RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive43

Video game violence and sex

 * Did this really start out as the duck and cover thing? Nothing below seems to relate to the topic...?  09:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

In Fallout 3 there about 2 or 3 schools dotted about the wastelands, but one thing I never noticed was a classroom full of dead children huddling under their desks; this does seem like the obvious parody in a macabre way. 05:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You never see any children zombies in video games either. Or children at all in GTA games--Thanatos 06:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are the remains of dead children in Fallout 3 but the ones that are alive are unkillable. In Fallout and Fallout 2 children were killable (if you wanted to become an instant social pariah), but they were none in the European addition. My suspicion is that in Europe there are laws against violence to children in video games and these days most game developers are too cheep to put out multiple versions of games. 06:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. If you put children anywhere in an equation it's likely to shoot the certificate up through the roof and get you a mention in the UK or EU Parliament about how society is going to the dogs. 08:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is weird, child killing wouldn't upset your ratings here in Australia, but almost any suggestion of sex will. The Sims is M15+ here and they had to release an edited version of Duke Nukum 3D. I got a laugh on day when a journalist pointed out the hypocrisy of cutting prostitution from GTA IV in Australia, where prostitution is legal, but it is allowed in the US, where it is illegal. The only edit to Fallout 3 in Australia was to change morphine to med-x, because drug taking is allowed so long as it is not a real drug. 08:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I will never understand the people who make the rules. 08:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ours are brilliant. They are over 10 years old and were decided on the last day of a three day meeting of state and the federal attorney general. They decided that computer games should be rated using the same guidelines as movies and tv shows, but due to their interactive nature, they would be one rating higher. So PG went to M15 and M15 went to MA15+, but what was hilarious was they decided to have no R18+ as computer games were for children. So any game that would be a MA15+ movie is banned. Realising their rules were stupid the introduced a G8+ for low level violence games like Age of Empires. So we ended up with G, G8+, M15 and MA15+. A few years ago they did a review, the decision? Change G8+ to PG and give it the same colour sticker as the new one they were putting on videos and dvds. The federal attorney general announced this with such glee that we would have the worlds only consistent rating system. They changed the colour of one sticker! 09:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are live children in Fallout 3 and you can do as much violence to them as you like, but they never die (just start running away). That's one of the "solutions" that has been tried. Games like Oblivion and Morrowind simply don't have kids at all; Fable has kids but you can slash them as much as you want with a sword and nothing happens. Totally stupid but that's life. Why humans should be inviolate <18 but killable after that is unclear to me. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 09:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you use the GECK modifier you can make them killable, which to me indicates they thought about it but wussed out. 09:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In Fallout 2, the European no kids version was actually a blessing. The kids hung around in doorways and attempted to pickpocket you as you went past. I have both an original European CD of it, and the later white label DVD with all the turn based fallout games on it, the later DVD had the kids and they irritate the living crap out of me. They definitely need killing. (Also, the thought occurs: Why the fark is it fine to kill the kids in fallout 3 with a several megaton nuclear blast, but not up close and personal with a rolling pin?) -- 09:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't take that carp, pickpocket them back. 10:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a user-made modification for Morrowind that adds children to the game world. Again, these children are not killable. Quoth the readme: "Q: What happens if I attack the children?

A: All the children have been told by they parents that they should instantly use their recall-home amulet (no, you won’t find any amulet on them) in case they get attacked by some evil-looking Nerevarine-wannabee. I.e. if you attack them, they will simply vanish. This was a decision that I made early on in the production of ver 1, for many reasons. Several MW-players have lent the voice of their own kids to this project; I owe it to them to make sure that the MW-kids will not be deliberately violated. Also, this is an “atmosphere”-mod. To have killable children in such a mod is not more relevant than having chop-able trees in an atmosphere-mod that adds more trees to Morrowind."--146.57.80.12 16:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Food
So once again I'm left by myself tonight with no company other than 4 demanding cats and two psychotic chickens. I also have nothing to eat, and must make haste to the butcher / supermarket for my grub. Bearing in mind tehmizzus is out I can therefore consume whatever the hell I like (apart from beef), so I'm open to suggestions. Talk to me! Sell me! 15:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's one obvious answer that would have you spending the evening with four demanding cats but only one psychotic chicken. Bob Soles 15:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)You are hungry, chickens are annoying. The problem itself presents the solution.  That said, I am personally partial to spicy sausages in all their forms, so these I recommend. --Kels 15:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The chickens are mental. I fear if I did try to take one out it would be me in the oven :/ besides, they're egg chickens, not meat chickens. I do have a whole chorizo in the fridge. Perhaps a chicken and chorizo risotto? 15:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm always partial to spaghetti bolognese or curry. Wait a sec, you're a chilli fiend aren't ya? Just have some of that! 15:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I made a curry at the beginning of the week (chicken (on the bone) curry with cumin potatoes and chapattis), so although tempting I might try something else. 15:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What about viewing entertainment anyway? A bit of Fear and Loathing? 15:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I watched that for the first time last week. Great movie, if not frightfully confusing, but otherwise hilarious. 16:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I settled on a chicken, chorizo and penny bun (cep / porcini) risotto with saffron. Aside from the odd colour it was very nice :) 19:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My latest drunken creation is: empty a tin of tuna onto a microwavable plate. Chop a little bit of onion and stir it in. Sprinkle with pepper. Place slices of cheddar on the top. Microwave (mine has a "grill" option but it's not necessary). Later refinements: sliced tomato under the cheese or chopped nuts on top of it. I might try some Worcestershire sauce at some point. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 21:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe if you put your first creation on toast, it'd be traditionally referred to as a "tuna melt" 'round these parts. Adding "Woosh" is always a good choice, regardless. --Kels 22:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Said snack was a staple diet for me and my homies at university. 22:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Next time I'm cooking drunk I must remember to take a picture of whatever it is make to show y'all. Last week I fried some chocolate digestives and garnished them with Carlsberg and bread. 22:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(UI) What the hell? Also, I like how your uni radio lineup shows the midweek 08:00-09:00 slot as "In bed with (DJ)", and the 09:00-10:00 slot is called "Get up with (DJ)". Fucking stoodents. I'll remember that when I have to get up at 05:45 tomorrow. 23:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that today for the first time and laughed at it quite a lot. I volunteered to do a slot this Saturday night/Sunday morning, 2-4AM cuz it'll be showing in the student bar. I'll almost definitely be drunk at the time and I'm going to be playing the best alternate and punk rock songs. I'll probably foolishly reveal my institution here in my drunken stupor. 00:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because its so wonderful
The Muppets do Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody.

That was awesome - manamana. RagTop Gone sailing 10:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Close Call
I had a very close call this morning on the way to work. There I was waiting at the cross-walk, barely paying attention and focusing on loud Plastikman techno pounding my ears. I saw people walking from the other direction and unthinking walked forward myself directly into the path of a speeding Alpha Romeo. Luckily I had presence of mind to keep moving as opposed to going tharn. I felt the vehicle whistle past my legs - oh so close. This is now one of my top five close calls which include stepping in front of truck in a London Tesco carpark, being drunkenly caught on a rock in the middle of a harbour in Greece with a broken snorkel while being battered with waves (I ended up swallowing half the Aegean Sea), trying to island hop in the Carribean on a lilo whilst full of Rum and grit (the current took me far far out) and finally when I was 5 and my floaties popped when swimming in my aunties pool. Phew - I really am a danger man. AceMcWicked 18:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Phew! Sounds like a close call. of course, you realise that somewhere else in the world... well, New Zealand actually, somebody's writing, "So you know, I'm on my way into work - late for the meeting with Russel. Yeah, he's the prick from marketing. anyway, suddenly, from nowhere, this fucking numpty with an ipod - jeezus I hate ipods- steps out in front of me. luckily I've seen fast and the Furious hundreds of times, so I...." -- Psygremlin  19:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to kill yourself you dumb fuck. If you die then I'll be RW's token alcoholic. 19:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not actively seeking my own demise so rest easy Crundy. AceMcWicked 19:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Am I late with this?
Irish Church & priestal abuse. 21:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the first mention here, but I wasn't quite sure what to do with it. I watched the press conference live on the BBC News Channel and there was one questioner (no idea who) who kept hammering on that it wasn't going far enough. The gist (and I may be wrong or over-simplifying) was that the people involved should be liable for criminal prosecution - and this report says nothing about that. Basically, it says "Yes - the Roman Catholic church f***ed your kids; the police force looked the other way... we're all very sorry". It can't be left like this. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 21:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The sad fact is that Irish society will let yet another priest ridden scandal wash over us. Better to let those who suffered die off and pretend it never happened. Thats genuinely their mindset. And 40+ year olds in this country really wonder why anyone under the age of 25 couldn't give a shit about the Church? The attitude stinks. This country stinks. The smell is driving me to madness. MarcusCicero 23:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * One report stated that "older respondents" supported the church more than "younger respondents". It didn't say what the definitions involved were though. Just sayin'. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 23:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Moar wine!
Mwahahaha!!! Soooon my pretties, soon we will rule the world. Well kind of. Do hospitals take advance notice for liver failure? 22:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the reason why dedicated homebrewers provide 67% of worldwide funding for cloning research. You never know when a spare liver will come in handy. -- 23:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Subject goes here
My school uses Javascript as its primary language for teaching programming. Am I alone in thinking that this is not a good idea? 19:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Javascript is the web 13.37 language of tomorrow. It will be a big part of gnome 3.0 and not that many people can go wrong. Javascript is a very good choice actually. Anything but java and you'll be safe. I'd be more worried about the real content of the courses. I'll link webgl because it's awesome and not java that wouldn't be awesome anyway. --194.197.235.240 20:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish I could have taken Javascript instead of C++. It just seems so much more useful. - Clepper
 * Javascript is fine, as long as you aren't teaching the kids about debugging. Or strong typing. Or forced declation. Or object orientation. Or consistency (Hmm, I don't feel like adding a semicolon at the end of this line) 23:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Javascript can do oo and debug without major problems. The rest are just useless for a language like javascript or your own stupidity of not using a proper editor or enabling warnings. It shouldn't take longer than 5 min for anyone not made mentally ill by java to get those ideas anyway. --194.197.235.240 10:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I dislike weak typing. I can't understand why JavaScript uses it, though that may just be ignorance on my part. It just seems inconvenient and inconsistent. 13:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

PZ Contest
''So here, I take two questions, 1) Was evolution a significant and essential factor in guiding Nazi thought? And 2) Can natural processes produce an increase in complexity? I throw them down into the alligator-infested pit of churning chaos, and I leave it to you to produce an answer.''

