual shortfall.  By the way, I wonder if the number (23,148,855,308,184,500) has a hidden meaning?  Like maybe it's 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 in base 2 or 16?  Or the largest number Cobol can handle? I remember from my Basic days that there was an upper limit on numerical magnitude, anything larger was cut down to it.  20:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Traffic bump
We are getting smacked with a nasty bump in traffic, hopefully not enough to cause us any problems. Thing is i am not sure where it is coming from. I think it might be from stumble upon. If anyone has noticed any pages getting 6-8k views today let me know. tmtoulouse 05:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Found it....of all things its our deism article. tmtoulouse 05:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not what you'd call a masterpiece. Is someone bumping our page views? 05:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, they are independent IP addresses, it got linked to on stumble upon and apparently people are following it. tmtoulouse 05:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So why is it nasty? Do they have cooties?  06:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Cause it eats up my internet connection and slows down my pron? tmtoulouse 06:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, we donated pi dollarfish to help you with your pron habit? Can't you rely on your hard drive stash during peak load times?  06:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Of all the RW articles, that one was put up on Stumble Upon? I suppose my friend's graph of "how much effort I put it to how successful it'll be" is right afterall. 08:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not the only RW page on SU. I rediscovered this place after stumbling on the Lenski Affair page, and I the main page is on there as well. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

