RationalWiki talk:What is going on at ASK?/Archive2

One mark in PJR's favor
He at least seems to have hired on a relatively stable host for his site. Our intensive editing and viewing ain't done broke it yet.  ħ uman  05:01, 3 April 2009 (EDT)


 * The workload isn't that heavy at the moment: There are 168 editors at the moment. Here's a table for their registrations' dates (until April 2nd, 2009)
 * {|class="wikitable"

! Mar 21!! Mar 22!! Mar 23!! Mar 24!! Mar 25!! Mar 26!! Mar 27!! Mar 28!! Mar 29!! Mar 30!! Mar 31!! Apr 1!! Apr 2
 * align="right"|4||align="right"|1||align="right"|2||align="right"|0||align="right"|79||align="right"|35||align="right"|18||align="right"|5||align="right"|8||align="right"|6||align="right"|3||align="right"|2||align="right"|3
 * }
 * 06:17, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
 * The last 500 changes takes you to
 * 03:39 April 2nd - RW
 * 20:33 April 1st - CP
 * 02:14 April 2nd - aSK
 * So, using this rather rough guide, aSK is busier than us (just ) and definitely CP. Additionally, at a rough guestimate, aSK has more substansive edits and less things like blocking/vandal reversion.
 * Silver Sloth 06:37, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Silver Sloth 06:37, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Beefing this up (frankly, it doesn't justify a visualization yet :-)
 * {|class="wikitable"

!Date ! Mar 21!! Mar 22!! Mar 23!! Mar 24!! Mar 25!! Mar 26!! Mar 27!! Mar 28!! Mar 29!! Mar 30!! Mar 31!! Apr 1!! Apr 2 !Accounts Created !Posts per Day !Individual Editors per Day 07:46, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
 * align="right"|4||align="right"|1||align="right"|2||align="right"|0||align="right"|79||align="right"|35||align="right"|18||align="right"|5||align="right"|8||align="right"|6||align="right"|3||align="right"|2||align="right"|3
 * align="right"|65||align="right"|92||align="right"|69||align="right"|67||align="right"|1403||align="right"|1451||align="right"|1022||align="right"|831||align="right"|868||align="right"|639||align="right"|589||align="right"|464||align="right"|380
 * align="right"|4||align="right"|5||align="right"|5||align="right"|5||align="right"|76||align="right"|86||align="right"|65||align="right"|46||align="right"|52||align="right"|52||align="right"|51||align="right"|46||align="right"|40
 * }
 * Yeah, but there's going to quickly be a growth problem. As soon as we get bored.  Who are the new biblically viewpointed editors who aren't from CP (or from RW)?  Sterilewalkie-talkie 09:45, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Don't worry; PJR & AddisonDM will find enough crap to dogmatise about to replace anyone who slackens off. (what happened to Augustine?) 14:52, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Don't mind me, I'm just being quitely amused at how quickly PJR's thin verneer of reasonableness seems to have worn off once he's not standing next to the CP Dishonour Guard. Like here, where Sterile basically has to beat him on the head to make a change the source doesn't support.  But PJR's got the whole "Darwin was anti-God" myth stuck in his head (along with the others), and apparently it's hard to dislodge. --Kels 15:50, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Thanks for the shout-out Kels. I did this with PJR back in the day on the CP dino page.  He cites a lot of creationist stuff, but then tends to extrapolate a bit more than he should.  You can get him to back down if you point it out to him.  Sterilewalkie-talkie 21:12, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

How sharp the tongue
Methinks Addison doesn't like us much. I may weep openly. --Kels 17:29, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Methinks the lad needs to take a look around CP, especially the main talk page archives. He'll find some very bad taste stuff on there, most of it posted by Andy ('this shooting wasn't motivated by hatred for homosexuality' - I remember reading something like this by him when a gay man was murdered). I was going to reply to his comment to me above, but twice in the middle of my reply when going to a different tab I accidentally closed the aSK tab, so I'll try again tomorrow. EddyP 17:36, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Fuck him.... Ask a polite question and he comes out swinging.... Post away. SirChuckB  19:43, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Hey Eddy, I dunno which browser you are using, but in firefox if you right click on the tab bar, one option is "undo close tab" - it's an excellent feature.  ħ uman  20:58, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Yep, autosaving tabs gets me out of a bind on numerous occaisions. Even better when it saves all the history too. But that could be why FF and Opera now need more RAM than God to work properly... :@  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 07:17, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * That's why I moved to Chrome. Same amazing tab functionality, but because each tab is handled like a separate program additionally (multi-threaded or some such technobabble) it doesn't eat up your RAM the more you use it.--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 10:17, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm gonna give Chrome a little longer to evolve out in the wild before I think of switching. I tried it before, when it first came out, and it wasn't quite there yet.  Certainly it didn't work as well as Firefox on my machine at the time.  Maybe in a few more months, a few updates down the line, maybe wait for the next version number or whatever. --Kels 10:35, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I need to wait until there's a Chrome build for Ubuntu 12:01, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * By the by, mr. Addison needs to jump in a very cold Fjord. Stupid men thinking that it's no big deal to be preggers, no big deal to have a 10 lb baby rip out of you, and by hte way, you are a woman, you should WANT to give up your life for your baby.  HA!  like any of you penis-porters would do that.-- 21:57, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Why
Why are people bothering to argue about something so manifestly loopy as the "Great Flood"?. They've made their minds up and Goddidit is their response, basically, to everything. IT'S A WASTE OF EFFING TIME TALKING TO THEM!!!!!! 18:58, 3 April 2009 (EDT)


 * It's actually quite fun to watch, from my point of view. It really shows the mindset, and probably that "evidence" Phil talked about earlier (but never bothered to provide). Basically, they've got the Bible.  Far as they're concerned, the Bible is true in a literal sense.  Therefore it's all correct.  Therefore, evidence!  Everything else just needs word games and the like to fit it into what they already know is true and factual.  Sure, it relies on an incredibly bizarre view of how the world works, an endless capacity for self-deception and a rather simplistic and childlike take on the book itself, but surely we're used to that. --Kels 19:07, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Exaccly! So why do people bother? Trying to defeat their stupidities, that is. 19:10, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Some people enjoy arguing, I think. It's rather funny to watch them reveal how empty their myths are, on a site dedicated to glorifying them. --Kels 19:25, 3 April 2009 (EDT)


 * I don't think any of us think we can actually defeat their stupidities, but it's a) entertaining, b) educating (I'm rereading my tiny library of history and phil. of science texts), and c) actually fixes some patently incorrect content (PJR actually revises when he finds there's no evidence behind more outlandish non-creation-science-related claims) 19:26, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
 * And people ask why I wanna just draw pictures for a living. XD --Kels 19:33, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm a Discordian. Arguing pointlessly is a form of meditation for me.  --Gulik 20:22, 3 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Good point, but I have to agree that at least some people find it interesting, amusing or just plain get kicks out of being "intellectually hardcore".  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 07:13, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Plus, the lulz factor. I never cease to be amused that they can't just come right out with goddidit, they have to come up with acres of pseudoscientific rationalisation. Vegetation mats! Baramins! Lamination! All to defend a myth that if they weren't so invested in, would seem absurd to them too. -- 18:50, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Rainbow WIGO
"No rainbows before the Flood? [ That would be ridiculous]. Yes indeed, it sure would."

No link to ASK? Isn't that just a random wank, unless it relates to "what is going on" at ASK?  ħ uman  00:44, 4 April 2009 (EDT)


 * There should have been one to Addison saying that it would be ridiculous. Let me fix it up, then. --Kels 00:50, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Thanks.  ħ uman  00:51, 4 April 2009 (EDT)


 * Well, at least that's one concession to reality they seem to be making (though can you imagine if the Bible was clear that the rainbow was created at that moment!). Any others?  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 07:25, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * True. My real interest in the rainbow quote was how PJR keeps trying to dodge criticism by maintaining that objections "aren't true Creationist positions", when in fact they're positions actively held by a lot of Creationists.  --Kels 10:33, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Yes, but they aren't "True Creationists" (cue the bagpipe music) Xena 10:35, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Whilst
Is whilst really that common in Australian English? It just sounds so bizarre to an American. Sterilewalkie-talkie 10:40, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * It's pretty common in Oz and the British Isles:. But it can sound a little bit smart-arsey. Taytopacket 11:41, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Are you talking about my use of the word? Which was "corrected" by Sterile?  If so then I should inform you that I am indeed a smart-arse and inclined to use high-falutin' terminology at every opportunity.  Your correction of my edit was noted.  Revenge is a dish best served cold.  --Horace 18:29, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * "Whilst" is specifically banned from use on wikipedia. I found that hilarious.  ħ uman  19:59, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Cabalists gone bad! What're ya gonna do?  Ban me? Sterilewalkie-talkie 20:20, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * As far as I can find it's exclusively British. I haven't heard it in use as long as I can recall except when someone wishes to draw attention to its use. It's obsolete really. 21:27, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Blanked-out WIGO.
Oh, no. It must stand, the ever-decreasing number a constant reminder of what not to do. 11:40, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Eh, I dunno. The kid did it himself to take responsibility for it, so I'm willing to leave it commented.  The trick is to make him think before he makes WiGO's like that in future.  --Kels 11:41, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Alright. Makes sense. Next time, though...and there WILL be a next time...11:43, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * There is now a message on the intercome (using sandbox) reminding me not to WIGO myself. -- 11:45, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * It's not hard, dude. Just don't WiGO ANYTHING that you're a main character in.  So a debate where you're the main opponent like that one, or whatever, is out.  That's all it is.  As I said before, you have to listen to others, and think a moment before you do things.  You start doing that stuff, and you'll come off a lot better and not just here.  Don't go for speed, don't try to get in before others, try to do things better than you do now. Seriously, I can think of nothing that'll help you in your whole life more than that. --Kels 12:20, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * You can go blind if you WIGO yourself too much. Xena 21:23, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I heard you grow hair on your keyboard. --Kels 21:27, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I can see, I can see perfectly! 21:28, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Yeah? How many fingers am I holding up? --Kels 21:35, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * If you're holding fingers up, you're not doing it right. 21:44, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * If you hold your fingers down, how can they wiggle?-- 23:13, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Gentlemen prefer good taste
At least, that's what Addison says. Doesn't he realize that's sort of a compliment here? -- 12:25, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Is there a way to plonk certain users on this wiki? Just asking. --Just passing by 13:10, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Depends on what you mean by plonk, I suppose. This is my preferred sort, but I wouldn't recommend giving it to a 14 year old. --Kels 14:03, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * "giving it to a 14 year old". The Daily Mail would have a field day quote mining that one :-) Taytopacket 18:09, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Please! Think of the children!  ...wait, you're thinking of the children now, aren't you? Ewwww! --Kels 18:33, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Tommorows headline: "Kels in shocker 'I wouldn't recommend giving it to a 14 year old.' But WOULD YOU LEAVE YOUR KIDS WITH HIM!!!!!" More faux-shock pages 9-389. Taytopacket 21:06, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * "Him"? There's more to the story than I thought! --Kels 21:07, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * "Tabloids jump to conclusions in sex (gender) romp boffin moggy!!!" Taytopacket 21:10, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Plenty of moggy 'round this place, I've got four of the buggers, plus fuzzies. --Kels 21:16, 4 April 2009 (EDT)