''The rules: answer each question separately in less than 500 words (as it is, that will strain creationist attention spans), and leave it as a comment in this thread. Be sure to leave a valid email address (which I will see, but no one else will) in the comment header.''
 * Read the rest & get the contesting hats on. 22:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Now the poor bastard is going to have spend the entire second half of December reading all the entries and comments on that already gargantuan thread. I did like that early on someone posted my first thought: 1. No 2. Yes.  What will be very interesting, however, having read the first 100 or so, is that the "entries" will actually evolve themselves - people will use ideas from other entries, rewrite them with various changes, others will follow, and the environment of critical thought will select the best survivors to continue improving...  23:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Block
What the fuck? I leave you guys for 5 minutes and all hell breaks loose. What happened this time (aside from MC being a self-obsessed wanker)? 23:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I like his comments. Some of them are insightful, but the only way they can be expressed is by carving them on bricks and tossing them at people *munches popcorn* -- 23:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking over the recent pages list and using my super-detective skillz, here's what I've pieced together. Antony got demoted, decided to take it out on MC and MC threw a tantrum. And they all lived happily ever after. 23:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Make some comments about my wine above to push this discussion below the bottom of the image. 23:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is one ingredient period blood? 00:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In all honesty I know why he comes here to troll, because I have never seen anyone so willing to feed a troll as the people here. A large number of people think they can "pwn" him by saying something clever or rebutting his argument, but when people are in troll mode they shut logic off and just say what ever stupid thing they want. He is not trying to make a point, he is trying to get attention. Now someone block me for 6 hours for even bothering to respond to this. 00:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ...and? I find him to be an amazing source of amusement, if he wants to troll I say let him - if we didn't want him trolling then why hasn't he been promoted? You see, he is a parasite that benefits us in the form of minor lulz, and he gets attention from us which no doubt makes him all wet and tingly - symbiosis in action, my friend. 00:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you making drama out of something where there was none? I love it when the accusations of troll gets knocked around though, its always interesting when you take into account the cretins who make the charge. MarcusCicero 01:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey man, how's the reform society going? Are you and your society ready to make somje changes? AceMcWicked 01:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The society is in effect right now Ace. This is it in action. Whether RWians decide to join it or not, the idea is alive and well and rising within this website. Soon the society will rule the internet! And what then Ace? And what then? Where will your internet memes be then Ace? Nowhere Ace. Thats where they'll be.
 * The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother’s keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.
 * Yeah. Have some of that mofo. MarcusCicero 02:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, all those internet meme's I use. Sure. So I take it the society isn't going so well then? That's a shame. I really mean that. Perhaps you need more than one of you? Maybe you could create some sock accounts so, you know, it has the appearance of being a society? Just a thought. AceMcWicked 02:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * yeah i saw pulp fiction too! it was epic for the win! i <3 sammy l. hes so kawaii i wish he would be my waifu xdxdxdxdxd !!!! --  ䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡   ䷶䷀䷵䷥

Damning Hypocrisy
How can you seriously talk about changing the logo so casually when you haven't even properly assessed the structural hypocrisy of this place? This is truly pathetic folks. RW is suffering from a virus, a curable disease which has been brought about by shite internet humour and internet memes. You are the ones furthering your own destruction and discussions like these are mere vanity binges, intended to obfuscate the fact that you're drowned in your own proverbial bullshit. MarcusCicero 11:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lolol, uber-1337 r0x0r dud3!!!111one 12:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Got to hand it to the man for not mincing words there. 12:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If I could be bothered I'd create an MC quote generator along the lines of the Andy quote generator. He's gone from annoying to amusing in a bright five year old sort of way. Bob Soles 13:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehehe funny you have mentioned that Bob - I actually have one half built......still tinkering with it though...AceMcWicked 18:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe we should have a 90/10 rule against memes, memes, memes... 18:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To my mind, the Wiki has sobered up a good deal since I joined; we now have less chat-room-style goofiness and proportionally more productive humor. 18:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides, who give a shit what MC thinks? He is just spurting the same nonsense over and over again about how we are spurting the same nonsense over and over again. Its like a Mobius Strip. AceMcWicked 18:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, if only I could block for memes memes memes... 18:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I note you edited the block reason thing Armond, and left it alone, but did you know about the "personal custom block reasons" feature? 20:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Where you just add in what ever under "other reason"? I would, but it's an arse to type memes memes memes... 20:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I mean like this. Create such a user subpage, and your list is automagically added to the block reason list.  As it was for me when I blocked you a few seconds ago.  21:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And just to drive MC batshit insane, we're all going to plug into Human's meme and create personal block lists. Well, I am... -- Psygremlin  21:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Groupthink and peer pressure based equivicatory language is rampant here. A sociologists wet dream, this is. MarcusCicero 14:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And Yoda-speak you do. 08:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Today's random creepy internet thing
I was stumbling (you know, that thing with the blue/yellow button) and came across this page - which was quickly followed by a visit to the WP article. It seems that some organisms have truly remarkable ways of surviving, especially when you take into mind that this one actually replaces one of its host's organs. Be that as it may however, that thing is fucking creepy and anyone who isn't grossed out by this is a real trooper. 05:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently nobody here has the same appreciation I do for the freakish beauty of nature. I mean, hello? I'm yakking on about a critter whose life ambition is to become another critter's tongue and nobody has any wisecracks? Screw the lotta ya, I'll just sit here by myself and weep quietly. Where's my vodka? 11:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm grossed out.--BobNot Jim 11:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's put me off food for a little while... –SuspectedReplicantretire me 11:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was already discussed a while back, and everyone had a competition to see who could provide the most gross link. 12:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Why was I not informed? Still, even if it has already been discussed (albeit rudely without me) I still managed to gross someone out, and make another person potentially starve due to an inability to eat, so I'd say this was a fruitful discussion. Now if you'll excuse me, this bottle of Smirnoff Meh, it was on special isn't going to finish itself off. ...hic 12:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I posted that link last month and nobody noticed Totnesmartin 19:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed. And I think it gave clawsnake a serious run for its money. DickTurpis 22:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's odd, I remember clawsnake but not tonguetick. I'm sure I would have remembered, I must have been high away or otherwise occupied during the time this happened. Anyway, due to the creepiness and downright grossness of the tounguetick, I argue that it cannot be linked too often. 00:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Tactical Nuclear Penguin
32% ABV - to be enjoyed "in small servings and with an air of aristocratic nonchalance." 14:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I found a yeast that ferments up to 21% and was tempted to make some kind of super-evil beer (considering distilling is illegal without a licenseTM in the UK) but I think 32% is a bit too high for me. Is it carbonated? 15:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't see the point. If you want a high alcohol drink then there are plenty with a fine pedigree - whiskey is my personal choice, and yes, I did spell it right. On the other hand there's nothing like a refreshing pint at the end of the day, what was once described as 'Miller Time'. However, if you can't even drink one pint without falling over - and I speak as someone who once drank a pint of whiskey for a bet - it's real fun for about five seconds - then there's no Miller time. Nah, I'll be sticking with the Abbott Ale or the Bushmills. Bob Soles 15:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A pint? I suppose, if that was a UK pint it'd be a USAian fifth.  Hell how much booze is a pint in new money?  How many liters in a yard, again?  23:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooo, Abbot Ale. Not had that stuff for years. Ireland's almost entirely overrun by lager and stout. Just hand that there's a microbrewery here in town, and they occasionally get decent ales in. I normally see Belgian stuff as the nuclear option. Kind of fun watching people drinking the stuff, without realising how strong some of those beers are, and then staggering out of the pub two hours after arriving. -- 16:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There isn't a point. It's just a cheap publicity stunt, it's like a bar near me that sells the "Hell Shot", which is made by mixing 90% ABV vodka with 85% ABV absinthe and you have to sign a waiver - absolving the bar of all responsibility and promising not to tell the police that they're serving it - before getting one. All just BS publicity - although I was pretty amused by their 1.1% "Nanny State" beer[[image:Guinnesssmiley.gif]]. 19:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Aside
I used to limit mine intake of alcohol to 1 drink per day. I was very strict with myself and never went over my limit...I did however decide to quit drinking altogether once I got up to the year 2815. Enough was enough. 22:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC) CЯacke ®
 * Define "one drink"... 23:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Shit, I finally got the joke while rereading waiting for "save" to happen. ROTFLatMC!  23:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Horray I have been looking for this for ages
If I had known about RationalWiki in June 2007 I would have posted this then. The story of Answers and Genesis and Creation Ministries International; a story of back stabbing, lies, witchcraft and necrophilia. 01:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've only been here for eight months - since April, though it seems a LOT longer. Maybe cuz I've known about CP for over a year. 02:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I must say I have never visited a website for as long or as frequently as RationalWiki and I think the reason is because it gives me a place to write about latest interest. I am nearly completely over Conservapedia, I read WIGO CP rarely and only if I see something funny when running WIGO bot will I vote. These days it seem like the only thing I say on WIGO CP talk is to tell someone how that is old and/or what happened a year ago. The birthers are no long interesting me, although the insane rants of the US is heading into a dictatorship under Obama are hilarious. I expanded the WorldNetDaily article after I become interested in that and I know a lot of YouTube articles are pooping up from people who frequent that. RationalWiki has sort of become a homebase for my (and others it seems) internet browsing. 03:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Same here to be honest. I still look at WIGO CP, but it's just same shit different day now really. In the last week or so, my talkpage comment regarding CP have just been whittled down to the bare minimum- Quite literally, "I hate Andy," "Andy's a cunt," and so forth. Any patience, tolerance or sympathy I had for Andy and Conservapedia are just completely gone now after Andy's antics of this year. The CBP, slagging off Kennedy straight after he died, the liberals-don't-care Fort Hood massacre, etc, etc. I really ought to try and edit mainspace articles more than just haunting talkpages like a parasite. 14:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Less Wrong
Er, the website Less Wrong, and the related Overcoming Bias. Any readers? Less Wrong is all about the art of rationality, and tis is RationalWiki (the new logo is stellar by the way), so I figured I'd ask. 07:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Should our logo have our name "RationalWiki" under it?
23:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It has grown to include discussing the background image/color. 22:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

iPod to Mac transfer...
Anyone know of any good FREE software that can transfer media from an iPod to an apple mac without any goddamn transfer limit? I'm fucking sick of getting halfway through it and then a message popping up saying I can only transfer 25 fucking songs. 14:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The easiest way to do it (read: way that requires the least typing from me) would be with the command line. Alternately, type "defaults write com.apple.Finder AppleShowAllFiles YES" into the Terminal (in the Utilities subdirectory of Applications) (you will see tonnes of weird files, but ignore them), then use the Finder to get to the volume that is your iPod (it should be in "My Computer" in the sidebar). Fishing around, or using the search function for mp3s, you should find a directory full of songs, the titles of which will be random sequences of letters. Copy them to a folder in your computer, then drag them into iTunes &mdash; the names should be fixed by Gracenote. 15:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Then re-enter the command in Terminal, replacing "YES" with "NO" (unless you want a load of configuration files everywhere). 15:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And I give no guarantee that this will work if your songs have DRM. 15:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Urgh, Terminal scares me, I don't know enough about computers to go messing around in there. Thanks though. 16:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Terminal command simply sets (defaults write) the Finder (com.apple.Finder) preference to show all files (AppleShowAllFiles) to true. It has the same effect as checking a box in the Preferences dialogues, only it alters a setting that is normally hidden to not scare people. 16:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The correct solution involves blending all Apple wares you own in to a fine paste, and replacing them with more open alternatives. You know, things that implement that totally unsupported profile we moon men refer to as "USB mass storage" and use this strange thing to allow you to copy music to and fro. -- 19:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is the ideal solution, but it possesses several practical flaws. Look, Josh, the command line isn't that scary &mdash; it's actually pretty transparent once you learn it. And what's the problem with entering one command, which you can copy and paste? I got it from here, so it isn't likely to delete your home directory or anything. If you were bitten by a command line when you were young or something and can't look at one without being reduced to a quivering wreck, this has a checkbox that does the same thing. God, looking at this makes me remember why I switched to Linux. 22:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

SharePod? - Clepper

Urgh
I have a sore throat and that annoying thing where you can't control the pitch of your voice. Not good as I'm going on the radio at 2AM. Any suggestible remedies? In all seriousness, will MORE beer help me in the run up to the show? 16:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Call in your body double? You do have a body double, right? -- 19:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's gOD's way of showing you that you ain't gonna have a DJ/radio career. Or it could be a DEMON trying to put you off. 19:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "that annoying thing where you can't control the pitch of your voice" Puberty? TheoryOfPractice 19:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm well into puberty and have well over three hairs thank you very much. 20:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mix a spoonful of honey into whiskey and drink it. Drink about a pint of this medicine before going on the air. 23:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Find a victim, rip their larynx out, and replace yours with it. 23:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just tell your audience it's not a bug, it's a feature. They'll be so disappointed if they like it and you heal, though.  23:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a Czech liquor called Becherovka. It's repellent - nigh undrinkable to anyone outside of the eastern bloc - but a single shot will cure what ails you.  I find it annoying and inexplicable that this is so, but I have found it efficacious on more than one occasion.--Tom Moore fiat justitia 23:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's...
...Monty Python's Flying Circus. Although most the sketches of the first two series are fuckin' hilarious, Spanish Inquisition is probably the best episode. The last sketch is priceless. Charades in court.