HELP ME!!!
I need cheap alcohol in Europe. Ireland has bankrupted me. Where are the women loose and the alcohol flows from a marble fountain adorned with some kind of muse? Yorick (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Dave Allen joke: "A friend o' mine (a fabulous drunk) saw an advertisment..."Drink Canada Dry!" so he emigrated!" 20:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC) CЯacke ®
 * Yorick's name reminds me of a place in Might and Magic IX. Man, what a let down of a game.WilhelmJunker (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, Might and Magic was always a let down. I remember playing IV for the first time after Age of Kings and being entirely let down. Thankfully I had stolen the game from someone else. Secondly, I need cheap alcohol. I'm off to France tomorrow, so I'll be drinking wine for a while. But gODdamn alcohol is expensive in Ireland and England. The other night I drank two pints of Bulmer's, a pint of Guinness, a shot of vodka, a shot of rum, a shot of Jegermeister, and 3/4 of a bottle of wine. That was about €60, that doesn't work when I'm on a budget. Yorick (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Invading the Vintage
I think the assembled mob might get a kick out of this Flickr set. I emailed the link to "Teach me how to fight" to PZ Myers, we'll see if he posts it. --Kels (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if Billy Meier is still churning out his fakes? Totnesmartin (talk) 16:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy
Just so's you know, I did a shitty job of starting an article on Hyperbaric oxygen therapy. Someone who knows something should fix 'er up. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can check this out.-- [[Image:Asclepius staff.png|8px]]-PalMD -- 18:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Conservative conundrum
That nice Mr Cameron has come up with a cracking wheeze - to find a favourable candidate for Totnes at the election he's holding a primary. Everyone in the Totnes constituency will be able to choose the Conservative Party candidate. So far so good, but by conundrum is this: do i vote for someone tolerable, or do i insert liberal parody? And more to the point, since I'd rather vomit my entrails and make them into balloon animals than vote for a tory, should I sell my soul to Beelzebub and help choose one at all? Discuss. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Subtle parody. -- 18:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely parody. I hope the TV cameras show up and you get interviewed. --PitchBlackMind (talk) 18:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There are only three candidates, although one couldn't run a cake stall at a village fete, from what i've seen (and he's getting himself in hot water even now). Perhaps I could choose him and get yet another tory buffoon into parliament. It looks like we'll need a few laughs after the next election. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the UK, you can't really parody the conservatives in the same way as you can with right-wingers in the US. You don't so much get Poe's Law because UK politics (at least compared to the US) is all battling around the centre. You can toff it up maybe, turn up in a tweed jacket and pipe and if you get vox popped about voting go on about how you prefer this public school over that public school etc. etc. Basically if you can do your best General Melchett impression, it'd be hilarious. 20:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Weird shit in the sky
When I got up this morning I popped into my back yard for a smoke and above me, in the lightening sky, was a bright light moving from west to east. Looked like venus but much brighter and much bigger. I thought it strange but rationally I figured its a plane. Nope not a plane as there were no other lights on it and it was heading in the wrong direction (planes over my place in the city always head north/south). OK, perhaps its a satellite, though its waaaaaay too bright the sun is about to rise so its catching the sun beyong the horizon. Ahhhh yes, thats it - a satellite. Now imagine my surprise when this bright light suddenly stops, moves back the way it came, then reverses direction again and continues. It was below the highest clouds though moved through the lower ones. 'twas rather weird. Necron99 20:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They're here, aren't they? --127․0․0․1 (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Helicopter? You would be amazed the number of the damn things that are about at night. 192.43.227.18 00:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasn't there a Tsunami warning active last night? 192.43.227.18 00:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * way to high for a helicopter, far to high. And Tsumami are generally not found in the sky. Ace McWickedNecron99 01:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How high do helicopters go? The point I was making about the Tsunami warning is they ready emergency services when an alert is active, they start flying things around in the hope that it will do something when it happens. You will get unusual flight activity. 192.43.227.18 01:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * well the tsunami warning was hours earlier and over 1000km from where I live so it weren't that. Just some weird light in the sky moving in a strange fashion. Chalk it up to just one of those strange occurences. Ace McWickedNecron99 01:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A few weeks ago I was barbecuing with a couple friends and we noticed this odd bright cluster of lights in the sky, it was completely motionless. A few hours later they had changed their position in the sky, but not with the earth's rotation. It was right below the dipper before and had moved pretty far above it, but still parallel. It freaked me out a bit, but I chalked it up to illusion or wishful thinking. --PitchBlackMind (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Back in the mid 70s I was out in the desert in the middle of Syria about 11 o'clock at night, and saw lights which moved from left to right or up and down at great speed and then disappeared. It wouldn't even make sense if it was aliens. The only plausible suggest that someone came up with was that it was the afterburner of jets doing night-time exercises. Although going downwards with the afterburner on seems a bit risky. 08:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have decided that what I saw was either the Great Eye of TK or it was Andy, Godspeeding across the atmosphere. Ace McWickedNecron99 08:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It could have been Ace Mc Wicked, covertly taking pictures of you as you shower from overhead, panting and pulsing profusely. MarcusCicero (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmmm perhaps you should read the above at bit more closely MC. Ace McWickedNecron99 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's something I've always wanted to build. You need a big yellow plastic bag - about the size of a rubbish bin. One or two candles. Some old wire - perhaps old wire coat-hangers. Method: Twist the wire into a frame around the mouth of the plastic bag.  More wire (or struts) lead to the the centre of the opening of the plastic bag.  Stick a candle to the wire and light it. The hot air from the candle fills the plastic bag and turns it into a small hot air balloon and also illuminates the inside of the bag.
 * Release, and wait for the UFO reports. But I've never done it because there might be one or two risks involved.  :-( --BobNot Jim 13:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What's a "rubbish bin"? -- 18:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a bin for putting rubbish in. --Kels (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Kels. What is "rubbish bin" in American?--BobNot Jim 19:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Trash Can" i believe would be the correct term. Ace McWickedNecron99 19:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess it's a matter of scale for Canajuns like me. "Trash can" for the biggish ones (even though it's made of plastic), "waste bin" for the little one by my desk, and "dumpster" for the big ones outside of businesses and apartment buildings.  Not to mention "recycle bin" or "compost bin"  in recent years, both of which I wholeheartedly approve of. --Kels (talk) 21:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