 * EC) Beat me to it, Kels. "Him"? 21:09, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Oh, hi Mister Toast. ;D --Kels 21:11, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * how's it hangin' Monsewer Kels? 21:12, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Not bad. I wonder if Gentleman Godot will be joining us? --Kels 21:14, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * (e/c)Surely I should be blocked briefly for my gender presumption. :-0 My block log is empty. Taytopacket 21:18, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Now that's scandalous! --Kels 21:22, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Premuse you mean Mr. WaitingforGodot, Mr Kels? Mr. Godot might be disqualified. Or do you know something I don't?  21:34, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * You presume correctly, sir. I did not realize our esteemed colleague had a doppleganger.  Aside from which, I have a sudden urge to sit in an overstuffed chair with a cigar and snifter of brandy.  Could you explain this? --Kels 21:46, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I am sitting in a bed with a (near) naked houri tickling my ribs. 21:50, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * And you're still editing RW? What's wrong with you? --Kels 21:55, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * you should have seen what we were tickling earlier. (one of he blessings of gender - the old wham, bam, thank you mam - snore! is a thing of the past) 21:59, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * This Houri of yours, It is certified, is it not? A Good Gentleman would never be seen with a less than pure Houri.
 * State certified! (retired) 22:03, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I'mve arrived. Though in a less than sober way.   has a Cat on my foot.  that's a good Mr. thing, right?-- 21:52, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Summon Mr Lily the pink & we've got a quorum. 21:55, 4 April 2009 (EDT)


 * (EC)So long as we're comparing notes here at the RW Gentleman's Club, I'm finishing up my second glass of passable red wine, trying to decide whether to listen to music or TEDtalks, and working up the gumption to work on my two-room test. --Kels 21:58, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Ahh, I had a bottle of Alsace Wine. :D  and some blue cheese.  my cat had olives.  It should be time for the Gentlement Club to decide what we shall listen too, yes.  I was thinking a bit of jazz Guitar, like Django Reinhardt?-- 21:59, 4 April 2009 (EDT)


 * Cup of coffee & supposed to be working on my book. 22:02, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * It's a saturday night. No Gentleman works on a Saturday Night.-- 22:05, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Gentlemen don't work, that's why they have Houris. 22:07, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Am I too late for the orgy? I've still got some Night Train to finish off. Just a change from Wild Irish Rose.  Lily Ta, wack! 09:09, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

(undent)Well, "work" in my case means re-drawing parts of this and this, so it's not like there's no fun involved. I can even do it quite happily after/during a couple of glasses of wine. I don't have a houri, and my, er, special individual, happens to be several hundred miles away. --Kels 22:11, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * There's Ella on BBC2 now (it's 03:17 BTW)
 * Love Ella, but I've decided to listen to this a second time instead. It's a rather unusual performance. As to drawing, I should get to it instead of obsessively refreshing websites.  I have to have this, five layouts, a self portrait, five each feet and hands, eight cartoon pigs, five characters and eight life drawings done before the Open House on the 15th (coincidentally my birthday).  So far I've got the pigs done, the life drawings aren't an issue, and the five characters.  Lots of work, ahoy! --Kels 22:20, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * EC) Kels: I'm jealous - I have the drawing ability of a slug. 22:22, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Hey! it's teh Houri's Birthday on t' 14th. 22:23, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Aries pride, woo! Drawing ability isn't any sort of magic, it's just an applied, and learnable, skill.  Most people who say they can't draw are just untrained, and you can surprise yourself if you make a priority of it.  This here is a comparison of what I was doing in September to what I was doing in mid-March, as a result of taking the course I'm in.  Two more years, hopefully I'll be at least as much further along, and able to work in the field. --Kels 22:30, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I can draw stick figures. and once used "ms paint" to make a round circle with pointy bumps that was supposed to be a hedge hog.  It looked like someone had used an etch-a-sketch.-- 22:41, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Something Betty Edwards (of Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain fame) noted was that adults who claimed no ability to draw frequently hadn't drawn since they were children in any consistent way. And when they try to draw, their skills are more or less exactly what they were when they left off, all that time ago.  So of course it doesn't do their confidence any good.  It's an interesting observation, and goes to the idea that it's all a matter of observation and practice.  As someone else I spoke with put it, "drawing is planning".  All the rest is technique.  --Kels 22:48, 4 April 2009 (EDT)


 * It certainly makes sense. the technique is to draw... something learned.  the tallent is then, deciding WHAT do draw, and what it will say of you to an audience?-- 23:00, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * To a degree, yes. Observation, facility to learn the skill, and deciding what to draw and, in the case of art for comics and animation, there's a storytelling element to consider. --Kels 23:05, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm somewhat spoiled by photography & teh Gimp. 23:54, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Once I went digital, even I could get a shot or two that look stunning. ;-)  Now, where's that chocolate at, it's time to eat!-- 00:06, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I took (digital) photos quite a lot, including some nude self-portrait stuff, up until three years ago (as of Monday, in fact) when I took up the pencil. Haven't done a whole lot of photography, save for reference, since then.  To paraphrase the late Walt Stanchfield, I used to record images, now I learn to record truth. --Kels 00:09, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * sorry to interrup, but that is REALLY FUCKING CREEPY THAT YOU ARE POSTING THAT!!!!! User:TheemperorUser talk:Theemperor 00:17, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Okay, who let the prude in? It's art photography, you dope! --Kels 01:17, 5 April 2009 (EDT)


 * I like life through a lens. Don't know why.  The stillness of the image?  Course, I'm not a visual person, but an auditory one, so I'd really rather enjoy other's art, while I play a guitar.  I liked the 6 pack on your nude, by the way.  Not that i'm supposed to care about 6 packs on nudes.  but it was quite ripply!  Oddly, I miss the days of freedom when i was laid off, my (left side?) of the brain was so much more active then, with guitar, chocolates, and the odd day out with a camera!.-- 00:14, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * My other half used to work nights & we'd keep the same hours when she was off (still do!) so we often go out at dawn snapping empty streets & crepuscular (look it up) wildlife.  The polis think we're weird!  00:22, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Nice. My "Lady" is a shutter bug, and will just take hour long walks from home, seeing what is there to find.  Course, he's a techno geek so i think it's more about the geeky camera and its geeky buttons...  but he can lose himself for hours shooting.  Me, I lose myself only when I write or play.  which ain't nearly enough these days. By the by, empty streets sound quite shootable.-- 00:27, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I learned an awful lot about compositions, and my own proclivities as an artist, from photography. It was extremely instructive during the time I was shooting a lot.  I may go back to it sometime in the future, but I'm fully immersed in the drawing side of things for now. --Kels 01:20, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

Gentlemen Ladies,
I find your comments in regards to brandy and Houris rather amusing lulzy. In regards to homosexuality and leather chairs, you neglect to mention that cigars cause Gay Bowel Syndrome. Well, I'm off to sckewer the sacred cow of the Gentelmen!

User:TheemperorUser talk:Theemperor 22:53, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Good job I don't actually smoke, then. Although skewering sacred cows strikes me as strangely homoerotic, or at least bestiality which we all know is what gay marriage leads to. --Kels 23:05, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I thought gay marriages lead to abortions... -- 23:11, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Dear Gentleman, what are you doing in our Ladies' room? !!!!  ħ uman  23:52, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Easy, Reverse Discrimination. Title 88 or something.  Ladies have no rights to their own spaces, don'chaknow.-- 00:08, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * No you fool, atheist marriges lead to abortions. Get it right, dammit.  User:TheemperorUser talk:Theemperor 23:49, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Gay marriages lead to gay divorces, silly. EDIT, sorry, "marriages of gay" lead to "divorces of gay".  ħ uman  23:42, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

I hate to say it. I hate to interruptus the RationalWiki Joyousness. I hate to make it about the pet twerp at all. WHY WHY WHY?! But this place is so much more fun after his parents send him to bed. Can we build a "limited edit window" thing like the vandal bin?  ħ uman  unsigned sorry.


 * Human, have you been at Kel's brandy snifter recently? No seriously, I conCUR . User:TheemperorUser talk:Theemperor 23:24, 4 April 2009 (EDT)


 * See pi's comment here 23:26, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Yup. I replied.  And I'm glad we Ladies got our own section, I felt somehow intrusive editing the Gentlemen's discussion above.  ħ uman  23:50, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * We gentlemen are good like that, so long as you don't try to interrupt our more serious discussions. --Kels 23:51, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Thank you [curtsies], and I apologize for bringing my silly babble into the room where Gentlemen were discussing Serious Business. I shall now retire to the parlor where I shall indulge in petty chatter with the other Ladies, from whence we will then embark to the scullery and scrub, wash, and mend for a bit.  ħ uman  23:55, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * The ladies should be "seen & not heard". IMHO 23:56, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * And kept happily busy being barefoot and preggers. damns... likes me a good barefoot Lady dealing with my every whim.-- 00:09, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

The parlour, where the Ladies may remain obscene and not heard

 * Sorry Sir, that's why we have retired to the parlour, and hence shortly to the scullery. Apologies again if we disturbed you or any of your fine guests with our silly :opinions and childish prattle, Sir.  Before we go run the sheets through the wringer, do any of the Gentlemen need more brandy, or perhaps one of Sirs fine cigars?  ħ uman  00:11, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Now, turning to you, Human, what say you of the developments in the Orient?  <font color="#00F0A20">DogP  00:15, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Let the gentelmen in the smoking room sort that one out. Us ladies should not concern ourselves with such.  User:TheemperorUser talk:Theemperor 00:20, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Does anyone know how to get a "Gentleman" stain out of, um, "delicate" clothing? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  00:44, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Bugger. No suggestions? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  23:23, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

The scullery, where there is much Ladies' work to be done
Now now, don't use too much starch on the Gentleman's wash, dearie. Let me show you mow much He likes... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  00:52, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

The carriage house, where the guns will be prepared
Will His Lordship be taking 12-gauge or 20-gauge shells out in the morn? I'll have another ale there, Sarah. <font color="#00F0A20">DogP  02:15, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