Chapman: Not! Palin: *Thumbs up* Chapman: Second word!... Two syllables... First syllable... bird? Idle: Swimmer? Chapman: Breaststroke? Cleese: Brian Phelps? Chapman: No, no, no, he was a diver! Idle: Ester Williams then! Chapman: No, no, don't be silly, how can you find someone "not Ester Williams?"

And it goes on until the Spanish Inquisition burst in and say "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquis- oh, bugger." For "The End" appears on the screen.

Anyway, it's hilarious, and anyone that doesn't like Monty Python's Flying Circus should walk into a wall. 00:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone who doesn't like Monty Python is guilcup of poor taste.-- 00:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for MC to tell us whether their stuff is real humour or not. He's the only one on the site who knows. --Kels 02:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The dead parrot sketch gets me everytime Rad McCool 02:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My favorite is the "Lemmings and the BDA" sketch. Hilarious.  -- 02:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC) WOW I just managed to EC myself.
 * Not to be too anal, but that's "Lemming of the BDA." I love Monty Python, although I have to disagree with the first poster.  I think there are several sketches that are much better than the Chardes in court, Spanish Inq. example he cites.  Off the top of my head, I can think of the world's funniest joke, Buying a bed, Dead Parrot (of course), Agrugment Clinic and from my personal favorite episode of all time, the Piranha Brothers.  03:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Monty Python = Meh. Though I did like the Killing Joke the one about the joke that killed people. AceMcWicked 03:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah ha! Thanks for listing buying a bed Chuck. I think that is in close contention for their best sketch, but everyone I mention it to looks at me funny... It certainly gave me the biggest laugh the first time I saw it out of all of their sketches.-- 03:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh God no, not ANOTHER Monty Python wankathon?  Jesus, yes, it was funny once, but please.   Stick a fork in its ass and turn it over, it;s DONE.   Now, Curb Your Enthusiasm on the other hand....   DogP Marmite Patrol 08:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Curb has to be one of the worst US imports ever. 08:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Fuck Monty Python. I have a trireme of humour at Casa Del Wicked. The full seasons of The Office (UK), Black Books and Fawlty Towers. All I need is the full set of The Young Ones and I'll have a Humour Cube. AceMcWicked 08:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Young Ones DVD set completed my three sided, two dimensional humor cube. Now when is the damn Comic Strip gonna be available besides my old tapes?  09:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The office has to be one of the worst UK exports ever. (Black Books is absolutely terrific though. 08:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Red Dwarf, Young Ones, Bottom and The IT Crowd complete my Humour Cube. (And League of Gentlemen to make a 5-sided cube. This is a local shop, for local people, there's nothing for you here. Agree, The Office is the black stuff between dead people's toes. -- Psygremlin  09:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Shit I would really like the Bad News Tour and Five Go Mad On Mescaline. AceMcWicked 09:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC) P.S. @Toast - Black Books = Genius. AceMcWicked 09:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess that's the one thing us UKians are actually good at. Comedy. 10:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A really excellent US comedy prog was Rowan & Martin's Laugh In (started with Barry Took as a writer among others) 10:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll never forgive you UK fucks for Big Brother. AceMcWicked 10:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That wasn't us, that was the stoned out dutch who invented BB. And yes, it's fucking shit. 10:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Err, Human... 10:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Crundy! Looks like I'll also have to buy a region-free PAL/NTSC capable dvd player to go with it...  22:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it may have been the Dutch but you pasty faced, bucked teethed monarchs made it a global brand. AceMcWicked 10:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's very big here in Spain (sadly), but they give the Dutch the "credit". I think the franchise belongs to a Dutch company.--BobNot Jim 12:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

(UI) I obsolve myself of any responsibility for that. BB is basically us going back to the victorian era, of allowing people to pay to laugh at the inmates in the asylums. Especially considering we had a tourettes sufferer, a blind guy, and a transexual. 10:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done differently it could have been quite good. Did you know that it was largely promoted by the (great? (great?)) grandson of the guy who put the London sewerage system in. One takes it out & the other puts it in. 10:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done differently it could have been quite good (wish I had PJR's ugly green gish-gallop quote template) I have always had great respect for you Toast so I'll pretend I did not read that while I let my blood pressure return to nominal position and my anal cysts stop flaring. AceMcWicked 10:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * wish I had PJR's ugly green gish-gallop quote template - you do. 22:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean as a sort of scientific isolation experiment. 11:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting in the anthropoligical sense, however........I don't know, makes my tongue taste funny and teeth go wobbly to even consider BB to have any value whatsoever. AceMcWicked 11:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I quite enjoyed the first series. The people on it were reasonably interesting, and they had no idea whether anybody was watching since there had been a lot of questions about whether the format would work in the UK or not. Every series since has been full of self-obsessed wankers and is less interesting to watch than iron rusting. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 11:19, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

What, a topic mentioning British comedy series, and no one has mentioned BlackAdder? Tsk tsk tsk. MDB 12:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

What's a tea-party wingnut to do?
When one of their icons ridicules another like this, even in jest? As an aside, I found out at Thanksgiving dinner yesterday that several of my out-of-state relatives are active tea-party-attending uber-conservatives. I wondered if that makes me the "blue sheep" of the family. --SpinyNorman 16:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's good ol' fashioned right-wing misogyny. 16:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * More proof that he doesn't give two shits about "the Cause," he's just in it for the money and will start petty infighting to gain popularity. 02:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

International Rescue
I don't wish to prejudge anything before all the facts are known but smashing the rear window of a car with a golf club seems like mighty strange way to get the driver out. And if they've had a crash does moving them seem like the most sensible thing? Strange. 15:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it's generally best to leave them in their seat unless there's a very good reason for getting them out of the car. I suspect one problem is that people see cars exploding in movies, and they see people just pulling jagged objects out of wounds, and they assume the same applies in real-life. -- 16:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Crawl in with them and keep their head in gentle light traction, immobilizing the cervical spine until trained help arrives. Actually, it's best to have some training to do even that much. The "professionals" can be pretty brutal to the equipment, cutting and smashing to avoid bending the organic lifeforms at risk while extracting same from the wreckage. Sprocket J Cogswell 16:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thunderbirds? Linky?  23:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Could be a reference to the "real" International Rescue. Which if I remember rightly is just a fat dude who goes to earthquake zones with a sonar that barely works while all the locals do the hard work and heavy lifting (Okay, it reality I think it's a large aid organisation or charity, but I saw one report with that guy in and the image just stuck). But yes, you DO NOT pull people out of wrecked cars or move people who have had serious crashes unless you're a trained professional or there is a serious risk of fire getting them first. 12:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the Swedish lady rescuing an American. Didn't anyone twig the golf club? 15:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Could someone help me find a video?
Ok, I've been trying to decide which creationist claim to refute with a youtube video next. The problem is: so man of them have already been done to death. Then, I was watching one of bubbamicmac's videos on Kent Hovind the other day, and caught something that I don't think has been done. Hovind says something about how "Evolution is driven by death" (or something like that), because "for evolution to happen, everything else has got to die." While this statement may not be completely off, I think I could tackle this by pointing out that: 1) Eventually EVERYTHING dies, and 2) You can be selected against and survive, provided you fail to reproduce, or don't reproduce enough. Now, I know that in many cases the rest of the population does die-off over many generations, rather than simple fail to reproduce, but this is still fundamentally a misrepresentation of Evolution (might also go for some humor with "we can advance evolution by getting people to not have sex. Isn't that what you want?").

Now, this brings me to the issue: Can anyone point me to the source video? I don't want to just quote Bubbamicmac's quote without having heard the context.--Mustex 20:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't say I've seen that one. Have you gone though his official YouTube channel? 11:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean CSE's? Isn't that mostly Eric Hovind videos now?--Mustex 12:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The Ascent of Man
I'm watching this on DVD right now.

I just... just remember watching it when I was a kid. It was first shown just after I was born in 1973 but it's still damn good. While watching it I really wanted to be able to sit teh Assfly down in front of it and say something like "See? See??? They knew it was right THIRTY YEARS AGO you MORON" or something like that.

For those of you that haven't seen it: yes it's dated; yes, bits would now be seen as inaccurate; yes, the first episode is really homoerotic... but it's still one of the very best documentaries ever to have been created.

I'll save you the Google Vid link. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 20:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Climategate
Please help with Climategate. It's really on-mission and current and relevant. Sterile 03:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Temptation
I keep wanting to change MC's username to "Marcus Cicero aged 4½". Is this wrong? Totnesmartin 19:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we all get that sometimes. Moriarty 19:41, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's always the pagetitle template... 19:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's ok because it's a joke, just keep your frisbees off don't touch Huw's lawn user space. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 21:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is wrong. You need a fucking comma. It should be: Marcus Cicero, aged 4½ 23:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is this Moriarity figure? He's nothing like the guy in the books. MarcusCicero 19:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The one in the books is taller, for a start. --Kels 19:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Marcus, if you have no life, you should be able to find out who I am. 23:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All of you are wrong. It should be "aged 3½." 02:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I apologise to 4½-year-olds everywhere, and their brothers. Totnesmartin 22:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

My greatest ever achievement
I have just made it across an 18 meter room on a swively chair with a single push!. I did have my feet up against the wall for extra scootage. 09:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You kids and your low friction flooring.... -- 09:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What the hell is the floor made of, teflon? Or are you taking steroids? Be careful, those things make you grow boobies. If you already have boobies, steroids make them hairy. I got yelled at a few weeks back at tafe (college) for leading a coordinated "row boat" wheelie chair race through the computer lab, it was so worth it. 09:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No steds for me! It's a laminate wood floor, which had just been cleaned.  Plus the extra momentum from my (completely natural) man-boobs...  10:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn you all, my swively chair is on a rug. 22:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You and your rugs and your vast swathes of wood floor... my rolly chair can't go more than 2 meters without hitting a wall or a sleeping policeman. In most directions it's more like 37 cm. Much better, though, since I packed some fast-setting mortar into most of the divots. It's an uneven concrete floor with a loosely bonded thin top coat. Sprocket J Cogswell 22:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, your laminate wood floor may be a little crooked. Vulpius 13:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Brass monkeys
That is all. Totnesmartin 12:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. 13:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Blightynet article, please? 18:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Totnesmartin 20:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The guy that is a suspect in killing those police officers in Tacoma?
Got a "get-out-of-jail" card from Mike Huckabee. Wille Horton redux for his 2012 hopes? TheoryOfPractice 14:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was about to say, "F au ox News is already probably coming up with an explanation of how this is 100% completely different than Dukakis and Willie Horton", but then I look at their current coverage of the story, and it pretty much straightforwardly covers that Huckabee once commuted the suspect's sentence. It also says Huckabee is making excuses:
 * "On Sunday, Huckabee issued this statement on his Web site: 'Should he be found to be responsible for this horrible tragedy, it will be the result of a series of failures in the criminal justice system in both Arkansas and Washington state.'"
 * Of course, its possible they'll just ignore it later. They scrubbed coverage of the Knoxville church shootings for a while after it was found the gunman had Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly books in his apartment. (Seriously, a few months after the shootings, they had zero coverage of it to be found with their search engines. That has since changed.)
 * More on topic, though -- the only thing that can keep this from husting Huckabee is that its far enough away from the elections that this could be forgotten by 2012. MDB 15:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Clemmons, 37, of Pierce County has an "extensive violent criminal history from Arkansas, including aggravated robbery and theft," the sheriff's department said in a statement. He also was recently charged in Pierce County in the assault of a police officer and rape of a child, according to the statement" Sounds like just the kind of person who should be released early from a 95-year prison sentence. 15:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that Huckabee "cited his young age" or something to release him. I was expecting "citing his conversion to Christianity" or some such bollocks, or possibly a "good" reason such as "actually, he was innocent" or "a panel of professional psychologists and prison wardens are 100% sure he's fine now". Of course, we can't just keep everyone locked up forever, you can't predict re-offending and it's just going to damage more lives than it saves by doing that. But still, the signs seemed pretty clear in this case. 15:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm curious as to how much attention a US governor really pays to pardons and paroles and clemency and such. With the exception of high-profile cases (or being a crook), I'd speculate that they usually just accept staff recommendations without paying much attention to them. MDB 15:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It sounds like he's schizophrenic, because family have reported him saying he believes he's jesus and that he can fly. A violent convicted offender with schizophrenia should be very closely monitored. 15:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thought he was Jesus? Okay, that means he was a Christian. By the standards CP applied to the Fort Hood tragedy, every news story should mention that the suspect is a Christian, and it should be mentioned prominently. MDB 16:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume that all those police officers were "packing heat", so how does the largely defensive weapon of gun excuse fit in to all of this? 18:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, but they would have been sitting, probably holding food or utensils in their hands, and not expecting the need for any defensive measures. Also, I think most police officers' holsters have clip things over the handle to secure the weapon.  Their job is to avoid having to play "quick draw McGraw" I think.  00:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course Andy's argument requires that everyone has to have their weapons drawn and safety off at all times, just in case. 09:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