At Bob, I think that's a great idea and you ought to do it immediately. Just not near your own house. In fact, we should all do it all over the world. The great part will be that when we confess (like the crop circle artists) the true believers won't accept the truth. So, now we have to find appropriate bags, since most garbage bags are boring colors, the big ones especially. Hmmm. My kitchen trash bags are white. Dover (NH) pay-per-bag bags are orange but cost like a dollar each. NH roadside cleanup bags are blue, IIRC. That's the direction to go - roadside cleanup type bags, brightly colored to be easy for the truck crew to locate and retrieve... 01:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA
We have now officially transitioned to the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license, Version 3.0 copyright license. Just so everyone is aware of this fact. If you have released original content such as images or essays on this wiki specifically under the GFDL you have until August 1st to release that content under CC-BY-SA. If you do not, the content is no longer "compatible" with RationalWiki's copyright license. tmtoulouse 18:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to change the rights on an image without having to go through re-uploading it? --Kels (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ala the drop down boxes? I am not sure actually. tmtoulouse 19:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Edit the page and change the template. 89.134.223.11 19:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Quick question; is there any particular reason for the deadline? Is it a deadline for changing licences of work you've already done; in which case can you just re-upload under a different licence or will they not be valid at all on work done after that date. It just seems to me to be kind of wierd and silly to put a deadline on it. I assume when you say "specifically under the GFDL" you mean "specifically under the GFDL", as in, if you haven't put any licence on it, it'll "automatically" change. 19:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The deadline comes from the GFDL license itself (see their FAQ) which allows for any content published on online collaborative sites that is licensed under the GFDL to switch to CC-BY-SA until August 1st. After that it must stay GFDL. If content was added or uploaded without a specific license then it is licensed under the general RW copyright which switched over today. tmtoulouse 20:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, for any art I've uploaded I doubt it matters much, since what I do over the next couple of years will be a lot more important to me. So let that go to whatever it goes to and be done with it.  Anything I upload from here forward, I'll probably be a bit more scrupulous about rights. --Kels (talk) 21:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to showcase my copyleft ignorance... The Sea Org ad I did used a $cientology photo of the Sea Org. I am pretty sure it was a publicity shot, so I assume that using it is legal (fair game use). I got it off of a non-$cieno blog (don't remember where) but since I wrote the text and slapped it all together, that makes the work mine, right? Anyway, I templated it as public domain. I really don't give a shit what anyone does with it. Do I have to CC-BY-SA it or can I leave it as is? The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Public domain just means "have at it" or "do what you like with this" basically. The liscences just mean people can take it and use it by the terms of those liscences. Although the work is yours you may still have used a copyrighted image. With fair use, "widely available" doesn't mean it's free to use so getting it second hand from a blog doesn't cover you. It's not a major problem, I don't think RW is large enough to attract attention and there are very few people (although you are dealing with Scientology) who bother with the hassel when it's not infringing on the money they could be making. 12:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent) if some kind person were to amend the licensing on any images for which I am the copyright holder on my behalf I wwould be very grateful. I can't run multiple edts @ the moment, being on a slow phone probably until the end of next week. (It's weird being Susan - like "coming out of the closet")
 * Just wait for someone to come along and crow that they figured out that you're a sock of Toast. --Kels (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't imagine that anyone would put forward such a manifestly ridiculous suggestion.

Phred Felps
Phor those who haven'tt seen it, there's a documentary on everyone's phavorite phaithful phascist phamily that's worth watching. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 01:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That one is pretty good. Louis Theroux has really odd but effective style of coming across really ignorant and innocent which gets the people he's interviewing to just be extremely blunt and open. The one where he's in San Quentin is good too.  10:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Louis talking to white supremacists & neo-Nazis is also worth watching.  18:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