=What the hell?
=

Well? What did I do? -- 15:36, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * And I agree with Palpatine- Kels, saying that = creepy. -- 15:36, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * My assessment, objecting to that = childish and annoying. --Kels 15:39, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * You know, now that I've had a chance to cool down and think about it calmly, I see that what you're saying is a flat-out insult. Listen, cheetah boy, if you've got problems with the human body, fine.  But I don't have to take delivery of your issues.  So why don't you go grab something rusty, stick it somewhere painful, and leave it there for a while, mm'kay? --Kels 17:03, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * First of all, I find it slightly ironic that your reaction to theemperor wasn't as. . . lengthy. Second of all, fine, you win. -- 17:43, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I didn't appreciate his either, but at least his didn't have that "oh! oh! me too!" quality about it. --Kels 17:56, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * TM: "shut up, CUR". Hell, your new level of headers failed too.  <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  23:23, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I concur with human. --Ted 19:29, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * What a shock. --Kels 19:33, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

New WIGO
If anyone thinks that I am WIGOing myself, I'm not. I'm WIGOing the fact that Addison is making lots of inane headers. -- 17:48, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Then why didn't you use difflinks to Addison adding the headers? --  Nx / talk 17:50, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Presumably he was/is having fun, following Neveruse creating the Refutations of Refutations section. Dunno if I'd call that lame so much as playing along. --Kels 17:56, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Some "wigos" are better off just brought up on this talkie page, IMO. But, that what votings for!  Hehe. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  20:02, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

I was thinking of a WiGO about this edit where Addison claims to not quite be a YEC, but to be interested in following the evidence. But then, given the level of evidence he's willing to accept, like baraminology or Andy's SES application being more than a sick joke, I'm not as impressed as I might be. Think there's some way to work that into something worthwhile? --Kels 20:22, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I am sure, Gentleman Kels, that if You think of a way to present the topic, the Lulz will be assured. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  00:55, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * 10 Points to the first person who can get PJR to watch and comment on this video from JREF. --Irrational Atheist 21:37, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * It says a lot about what sort of geek I am, when all I can think of throughout is, "Wow, they all look like they were drawn by Jack Kirby!" --Kels 21:44, 4 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I was thinking of doing a remix of that video, with the same audio but with Schlafly quotes to illustrate the points. For everything said, the Assfly is guilty of it in spades. -- 10:22, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

Too much to WiGO
So that's PJR's strategy. Snow us under with so much "fiction masquerading as truth" that we can't keep up, so we miss some of the second-hand lies lunacy. Here are a few I saw from just a quick glance this morning: There's more, too. I just can't WiGO all the anti-science and gibberish he's spouting these days. Oh, and I'm waiting for an apology from everyone who said he was reasonable, wow. --Kels 11:58, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Speciation is not evolution. Evolution requires increased "information" (whatever that is), while speciation involves organisms changing until they qualify as different from where they started.  Wait, what?
 * There is an accepted definition of baramin, we just don't completely know what it is. Bonus: More "information" bullshit.  Phil's gonna ride that one hard!
 * Noah may have had access to epoxy. Hell, maybe he had a flying car!  Picking up animals would have been a breeze!
 * Creationists have long acknowledged speciation occurs. But didn't they used to call that macroevolution, which was supposed to be impossible before they made up the whole "information" dodge  theory  unsupported hypothesis bullshit?
 * Conspiracy!!
 * You have done nothing to address my slippery and ill-defined version of "information", therefore I win! Funny the only thing that ever breaks this "information" rule Phil has such a stiffy for is evolution, isn't it?  Not ha-ha funny, though.
 * Faith is based on evidence, but evidence doesn't have to be something you can prove.
 * How can I deal with evolutionists critics when they won't use the same definitions as the ones I made up? Ingrates!
 * Wow.  Amazing drivel.   But, in fairness, I don't see anyone blocked for expressing their opposing viewpoints vehemently, and I see PJR continuing to debate with good humour.   Doesn't mean he isn't bananas, but at least he's not a bastard.   <font color="#00F0A20">DogP  13:02, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Gulik got blocked for a day, essentially for that. But it wasn't PJR what done it.  I don't know if that's necessarily enough to call him "reasonable" if you're not comparing him to Andy, TK, and that crowd. --Kels 13:08, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * You can make a horse drink. But you can't make a creationist see logic! -- 13:16, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * My apologies. 13:30, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Gleefully accepted! --Kels 13:56, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

Teh STUPID
I just can't take it, I've closed my aSK tab & removed aSK from my bookmarks. Please try not to tempt me with lulzy WIGOaSKs. 17:52, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Your own fault, you know. Most people are content to just look at a pit of sewage, and aren't so tempted to take a nice wade through it. --Kels 17:54, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Yeah, but it's like a wreck on teh side of the road, or some horrificlybad movie you know you'll hate. Sometimes you just have to look.  -- 18:04, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * the articles on the SUN, calcium, danish and doughnuts are not bad. Dinosaurs is a bit off , and Faith , just stay well away from that 67.72.98.45 18:08, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Wait, gOD's bound to come in eventually, specially in Sun. 18:17, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Yeah, I was just going to ask Philip which took more information to make, a chicken or a cow, a black bear or a brown bear, but methinks I might stay away at the moment. (PS I wonder if Philip ever looks at the television to check that weather "forecast."  Crazy scientists. )  Sterilewalkie-talkie 18:18, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Pffft forecast? Why listen to those crazy atheist weather presenters. Its all in the bible. Ace McWickedRevolt 18:29, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I hope he don't take 'em drugs. That's just 'em pharmacologists way of poisoning us-here creationists!  Crazy scientists! Sterilewalkie-talkie 18:30, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Toast, calm down. Read my user-page over there. Then read it again. And you should also take the hysterical overreactive stuff off your user-page. 18:24, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * No. 18:28, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Um, all right. Just thought that "greatest danger to western civilisation at present" might be a little over the top... 18:49, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I don't. 19:01, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

Man, I'm surprised Phil didn't start claiming there'd be gumdrops and ponies in heaven, the rate he was going. --Kels 18:32, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Wait, you mean there aren't??? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  19:17, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Pesactly. The man's worse than Andy in his "rationalisations" and his basic assumption (gOD) is bloody stupid. 19:01, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Perhaps one positive outcome that will come from PJR's little project is that people will see him for the narrow-minded intellectual bully that he is and stop saying that he's some sort of "gentleman" or "decent guy." He only looked that way in comparison because he was a little bit less of a dick than Andy. But that ain't sayin' much. TheoryOfPractice 19:18, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Can I haz permission to unleash Operation Dainty Ivy on PJR with my pal CUR? Nutty Roux 23:24, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Normally, I'd consider him more of a nut than a dick (hehe, my inner 3rd grader is amused), but his calling people who actually understand science ignorant, that's sort of a dick move. --Kels 19:26, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I agree with the Gentleman here. PJR is a nut, for sure.  But he isn't (yet?) a dick, an asshole, etc.  He actually seems to enjoy arguing with those who disagree with him, rather than blocking them on sight. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  23:21, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I have to wait till sunday again to hit my minister up with the Faith requires Proof bit, he hasnt caught ip with that and takes much an opposite view 67.72.98.45 21:07, 5 April 2009 (EDT)  ps. can someone block me so i have to log on, I keep forgetting , thanks
 * Re: PS, I done for you. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  23:18, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Re: PS, where are you going to hit your minister? Nutty Roux 23:23, 5 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I take a friend to services cause she needs some help getting there. The minister seems fairly sane (he a Luthern ) and went absolutely berserk in a sermon a few months ago when a sunday schooler suggested that Faith required Proof. I am hoping to lure him into a read of a nice Christian website. I believe his first degree was in Geology :) Hamster 23:57, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

The difference between ask and cp
When you bang your head against the wall at CP, TK or Andy comes in and says "stop banging your head. This causes brain damage and only liberals have brain damage so you must be a liberal. Godspeed." Meanwhile at ASK, PJR just butts heads with you until you get a headache of your own. --Shagie 00:24, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * But you know that going in. People who go to ASK, are people who like to argue with badgers.  They may or may not be right, but they will never let go of their attacks.  You will never win a logical argument, or an emotive argument or a name calling argument.  But, you might have fun, you might hone skills, and there's a always the lulz value.  On the other hand, people going to CP, I feel, have fully (correctly) decided Andy is a total blow job who should be embarrassed as often as possible, cause there is simply nothing better.  It's beyond lulz there, cause all you can do is let your jaw drop, and say "how can he be so stupid" and worry about the poor kids he's teaching.-- 10:18, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * The collaborative nature of wikis will probably prevent this from being a functional process, however. Sterilewalkie-talkie 13:19, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Some paranoids are justified
Phil thinks he's persecuted: "Persecution of creationists is very well documented. ...". I'd do more than persecute 'em, I'd spiflicate 'em. 04:09, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I never would have imagined that even writing an article about a theory that is disfavored by Creationists would be such an uphill battle. Really, I just don't get it. Is it some sort of creationist pride that they just can't admit that one of their own messed up without taking shots at the other side for no reason? "This theory was widely criticized by people arguing for and against Creationism. BUT THE SECULAR SCIENTISTS DID IT BECAUSE OF THEIR IDEOLOGY!" *sigh* At this point I really don't feel like writing about this shit anymore. If Philip wants to defend a guy who used hilariously bad math and cherry-picked data to build his theory and who seriously used God as a scientific argument ("I will assume that this value held from the time of Creation until the time of the Fall, as in my opinion the Creator would not have permitted it to decay during his initial work."), then so be it. I'm not going to increase my headdesk-induced headache any more by debating about this. --Sid 07:11, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Great. I actually dare to look into the "Feasibility of the Great Flood" talk page clusterfuck, and the first thing I notice at the bottom is this edit by Philip (scroll down a bit, too - there are actually TWO persecution posts in one edit!). *headdesks* --Sid 14:04, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

All quiet?
06:40, 6 April 2009 (EDT)


 * It looks like the novelty is wearing off. Silver Sloth 06:57, 6 April 2009 (EDT)