H1N1 and Y2K
It will be interesting, if H1N1 fizzles out, that there really won't be a way to tell if the rounds of inoculations (and other measures) were a major factor or not. Just like Y2K, if the efforts succeed, it will look like they were a waste. 00:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny story: on January 1st, 2000, I was in upstate NY visiting family and the power went out for several hours. Everyone was scared thinking that Y2K had shut down the power plant, but it turned out some guy had accidentally driven his truck into a telephone pole. 00:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But what you don't realize is that his mind was affected by Y2K-related binge drinking 03:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In France apparently 74% of people initially didn't want the vaccine because they were stupid concerned about possible side effects. Now that a few more people have died the police have had to control queues and the army has had to help out.--BobNot Jim 10:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

My local paper
My local newspaper makes me want to bash my head against the wall sometimes. The other day there was an opinion piece talking about how it makes no sense to call Obama a fascist and socialist since the two terms are contradictory. Fine, fine. But the next day there was an editorial written in response that said that the author of the original piece was wrong. The day after, there was a editorial published saying the second guy was wrong. Then they actually published another editorial by the second guy in response. Finally the editor wrote a note saying that he agrees with the original article. Are our newspapers really that dumb that they would allow such idiotic opinions into their editorials? Apparently the editors do not know the meaning of "socialist" and "facsist." 00:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Were they actual editorials, or just letters to the editor? The newspaper of my hometown prints, as near as I can tell, every letter it receives, without comment, including some colossally stupid ones, like a copy-pasta of the e-mail that suggest solving the ecomomic crisis by giving every American over a certain age a million dollars. MDB 12:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Letters. My paper has a pretty big audience, so you would think that they would be intelligent about what they print. But apparently not. 14:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

MemeShock
MemeShock. Someone please start this article and save me having to learn something on my own. TheoryOfPractice 03:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Started. Although I know very, very little about this as well. 04:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Found this very funny
Armstrong and Miller Bluepeter sketches. EddyP 21:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * hehe, yeah, there was quite a few of those sketches. Was that the one where they went to a special dancing club, and one of the presenters was giving one of the dancers a lot of help to break into the media in the back room? 21:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's actually all three sketches; the one you mentioned, the pub one and the drug one. EddyP 21:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've heard of these but never watched them. Fecking awesome. 22:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of A&M, did I post this before? 21:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Uganda Family
"The Ugandan parliament is currently considering an “Anti-Homosexuality Bill,” under which any person “convicted of gay sex is liable to life imprisonment.” If that person is HIV positive or has sex with a minor or a person with a disability, he or she would be guilty of “aggravated homosexuality” and face the death penalty. The bill also proposes up to three years of imprisonment for anyone who “fails to report within 24 hours the identities of everyone they know who is lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, or who supports human rights for people who are.” The bill would even “apply to Ugandans who commit homosexual offences, but who live overseas.” There are approximately 500,000 gay men and women living in Uganda." Apparently some organisation called "The Family" is supporting it whole heartedly. An article on them? 23:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia. Aceof Spades 23:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh and What will they do if our beloved First Secretary of State, Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, President of the Board of Trade and Lord President of the Council ever visits? (... is Peter Mandelson who has a long-time partner, Reinaldo Avila da Silva for the furriners) 23:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Start a diplomatic incident? --Gulik 23:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the Peter 'prince of darkness' Mandelson a poof? I honestly didn't know that.  I think we should definitely send him to Uganda.  (I have nothing against homosexuals, just dickhead politicians)  08:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Much as I loathe the Prince of darkness, he'd have diplomatic immunity, no matter who he discusses Uganda with. Real first name and last initial 18:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

bs condom study
I've heard alot of conservatives claim that the HIV virus is small enough to fit through holes in condoms, but I've also heard that that study was based on latex gloves rather than condoms. Just curious: does anyone know who did that study? I mean, I know lots of researchers bias their research to favor what their investors want, but what sane human being would actually think "we need to determine the efficacy of condoms on preventing the spread of HIV. Get some latex gloves!" Did they just not have access to condoms, in their HIV-studying lab? I could literally get condoms faster than I could get latex gloves if I needed too. Lots of college health center GIVE THE THINGS AWAY! Seriously, who did that?--Mustex 17:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the way I heard it was that the oft-cited study was of animal skin (more accurately, animal intestine) condoms, which no one recommends, or has ever recommended, for disease prevention (and I doubt you could even find them anymore, without some searching at least.) By contrast, there was a study of couples in which only one of the two was HIV+. When condoms were used consistently and properly, there were zero cases of the HIV- partner contracting HIV. However, I also remember it was a pretty small sample set. MDB 19:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It really wouldn't surprise me if people were quoting studies of animal skin condoms and then trying to pass of the results as applicable to synthetic ones. It's not unknown in quackery and wingnuttery to do that, in fact it's usually the only way to get science to agree with them.
 * IIRC. The odds of HIV transmission even with unprotected sex is (relatively) low, it's like a 1 in 10 chance or something. So with protection, and having only low risk partners, the odds are really low, like in reality is really is zero, and the one-in-a-many-millions chance of catching it is because of something unforeseen, like a rape or drug use giving the disease to someone who would otherwise be considered "low risk". It's very possible that even a study of a decent sample size would still produce zero transmissions. 19:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's BS. It's the "lambskin" condoms whose pores are large enough to pass HIV (and perhaps some viruses like herpes?).  They have no problem stopping cell-sized things like sperm and bacteria.  For a couple not worried about STDs they can be a "better feeling" birth control choice. Oh, and the abstinence-only morons pretty much claim that condoms cause pregnancy and STDs, and make you not read the Bible...  20:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Jack Chick (as always going an extra mile in stupid) actually does reference surgical gloves, citing a Focus on the Family newsletter: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0090/0090_01.asp --Mustex 20:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

What did YOU have for dinner?


Pasta and salmon. Mmm, yum. 18:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's bloody good going for a stoodent. I shall upload a photo of my masterpiece later. I am once again sans-missus. 19:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good. Bottled alfredo?--Tom Moore fiat justitia 19:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Easy stuff. Microwaved salmon and potted carbonara lol. Delicious nonetheless. 20:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Microwave Salmon? Dude, that is fucking sick. Aceof Spades 20:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well my housemates were using the oven and the grill, what was I supposed to do? Besides, it said you could microwave it on the packet. Sorry I can't meet your dreams of salmon baked in the oven, Ace, in your mansion of blueberries on a hill of gold-coated caviar. 20:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You were supposed to assert unrivalled control of the entire house so the grill will always be yours to use. Aceof Spades 20:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No clue about supper. It's midafternoon on the east coast of both Americas, but summer south of the Line. Chicken soup and fond gazes for lunch, though. Some day I'll treat you all to a peek at my signature pasta and peanut butter. Stir in the p.b. after the noodles are al dente and it thickens the water without the fuss and bother of whisking up a roux. Dressed with an onion or nude, that's some tasty dish. Sprocket J Cogswell 20:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * P&B Pasta? What is wrong with you people? Aceof Spades 20:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Got me hangin, boss... fecklessness? laziness? unmitigated gourmanderie? But seriously, that's the kind of thing my beloved cohabitant says whenever I offer her some. Mere mention, and up turns the nose. Don't know what yer missing, all the more for me. Sprocket J Cogswell 20:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, behold... Spiced meatballs with herb couscous. 21:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mushroom soup for starters, turkey/sprouts/stuffing/sausage&bacon/veg for main, mince pie and christmas pudding for pud. Then a round of 'Twelve Days of Christmas'. And I'm pretty sure it didn't cost me a thing. EddyP 21:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Eggs Benedict- a little breakfast for dinner tonight. Corry 00:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mmmmm, I wish I had some real eggs on hand. I have a dozen of those computer-generated egglusions they sell at the supermarket... maybe I can omelette them into eggness?  01:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Obama
So?? Did anyone else watch it or was I the only one? 03:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was excellent.--Tom Moore fiat justitia 03:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure if excellent would be the word I would use. It was pretty good, nothing too special. I didn't think his speaking was up to par, and he didn't provide as many details as I would have liked. Otherwise good though. 03:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I heard it while editing RW. Get the fuck out of Afghanistan and Iraq and make my day.  Give me a way to get health care.  Fire the generals, and tell the American people (and the world) the lies we've been told that you are now party to.  Don't be a part of the US empire "problem" just because the plans made before you are more complicated than you realized (you did realize, didn't you?). End the wars now, bring the boys (and girls) back home, and get this country in order.  Last comment: foreign policy is the heaven of US presidents.  Domestic policy is a nightmare, but ordering troops around has become something you don't need anyone else to approve of.  Barry, please break this ugly cycle.  04:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's to hoping my good friend, Pfc. John, comes back alive when he gets shipped to Afghanistan next March. I was hoping Obama would end these bullshit wars so that I don't have to hold my breath every time John is overseas. 04:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, he might yet. It's pretty early, and wars don't stop on a dime, especially when just pulling up stakes would leave a huge power vacuum and loads of problems still. My feeling is that a LOT of negotiation with various factions and even the much-demonized enemy to work things out a bit and cool things down especially in Afghanistan would be the right road.  I'm not an expert. --Kels 04:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I know. I guess I was talking more out of emotion than ration. Obviously, these don't end in one day, I guess (perhaps foolishly) that Obama would've ended both of these wars by slowly withdrawing, as opposed to surging and then withdrawing. 04:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the Afghan situation is best dealt with at this point by an army of diplomats and trade officials to get a functional economy in place and take away the big reasons for the Taliban to fight, and start pulling troops back in the process. But what do I know? --Kels 05:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw this unauthorised interview with an Australian soldier currently serving in Afghanistan. He basically thinks the war can be won if we can sell, it both to the public at home and to the Afghans. He was stressing the importance of convincing the Afghans that the international force are on their side and that a stable democratic government is in their best interest. As he roughly put it "McDonald's could sell people their own faeces and convince them to buy it, yet we haven't used that ability to sell a war". 06:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A good point, um, let's say 'memorably' phrased. The single biggest factor in the social and political stability of the 'developed' world is economic activity. What Afghanistan really needs to regain stability is either uninhibited export of its opium (unlikely to be allowed by an American occupation), or a major invasion by ExxonMobil and Freeport-McMoRan. And maybe McDonald's. Maybe. OneForLogic 06:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