On Cargo Cult Science and Three Year Old Children
I was heading out for my morning smoke with my daughter in tow (she likes to run through the dew and look for fairies sleeping in the clover) and I noticed, oddly, that she checks the doorknob as she exits the door, just like I do. The thing is, I am checking to make sure the latch won't catch and all she does is wiggle the knob twice. She knows that I do something with it, she just doesn't know what. Someday she'll figure it out on her own, but in the meantime, I'll let my little cargo cult scientist be. I know it's banal minutiae, but it's the little things like that that make being a father such a rewarding experience. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw a show comparing bonobos to 4 year olds. They'd give each a "puzzle box" with candy inside. They then showed them a method for extracting the candy which included a number of pointless tasks. Next, they gave each a clear version of the box which made apparent the unnecessary nature of many of the steps. The kids still performed all the steps. The monkeys just did what was necessary to take the candy out. &mdash; Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 13:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not leaping to a defense or anything, but she's also the little girl who successfully defeated EVERY child safety device we could throw at her with her Handy Manny toolset. Doorknob spinners got levered off with Turner, the standard screwdriver. Rusty, the pipewrench, gave her the grip and leverage to pop the cabinet locks. The pliers, Squeeze, let her bypass the actual doorknob locks and she stood on the toolbox to flip the deadbolts. She also figured out how to combine a dining room chair and her Barbie Princess dress-up belt to activate the locking levers on the baby gates we have in the house here. She troubleshoots her Baby V-Smile whenever it won't come on and she usually goes right to the source (Set TV to Video 2, check AV cable, check power cord to console, asks for fresh batteries for the remote unit if flipping the switches to the correct setting doesn't work). All of this (and reading monosyllabic words and counting to twenty) by 2.5 years. It's almost enough to make me think she's a reincarnated mechanical engineer! Oh, well. I'm proud and I'll leave it at that. Thanks for listening. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 13:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Extremely interesting. Showing of the strengths and corresponding weaknesses of human intelligence very well. 13:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The findings were that children were predisposed to copy (which you've verified). I think other studies in the show found that the kids were better at figuring it out on their own (which you've also verified). Ain't it cute? I found the video I was talking about here (chapter 5 contains the experiment I was talking about). &mdash; Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 14:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Those look like interesting videos and I'll check them out at home (no QT here at work). I also remembered something I wanted to add to my previous post but forgot. She was getting out of bed at night hiding in the closet of the master bedroom after my wife and I had headed downstairs for the evening. The trouble was, we were locking our bedroom door at the time. After the third instance of going to check on her, finding her missing and finding her hiding in our closet, I finally asked her how she was getting into our room in the first place. She replied, "I used my key.", so I asked "What key?", to which she replied "The one I made." I asked if I could look at it, and she said sure, went to her bookshelf, reached underneath it and produced a straightened paperclip. I said "That's really neat! Can you show me how it works?" as I locked the door again. She walked right up, fed the paperclip into the release pinhole, popped the lock, and walked back to her hiding spot. I had a little conversation with her about privacy and she hasn't done it again. Cripes, am I in for it when she's older or what? The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're going to be in for one hell of an angsty-teenage-gothy phase I'm sure. 19:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's awesome!! And she's only three? Pretty amazing. --PitchBlackMind (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. Three as of June 21st. And just tonight, she read a cut down version of "Cinderella" to me. It's one of her favorites, so it's difficult to say what was memorized and what was actual reading, but she correctly identified the words "salamander", "godmother", and "coachmen" when I asked her to point them out to me. They all occur in the same paragraph. I guess "spelling secrets" won't be useful for much longer. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Brilliant kid. She'll be moving shit with her mind soon.--PitchBlackMind (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just don't tell her she can't. Better yet, get her to think that you do, and maybe she'll figure out how to do it for real.  Oh, by the way, does she display any signs of desire for world domination? I hope not...  01:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wish Me Luck
Tonight I take a huge step in my career as I leave the coffee shops and bars behind and work my first Comedy Club Gig. I'm performing tonight at the Denver Improv's Future Legends of Comedy Night.... Have a drink in hopes I don't bomb. 16:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * as we say in French, "merde!" (..it's the word for "shit," but it means "break a leg" in this context." TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * From one who (briefly) trod the boards way back when... knock 'em dead. You'll be fine. Holding everything on this side (no, don't ask what I'm typing with...) --PsyGremlinWhut? 16:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do we get a preview of your material? Perhaps you've discovered the punchline to "A creationist walks into a bar..."? 16:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good luck man, and give us a clip!--PitchBlackMind (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just got back... It was a hit... I did really well. I'll be putting a clip up on Youtube soon.   05:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Awesome work! I look forward to it. Heres a joke - A creationist walks into a bar but this information doesnt have any "meaning" Ace McWickedNecron99 05:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Silly Ace, creationists don't walk into a bar, they are intelligently guided to picket the house of sin. 05:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A creationist walked into a bar, and the bruise on their forehead lasted for seven days, with one off to rest. 05:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A creationist walks into a bar, the evolutionist ducks under it and Natural Selection is once again successful! 10:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna have to look for that YouTube clip. Listening to comedians is a great way to pass the time, and laughter is an effective medicine. Even if it's homeopathic. -- CodyH (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * unless you're diabetic, in which case insulin is pretty effective medicine. Glad the show went well, SirC - let us know when the YouTube is up. --PsyGremlinWhut? 14:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