 * At first, everybody rushed in to explore the new world. And then we all ran into the fences and realized that aSK is just CP with fewer goons, less "I know where you live!" creepiness and with "biblical worldview" replacing "conservatism". --Sid 07:14, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Really it comes down to work v rewards. At CP you can write just about anything and your sure to get some crazy out of TK or Andy.  At aSK, the input tends to be of higher quality (tho that may just be because its new) but you always get the same crazy out of PJR and crew.  Generally its one of a handful of links that have already been discussed.  It gets boring reading the same creationist drivel that has been already been refuted over and over again.  And it gets tedious having to read up on real science to keep on giving real evidence that they just dismiss out of hand with another link.  I mean why should I bother reading a research paper or 3 to site specific results when the only response I get is gonna be a link to AIG that I have already read and shown to be false.  Sure there is a little lulz along the way, but this information crap gets old fast.  --ScottA 08:48, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * It was always gonna happen. Long term, Philip needs other people who share his worldview, not the 79 RW people who signed up on that day just to see what it was like. Recruiting them will take a lot of hard work and publicity if it happens at all, so I'm not expecting to see a blossoming very soon. A year from now though, who knows?-- 08:58, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Yes, the whole "critical mass" business is going to be damn tricky when even fellow Creationists are going to run into the "Your view is not biblical!" wall because they accepted evidence of an old universe. Philip chose a worldview that seems to be even a bit narrower than that of CreationWiki, but he wants to create a general encyclopedia. If he wants to pull it off, he better have a few publicity miracles ready. --Sid 13:07, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Miracles require faith. He needs good marketing.  Sterilewalkie-talkie 13:21, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Birds are reptiles ? huh ?
I started my day reading the latest at aSK and now my poor brain hurts. Edit comment from PJR "Given that reptiles are considered to include birds, the fact that it's a bird doesn't mean it's not a reptile." Anybody have a quick reference to classifications ? Hamster 11:44, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Birds have evolved from reptiles. But that is the view of evolutionists not fundies.--EvilFlyingMonkey 11:49, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * "are" and "evolved from" are almost synonymous in cladistics. <font color=#CC2200>Neveruse513 11:53, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Have I understood you correctly? In the ultimate analysis we evolved (presumably) from some single-celled ancestor. In fact everything evolves from something which evolved from something. That being the case it would seem that "are" and "evolved from" must be different, becasue otherwise there would be only a single class.--Bobbing up 12:29, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * For the most part it's true. You are a human, you are a hominoid (ape), you are a catarrhine (monkey), you are a simian, you are a mammal, you are a chordate, you are an animal, you are an eukaryote... And that's where it gets tricky, with prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Is an eukaryote a prokaryote? <font color=#CC2200>Neveruse513 13:03, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Exactly how far can you extend present taxonomy into the past? The cretinists misinterpret Evolution as that we are descended from apes or monkeys when the truth is that at some point in time we have a common ancestor but was that ancestor an ape or a monkey?  Lily Ta, wack! 13:59, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * It's confusing scientific and colloquial definitions of "monkey" and "ape". We did not descend from what you think of when you think "monkey", however what us and the colloquial monkey descended from was scientifically a monkey. <font color=#CC2200>Neveruse513 14:03, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Was it? Surely "monkey" is a modern term - or rather a term for a modern animal. It has always been my understanding that it makes as much sense to say "monkeys are descended from humans" as "humans are descended from monkeys."--Bobbing up 14:28, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Colloquially, monkey is a term for a modern animal. Scientifically, it's a term for a class of animals and not any particular animal. It wouldn't make sense to say that monkeys are descended from humans because information changed/added made humans into humans, it didn't affect the rest of the monkey population. I suppose you could say it both ways if you said "diverged". <font color=#CC2200>Neveruse513 14:45, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * My point is that there was a common ancestor to both humans and monkeys which was neither "monkey" nor "human" but the ancestor of both. In both cases evolution has produced the modern animal. I suppose you could call it proto-human or proto-monkey but last common ancestor sounds more reasonable. I accept that this ancestor may well have been more monkey-like than human-like --Bobbing up 15:22, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Yes, there was a common ancestor to humans and monkeys that was neither human or monkey, however it was not the last common ancestor. The last common ancestor of "modern monkeys" and humans was a monkey because the hominidae (ape) family diverged from catarrhini (monkey). Using the scientific definitions of the terms yields something like this:



The interactive tree of life might help. Sterilewalkie-talkie 19:11, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

teh Arrogance of teh Male
Once again teh male Elite (addison, in this case) tells women (me, in this case) that not only does he know what is best for women, what is morally right for women, but he's here to show us poor women how abortion is just one more way women are *denigrated* by men in American society. Oh joy! I'm being denigrated by not having to have the baby so I can stay home and not have to do icky yucky work like poor men have to do. whoohoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!-- 12:25, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Give him this, he's well versed in the anti-fem talk. We're taking your choice and rights away to benefit you, because we know how hard it is, and respect you so much.  He's been taught well. --Kels 15:29, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Perhaps this section might have better been titled "teh arrogance of the Addison"? Or do you Gentlemans prefer to tar the entire gender with a slur? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  22:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

A rare sight
I see after concentrated taunting, the wild 🇰🇪 has emerged briefly from his protective shell to spit what he thinks is poison (watery pablum, as it turns out) at his detractors. How pathetic, but then he's been shut up in his hermetically sealed environment where he doesn't have to directly respond to criticism (or, indeed, even know it's there) so you can't expect him to be fully up to speed. Say, someone want to ask him why Rabbi Screaming-Appeal-To-Emotion should be considered a good debater? To say nothing of lying later about winning when he obviously was voted against in that very same video. --Kels 15:12, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Living in dear old Blighty I am spared the daily screeching of this so-called "ace" debater (who was completely pwned by Hitchens BTW). Luckily we used to have gay old Rabbi Lionel Blue as our "national rabbi" and he probably made a much greater impact on the radio-listening public with his gentle self-deprecating humour. Boteach is like squeeky chalk on a blackboard. Don't we have a snarticle on him? He seems to have his fingers in a lot of money-making pies especially selling his so-called debate videos. <font color=Blue>Генгис    14:29, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

So much hate
I can never understand how you guys can be so overwhelmed with hatred. Phillip is a nice guy. He is not Andrew Schlafly. He does not force feed this rubbish to children. He has his religious faith which is based on a semi rational grounds. He is not obnoxious to people who disagree with him.

Why do you all insist on being so obnoxious about this? Conservapedia I can certainly understand, the conservative homeschooling movement is all too similar to the radical Islamic madrassahs, but Phillips little project? Get a life. MarcusCicero 16:37, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * It's reeeallly easy because PJR is 10 times moar anti-science than Assfly. Don't forget, analyzing and refuting the anti-science movement is priority numero uno here. If anything, we should be paying ASK moar attention than CP. <font color=#CC2200>Neveruse513 16:54, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I keep advising them to cool it; they keep on spazzing all over the place. 16:56, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I hardly would call the act of holding someone who uses computers every day, arguably uses medicine every day, and has the luxury of cell phones, thermal heating units, nuclear weapons (and clean up of the nuclear residue) yet stands and denies prima facia "Evolutionary Biology", Geology, Astronomy, physics and any other science that challenges his small little world to opposition and if necessary call him out on his utter hypocrisy "spazing". Fact is, he's a sexually biggoted (abortion rights), scientifically ill-educated, pulpit banging hypocrite.  Fact is you cannot have science and its technological "gifts", and deny the rest of it out of hand cause it's inconvenient.  That kind of religion is going down, cause it simply cannot stand in the face of reality. -- 17:04, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Replace both occurrences of "fact" with my opinion to obtain a more accurate statement. 17:22, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I don't hate people for misunderstanding...but I could hate someone for being disingenuous (in fact I do actually hate Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, Ray Comfort, Andy Schlafly, Teacake, VenomfangX, Nephilimfree, etc). PJR is walking a thin line over there. I think he will soon be forced to be disingenuous is he insists on holding his worldview exactly as-is. <font color=#CC2200>Neveruse513 17:24, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Two words: Information Theory. He's had many people explain it to him, and many links to places to information on it.  Yet he not only insists on using it to prop up his myth system, but recently called Publius ignorant on the subject and stated outright he knew more about it.  I'm sorry, but that's getting way beyond simple misunderstanding on that topic alone. --Kels 17:40, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Did he? I guessed from the WIGO he had posted some inane response, but I've had enough of reading his worthless replies. 21:07, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Oh, it's quite charming. To save you the trouble, "On the contrary, Publius, it appears that I know more about information theory than you.", and then he goes off about Shannon information and sentence fragments for a bit. --Kels 22:05, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Hate is a strong word for someone I don't know. But I've lost a lot of respect for the man in the last few days. Must every article be an atheist or scientist bash? And, really, as of the the whole "science can't predict the future, but religion is swell" thing, his credibility plummeted through the floor. He constantly says we should learn more about the creationist view, but he obviously knows little about evolution except what he learned from his creationist pamphlets and websites. And then he hides behind his not understanding the "maths and statistics" on the c-decay page. Where's the critical thinking? I'm sorry, but I'm a little tired of Philip trying to resolve his cognitive dissonances through denial, distortion, rationalization, and projection on others. And it's only been, what, two weeks? Sterilewalkie-talkie 19:05, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I know 'em on teh internets, I hate 'em on teh internets. I'm sure PJR is probably a nice guy IRL. That doesn't mean I won't hate him on-line for being disingenuous. It's moar like h ate. <font color=#CC2200>Neveruse513 19:13, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I hate 'em 19:24, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Yes, I sensed that somehow. --Kels 19:27, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * What gave me away? ;-) 19:32, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * "A pace, a glance, a turn of the head, the flash of your throat as you breathe... even your way of standing perfectly still - they were all my spies!" --Kels 19:36, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * There are times, Miss Kels, when I wish we were domiciled a little closer to each other.  19:39, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I think we'd get on right some good, as the vernacular has it. --Kels 19:43, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Sorry to intrude, but I've always wanted a RW meet-up, although the darn ocean complicates things. Also, the the FBI could come and get us all at once.  Sterilewalkie-talkie 21:43, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * The First Grand Quintenniel RW MeetUp and Drinkathon (funded by JREF and George Soros) is scheduled for early 2011. Lobby for your favorite cities to host early! <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  21:47, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Amsterdam has its advantages. ;-)-- 22:03, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * How about somewhere warm with nice beaches? (Jamaica?) <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  22:15, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Beaches hold no appeal for me. I burn and get bored easily.  --Kels 22:24, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