My brother-in-law is in the Air Force and has already done a six month tour in Iraq, and may yet get deployed again to Afghanistan or Iraq. Fortunately, he's a social worker (helps military folk deal with stress), so its not like he's a combat soldier, but we still worry about him, especially since he's got two daughters who need their daddy. That being said, I still support the Afghan War. The Taliban has (had?) strong ties to al Qaeda, and the only real chance we have of apprehending bin Laden is staying in the Afghani/Pakistani border region. And yeah, we are paying for the Bush administration's complete fuck-up there. Its pretty much obvious that we could have captured the bastard at Tora Bora, had they not decided to let the locals handle it. And they also pulled the troops out for Bush Cheney's misadventure in Iraq. Basically, I agree with Colin Powell's inaccurately named "Pottery Barn rule": "you break it you bought it." We've created a mess there, and we need to clean it up. Now, we need to do that with an eye towards finishing the work, but I think it would be immoral to just drop everything on the Afghani people. That's sure ticket to the Taliban taking over again. And I'd say the same about Iraq, too. We never should have been there in the first place, but we need to fix what we broke. MDB 12:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hungry Beast
Just saw the end of the last episode of "Hungry Beast", an Australian TV program in which "a group of talented young newcomers produce a 1/2 hour of topical TV.......". Anyway, the last part of the last episode started with the Ray Comfort banana vid & then did some stuff on marketing communion beer. Episode 10 doesn't seem to be online yet, but will provide some smiles when it is available. RagTop Gone sailing 11:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That was one of the best shows this years, streaks ahead of the final series of Chaser's War on Everything. 11:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Australia seems to have some decent TV. Makes up for Neighbours, which, like Fosters, probably only exists in Europe anyway. 11:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Neighbours doesn't even run a profit here, it is only still being made because of the international sale and I have never seen Fosters in a pub, in the bottle shop, or any advertising for it, I remember being told it is now brewed over sees in Canada or something. 11:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In Ireland I think. But I imagine Neighbours does only make a profit elsewhere, it's something really stupid like £250,000 an episode, which is why the BBC said "fuck that" and let Channel 5 import it instead. It makes a useful alarm clock for students, though. 13:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The thing RagTop is talking about is up now as Jesus: The Hungry Beast Way. 13:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I love the smell of Onion in the morning
Zombie Reagan raised from the grave to lead GOP Real first name and last initial 18:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "...because the best person to represent the GOP's views is a 100 year old dead man." 20:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, the "new face of the Republican party," eh? So he's both young and old. 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Onions are good, but what do you slice them with? How do you cook them?  02:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * ...I honestly think I'd vote for him before the others...--Mustex 16:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Cooking tools
I run both ways on knives - while a good knife is a wonderful tool, many cheap knives are passable. That said, I broke a paring knife a while back that had fake rivets on the handle - three round silver stickers per side. The actual blade only went 1/2" or so into the handle. I like having too many of most of what I use - handful of spatulas, spoons, graters, measuring jugs/spoons, and, of course, knives.  One of my ugliest projects ever was to "customize" my knife drawer (I'd just done my chisel and file drawer) with pieces of wood with slots cut into them glued to it.  Protects the bladed from each other and my fingers.  Sadly, I used scrap ex-construction random bits of 2x6 and they are truly fugly.  23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The only knife I've had break on me is a large Global oriental chef's knife. I was so fucking annoyed. The problem with Global knives is they are razor sharp with tough steel, but they have a major weakness at the bolt after the handle. Wusthof or Ioshen is the way to go. Ioshen are relatively cheap as well. 23:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You can tell a good knife by one of two things:
 * 1) If you put your fingernail at a 45-degree angle on a worktop and place the knife vertically on it (carefully) it should stick and not slip down.
 * 2) Chop half a ripe tomato, skin side up. if the knife is crap then you'll either end up squashing the tomato or slicing your hand because the knife slips off the skin. A good knife will whoosh through it
 * The people who are against decent knives have never tried one, or don't know how to chop properly. It's a foreward sawing motion, not a towards-body pulling motion. 23:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have many knifes for many purposes. Some in the kitchen and other stashed in easy to reach places around the house. I steal butcher knifes from hotels on roadtrips. Aceof Spades 23:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am the only person I know who has inherited knives- I have a set of rosewood handles Cutco knives dating back to the 50's. Beautiful set of knives.  They are razor-sharp, and are guaranteed for infinity- send it in, pay money, and it will come out sharp as new.  -- 23:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * When I inherit my mother's kitchen scale I'll be able to re-create all her recipes in the original British... 00:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I suppose I could get by with a wok, an ulu and a peeled stick, but I'm fond of the laminated Nipponese veggie knife that has followed me around for quite a while now. A layer of razor-blade steel sandwiched between two layers of coat-hanger wire steel is how I describe it. My wife has mostly overcome her fear of it... You can tell by its feel on the stone that the edge is seriously hard stuff.
 * I think there's also a spirtle or two in the hoose, but porridge mostly gets stirred with whatever spoon is to hand. I have at least once whipped egg whites to stiff peaks with a stainless fork in a plastic bowl that could just as easily served as a cat's dish. It ain't the tools but the technique, and I like nice tools just the same. Sprocket J Cogswell 23:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I find a cheap kniofe can be just as sharp as a good one - it just doesn't stay that way as long. I have no trouble slicing tomatoes, quite thin, with my latest round of cheapos.  That said, I'd love to be able to splurge on a couple hundred dollars worth of good ones.  Yeah, they cut "the same", but the heft and feel is far superior.  Chopping onions should be a magical pleasure, not a chore.  00:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

This conversation is a little too masturbatory... we're all like "look at what awesome Internet Guys we are, we all know stuff about cooking!" For some reason, cooking and literature discussions often turn out this way on the net.--Tom Moore fiat justitia 00:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pro cooks often carry their own knives to the job, and get good (=expensive) ones that balance well to avoid repetitive motion injuries. Cutting up stuff for hundreds of people every working day can do that to you.
 * And yes, good steel takes and holds a better edge than the lesser stuff. Stainless blades just about never pass that test for me. If a blade annoys me I'm just as likely to toss it in the waste basket as not. Tom, I restore and set up violins. Come watch what I do, and be amazed at the voicing changes that come from taking off nearly invisible bits of wood. Can't do it online, it's got to be right there. Sprocket J Cogswell 00:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I will agree that it's easy to get into "check out the quality of the tool I'm talking about" mode on line. One of the smartest guys I know worked as a field geologist for a while, with a huge interest in paleontology, and says he went one digging season using nothing but stone tools he had knapped himself for personal chores. I believe him. You don't need to believe me, but there it is. Be well, Sprocket J Cogswell 00:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Obsidian knives can be seriously sharp although probably not ideal for the modern kitchen. 00:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because obsidian is fragile enough to chip when trying to cut your T-bone steak, and eating razor-sharp flecks of rock can seriously ruin your day. -- 03:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I worked in the Sheffield Cutlery industry for twelve years ending as assistant works manageress starting as floor sweeper and passing through all sections of the factory for seven years. Possibly the only one here who's made a knife - from raw steel to finished item. We obviously only made steel knives. From memory:
 * the material should be a fairly high carbon steel. Stainless very high carbon steel (with chromium) is now as good as any steel although perfectionists might turn their noses up at it
 * the blade should be forged using some kind of hammering process: knives made by cutting/stamping out of steel stock will not "keep an edge" and will not be as flexible. (although they will be cheap - buy, use a few times & discard.)
 * there are several methods of shaping/grinding blades which depend on ultimate purpose
 * the full taper, where the blade tapers evenly from spine to edge
 * the partial taper, where the thickness is constant (or at least lessens only slightly) from spine to (roughly) half the width of the blade before tapering to an edge
 * the cut only taper, like a partial taper but the spine thickness extending over most of the width of the blade and the actual ground taper is very short and steep (in working knives this is usually referred to as a cleaver or chopper). Requires regrinding when blunt
 * the various edges (plain, serrated, scalloped etc) are down to ultimate use and personal preference although a well honed plain blade will cater for almost any circumstance.
 * for a working knife (as opposed to eating utensil) the tang and bolster should be integral with the blade
 * honing (not "sharpening" - that requires a grinder) is best achieved using a "steel" before each use session - you really can slice a hair with a well honed knife
 * cleaning: cloth & vegetable oil are best but a hot water wash (not a dishwasher - nasty abrasives) and immediate cloth drying followed by the veg oil wipe. Never leave a working knife to "air dry".
 * storage: best is hanging blade down with the blade out of contact with anything but its thin oil film
 * Lecture over. Could go on & on but it's something I've not really thought about for over thirty years! 04:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the lecture, may we please have another? Mostly I "make" woodworking knives by putting handles on things like this, but I've also made a few from scraps of steel from here and there. I've also made chisels and scrapers and a couple of in-cannel gouges from similar stock, old files, saw blades, electrician's snakes, drill bits and so on. I usually anneal the metal before shaping it and re-harden after. Either what I want is specialised and pricey, or flat-out unavailable. Sprocket J Cogswell 05:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ms.Toast - can you expand at all on the 'do not air-dry' concept? I've never heard that one, and am wondering what's the science behind it?  But a fascinating post, thanks for that.   DogP Marmite Patrol 07:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Iron + water + oxygen = rust! Even with stainless steel there is an effect sufficient to slightly dull an edge. That's largely an old wife's tale, but them old wifes[sic] did know something sometimes. I also had a bf who was butcher's son, he (teh butcher) always cloth dried & then sliced a lump of animal fat.
 * (aside) You can tell a cutler (or a butcher) by how they react when they drop something: they'll whip their feet out of the way; whereas the natural reaction is to "catch" the falling object with the feet. 08:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Tips and tools
I have a couple of Chicago Cutlery knives which I'm (overly?) fond of, a 12 inch chef's blade and an eight inch clever. While I'm used to using them as they are I rather fancy a Japanese knife sharpening style than a European (Murkin) one, (Japanese style is to have the cutting on the draw rather than the thrust).

00:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC) CЯacke ®
 * To peel an tomato: Blanch the sucker in boiling water for 10 seconds (or so) and squeeze the fruit out of its skin easily.
 * A serrated edged knife goes through green pepper skins much more better than even the sharpest single edged knife.
 * To sharpen a dull blade (Hi Ed Poor!), a hone is used first to set the edge. A steel is used thereafter to dress the edge. Hones are ceramic and in a pinch a borken dinner plate can be used to re-edge a knife!