At work yesterday...
...I saw a trailer for a film called 2012 about the theory of the apocalypse of December 21st 2012. Seeing the trailer, I'm now wondering how many stupid bumbling idiots will be fooled into believing it, as I was still a kid for the millenium and don't remember much of the Y2K crap. 10:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Much better version of the trailer here. Really gets to what people are gonna go to the movie for anyway. And way better music. --Kels (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just watched it... so. many. degrees. of. special. At least it'll be funnier than Disaster Movie. 19:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Saw it on PlayStation network 2 weeks ago. Friend thought it looked cool, I did not. Another one of those "Look at how cool my special effects are!!!" movie. And some people wonder why I do not like modern movies.--Tabris (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as a CG disaster porn movie I'm sure it'll be totally and utterly awesome. 11:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It'll look that way, but is nothing more than a Rental flick (as in see once)--Tabris (talk) 02:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The Secret
I am trying to watch it, but it is really hard to choke down. God what utter, complete tripe. tmtoulouse 00:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It is full of great material though:

"You dont understand electricity properly. First of all, no one knows what electricity is, yet you enjoy the benefits of it. Do you know how it works? I don't know how it works. But I do know this, that you can cook a man's dinner with electricity, and you can also cook the man."

--Bob Procter, claims to be a philosopher

tmtoulouse 01:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Mnargh, my girlfriend buys into "the secret", and I see it as "correlation does not mean causation". (And for Bob Procter, electricity is the flowing of electrons in a particular direction caused by the acucmulation of a charge on one side or the other) 01:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my ex-gf started buying into it towards the end of our relationship. We discussed it several times, and I even put on the kid gloves, and it still didn't go well. tmtoulouse 01:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh man. I use electrocity all the time, and I wouldn't if I didn't understand it.  Shocking?  I think not.  Well, not much, anyway.  What is this "Secret" of which you speak?  Does it have any amusement value or is it just stupid?  02:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I once thought about how I would go about making an electric current if I only had materials found naturally. I got about as far as "First, find a lodestone, or two, and... some copper... and... ...damn." 03:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Pee and some metal oughta do it. The hard part is finding the metal easily, although ores are found on the surface in some places.  Or were, til we used them all up.  Hell with that, skip right over several "ages" and find you some pitchblende, eh? Instaheat!  03:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PS, the roughest shock I ever took was from some electric catfish. Serious DC current (makes car ignition seem like a tickle), from then on I cleaned their tank wearing rubber gloves...  03:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if one could engineer a netbook 'battery' connected to an elaborate aquarium connected to some electric catfish, electric eels, and anything else electric. It would look totally awesome. Even if the catfish weren't up to the task, there's always unethical genetic engineering to fall back on. If I was a multi-millionaire... 04:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I know not of this "Secret" of which you talk; kindly elucidate. 'Many (many, many) years ago I was hurled across a stage by someone switching a breaker in a distant room while I was investigating a three phase system (then 415 volts across any two phases) while I was in amateur theatre. Can't recommend it! 04:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The Secret, Law of Attraction, Esther Hicks. tmtoulouse 04:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A simple link would have worked. Why make me sweat and suffer by having to click twice?  04:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Secret Only tells me it's a movie. Link to watch on line?  Or do I have to rent/netflix it and add to the paying viewer numbers?  04:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The OU/BBC did several series with an assortment of 3 or 4 university scientist types and a presenter (Kate Humble?) in various wild locations around the globe. In at least one they had to make a current enough to transmit & receive a radio message using scrap & locally available raw materials. They also had to dicover, extract and cast some gold in one in NZ I think. 04:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think (or least like to think) I could do that sort of thing... given enough slaves, of course. 04:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The program you mean is Rough Science. alt (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it worse than What the %$*% Do We Know? 11:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would watch that movie when I was about 12 so I could hear Zombie Nation play in the background over and over and over again. I can't imagine it'd be useful for anything else. 15:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Ugly screaming kids
Shit, I gotta go to work! 10:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Roosters, unlike the lemming, can be enticed to down a wee dram on cold mornings. --PsyGremlinWhut? 10:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Damn lies and statistics
It's nice to see the BBC publish an article on the subject of false positives. Especially if someone in the future does try and claim to have a "terrorist test". Although he doesn't mention that the incidence rate really does affect your confidence level; the HIV test is fantastic in Africa where the infection rate can be up to 50%, but it's less useful if you scan everyone in a low-risk area, where it'll be less than 1% - it also took me a little while to establish that the rate in the hypothetical terrorist scenario was 1 in 3000 since it's not explicitly mentioned. He also doesn't mention that there is a difference between sensitivity and specificity, i.e., 90% accuracy doesn't mean that you get 10% false positives, it means that it will miss 10% of the "real" things, the amount of false positives is a different number entirely (pregnancy tests, for instance, are very very selective, something like 99%, but they're designed to give a slight over-abundance of false-positives, say 5%, to make sure people double-check with doctors). However, enough of the nitpicking with the detail, I'm happy to see something like this put out to a wide audience as not many people are quite aware about things like this, it's incredibly counter-intuitive to think that something you've been told is 90% effective is actually less than 1% effective in reality. 12:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a bit of a complicated idea to fully grasp, and it is not just the "lay public" that makes these errors. A lot of interesting work was done on AIDS consultation in the West that showed professionals made the logical error that a test that is 99 percent specific and sensitive should be 99 percent "accurate" (G Gigerenzer, “AIDS counselling for low-risk clients,” AIDS Care 10, no. 2 (1998): 197-211.). So these people would tell individuals that got a positive test that they for sure had AIDS even though the actual chance was at most 30-50 percent.