<-- First, SPF 30. Second, you're gonna get bored eating and drinking with this crowd? Really? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  22:34, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Not the company so much as I don't care for heat/humidity, can't take the sun (descended from Irishmen who only went out on cloudy days and Scots who had heard vague rumours about the sun but didn't believe them), and feel lying on the beach is a pointless exercise. As I said to my roommate, I would go insane on a cruise ship. --Kels 23:37, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Same here re beaches - I get bored and start exploring the local geology. I suggest we meet in a smallish artists' town with many historic buildings, perhaps in a pleasant corner of england, on the edge of an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, with some great pubs and restaurants. If only I knew of one... ;) Totnesmartin 04:09, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Hull? Matt  08:27, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * We have a few of them around here, too. As far as the beach thing - tropical islands (in the dry season) aren't overly hot or humid.  Artist towns with old buildings a re a bit of a busman's holiday for a New Englander, was hoping for the all-expense paid trip to Waikiki :(  Oh well. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  15:23, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * My vote is for Amsterdam. I'm due back there anyways. <font color=#CC2200>Neveruse513 15:28, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Fancy a bevy some time? <font color=Blue>Генгис    15:52, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Information redux: thought experiment
Re: this stuff about information. While maintaining that mutation and natural selection can't cause an information increase, PJR seems to be okay with using sentences as analogies for genetic code, and it inspired me to take a stab at a thought experiment. Let's say I have a collection of sentences like "my wife has a dog." The sentences "reproduce" by replicating themselves. Now, suppose that every once in a while there's a random transcription error in the replication--you can have an omission of a character (resulting in stuff like "my wfe has a dog"), an extra character ("myo wife has a dog"), a changed character ("my wife hds a dog"), inversion of one or more characters ("ym wife has a dog"), or maybe duplication/inversion of one or more of the words ("my has wife a dog a dog"). Now suppose that the mutations are selected by maintaining only the ones that "work" by forming understandable sentences (it's worth remembering that some phrases containing non-words, such as "my wife haz a dog" can presumably be understood by most English speakers, but for now we'll impose the strict requirement that every word has to be "real."). OK, let this go on for many generations. I can easily conceive of this pathway:


 * "my wife has a dog"
 * "my wife has a dog dog" (extra duplication of one word)
 * "my wife has a god dog" (one word reversed)
 * "my wife has a good dog" (one letter extra)

That's an incremental path from the first sentence to the last, all achieved with the kinds of typos that anyone who hangs around an active wiki ('specially this one, what with the booze and all) probably sees plenty of times. I would say that more information (trying to use PJR's idea of information here) exists in the last sentence than in the first one, since a quality of the dog is now specified.--Bayes 21:30, 6 April 2009 (EDT)


 * I'm not an expert in biology and I'm not an expert in information theory, but the way I see it, there are a lot of reasons why Philip's information arguments are somewhat problematic (as are many peoples'). First, there must be (I assume) precises ways of defining information.  A lot of what people say about information is analogies, and there are clearly limits to analogies, and are imprecise at that.  (Although it makes me happy I can pin him down to a hypothesis... I await patiently the response!)  In terms of Philip, why is more information not allowed (it's evolution!), less information lead to speciation (that's not evolution)?  Isn't it most important for the information to be different?  And how much information do you need to make a cow vs. a chicken?  A brown bear vs. a black bear?  Seriously--how can you tell?  Does a mouse foot require more information or a dog foot?  I'm sure inquiring embryologists want to know.  Sterilewalkie-talkie 21:50, 6 April 2009 (EDT)


 * I also am interested in what (if any) formal definition of information he's referring to. I gathered from his various comments that "more specific meaningful stuff" = "more information", at least when it comes to the (however flawed) analogy about characters and sentences.  Apparently Shannon information is not what he's interested in, so cross that one off the list.--Bayes 22:07, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * You've centered in on the key, enormous problem with Philip's "information theory," that "more specific meaningful stuff" = "more information." There is no such thing as meaning in nature.  "Meaning" is meaningless.  An organism's genome is simply a pattern, a pattern which an organism in much the same way as an algorithm produces a fractal pattern.  In neither case is there such a thing as a meaningful bit of information, as any change alters the final result, pure and simple. (Or you'd think it was simple...)  22:51, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

(Actually, one of Philip's "references" tells me that wolf > coyote > dingo > collie > poodle, even with a pretty picture!) Sterilewalkie-talkie 22:08, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Good heavens, glancing at that page made me feel dumber. It's like looking at the wrong end of a long game of telephone, with an actual paper on information at the other end, and probably Philip's a couple of steps further on.  But it props up his beliefs, therefore it must be right. --Kels 22:28, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I feel really bad for the poor poodles. Sterilewalkie-talkie 22:33, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Poodles should be ashamed of themselves, really. I'm interested in how dingos can be "degraded" versions of coyotes, when they have totally different ranges. --Kels 22:50, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * The ark must have let the wolves speciate and then left off the proto-dingos(?) in NZ or Austalia. Good thing they didn't eat the proto-koalas/bears...  Sterilewalkie-talkie 22:56, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Very nice work, Bayes. Although, is "My wife has a dog dog" really an "understandable sentence"?  I think you dropped the evol. standard to "all real words"?  (Which is fine by me, though the stricter standard is nicer). <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  22:10, 6 April 2009 (EDT)


 * The sentence looks funny but it is understandable (if I go by what I think is Philip's version of info, it has the same amount as its parent...it just has a redundancy), and it consists of real wurdz (nothing like "xgyuf" is involved as an intermediary), so in a strict sense I'm not violating that condition. There are probably better examples to come up with though.  Maybe this can be coded up...--Bayes 22:28, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Ah, ok, that's cool. I guess :) It ought to be readily codable, yes.  Start with "see Dick run" and end at "Hamlet"? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  22:40, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Certainly genetic coding has been done before. Isn't that what all the Monte Carlo stuff in Lenski's paper is about? Sterilewalkie-talkie 22:50, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Actually, it looks like the usual suspect did something similar a long time ago. Don't know if Philip has referenced this yet but it seems to be in his wheelhouse.  My nonsense detector flashes when I get to some of those "theorems" (where are the proofs of those theorems, by the way?).  No poodle pics though.--Bayes 23:10, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Thanks to all--I feel like a learned a little bit about biology tonight. Maybe it'll compensate for the creationist stuff.  To bed!Sterilewalkie-talkie 23:20, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Some languages (Indonesian for example) make plurals by repeating the word so dog dog = dogs. So we shouldn't necessarily apply English grammar rules. <font color=Blue>Генгис    07:35, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * In English this tends to create a meta-word. "Rule rule" becomes a rule about rules instead of just a multiplicity of rules. <div style="display:inline; display:inline-block; zoom:1; *display:inline; margin-top:2px; margin-bottom:-2px; position:relative; left:0px; top:0px; width:30px; height:10px; z-index:2;"><div style="display:block; width:30px; height:10px; line-height:10px; letter-spacing:30px; font-size:px; overflow:hidden; position:absolute; top:0px; left:0px; z-index:3;">   [[Image:Xena symbol.png|Xena|text-bottom|30px]] 09:33, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Oh, wait, all it needs is a comma. Punctuation is fair game, right? "My wife has a dog, dog" Second "dog" as in "dawg" = "homie", or as in speaking to another dog. Oh, or wait, since a "dog" can also be a sort of metal stop thing, the second "dog" could be that meaning. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  15:27, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * At which point, it can readily mutate into "My wife was a dog, dog" which contains far more information than you ever needed. -- 17:18, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Surely the first "dog" would be used to indicate gender as in: "a dog fox". So what it actually means is "my wife has a male dog". 17:32, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Sometimes my wife can be a real female dog <div style="display:inline; display:inline-block; zoom:1; *display:inline; margin-top:2px; margin-bottom:-2px; position:relative; left:0px; top:0px; width:30px; height:10px; z-index:2;"><div style="display:block; width:30px; height:10px; line-height:10px; letter-spacing:30px; font-size:px; overflow:hidden; position:absolute; top:0px; left:0px; z-index:3;">  [[Image:Xena symbol.png|Xena|text-bottom|30px]] 20:34, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Lame appendix
Hmmm,
 * Bug has code for pairs of legs
 * Code gets repeated, bug has extra pairs of legs
 * Code gets damaged, one set of legs is whack, enough good legs to get by, though (repeat 100x)
 * Bug discovers it has wings and flies away
 * Prophet!
 * Prophet!

You're welcome. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  22:14, 6 April 2009 (EDT)


 * Wings are actually a modification on gills. Something I wrote elsewhere a number of years ago...
 * It is well recorded in the fossil record insects with wings. There are majestic dragonflies and wasps trapped in amber and saved for millions of years. It is obvious to see why wings were an evolutionary success - the question is how did they become to be so?


 * This exact question was one that opponents of Darwin challenged him with - "What good is half a wing?" In order to get to the point of having a wing as well developed as that of a dragonfly or butterfly, what advantage did the half a wing have? Where did the nerves and muscles come from to handle such a complex movement as flight.


 * The answer to the origin of the wing can be found by looking at the primitive forms of insects. All animals, as they mature, show clearly their evolutionary process, be it human or dragonfly. The larval form of the dragonfly is an aquatic beast. Looking closely at it, one can see gills rapidly beating away pushing oxygenated water over them. It is currently accepted that this is the origin of nerves and muscles that allow for control of a wing. In some aquatic insects, the gills also act as the method of movement, much like small oars.


 * The question of what good is half a wing still remains. Going from a small gill that can act as an oar and push an insect around under water has a long ways to go to become a dragonfly wing - or is it? The clue to what good half a wing is comes from water skimming insects that move about on the surface of the water held up by surface tension. Here, even a very small wing can prove an asset, giving the organism that extra push to move it faster than some other organism and allowing it to survive.
 * --Shagie 19:03, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * My wings came from badly-formed legs :P <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  19:45, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I thought that was redbull? --Shagie 19:50, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * My "badly formed legs" came from too much chocolate. is that evolution?  ;-)-- 20:33, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * No, it's "happiness" :) <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  00:03, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I, for one, welcome the bug prophets. --GTac 08:52, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Damnit
Damnit, I'm not up to countering Philip's crap; all my previous writing has been entirely fiction & my research done with that in mind, but I read his wrigglings and redefinitions of words as they are queried by our more knowledgeable colleagues and I want to scream at him.

Faith in the future actions of gOD, he says, are justified by previous actions/deeds. What previous actions/deeds? The "actions" of "gOD". How were they known to be the actions/deeds of gOD? Because gOD said so!. Actually, because the priests or rulers said so, of course. No mention is made of the vested interest these priests had in maintaining their gOD's reputation, of course.

Even more annoying is the "information" crap. Which he is again wriggling his definition about. The upshot of his definition is that "nothing ever gets better" leading to the idea that all life is doomed to a steady decline to, presumably, the level of a virus. The contention that random changes modified by natural selection cannot result in improvement, i.e. greater information by Philllip's definition, is manifestly not true as has been demonstrated variously (albeit linguistically) above.