Morality of Super-heroes
Ok, I know this is kind of a crazy thing to think about, but I want to know if anyone agrees: Is it really good for Superheroes to be so selfless? I mean, most Superheroes are portrayed as willing to sacrifice their lives to save others, even if its only a few others, or one other. But, if a superhero does that, who's going to protect us from global-scale threat? I mean, who's going to unravel the mystery of why the world is about to explode if Batman gets taken out by a lucky shot from a bankrobber?--Mustex 01:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mustex, you think about things too much. Get some hobbies. 01:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with the culinary arts? 01:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Any individual, no matter their abilities, is beholden only to each individual choice they face. Take a firefighter.  It's hard to find great firefighters.  So if a great one goes into a fire to save a child instead of fighting the fire, is he doing the right thing?  If he didn't, he might be able to save a much greater number of lives in the future through expert firefighting.  But no.  Each person can only be held responsible for the choices with which they are confronted, not with each possible future consequence they can't knowingly foresee.  Plus, if comics teach us anything, it's that death is an inconvenience eradicated when someone needs to launch a new villain.--Tom Moore fiat justitia 01:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true of a firefighter, but in the case of a Superhero the numbers that could be saved are far greater, as is the probability that it will happen. DC compresses time, they sometimes retcon stuff out, but very little of Superman's history has changed.  That means all the alien invasions and near-apocalypses of the last 70 years of comics have mostly happened over the course of about 10 years since Clark Kent became Superman.  So, global disasters happen ona regular basis in comic books, and in each one Superman generally saves billions (and even if he was only dead temporarily, it might be too long).--Mustex 02:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference between the firefighter and the superhero is only one of degree. The moral question involved is the same.
 * As to your Superman point, isn't it pretty obviously contradicted by his death - and subsequent resurrection? Are you arguing he shouldn't have fought Doomsday?--Tom Moore fiat justitia 02:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Doomsday could have destroyed the entire world. Obviously the whole point is rendered moot if Superman holds himelf back from even fighting the major threats.--Mustex 02:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering how Superman is essentially immortal, he's perhaps not the best example. But any superhero knows well that death is often just an inconvenience.  In fact, it's only people like Sue Dibny who stay dead, and even that's seldom true as long as they're important.  Or in other words, in their world the existence of a problem means there is almost inevitably an extant solution to the problem.  Or are you positing this as if superheroes lived in our world and were not subject to dramatic license?--Tom Moore fiat justitia 02:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess you could take it either way, I think I was more thinking of in our world, but even in comic book universes, what happens if Superman is dead and Darkseid launches another invasion?--Mustex 02:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In the comic books, then what will happen will be that Superman or someone of sufficient power will return. There are any number of possibilities, such as an alternative-universe Superman or a reformed Superboy-Prime or whatever.  What is not possible is Darkseid destroying the Earth and DC comics ending.  Because it's not profitable or interesting.
 * In the real world, then the same logic as the firefighter applies. Or yourself... if you break your leg saving someone from a bear and are later unable to save two babies from ten bears (meaning a group of animals, not a Josie Wales thing) then are you responsible for those two babies?  No, you can only choose the moral thing directly in front of you, and can't be responsible for unforeseen consequences.--Tom Moore fiat justitia 02:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comic book world: If Superman can be so confident someone will always save the day, why does he bother doing it? Real World: Partially a difference of scale, partially a difference of certainty.  After so many cases of the Earth nearly being destroyed, you can be reasonably certain its going to happen again...soon.--Mustex 02:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Like all characters, they often lack perspective. Although over time they have slowly stopped being surprised when someone comes back from the dead, turns evil, or whatnot.  And I think they always assume by default that at least someone in the JLA is a White Martian at all times.
 * In the real world, the Earth is not always on the brink of destruction (except in an environmental sense, and much less melodramatically). You need to specify what we're talking about here.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 03:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * From the character's point of view the distinction is skewed because, as you mentioned, they lack the perspective that DC comics' editors will make sure everything's alright.--Mustex 03:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the "revolving door death" concept (hell, even normal humans like Green Arrow get resurrected, it's gotten ridiculous), DC comics is currently doing a big event that they're saying is going to pretty much end the practice for some time to come. It's pretty lazy storytelling, and I know a lot of fans are getting sick of the whole "main character is dead, don't worry they'll be back in six months" routine, and the speed with which they've brought back Captain America kinda underlines that. As for the "should I risk someone as valuable as myself" thing, I know it's been dealt with in Superman, but I don't know to what degree other books have done the same. --Kels 03:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Captain America is Marvel, not DC. Which did company did you mean was going to end the practice?--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 03:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant Cap as an example of how ridiculous it is in comics at the moment. DC are the ones talking about ending the revolving door practice.  Hopefully they'll stick with "dead is dead" for at least a few years, and not be so quick to snuff and revive popular characters.  To their credit, Ralph and Sue Dibney actually stayed dead, and Ted Kord hasn't come back to displace the current (and awesome) Blue Beetle.  That's a start. --Kels 04:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I always found superheroes morality annoying, especially with some of the bigger hero/villain rivalries. Take Batman and the Joker. Batman should've outright killed the Joker years ago. Thrown him off a cliff, stabbed him to death, let him die when Onomatopaeia stabbed him instead of letting the villain go to save the Joker's life. But no, he captures him, arrests him and has him tried and locked up again and again, knowing full well that he'll just escape and kill more innocent civilians. If it was just the 60s tv show camp funny joker that kept escaping, that'd be fine. But the "real" comics joker murders people for fun, every time. Hell, he shot and paralysed Barbara Gordon *just to annoy* her dad. Then he stripped her naked, took pictures, and forced her dad to look at them. And yet Batman refuses to kill him. In the above example, James Gordon specifically tells Batman not to kill the Joker to prove that "our way (i.e. the legal system) works." That's stupid. The legal system *doesn't* work. That's why Batman had to be Batman in the first place. He works outside the system because the system isn't good enough. Batman is being incredibly selfish and naive in refusing to kill the Joker, and some of his other main villains in his rogues gallery. X Stickman 02:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand what Gordon meant. Gordon meant that the world didn't have to be the Joker's world of vengeance and murder and madness.  The "our way" wasn't the legal system, but rather the world of morals in which he and Batman believe.  Batman, in my opinion, has always been best summed up as a "guy who - in the end - just doesn't want to see anyone die" (paraphrased from Kingdom Come - which is, incidentally, one of the best comics in history).--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 03:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But those morals are immoral. When their line of morality leads to "ensure that this man can escape to kill again", they lose their claim to moral supremacy. What it comes down to is Batman not willing to have death directly on his hands, no matter how much death is caused indirectly from his actions. That is a selfish line of reasoning. Man up, batman, and take one for the team. Kill the Joker. Not a single person in the world, other than your morality brigade superfriends (most of whom you dislike anyway) would care, and they wouldn't do anything about it because you're the goddamn batman. X Stickman 14:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

WorldNutDaily
The level of dishonesty of this website never cease to amaze me. For about a month now they have either been calling for Obama to surge or pull out. He is sending 30,000 troops(?) and the story is pushed right to the bottom of the page. The very top headline is plugging a website for Focus on Families over the made up war on Christmas. Article number 2 is selling copies on their G2 Bulletin magazine. About midway through the page the have stories such as "Top climate scientist quits in wake of scandal" when even a cursory reading say he is stepping down whilst the investigation is taking place, not quitting. They have no journalistic integrity at all. 05:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The words "WorldNetDaily" and "journalism" do not belong in the same sentence. It is a site comprised mostly of editorials, along with some material that is so violently homophobic it could almost be gay smut. 05:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They can't have the damn commie liberal marxist fascist pinko foreigner child-raping terrorist look GOOD now, can they? Of course they pull bullshit like that. ENorman 05:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, what does the global warming scandal mean concerning global warming, realistically?--Mustex 00:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a lot. The emails were private between scientists and the language used is a lot less formal. So instead of saying "I preformed analysis using the such and such test", they say "I did so-and-so trick". Instead of saying, "I would not recommend this paper for publication because the author did not address X and Y and Z is false", they say "that global denialist quack is submitting bullshit papers again, I am going to blackball him if he keeps this up". 00:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Multiregional Hypothesis
Would an article on this be on-mission? It's not...exactly...pseudoscience, but scientific consensus right now is that the evidence points against it (and for Out of Africa), although no one's willing to say its been completely disproven yet.--Mustex 12:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Totally. It is not pseudoscience, just a discarded hypothesis. 13:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, don't forget the "Candelabra hypothesis" too. An even more wrong version of the multi-regional hypothesis. See this and this (pdf but it has a good diagram) for details. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 13:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, do we have much on human evolution? All the competing theories could be put into one article of decent length rather than a quick review of each that Wikipedia can and does do much better anyway. 13:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is, its not really discarded yet. There's still enough doubt for both theories to be taught in Physical Anthropology classes, and there are still (real) scientists who support it, its just that the evidence currently leans strongly towards Out of Africa.--Mustex 14:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're probably more up to date on this than me, but I thought that even the Multi-regional Hypothesis were simply variations on Out of Africa now. Does anybody seriously doubt that Africa was where most of the various species of Homo originated? There may be debates about how they evolved after leaving Africa but does anybody dispute it was the point of origin?--BobNot Jim 20:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I, hilariously, posted this just a day or two prematurely, because we just went over it today (and I learned about it in my readings) in more detail. Apparently both theories have been significantly revised, so that their proponents both claim that the other side has backed down without admitting it...and I think they no longer fully qualify as two different theories, and would call them a bunch of grumpy old men arguing over who gets to name it (new Out of Africa acknowledges some hybridization which maintain tiny sprinklings of non-African-based DNA in modern populations, new Multiregional Hypothesis acknowledges that the vast majority of modern human DNA comes from Africa, because until very recently African had the largest population.  In short: its now a matter of degrees).--Mustex 01:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The idea when setting up an article like this is to try and think about how RW might approach it that would be different than just a stub version of WP. For example, is there a history of its use in arguments with creationist? Are there some weird pseudoscience theories of aliens that embrace it? Is there a cultural or social aspect that can address the interface of the development of scientific ideas or between science and the culture at large. WP is always going to beat us at a facts based article on a standard topic, where we can shine is by exploring various themes that are either "not notable" or verifiable with news paper articles. tmtoulouse 20:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Based on my undergrad, and earlier stuff in my current Phys Anth class I was under the impression that the Multiregional Hypothesis could be classified as "not yet at the point of a discredited hypothesis, whose followers are pseudoscientists, but moving slowly in that direction." I know realize that that isn't the case.--Mustex 01:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sidewiki
Ooh, seen the new sidewiki function in the Google toolbar? Who's going to be the first to write notes about RW and CP? 14:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just got it. Haven't examined it though. 14:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The Curse of Pope Schlafly?
Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes.

You may be able to get further information in the #wikipedia channel on the Freenode IRC network.

14:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Subst-able randomselection
I've written a parserfunction that works like the tag. The basic syntax is:

The advantage of a parserfunction over a tag is that parserfunctions are evaluated earlier, so for example their output can be used as template parameters. The other advantage is that they can be subst-ed. <tt> bar </tt> will choose one option and insert it into the page text when the edit is saved: bar

This can be used to create random signatures and random templates that can be subst-ed and will remain the same once the page is saved. The only problem is that subst is not recursive, so simply substing a template that contains a choose parserfunction will still leave the choose in there.

One solution to this problem is to put the subst between includeonly tags. Although this breaks transclusion, it's a good solution for a substed signature (since it won't be transcluded anyway).

The other solution is a parserfunction I wrote called expand that should be used with subst:



produces:


 * "Andy" (recreate your account with your real first name and last initial), I reread the beginning of your rant at the top of this section and you rely on hearsay, judges laugh at hearsay, so let me guess: you're an atheistic believer in the fantasy of extraterrestrial life.  And you persist in denying the obvious truth that feudalism deters depression.  You can whine all you want, but Wikipedians do not tolerate truthful edits on politically sensitive issues.   It's like trying to reason with a lynch mob. If you think the Associated Press is the oracle of truth about whether Obama is a Christian, then help yourself to its news feeds. Godspeed if you go elsewhere to insist on your unchanging viewpoint. --Andy Schlafly 16:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the source, you'll see that every template call, every parserfunction and every parameter has been substituted. Obviously this isn't a solution if you don't want every template to be substed. Wikipedia has a few more solutions hacks here.

The advantage of substing stuff instead of leaving it as a template call is that it puts less strain on the server.