 * Even with in research science I still constantly run into people that try and equivocate between the statements "the probability of our data given our hypothesis" and "the probability of our hypothesis given our data." It is all very interesting to me because a lot of my research has been designed around showing how humans appear to use Bayesian inference in cognitive processes, like learning and action choice. But the moment you move the task to the meta level people can't seem to apply Bayesian reasoning at a conscious level. tmtoulouse 16:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Odd request
I've busy working through an idea and to make it work I need the names of 10 important people in the US conservative / religious movement (e-mail addresses would be a win too, to save me looking). I'm thinking along the lines of Coulter, Malkin, Haggity (sp?)... All will be revealed in time (it has to do with CP, but I thought I'd post it here anyway). --PsyGremlinWhut? 09:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't google for yourself? In the search-age, there's no excuse for such research-laziness.   14:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Googling to scrape together ten names is probably more laborious than many Google applications. In addition to Coulter, Malkin, and Hannity, one could consider Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Pat Robertson, Dennis Prager, Pat Buchanan, Beverly LaHaye, and Joseph Farah of WND. Not to mention Mommie Dearest, of course. 15:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just scroll down the Clogosphere and pick the authors you like the sound of! :) 15:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tips - will do. --PsyGremlinWhut? 15:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Although not nearly as well known, I would also consider Brent Bozell (founder of the MRC, PTC, and Newsbusters) I'm assuming you only want people who are alive right? Meaning No Reagan or Falwell. 19:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Psy, didn't you get the memo? Savage got declared a terrorist by the UK and was denied entry (or something), so that makes him a liberal. Teh Fly's philosophy demands this be true to continue the perfect geometric fit. Deny this and lose all credibility. That is all. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

For Harry Potter fans who also love watching Fundy crap.
I first saw this being promoted by John Hagee several years ago but actually forgot about it till someone on another forum dug it up and posted it. It is basically a documentary from a supposed "occult expert" on how Potter lures kids to witchcraft. Not only does it seem like the woman barely read the books but after watching it the thing that immediately popped into my mind was a big giant /facepalm. For those who don't want to watch the whole thing you can just skip to around 39:00 mins. where she briefly brings evolution into it. NetharianCubicles are prisons! 19:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Evolution is synonymous with reincarnation, what's wrong with that? Dawkins says so in all his books. Heck, it's right there in Origin, one of Darwin's basic concepts. --Kels (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure that in the Harry Potter books they say that Dark Magic is just that- Dark. Bad. Wrong. When Harry and others use it, they come off as serious douches. ENorman (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I quite like the spit that comes with the word "pagan" near the beginning. 00:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha! Up to the point where the guy is going on about it being a religion being taught in class which is baaaaaad. SPOING!! FFS... 00:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And sorry to live-blog this as I'm going, but when she says that the magic in Harry Potter is real because you don't have witches complaining that it's a misrepresentation... surely that's a lie. I'm pretty sure I've heard of them complaining regularly that it's completely wrong and misrepresents wicca and white magic. But meh, we don't let facts stand in the way of truth here! 00:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm watching too. totally writing an article when I'm done.  -- 01:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Great comments at 20 and 24 min- the guy acts like Wicca's have the power to cast a lv.50 spell of Magic Missile.  -- 02:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, taking abreak while mt cocoa cooks. WTF are these people thinking?!?!!  Their arguments are incredibly bad.  You could apply them to anything!  Example

Video:Harry Potter's and Voldemort's wand are from the same phoenix, so there is no difference between them

Me:Darth Vader and Luke use the same lightsaber, so there is no difference between them

Video:Harry uses a curse once, so readers might try to curse someone IRL.