I just get so angry that I can't really think straight when reading his tripe. Unfortunately this, and my inexperience in such disputes, shows in my attempts to talk to him. I apologise if I've embarrassed anyone here. 10:16, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Given most of our views on the world, Toast, I doubt you've embarrassed anyone here. And if you have, isn't that their problem?  I know some people think we should be all "nicey nice", but at some point, when they blatantly lie, forget that the world doesn't revolve around them, and excuse the most basic side of humanities need for compassion towards others, they lose all right to be treated "nice".  It's not cp... but that site is still ideological and full of lies, misdirections, and unwillingness to actually be critical of what they spew.-- 10:21, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Grr.... This is like arguing with a tape recorder... Sterilewalkie-talkie 12:41, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * You can't blame him for not using new arguments. He's trying desperately not to add information to the universe.  --Kels 20:11, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * That requires effort on his part-- 20:34, 7 April 2009 (EDT)?
 * Expending effort runs counter to the second law of thermodynamics. --Kels 21:07, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

I'm not sure slang counts but I've heard word's repeated where the first functions as an intensifeir for the second. So the sentence could be a particular good or typical example of a dog dog. "She wants a poodle, but I want a dog dog, like a mastiff. <font color="#ff0000">Me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! <font color="#6ff6633">Mine! 22:27, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Nice one! "My wife has a dog dog (not a fucking poodle, a mastiff!)".  Perfect. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  22:54, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * (any chance the "dog dog" lines belong a section or two above? )-- 23:02, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

aSK has exceeded its bandwidth!
It seems that aSK has been forced offline for lack of bandwidth. I grabbed a screenshot of the fail-screen. 23:45, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * It must have been a fluke; the site is back up now. 23:48, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Up and down... <font color=#CC2200>Neveruse513 09:29, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Down again--EvilFlyingMonkey 09:30, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I bet it's Australian night mode. <font color=#CC2200>Neveruse513 11:54, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I haven't had a problem yet. Maybe it's borderline. As TOP says "This site is growing!"Tricksy 19:52, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Personal thoughts on ASK
One major disappointment I have had with ASK is PJR's approval of Conservative - whatever his name is there. I would have thought he would have better taste than to associate with someone like that. Not, that I think he is evil. I just think he comes across as a unintelligent blowhard. Trumpeting meaningless Google statistics and YouTube pages that noone should have the patience to watch. I can't imagine any argument that portrays atheists as harshly as he does would ever win any right thinking person over. Let alone his obsession with Richard Dawkins. I realize in a lot of ways PJR thinks the same way as him, and htat is fine, I was just under the impression that PJR would show a proclivity towards people who agreed with him, yet didn't look like they just jumped off the crazy train. LowKey, from what I have seen, doesn't seem that bad. Neither does fox. But, I haven't kept a close watch on what either of them have done - so I might be wrong. Of course, compared to Conservative anyone would look good.

Having said all of that and stating forthrightly that I disagree with the literal biblical viewpoint. I found myself creating a couple of articles over there on other topics and I enjoyed it. It's neat practice, and even though they were both short and kind of sucked - I thought it was a good first try. And, if I write a few more I might get the hang of it and improve myself in some small way. I guess that is kind of lame, but I have enjoyed it for now. And, perhaps that will provide the impetus to create an article or two here as well.

I do think, while PJR is not on my side on the issues, that he is pretty fair as far as debating goes. Not, they way he sometimes quotemines, or uses odd (wrong) logic. Just, from what I have seen (And, it's not a lot, some of those debates go on forever and kind of make my brain hurt.) he argues in a fair manner without bullying or "shouting" anyone down.

Well, thats about it. Not sure why I felt the need to share. Just contemplating it a bit after creating those articles, I guess. Patrickr 23:39, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I agree. ASK/PJR lost points in my book when he started ranting on how evolution isn't a science like creationism is, but approving of 🇰🇪's articles?? He just lost all respect. I'm through with him. --GTac 10:31, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

PJR fails at abstraction: Genetic information is data with meaning.
Folks, what we have here is a simple inability to understand how abstractions like tropes and models function and where they can be usefully applied. A sort of long ways back on CP, PJR said something like
 * part of the bible is a literal account of sayings and doings and part of it is cast as metaphor and parable,but still unambiguous in true TM meaning. It is obvious which parts are descriptive and which parts metaphoric and how any given bit of the cannonical bible was meant to be read when goddidit.

or words to that effect.

This idea of data (now) with meaning(!) is cut from the same cloth as his perverse and uneven application to our current collective positions of wisdom derived from badly copied moldy documents. (not that there is anything wrong with badly copied moldy documents). <font color="#ff0000">Me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! <font color="#6ff6633">Mine! 23:55, 7 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Other than them being badly copied and moldy, of course. --Kels 00:20, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Yeah, it's nice to see him flailing about on his own now, without the idiots at CP to give him cover. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  00:32, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
 * This is why I've stopped responding to him. You don't get reasoned and interesting responses; you get gibberish.  What the hell is meaningTM? Whatever he wants!  What is informationTM? Whatever he wants!  Which parts of the bible are unequivocally literal or metaphorical? Whichever he wants!  00:59, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Gee, at least he doesn't block us for calling him a twat here. Small accomplishment, only by contrast with CP, though. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  01:14, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I kind of wish you'd keep at it. You and PJR have produced the most entertaining back-and-forths on aSK thus far. I do find his responses interesting... you can really see the desperate post-hoc rationalisation kicking in as he tries to explain himself in ever more contorted ways. --seventhrib 06:00, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Actually, provided that parser functions are installed, I intend to put an auto-updating counter on my ASK talk page about how long it's been since Philip has responded. I wonder if I'm getting the creationist "silent treatment."  Sterilewalkie-talkie 07:04, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Research funding
I've seen PJR repeatedly claim that the reason creation "science" is such an impoverished field of scholarship is that they don't get "secular" research funding. This strikes me as a complete load as excuses go. I had a quick look on guidestar to see how much popular creationist non-profits are raking in on donations from their bleating flocks, and AiG alone gets enough money to fund a top quality research institution like Cavendish Laboratories. You know, a place that employs over 200 research scientists with labs full of top notch lab equipment, plus the occasional field study and such like. OK, sure, they aren't going to be launching a space probe any time soon, but terrestrial research is well within their grasp.

So, what do they choose to do instead? Buy a museum with saddled dinosaurs in it. Putting the cart before the horse much? I couldn't find figures for PJR's beloved Creation Ministries International, probably because their main arm ain't yankee, but I suspect they get a few million quid too. Even complete maladjusts like Ray Comfort and his idiot son are on the take to the tune of over a million dollars a year. So, where are the creationist research grants? Where are applications of creationism in industry that fund further research? No, bullshit, PJR. It's not because creationism is "expelled" by conventional academics, it's because there is literally nothing credible to research. End of story. -- 07:10, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
 * This of course comes from the same mindset that awards university degrees for Bible "research" without any fieldwork in the Levant. They develop their hypotheses from their scripture "data set" from the comfort of their armchair, and when they do creation "science" it involves nothing more than curling up in that same armchair with a Stephen Gould book and a highlighter, going "tsk tsk". <div style="display:inline; display:inline-block; zoom:1; *display:inline; margin-top:2px; margin-bottom:-2px; position:relative; left:0px; top:0px; width:30px; height:10px; z-index:2;"><div style="display:block; width:30px; height:10px; line-height:10px; letter-spacing:30px; font-size:px; overflow:hidden; position:absolute; top:0px; left:0px; z-index:3;">  [[Image:Xena symbol.png|Xena|text-bottom|30px]] 09:34, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Hehe, I was skimming and read "cartoon science". Seems apt. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  17:13, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
 * "Skimming" Mr Human? Well at least Andy's taught you something. ;-) 17:19, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Poor cash. Imagine the indignity of going to AiG. When it could, you know, be used for saving lives from cancer. Or fighting climate change. But now, it goes to an organization that has its mission to brainwash people into believing a load of s**t. -- 17:24, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

This site is decellerating ...
...rapidly...Sterilewalkie-talkie 20:44, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Not as fast as Wiki 4 CAM did... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  21:36, 8 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Not really that much of a surprise since (working from memory) pretty much every active user has been involved in at least one Creationist The Biblical Worldview Clash over there. The places where the "unbiblical" side retreated in frustration become barren wastelands, and the other places become hotbeds where the talk pages are multiple times longer than their articles.
 * I think this is a historical phase of the wiki. There was the Initial Rush, and now there is the mandatory Disillusionment. I'm eager to see the next phase, though: The one that comes once the current resistance either leaves or tries to work around the differences in some way. --Sid 22:04, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

🇰🇪 and indents
Forgive me if this has long since been dicussed and an answer determined. But, does anybody know why 🇰🇪 uses an excessive amount of indent on his first reply to a subject? 08:44, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
 * My guess is to make it stand out a lot, because he's Just That Important. Certainly the man's got an ego, and is convinced that his every utterance is pure gold, so obviously he'd want it to draw the eye. Even if doing so makes him look like an idiot. --Kels 09:13, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
 * It is either because he has a terribly unrefined aesthetic with regards to typography or else he has an imperfect understanding of the purpose and utility of progressive indents on wiki talk pages. <font color="#ff0000">Me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! <font color="#6ff6633">Mine! 10:24, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Maybe his browser is configured funny in regards to indents, which would account for his strange behaviour in regards to indents. I do think it possible that his strange behaviour in regards to indents might be because his browser is configured funny in regards to indents. :)-- 10:33, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
 * My guess is that 🇰🇪, rather than his browser, is configured funny. And, I don't mean hah-hah funny.  11:01, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
 * If you think Ken's off balance, take a look at Teacake. He uses astrisks instead of indents. Troll-like behavior. Either that or he's lazy. Or he, in his 'infinite wisdom' has decided that that will mean that people will ident like this: :, meaning no out of control indents. -- 15:37, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
 * TK uses bullets to indicate that Something Important is being propounded by a Senior Admin. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  15:53, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm Joe btw. DSFARGEG 11:11, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Shannon Information
What exactly is this bug PJR has up his ass about "Shannon Information" anyway? A quick Google/WP search doesn't reveal much. Is it just because it doesn't allow for the Creationists' custom definition of "information"? He seems to use the term to summarily dismiss any evidence or cite he doesn't like, as on Sterile's page, but doesn't seem inclined to say why. I admit it's got me curious. --Kels 10:18, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
 * This might help, if you understand logarithms. U is Shannon information.  Sterilewalkie-talkie 11:26, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Mmm, not really. The video doesn't seem to be loading at the moment anyhow.  Any chance of a quick-n-dirty version for us non-technical types? --Kels 11:46, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Shannon information is essentially a measurement of information entropy, a calculation of how much chaos and "randomness" there is in a string, a mathematical description which has no time for PJR's precious "meaning" (a bullshit concept in biology, as opposed to in language). The more chaotic the information, the longer a string that is required to produce it, and the more information inherent in it. (this is key stuff in data compression).


 * So 0000000000000000 has little information, as you can code something like 17x0, whereas a8nl287xhwh38-@ would be much harder to algorithmically reproduce. PJR hates this concept of information 1) because it doesn't talk about "meaning," only entropy, 2) because it so easily allows information to increase through mutation (any duplication will do, and many mutations), and 3) because he fundamentally doesn't understand it (even less than I, a blatant amateur). Essentially, PJR can't decide what he wants "information" to be and doesn't understand how genetics codes (note the conversation about "build an arm here and build a leg there").