More on usage:

You can omit the weight, in which case it will be 1, e.g. is equivalent to If an option contains an =, you can't omit the weight, so for example is invalid (the weight of option two will be 0); instead just specify the weight explicitly:

-- Nx  / talk 16:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That is super awesome, the possibilities are a larger finite number than the current possibilities. 00:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Moar A&M
That is all. 20:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * this god damn shit is not playing, Crundy. call youtube and have them tape it again. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Phewk off
I can't find the discussion (READ: I can't be bothered) but somebody wanted to hear me say "fuck off" as I did when I was a kid. Well here you go. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 23:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's some interesting shizzle you got there. I don't think I ever did that but I do actually have a very mild speech impediment. 00:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My dad is one of those people who pronounces suit with a yu sound in it, like syoot (& has some other strange pronounciations I can't think of right now). It wasn't till I was about twelve that I realised the word isn't pronounced like that, except by freaks.   00:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I like that for some people, words like "four" and "mine" have two distinct syllables. Especially the latter. 01:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The black country area of the UK has an accent in which people add an extra syllable into many words, especially words that end in an "own" or "ome" sound. "Home" becomes "Ho-um", "own" becomes "oh-un" etc. It's fun! X Stickman 01:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My Mancunian girlfriend (long, long time ago) couldn't pronounce 'tt' and would say bockle instead of bottle. And why can't so many people pronounce February? I often hear it spoken as Feb-you-ary (frinstance: Don McLean in American Pie). 08:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My brother met some americans on honeymoon who said they had visited a nice village called why-mund-haam (wymondham), which co-incidentally is where they live. It's actually pronnounced "wind-umm", but that's a naaarfolk thing. E.g. "Stiffkey" is pronnounced "stookee". It's all the inbreeding. 10:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * British place names don't count. They're all designed to ensure that non-locals give themselves away. In my neck of the woods there's Hawarden (Harden), Cholmondley (Chumly), Threapwood (Threpwood) and Burwardsley (Burdsley - I think). 10:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are three places in Lancashire called "Claughton". One is pronounced "Cluff-ton", one "Claw-ton" and one "Cly-ton". It gets even better in Scotland where "Sciennes" is "Sheens" and "Milngavie" is "Mal-guy". –SuspectedReplicantretire me 12:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Any objections before I rewrite the wiki?
-- Nx  / talk 11:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki talk:Tog-fancysig
 * MediaWiki talk:Yournick
 * No. Go ahead. 14:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Legitimacy of Argument?
Ok, since I probably won't have time before I go home for Christmas to look through Kent Hovind's lectures, and once I get home my internet is fairly slow (at least for watching 2-hour lectures to find a single quote, when I don't even know which lecture it is), I think I've decided that over Christmas I'm going to try to do a youtube video on why Social Darwinism isn't a legitimate interpretation of evolution, trying to give a concrete example, that shows the benefits of cooperation, even with individuals less talented that yourself. I plan to build my argument around what I understand about modern-day endurance hunting in a few parts of Africa (it's believed to have been the earliest for of hunting by humans). I'd like an opinion on how my argument stacks up:

The earliest hunts were probably endurance hunts, when humans ran after hooved animals until they collapsed of exhautian and died (modern humans are too fat and lazy for it, but we're actually among the best endurance runners on the planet when we're fit). Now, lets say we have a tribe with 20 males (I'm assuming that for the sake of social Darwinism, if you wanted to spread your genes as much as possible, you'd keep around every available female for that purpose. So, to try to match with the argument I'm discrediting, I'm going to assume that natural selection occurs among males). Now, the children and females gather plant-based food sources, while the men hunt to provide protein (more actual calories come from the plants, but meat is a very important supplement). Lets say that of these 20 males, only 4 are good hunters. Under social Darwinism, that means that these 4 would take all the women, and leave the rest to starve.

Now, here comes the first problem: What happens if one of these 4 supermen has a period of unlucky hunting? Well, that's easily enough solved: A kill will provide more meat than any one of them and their families could possibly eat, so the four of them agree to share meat. So, they go out on their happy little hunts, and one of them gets a kill, possibly makes a fire and eats a little there (hungry from all that running), and gets ready to take the meat back to the camp the 4 of them have agreed on.

...then, he realizes he has a problem: He can't butcher the animal and carry THAT MUCH meat back to camp on his own. The women and children are out gathering, and the other males are out on their own hunts. So, he has to run around the plain until he finds all of the other men, and can bring them to his kill site to help him butcher and carry the meat. Hopefully he can find them before the scavengers eat it all, and naturally this will take them away from their own hunting. Clearly, the simpler solution was to feed the weaker 16 hunters, so that they could be divided up among the good hunters, to follow them around at a slower pace, and help with the butchering and carrying of the meat. Congradulations Social Darwinists! You just killed a useful labor force!

Now, the main response I can see of this is "Well, if you keep those other men around they're going to take wives, and you can't monopolize them." The answer to that: Yes, this prevents inbreeding. Also, if you're fitness is really that much higher, your descendants will eventually dominate anyway, because you'll have more surviving offspring.--Mustex 15:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Read Jared Diamond's Collapse.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 17:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are some even simpler arguments against the proposition: (1) Evolution is science, social Darwinism is political philosophy. (2) Social class is not the same thing as natural fitness. (3) FACT-VALUE DISTINCTION! 18:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm trying to illustrate that, but I wanted to provide a concrete, pre-modern example of how cooperation can increase fitness. Otherwise, you leave yourself open to arguments about the sustainability of an idealized society, due to the freeloader problem. (I'm posting this mostly to make sure my understanding of how endurance hunting usually works is correct, am I right?)  And, in this particular case, I'm not talking about social class, but athletic ability.  Granted, that's not the same thing as fitness, but most Social Darwinists (and creationists, who think Social Darwinism is mainstream evolution) are too stupid to realize that.--Mustex 18:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The remark about social class was leveled at the social Darwinists, who seem to hold that belief. Civilization itself is a counterexample to the idea that cooperation is not beneficial in the evolutionary sense. 18:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Their argument, as I've understood it (and am trying to respond to) is that in ancient times, civilization helped people less than it does now, and so a large portion of the weaker, dumber people died. But, now that we're being charitable, too many fat, stupid people survive, and they will eventually ruin the human race with bad genes.  I know they seem to tie that to social class, but I thought intelligence and athletic ability were supposed to be the most important things?--Mustex 18:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The real issue is the phrase "survival of the fittest". Fitness in evolutionary terms is not about superior mental or physical ability, it's about filling an ecological niche. "Social Darwinism" - where one powerful group seeks to eliminate another because they consider themselves "fitter" is a complete misrepresentation of Darwin's theory by both those who wish to get rid of another group, and by the cretinists who want to besmirch a scientific theory because it contradicts their precious Genesis. Fat people might be able to withstand an extreme famine or a prolonged cold spell. Dumb people might be useful as drones. Also our "fitness" as humans is the ability to cooperate on a large scale and thereby dominate other species.  19:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm no anthropologist but I would be surprised if early humans actually hunted something by chasing after it until it collapsed. I would have imagined that early meat eating would largely have been scavenging or finding an injured animal. Once we had started to use even primitive tools then their power could be magnified by being used in concert. A hominid with a stick might get lucky but a dozen all with sticks could work together. Wolves and some big cats use the power of a group to get a kill, I would expect early humans did likewise. 20:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Evolution theory does not contradict Genesis so much as a particularly stupid interpretation of it first made by people whose knowledge of theology was dodgy at best. 20:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I could say alot more on this issue, but the short version is that I don't disagree with anything you've said, I was just trying to come up with a very simple, easy-to-understand way of explaining it (and there's actually some debate about the origin of hunting, but endurance hunts still occur in some parts of Africa). However, after talking to my Phys. Anth professor, I've decided to not use that argument, because it was based on me using my (somewhat limited) knowledge of certain hunting patterns observed today, and imposing it on past hominids. Instead, I'm going to try to dumb down and explain my term paper on the evolution of Altruism. The only problem is, how do I get people to understand what I'm talking about? I plan to substitute words for some of the terms I used in my paper. Can anyone suggest substitutions for "kin selection," "mutualized reciprocity," "indirect reciprocity," and "altruism?"--Mustex 23:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Musty, try "nepotism", "quid pro quo (bribery)", "campaign finance", and "sucker". 01:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the first two work (although still might be a bit high-minded for my audience), third one I don't think fits (sure you understand Indirect Reciprocity? It basically means you help individuals who help others, even when they haven't helped you, thus making helping an overall beneficial trait.  Not sure how that ties to campaign finance.), and the whole point I'm trying to make is that altruists are "suckers."--Mustex 04:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For the third I was trying to come with a less "direct" form of bribery/direct exchange, and campaign finance loosely fit so I ran with it (the bribe is given without specific expectations, it's more of a deposit or retainer). I agree it was the weakest of my three suggestions, but still might work - company A donates to candidate, who then does something "useful" for company B, which then profit company A down the road? Glad I hit the "suckers" nail on the head!  21:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I've decided. Kin selection=nepotism.  Mutualized reciprocity=quid pro quo (or possibly "friendship," if that's easier to understand).  Altruism=kindness.  Indirect reciprocity=fairness (if you think that fits).--Mustex 21:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Existential crisis
Currently in the middle of one. (AAAAAAAAAA!) Advice anyone? 23:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cogitere ergo est. Don't worry.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 00:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that not "Cogitas ergo es"? 04:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I always just double up on the cough syrup and when I wake up the crisis is over. YMMV <font color="#ff0000">Me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! <font color="#6ff6633">Mine! 01:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What exactly is an existential crisis, anyway? What's it like to have one? OneForLogic 02:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the on for logic. What mean you by "existential crisis?" 03:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds as if he doesn't know if he exists or not? Cogito ergo sum? 03:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh you've never had one of these? @OneForLogic (nice name) it is quite depressing. You see some bad shit happened this week and so I'm going FUCKING INSANE as a result. And I think there was even an xkcd about it once. 03:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that, dude. I've had two of those before, and I know that they are absolutely shitty to go through. You have my sympathy.  03:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks Goonie (and everyone else of course). And sorry Sheesh but I am going to pass on the cough syrup method. 03:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So why not tell us what the "bad shit" was, and all us old fogies will tell you how we used to walk to school twelve miles in the snow, uphill both ways, and then you'll feel better? I recommend The Clash at full volume, repeat as necessary.  03:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm I may have to try The Clash it could work. But please no scary stories about your days in school when you had to carve things on clay tablets. I don't want to have nightmares.  03:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We used to dream of clay tablets. We used slates. 09:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Slates! Slates!!! A pointed stick and some dirt: that was all we had. On a bad day we had to without the point on the stick! 09:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) The Clash for an existential crisis? Nah, I recommend something a little stronger, like the album "Frankenchrist" by the Dead Kennedys. It starts off with depressing songs, moves into hilariously snarky songs, and then is ended with a song the summarizes the entire album and then gives some personal encouragement; "But what can just one of us do against all that money and power trying to crush us into roaches? We won't destroy society in a day until we change ourselves first from the inside out. We can start by not lying so much and treating other people like dirt. It's so easy not to base our lives on how much we can scam, and you know it feels good to lift that monkey off our backs!" 03:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember: "It's are never as bad as it seems" -it's probably worse. Whatever it is, you'll look back on it in 40 years and cringe. 03:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Words from the wise from "some old crone"TM TK 05:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I recommend Queen's Bohemian Rhapsody.--Thanatos 04:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Life itself is an existential crisis, the only thing that changes is the degree of crisis. Aceof Spades 04:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ace pwns, as always. 05:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My grandmother always used to say "worse things happen at sea". However, when I was working on the boats that wasn't very reassuring. 09:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * @Tet: At least you have us bunch of losers to whine to. Big hugs from us all. Here, have a look at this video of a cute kitten. 10:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks Crudy. And @Ace: nice quote. Sounds Fight Club-ish. 13:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Having an existential crisis is an invigorating experience. Utilize it to the best of your ability. I'd recommend cutting down on the sycophancy to the cretins on RW however, these fools know neither how to engage in self critical introversion or challenge the cozy group dynamics of their own self deception. MarcusCicero 17:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I may be doing this out of anger and angst, but all I can say is this: fuck you, MC.
 * 17:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The dimensions of crankery
What would you consider to be the major "dimensions" of crank space? These are major, general categories, ideally the smallest number of independent descriptors that covers the largest number of crank ideas. Here is my thoughts so far:


 * 1) Medical (basic quackery, alternative medicine, vaccine hysteria, etc.)
 * 2) Pseudoscience (creationism, quantum woo, perpetual motion, etc.)
 * 3) Conspiracy (UFOs, tax protesters, New World Order, etc)
 * 4) Paranormal (psychics, ghosts, channelling, etc)

Possibilities:


 * Historical, things like holocaust deniers and historical revisionism in general.
 * Political, maybe conspiracy theory and political crankism aren't totally over lapping?