Me:Luke used the Dark Side once, so I might try to use Force-Lightning on my friends.

See??? -- 02:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Who doesn't use force lightning on their friends? More efficient than electric catfish by far. 04:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In the bible, God floods the world once, so readers might try to flood the world IRL. 04:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't he also send the Angel of Death along for a rollicking good time to kill all the first borns? That's imitatable. 10:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "... a childlike approach to the fact that what's impossible may be possible" - like turning water into wine, raising the dead, walking on water, stopping the sun, ascending into heaven, etc., etc.. The basic premise of the video seems to be that "my fantasy nuttery is right, your fantasy nuttery is wrong" and that most of the criticisms that might be levelled against HP could also be made against Christianity and the bible. What's weird though is that they almost accept that witchcraft works rather than saying it's a load of bollocks. Caryl Matrisciana just looks like another right-wing Christian anti-feminist loon with her books and documentaries on Islam Rising, Yoga Uncoiled and Evolution Conspiracy. 14:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed that they really can't do the obvious thing and say that magic isn't real and that these spells and curses have no real effect (well, maybe a placebo effect if people know about it) because that would mean having to conclude that the miracles in the Bible must also be utter bullshit. Really, they've dug themselves into a fundie-christian shaped hole and the only ladder to get them out would destroy their own beliefs too. The entire thing only works within their worldview so it's quite difficult to grasp where they're even coming from half the time. 15:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think some Christians believe that there is power in witchcraft due to demons having power over certain things. I seem to remember a story in the OT about Egyptian magicians turning a rod into a snake just like Moses. NetharianCubicles are prisons! 15:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Even an apologetics site dismisses the rod-into-snake miracle as a mere conjuring trick when done by the Egyptians - but a divine miracle when done by a Jew.  16:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I only got about 35 minutes in, but here are some choice comments