 * Actually, I think I just got it: He seems to want genetics to code in enormous, discrete chunks: ie. a gene for a hand, a gene for a leg. Such large structures (his measure of information?) obviously couldn't evolve from nothing (since he doesn't allow minute change) and thus info. cannot increase. Duplicating one of these bits doesn't add to the total # of structures, and like any good YEC drone, he believes in the whole micro/macro divide.  13:06, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
 * The whole information thing is bullshit anyway, because, as you point out, genetics aren't a "code" the way computer programing is.  The As and Gs and Cs and Ts don't know they're A and T and so on, they just are.  A better example would be comparing Legos.  Which Lego set contains more information, a boat or a castle?  The answer is neither, because they don't contain information, they're just blocks that fit together.   13:18, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Actually, it's code just like computer programming - assembly code, that is. Add, move, shift, subtract, multiply, add...  CPUs get a string of data, just like genetics, and the processor follows those commands without either the processor or the data knowing what they are or what they're doing, just like protein assembly.  Add selective pressures and sex to computer code, and it's damned similar to genetics and evolution (which makes computer evolution simulations so cool.  Create a language, competition, and run!).  13:46, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
 * (EC)Okay, I actually got all that, well done! Playing off your last insight there, it's interesting to look back at PJR's statements about evolution and the like and see just how closely he cleaves to the Official Creationist Stance, as brought to you by CMI, AiG, etc.  When they move their goalposts, you can be sure his will be on the move seconds after they announce it.  And then it never was the old argument.  Like how he makes a big deal about how "Evolutionists" are creating a straw man with the "no beneficial mutations" thing, and yet I remember Creationists shouting that from the rooftops only a couple of years ago, until they were forced to draw a new line in the sand after being forced to accept the reality of beneficial mutations.  And so it goes. --Kels 13:20, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

Am I making an ass out of myself over there? I'm getting kinda bored actually. I've learned some stuff, which is cool, but Philip's just avoiding everything. Sterilewalkie-talkie 13:42, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Have you debated YEC before? Of course he's avoiding everything.  If he actually addressed points you made, he'd have to admit he's wrong and his "science" is based on nothing.   13:44, 11 April 2009 (EDT)


 * Oh, probably. But we're all learning from the endeavour, which is more important (I'd never read about phase shift mutations).  13:46, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

I "discussed" the dino page on CP before with Philip about tabloid reports about dinos and the Loch Ness monster. I've read their stuff before, but debate? Not really. As far as I know YECs aren't phlogistonists, so we chemists kinda don't deal with YECs much. Besides, who's the bigger ass, Philip or I? Sterilewalkie-talkie 13:49, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
 * It's not that you or him are being an ass, you're just basically arguing with yourselves, as he isn't addressing your points. As long as you understand that, you're fine.   13:56, 11 April 2009 (EDT)


 * Sterile, we have reached an impasse. Lavoisier was a damned deceitful liberal atheist and you know it, while Priestley was an upstanding Christian and not at all a liberal danger to the state. Phlogiston theory is true, but the chemists have all been brainwashed with Lavoisinian dogma, so Phlogistonist science is underfunded and censored by journals.  Did you know that Lavoisier recanted on his deathbed? Or that "oxygen" has never actually been observed? Teach the controversy, I say!  13:58, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

GRAWP
Can anyone here go over & block GRAWP ? 20:28, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

No, Phil didn't give me rights. I'll go revert. User:TheemperorUser talk:Theemperor 20:30, 11 April 2009 (EDT)


 * He's a busy little guy, isn't he? --Kels 20:35, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

FUCK  SOME HELP HERE PLEASE  User:TheemperorUser talk:Theemperor 20:42, 11 April 2009 (EDT)


 * [[Image:Clapping.gif]] [[Image:Clapping.gif]] [[Image:Clapping.gif]] [[Image:Clapping.gif]] [[Image:Clapping.gif]] [[Image:Clapping.gif]] --Kels 20:51, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
 * To Grawp, or me?User:TheemperorUser talk:Theemperor 20:55, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I thought you could use a hand. --Kels 21:00, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

Thanks, Gentlemen Kels. User:TheemperorUser talk:Theemperor 21:07, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Claims to be Falldown. 20:53, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
 * And you are Theresa Wilson! Fall down 21:19, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Well Duh! 21:20, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Grawp's trying to add meaningful information. Sterilewalkie-talkie 21:19, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
 * So he's a vandal? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  02:05, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

Real Grawp
Does anyone know if he's the infamous and awesome GRAWP of wikipedia fame? DSFARGEG 14:03, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

You People are Mindless Bigots

 * Whisky Tango Foxtrot does this have to do with "WIGO ASK"? Can someone please move it to an appropriately named debate page (because if I do it I'll misspleslls the debate pagename)? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  00:12, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Rational? Don't make me laugh. This place is a motley consortment of immature adolescents, disaffected seniors living in cloud cuckoo land and a few random 'intellectuals' whose minds don't reach further than their fridge (Where a large collection of apple pies and full fat milk supplement their pathetic existence). Honestly, you pick and make fun of people who believe in different things to you lot, its so so sad and pathetic. Get lives, get jobs, get the hell off the internet. This is pathetic. 86.40.98.138 14:15, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

And the hate speech that you sprout is different from what you accuse us of how? User:TheemperorUser talk:Theemperor

We prefer the term "motley crew." Barikada 14:18, 12 April 2009 (EDT)


 * We certainly aren't irrational. This wiki is very rational. Tolerant and rational do not mean the same thing. Neither does wisdom and rational. We make fun of people who claim that liberals are responsible for everything. We also refute. Get have lives, we have jobs, and most of us don't spend all our time on the internet. You are pathetic, and quite possibly a conservative. -- 14:20, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

P.S.: This wiki is too diverse to be simply dedicated to making fun of other people.

P.P.S.: Who exactly are you? -- 14:20, 12 April 2009 (EDT)


 * Thank you BoN for your ill-informed rant. There is no compulsion to read anything on this site. If you don't like what is said here then don't read it. Or better still make fun of us on your own wiki. The views expressed here are those of many different people, and many of us claim no belief. The point of RationalWiki is that we demand proof for belief in things, be they gods, psychics, homoeopathy or other woo. Beliefs direct one's world view and if those beliefs are erroneous then your interaction with the world around you may affect not only your own well-being but the well-being of others. Mockery challenges people to examine the basis for their beliefs. If you can't answer the criticism then either your beliefs are foolish or you truly are a fool. (P.S. How's the weather in .... your part of the world? [Marcus?])  <font color=Blue>Генгис    14:33, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Who the hell is BoN? -- 14:35, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * (BoN=Bunch of numbers. RW shorthand for anonymous IPs. <font color=Blue>Генгис    14:38, 12 April 2009 (EDT))
 * I'll admit, I wouldn't mind a selection of apple pies right about now. --Kels 14:39, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I would like our IP friend here to tell us which, if any user, he edits under. Just wondering. -- 14:40, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I always thought BoN was my pet name. I wondered why people kept telling me to fuck off. Bondurant 15:41, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * We still can, if you like. I just didn't know you were into that sort of thing. --Kels 15:54, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Maybe I deserve it. I've been a bad, bad boy. Baby jeebus didn't even bring me any Easter Eggs this year. Bondurant 16:02, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Silly boy. Babies don't lay eggs.  (and you wouldn't want what they do lay) --Kels 16:14, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

The weather was scorching today in Rome. That doesn't detract from the overall sentiment. And I am MC. Having logging in issues right now. I'll never understand the hatred, the mindless and baseless hatred from supposedly rational and superior beings.
 * MarcusCierco? Right, there's no 'hatred' here, merely scorn for absolute stupidity. -- 14:44, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

Clean your front doorstep before laughing at someone elses.
 * "immature adolescents"? You, sir, are a poopy-pants Silvermute 15:35, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

So if someone believes in sacrificing people (eg me) on top of zigurats, I am supposed to be "tolerant" to him? I am starting to get a little bit annoyed that every fundie gets an automatic right to be as sadistic as possible as long as he "believes in it", and we are supposed to be the ideology that bends over at anything. The label says "rationalist" (aka positive proof & logic lover) not "people who believe that there is a natural right not to be made fun of". Sen 15:41, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * That depends. Is he actually doing it, or is he just believing in it? One is a harmless fantasy, the other dangerous. He has the right to think anything he wants. -- 15:46, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

My word, Marcus, you are a hate filled little twonk aren't you. I can't recall you being forced to access our website, so why do you? (I wrote a lot more but have deleted it - you're not really worth the effort) 16:08, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

Toast is a good example of the screaming harpee, so lost in her hatred she's beyond any level of rationality. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 86.40.98.228 / talk / contribs


 * No, she merely is an antitheist. She is rational, just intolerant. She may be an ass sometimes, but she is rational. -- 16:31, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Is this an example of the famous "Catholic Guilt"? Lapsed Cat beating up on those he sees as similar to himself? 16:40, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

Yes! You've got me Susan! Funny, I remember a remarkably similar insight from Susan on RWW a while back under another sock. Why don't you just admit who you really are, 'Toast?
 * She already has, moron. -- 13:01, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

He's right!
Ah, you've got to love a good inane rant. Heaven forbid critics provide reasoned challenges and critiques, rather than juvenile insults. And yet, he's right! We hate everyone who thinks differently than we do, and we're sad, and pathetic, and overweight, and unemployed, and have no friends. And we've probably never kissed a girl and get beat up all the time. Heck, we're probably all impotent 40 year-olds living in our parents' basements, cutting ourselves whilst writing dark poetry. And we're intellectually feeble, which explains our jealous dislike for our superiors. Did I mention we're impotent? 16:32, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * ...Who are you calling impotent? Sterilewalkie-talkie 16:34, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I take heavy offense to that Publius, I cut myself whilst writing dirty Limericks "there once was a girl named Deloris...." <font color="#000066" >SirChuckB  18:53, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm more worried about the "40 year-olds living in our parents' basements" - just what kind of checkuser have you got installed? --PsyGremlinWhut? 19:08, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * "we're sad, and pathetic, and overweight, and unemployed, and have no friends" - I'm not sad! Yeah, "and all your friends got paid" what song is that again? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  00:09, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Dolores. Goddamnit.  Remember the episode of Seinfeld where Jerry's girlfriend, whose name rhymed with a part of the female anatomy, turned out to be Dolores?  I never got it when it's so painfully obvious.  00:18, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm in my mid twenties, and I'll have you know that my parents' basement is very well-lit. <font color=#CC2200>Neveruse513 13:02, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Response to CUR, clarification of your supposed 'rationality'
Where is the evidence for that insertion? And why are you commenting on another account???

Susan certainly is one of the more hate filled ones out there. I would say rationality and tolerance go hand in hand - ever hear of Humanist Tolerance? To mock people for their beliefs, when those people are not mocking or suppressing your own is not just an irrational act, its the act of an asshole. A rational person understands that life is a lot more than mere online political posturing which means nothing. Rational people understand that all human beings are as worthy of respect as the other, if one accepts the non aggression principle. Not accepting this principle is anti-rational, since we all in one form or another surrender some of our liberty for the greater liberty of all. Hence why we insist on tolerance, love, caring, understanding, all the rest of it. Mocking someone for religious belief stands against the non aggression principle along with the social contract. Where does this leave you all? It makes you all hate filled degenerates, completely devoid of rationality and decency of character.
 * First of all, I have many names. Coyote, Acionyx, and the Trickster are just a few. Second of all, rationality means logic. Logic means things that can be proven or disproven. Therefore, while antitheism is not rational, Toast is still very rational. Tolerance is not rational, because rationality has nothing to do with tolerating other ideas- just whether something is logical. -- 16:52, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * No, I am the Trickster! (Hence the username) Or maybe we both are, wouldn't that be a neat trick? Tolerance=degree or error allowed before it is called an error.  In other words, tolerance is calling something that is wrong "right" because it is not wrong enough to admint that it is wrong.  It's usually misused, by people who mean either forbearance or acceptance, but I refuse to tolerate their misuse.Tricksy 00:09, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

Thats a rather convenient distinction, though I don't believe it stands up. Rationality does not mean logic. Logic is a different issue in itself, an epistomological quandry which few are really able to master, though many like to give it a try. Rationality is simply the manner in which we attempt to make sense of the world - to all which are wise, from all which is simple. This has nothing to do with religion, atheism, anti-theism or any other 'ism', its to do with common human decency. Hatred is in itself an irrational state of existence. I hold most of you in hatred though I am not ashamed to admit that I'm an irrational man. But when I see you people take this measure, wear as a badge of pride without the faintest idea what rationalist is, I either laugh or cry. I haven't cried, but sometimes after reading some of the BS that goes on here perhaps I should! MarcusCicero 17:10, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * It is taking all my self-control not to vandal bin you. -- 17:23, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * MC isn't a vandal, just a cunting hypocrit. <font color=#1100aa face=albertus size=2>Thee Nuttish  Talk 17:25, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Agreed, no need for vandel bin. This isnt CP, we can handle a little constructive critiscm. Ace McWickedbitch and moan 17:26, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * And then you turn around and block MC, CUR? Please control yourself.  I realize the block was likely ineffective for its length, but if you want to harass and intimidate, do it with a 3 second block.  <font color=#1100aa face=albertus size=2>Thee Nuttish  Talk 17:29, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * And then he blocks me. And I block him. Block war. In simple terms: You. Are. An. Idiot. Rationality is agreement with reason. -- 17:31, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * God, its like talking to a kid. (Sorry, it is talking to a kid) Why do you get so agitated from a relatively innocuous statement by myself above? Its certainly the least egregious of my comments so far. Yet you get pissed by it. Read the definition for rationality, and understand the difference between logic and reason. Examine the possibilities of objectivity. Rather, it is not the actual attainment of objectivity which makes one rational, but the aspiration towards it. Objectivity is impossible. Hence the epistomoligical problems of it all. Your a kid, you might grow up some day when you work those hormones out of your system. But stop wasting our time. MarcusCicero 17:35, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * It IS talking to a kid, you low-grade moron. If you haven't been paying attention, he's fourteen.  Cripes. --Kels 17:44, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * He knows that. Btw, MC: I'm not wasting your time. -- 19:08, 12 April 2009 (EDT)


 * Since when is that axiom (hatred = irrational) proven, or automatic? I hate having my leg broken, does that make it irrational? I am smelling axioms pulled out of nothing here. Suppose someone writes down 2+2=4. And suppose someone hates the fact that someone thinks that 2+2=5. Does having a human emotion automatically invalidate that 2+2 in the end, make 4? Since when? Someone is totally attempting a rhetoric attempt to mix and equalize emotions (thingy A) with the argument/belief's rational validity (thingy B) thereby making essentially a big, honking, "appeal to emotion" logical fallacy. Sen 17:42, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

Response to BoN (or MC - whatever)
So I log on this morning with fresh smile, a rolling belly, pounding headache and twitchy alcohol fingers. I was here merely to scan some info, drink a coffee and get my jollys reading WIGO CP before knuckling down with some serious Machiavelli reading and eventual transcribing into essay format, not an easy task. But instead, after reading your long winded complaint about this site and its various members, I thought perhaps I might let you know what a vacuous scumbag you actually are. While Toast above stated she had written more but she deleted it because you were not worth the effort - I, on the other hand, thought I might explain to you the sheer irony and hypocrisy of you coming here to tell us your opinion of us. Why, you have just done what you complain of us! How about that! So dearest friend, what then is the difference between us? Very little from what I can see. Now, the reason we might make fun of others beliefs (as you see it) is not the same as one might make fun of a street preacher for example. There is a man who hands out pamphlets down my street, the god type. I dont harrass him and he doesnt harrass me. He is happy in his belief and I am happy with his also. However, when you get the same man who wishes to force this belief upon us all then they deserve derision. People who wish to teach creationism in science class et al (you know who and what I mean so I'll stop there) deserve whatever comes there way. You might say that aSK isnt forcing itself on anyone, this is true, however if such nutball beliefs are put out there in the public square then expect them to be ridiculed. I do apologise if this rant is all over the place but, as stated I have just woken and my mood is not pliable. Also, BoN(MC - whatever), your attitude fucked me off. Ace McWickedbitch and moan 17:12, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Another Ace classic, at least as far as he was describing his hangover . Please to save, Mr. Ace, as I mentioned on your talk page. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  00:15, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Mr. Mc Wicked, I have always liked you and still do. You do not hold this rational status on a pedastal like some here. You sir, are entirely entitled to your opinion. MarcusCicero 17:15, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Thats grand, now stop being a prick. We all have our opinions and you have yours so leave it at that. Ace McWickedbitch and moan 17:17, 12 April 2009 (EDT)


 * I don't think you get it Ace. I take issue with people who claim to be rational yet act in such a juvenile manner. At least abandom this absurd claim to reason and rationality. I have no problems with websites which exist solely to take the piss - I'm a regular frequenter of this places. But RW is reeked in its own sense of importance and hypocrisy. MarcusCicero 17:38, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Bahahahaha I dont think anyone here has any illusions as to RW's importance. Except for maybe CUR or RA. Ace McWickedbitch and moan 18:14, 12 April 2009 (EDT)


 * Is there something that forbids taking the piss AND being rational? Sen 17:47, 12 April 2009 (EDT)


 * Shake Your BoN BoN Mega 17:24, 12 April 2009 (EDT)


 * I don't think attacking other people's views is necessarily juvenile. Necessarily. There are Richard Dawkins, and then there are Kenservatives, you know? Hell, there are PJ O'Rourkes and there are CURS, if you want the other side of the aisle. But where would we be without satire? Was H.L. Mencken a juvenile posturer? Should we live in a humourless world where we simply reply "So it goes" to the fool on the street with the "NWO = SATAN = OBAMA" sign? I have no qualms about attacking/mocking the views of fundamentalists/homeopaths/the KKK/whatever. They are harmful. They seek to do harm to others. There's only so far "live and let live" can go. Especially with the Andy Schlafly's of the world trying to "teach" children. There is no such thing as a free market of ideas. It sounds like a nice thought, but do you really want to sit happily and quietly while some moron talks shit about...um, people named after Roman statesmen? Why can't you mock them? Why is that so wrong? Why would you ever let them get away with it? If I hear someone bashing gay people or transgendered people, for example, I will make them ridiculous. I'll skewer their moronic views on a skillet with BBQ sauce. And I invite them to attack my beliefs with just as much furor. If the fundies get their feelings hurt, boohoo. No belief is sacred, even my so-called enlightened liberal values. But if we don't defend them against the Schlaflys of the world, what good are they? If you have harmful, stupid views that you want to impose on the rest of us, I'll get out the poison pen. To take the piss out of myself a bit, though, I'm not some kind of moral crusader. I'm just--we all are--some schmuck posting on the Internet. This is a small corner of a very big world. We don't don't preach tolerance for the harmful. Why does it matter that Toast is a virulent atheist? I'm pretty sure the theists can defend themselves, thank you very much. -- 12:07, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

Mockery in itself is not a problem. Believing you are superior to others, more 'rational' than others when you are very clearly not... Makes you look like hypocritical dunces. Gooday sir. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 134.226.1.229 / talk / contribs

Bigotry of the Mindless
Three cents due to inflation: There is no bigotry in mocking creationists. There is no juvenile nature in trashing or name-calling those who are absolutely devoid of reality. It's the 21st century already. We can get to nearly every point on the earth in a matter of hours. We can identify molecules by their atoms. We can see, with great clarity, things much smaller than the width of a hair. We can map entire genomes. We've cured many diseases. We've done this all with technology and science.

So why should there still be people living with antediluvian "truths" in this century? At what point does reality truly set in? How much will be enough for the extremely religious to understand that maybe, just maybe, their beliefs are anecdotal and not gospel? How much more evidence is necessary that the natural world provides the answers to life, the universe and everything? When will these same people, deluded into accepting their faith as reality regardless of reality, come to understand that they are arguing beyond the scope of reason and logic to defend their beliefs?

People so devoted to their religion that any aspect of reality that trespasses close to their beliefs is tantamount to a personal attack on them deserve the scorn and mockery that people set upon them. It is not juvenile to point out the craziness of people who cannot see the world around them except through a scanner darkly. It is pointless to engage them when they do not want to be engaged, regardless of their demands that others be "open-minded." What's left other than to shun them as irrational persons bent on trying to get others to regress to a dark-age mentality. How else do you explain the need for them to setup entire sites and push for curricula to support their beliefs?

Whether it be PJR or Aschlafly, the result is the same: People who cannot admit they are ever wrong, and that their beliefs could possibly be the work of man and not of a divine being who loves them, devote themselves to tearing down anything which opposes their belief system. Scorn, mock and ridicule them, since nothing else will ever work. And be kind to those who have yet to make up their minds; THOSE are the people who deserve to understand what mankind has come to know about the world. --Irrational Atheist 12:55, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

You people
You people are sick, twisted, childish morons.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 194.125.21.159 / talk / contribs
 * If you posted on the current page rather than in an ARCHIVE, you'd gain more attention BoN. 04:30, 22 April 2009 (EDT)