Sorry, I'll watch the rest some other time. -- 17:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, can someone with better wiki-fu than me take a look at that, the table seems to want to display at the very bottom of the page. Not sure what's causing it as it happens regardless of whether class="wikitable" is there or not. 17:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Damnation, I saw EVILution and totally read it as ELVISlution. --Kels (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The cost of pseudoscience
Question for everyone, please offer your input if you can. What do you think are the major costs of pseudoscience? Included in this is the pseudoscience itself, the promotion of it, even a culture that "embraces" it. Costs can be monetary, human life or health, cognitive, social, cultural, anything. In addition to ideas about the general cost of pseudoscience, do you have any specific examples of a negative consequence of it that you find particularly powerful? For example, cases where a medical treatment was refused, or the measles outbreak in England, etc. 16:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've always thought that one of the major costs is the fact that it affects real science badly. You either have people not trusting the real thing or being fed misinformation so that they can't understand it. Look at most alt medicine, if people think that there's something genuine about it and that it works, they don't trust doctors who say that it doesn't. The loss of trust and understanding has a massive impract. 17:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A worse effect on real science is that it becomes stigmatized, so it has to be carried out in a cloister, and people who might otherwise become scientists do not, fearing the stereotype of the Genocidal Atheistic Scientist. 17:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What he said :). Plus, you also get the fact that people begin to think that things are debatable in a way that implies they're debatable as in a worldview, where you have a debate and the side who puts forward the best argument "wins", this isn't the case in science. There's no debates like that in real science because they're all on the same side and the "winner" is everyone and the "winning idea" is the one that's right, or at least closest to the truth. But with BS science, people get the impression that "alternative" ideas are just that "alternative" as opposed to just plain wrong. 17:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This, however, might have something to do with the fact that certain people are pushing the idea of a "scientific world-view," i.e., strong rationalism or philosophical naturalism, and these ideas are debatable, but also are no more scientific than creationism. 17:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean like a backfiring of RW's mission or some of the videos that Thunderf00t does where he gets preachy?  17:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not know the videos; I was thinking of the controversies over some of my essays, where it was posited that the metaphysical premise of weak atheism could be obtained through use of the scientific method. 18:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Lysenkoism springs to mind as a very obvious case. It cost the USSR dear. Homoeopathy ans similar ideas have probably killed people. I personally know people who died because they refused medical aid and "trusted in God."--BobNot Jim 18:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding Armond's first comment, it's a "vague" cost, but a real one. What bugs me are all the ads I see for fairly obvious snake oil, featuring people in lab coats and glasses, claiming that the woo they are selling is "real science" or has been "scientifically proven", etc.  So someone who knows it's bullshit might think science works badly enough to actually "prove" the crap.  But, yeah, I think the worst short-term costs are people whose health is seriously harmed due to using magic instead of medicine.  Long term I'd include people raised to simply not accept widely-confirmed aspects of science, the dumbing down of the population, and worse yet, legislation of magic over science.  20:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is not that magic would be legislated over science, but that laws would be made by people who despise magic, and also in their ignorance consider science to be magic. 21:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Because it's Saturday...
here's something for those who like TV Tropes and XKCD. --PsyGremlinWhut? 13:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This one is better. -- 16:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Happened to me more times than it's healthy. 04:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I worked on Sunday.
 * Tomorrow (Tuesday) is my first day off in 8 days. 18:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Here it is
Here is the video of my stand up performance from the other night..... Here's a link Just click on and ....Ah, who am I kidding... We're too lazy to follow links, here's an embed... No comments on how I look. 22:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Damn! My work computer doesnt like youtube or embedded vids. I'll have to wait until I get home which is a pain as I could use a laugh right now. Ace McWickedNecron99 22:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) Is all your humor racial in nature? 22:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He made some gay jokes as well! Thanks for sharing, Chuck!  22:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I liked the Popsicle stick joke and final punch line best. 22:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You look fine, man. Pretty comfortable up there, although you seemed kind of in a hurry at times. --Kels (talk) 22:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) Ditto for the Popsicle-stick joke. 22:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you everyone for your support. To answer some of the questions, to Listerner: Not all my stuff is racial, but I only had three minutes so I selected what I considered to be my strongest and quickest material and that just happened to be what came out.  To Kels, I know... I really had to fly to meet that three minute mark.  22:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good stuff, man.  23:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I figured there must have been a time limit of some sort. Although for some reason I keep hearing Chuck D saying the title of this section.  Strange. --Kels (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing. I dig it. --PitchBlackMind (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, please out it on your user page or summat so after it gets archived here, we who enjoyed it can still easily enjoy it... 05:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * lol...thanks Chuck. &mdash; Signed, by: Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 17:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For your next gig howabout some stuff about CP? You wouldn't even have do much as it's a goldmine of humour. 20:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw the popsicle one coming, but still funny. Yep, that is how it feels to be white :p 13:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) The popsicle stick joke actually has funny story behind it... I originally wrote it as part of the list of "signs" he gave me, but it really made people uncomfortable.... Most people thought that crossed the line... So I flipped it around and made it something I did that pushed it over the line and it has been killing.... A Really strange thing, stand up comedy. 06:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Little moan
The winner of The Open (golf) made me switch channels yesterday. He thanked gOD for his win. eeeuuugh! (No, I'm not interested in golf but it was rather good to see a 59 year old in the play off) 06:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Are there many instances of non-Americans doing this? 06:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the commentators made a little joke.
 * Q. What is the difference between a prayer said in church and one said on the golf course?
 * A. On the golf course you really mean it.
 * 07:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Some Finnish politician did it after getting elected to the European parliament. I was appalled. Vulpius (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Cink was being mindful of Andy's criticism of Wkipedia about Zach Johnson's win of the Masters in 2007 - See #90. 21:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And perhaps Vulpius is pretty damn dumb. Vulpius (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Little death
The winner of the Orgasm Open (gulf) made me switch sides (!) yesterday. She thanked Odin for her win. Enough! No, I don't watch golf for the scores, but for the tight pants and the fine fashion tips. Then again, watching a 59-year-old "play off"... ewwwwww. Toast made a sports post???? 06:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Golf is a game not a sport. 06:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Golf is a good walk spoiled - (Mark Twain). 06:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Golf is a good Rabbit sporked - Some guy. 06:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As the late, great George Carlin put it, there are only two sports: baseball and football. Everything else is an activity. --Kels (talk) 16:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Golf is a game whose aim is to hit a very small ball into an even smaller hole, with weapons singularly ill-designed for the purpose." which is just behind Wilde's "The unspeakable chasing the uneatable." as far as my fave sports quotes go. --PsyGremlinWhut? 15:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)