Anyone else have any thoughts, suggestions or comments? tmtoulouse 15:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can fuse pseudoscience and paranormal, although I've recently been categorizing the relevant RW articles to make them separate. I'm not sure you can totally get political cranks, as politics isn't really science (you can base it on science or reality, or make up some bullshit, but then you'd fall into different ones). So perhaps just add "Historical" to get five major ones. But there is indeed a massive overlap between some of them. Maybe three categories of "Denial", "Conspiracy" and "Bullshitting", based not on subject but how people go about formulating and presenting their ideas. 15:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah there is two approaches to looking at it, starting with the principle cognitive components behind cranks and working down to how those things manifest in the specific is one approach. What I would like to do is a bit of the opposite, find a way to identify individuals who manifest specific crank ideas, and then work out the cognitive components they use based on the identification. So the idea here is to define major categories of cranks, which a series of questions could be formulated. So 4-5 categories with 5-10 questions from each category trying to identify a pattern of holding or not holding crank ideas. tmtoulouse 15:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think rather than the way the ideas "manifest" themselves as you've listed above, the "dimensions" would be more fundamental - ie, the traits of mind and personality that lead to espousing crankisms, of whatever kind. Or is that what your eventual goal is?  For instance, "paranoia" or "superiority complex" might be fundamental dimensions of crankism?  21:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, the ultimate goal is to understand the cognitive and neurological underpinnings for developing these kind of world views. But you can't start with that. If you try you are just arm chair philosophizing. If you want to actually study it empirically you need to first be able to find people that have the world view you are interested in and be able to systematically separate them from controls. The idea here is to set up a questionnaire that looks at various dimensions of crakisms in order to be able to classify someone as a crank or not based on actual beliefs held. tmtoulouse 21:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought you were trying to do. I guess you do have to identify the trash can from the fridge before deciding which to throw a given object into.  22:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

An attempt by the Rationalwikian leadership to remove itself from reasonable argument, hence the removal of this post to this section

 * 'Crank ideas' are so subjective that RW tends to make an ass out of itself when analysing the flawed logic of others while concurrently accepting the mediocrity of their own arguments. You should attempt to take as scientific an approach as possible when assessing whether a person is a 'crank' or not; all too often (And Rationalwiki is particularly bad for this) otherwise enlightened historians get called 'cranks' for one argument that they might make (Though I would agree that holocaust deniers are scum) I would call to question the means through which they arrive at their conclusions - their assessment of the evidence, their logical prowess and honesty of opinion should all be taken into account. Unfortunately for you though, these criteria would make the majority of rationalwikians determined and exaggerated caricatures of 'cranks', so maybe this wouldn't be in your best interests. MarcusCicero 17:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oooh Marcus, thank you so much for showing us the error of our ways! Bob Soles 13:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I bet he doesn't have any of these problems at the wiki he runs. Oh, wait... --Kels 13:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't run a wiki Kels, and I don't intend to. I'm merely pointing out your own institutional hypocrisy which is among the most laughable on the internet. Although I didn't entirely unexpect the typical 'if you don't like it you can just geeeet out' response from authoritarian personalities like you. MarcusCicero 13:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Those that can do, those that can't teach, and the really inadequate stand on the sidelines and sneer. Bob Soles 13:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"Every ass wants to stand with the king's horses. This may explain why there are critics."

- David Gerrold

In my country, we say to give a woman a microphone is to give a monkey a gun. 13:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The vaccine
I got it today. No major problems for me, but the interesting part is that of the 18 young healthy people that were there with me 3 got a seizure a few minutes after the injection and were wiggly for ~ 30s. They didn't remember it afterwards. But yes, I took their dope and I'm still alive. HA-HA --194.197.235.240 15:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you didn't "got a seizure a few minutes after the injection and were wiggly for ~ 30s" - you could have forgotten about it afterwards. 15:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're going to be dead / have serious brain damage by tomorrow. 16:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please people the paranoia is not working with me today. Obviously it was nothing dangerous or the doctors would've stopped. We do all live in the same building most of the time, so that might affect the chances, in particular we had to get up an hour earlier to get to the hospital in time and nobody ate or slept much. 30 s could be a bit exaggerated, it was a longish time but shorter than what it took for a doctor to arrive, ie quite short as we were in a hospital waiting room with good visibility. It was nothing too dramatic, they sat in their chairs shaking and not responding. Recovery was almost instant ("what you say was happening to me a second ago") and the doctors took them to the backroom for a little rest but nothing further occurred. They just zoned out for some seconds. And yes I've learnt my english from youtube comments and not from a medical science book. --194.197.235.240 16:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what the doctor wants you to think. They're in on the conspiracy as well. The vaccine contains mind-controlling quantities of alien mercury which will turn you into a socialist. 16:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just wondering how many people would get "wobbly" even without receiving anything... 16:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To lighten the mood we chatted about how great trollery we could make, and I must say rationalwiki was a creative choice. No it was not just wobbyness, you don't shake that weirdly and violently and ignore people talking to you because of wobbiness. Does anyone want to say something informative? I haven't followed much news for a long time, I was stupid to not to ask at the hospital and I don't feel like going through half the trash of the internet. --194.197.235.240 16:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I had the seasonal flu vaccine about a five weeks ago and came down with a rotten cold just two days later (yeah, I know that's just a coincidence). I had the swine flu thing a week ago, never felt a thing. And apart from some mild tenderness of the upper arm for about 24 hrs, no other side effects. Of course I'm just feeble old fart and know this stuff affects fit youngsters much more. I noticed many 18-30s in my local town throwing wobblies last Friday and Saturday nights. I know that they'd all had flu jabs as not one of them had taken the trouble to wrap up in nice thick coat and a scarf. 17:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You fools, don't you realise the flu vaccine is how the new world order kills you? I'm not entirely clear on why exactly they want us all dead, but obviously they do. It's part of their master plan. 1. Kill most of the world's population with vaccines. 2. ?????? 3. Profit. -- 17:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Cracked's 6 Hilarious Attempts at Brainwashing Kids With Comic Books
http://www.cracked.com/article/209_6-hilarious-attempts-at-brainwashing-kids-with-comic-books/

Number 4 is the one that made me go Oy Vey. Ryantherebel 15:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that blew my whathefuckery meter... 16:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And no Jack Chick! Totnesmartin 23:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Stargate
I have just found out that - if you are a touch typist - you type "Stargate" entirely with the fingers of your left hand. My more interesting question is: - Is anybody watching Stargate Universe? Does anybody agree that it's bloody depressing?--BobNot Jim 18:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with Stargate can be considered anything but depressing. Sorry Bob, but I'd rather flay my own penis to shreds and feed it to hungry Germans than watch Stargate. Aceof Spades 18:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess that we all must take our pleasures where we can.--BobNot Jim 18:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Depressing is in nowadays. See also: Battlestar Goddidita. They're just trying to copy its success. -- Nx  / talk 19:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it reminded me of the "new" Battlestar as well.--BobNot Jim 19:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of typing, my wife rang the RSPCA on me because I sent her a text saying I wanted to "kick her puppy". Stupid predictive text. 19:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The longest word typed entirely with the left hand is "AFTERCATARACTS" - plural for a condition that sometimes follows cataract surgery. For the right hand, it's "JOHNNY-JUMP-UP" (a fast-growing flower or a brand name for a type of toy). "Taft" and "Carter" are the only US presidents whose names can be typed using the left hand, and "Polk" the only one that can be typed using the right. This website has those facts and many, many other interesting snippets about words. It's great, if you're as sad as I am. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 21:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And, of course, "typewriter" is typed using only the top row of letters... 22:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What about amputees? They might type everything with only their left or right hand. 22:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And you should see my friend "Clever" Dick touch type. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 22:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * People, people, why hasn't anyone brought up that 'stewardess' can be typed with just your left hand? Creator of QWERTY obviously had a fetish. Vulpius 01:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Finally watching a full Hovind lecture
(watching while eating and grading undergrad stuff) Up until know I've mostly seen clips, but amazingly the man is even stupider when uncut. I'm 12 minutes in, and he's already completely incoherent. I'm not sure if he personally believes that the serpent from the garden of eden was the devil, but he says that the NWO plan to reduce the population to half a billion is related to a verse in genesis about how the woman's see will "bruise the head" of the serpent, and so the serpent wsnts to kill us all. This leaves two possibilities: 1)  It is the devil, which makes no sense, given that the devil wants to tempt us and take us to hell (not to mention, wouldn't this likely speed up Armageddon, and his final defeat?), or 2)  Kent Hovind literally believes that the NWO is taking orders directly from a talking snake who's 6,000 years old! (or maybe his descendants...who must also talk to give order)--Mustex 21:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah you've never seen one? You are lucky, or at least you were until now. I'm pretty sure I stopped after 10 minutes. 21:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I made it to somewhere between 20 and 30 minutes. I still stand behind my belief that he's a good public speaker who can tell jokes well, and could have been a stand-up comedian, but some of the things are just so insane my head hurts (still need to find that quote from him, though, for making a youtube video on it someday).--Mustex 01:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, Hitler was also a good public speaker. And now I call Godwin's Law on myself and the discussion is over. 02:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And, would you have minded if Hitler became a standup comedian instead of leader of Germany?--Mustex 04:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we all know the answer to that. --Kels 05:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Today's spam
The latest tide washed in a doozy, an email from this humble soul and someone called Dr. Faye, advertising...um...it's actually kinda hard to tell. The top of the message talks about empowerment or something, but the end advertises some sort of podcast or something called "Lord Have Mercy, the Pastor is Gay". She's a one-stop woo shop though, I figured you lot would have fun looking at her site. One question though, since when do evangelicals have Archbishops? --Kels 22:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Would this cartoon be considered relavent?
http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.com/2009/09/this-cartoon-seemed-far-fetched-in-1948.html I so some user's on the web saying that's an eye opener, and others are saying it's typical cold war propaganda. What do you think? Ryantherebel
 * Wow, Hanna and Barbera back when they actually animated stuff instead of wiggling cels of Scooby Doo and Fred Flintstone around on a looped background. Fun designs, and a lot of that old style of work.  I'm sure there was a story or something in there, I wasn't really paying attention. --Kels 05:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, not as bad as alot of Cold War propaganda (I do like capitalism), but maybe a bit over the top.--Mustex 13:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought that was quite good. It laid on the Red Scare shit a bit thick towards the end but it had a decent point - you don't give up freedom for anything, and that includes "security" which most of the Western world is doing right now. It's a shame about some of the more fucked up comments under it who just see "LIBRULS ARE BAD M'KAY!!!!" and completely ignore the more overreaching point, which is relevant regardless whether the "ism" is communism, marxism, capitalism, collectivism or any multitude of things on offer. 14:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Video games violence redux
Last week we were discussing computer game classification laws and I mentioned how Australia had some of the strictest, inconsistent, most nonsensicalness laws imaginable. This week we got a nice example Aliens vs Predator the movie, okay. Aliens vs Predator the computer game, banned. 12:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's really fucked up. There really needs to be something done to get it shoved into the thick heads of legislators that, just like movies, there are games for adults who can tell the difference between fantasy and reality, and they're not for children. Because that's where it all comes from, the early 90s where Sega and Nintendo specifically targeted games towards much younger kids, but that's bollocks - you shouldn't let 12 year olds play the likes of AVP or GTA any more than you let them watch a Saw marathon. 14:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The guy mentioned at the bottom Michael Atkinson is a bit of a fundie, not in a big way, but he does get overly twitchy about certain things. He has unilaterally banned a couple of art house movies from the state that was passed by the federal board and he once reclassified a Will Smith movie M when the rest of the country it was PG, both of which were unprecedented that a state attorney general would go against the decision of the national classification board. However, the way he has been dragging his feet over computer games for years now is just plain pig headedness. 14:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Cooking
The above thread got me thinking about the attitude of both the UK and US public towards making food. Personally I'm with Ace. I dislike the fact that you can through a supermarket and see 400 different kinds of yoghurt, several hundred different ready meals, and yet only 2 types of cabbage. Seriously, have we really become this lazy? When I mention good food to a guy at work he laughs and tells me how proud and awesome he is because he lives off takeaways and ready meals. I have a microwave, and yet I only seem to use it for plate warming and softening butter. 21:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In the US, almost everyone I know gets food from a supermarket or from a fast-food place. Not only are we lazy, we are unhealthy. 21:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, the supermarkets sell (relatively) healthy food as well as junk! 21:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but think about the big picture. We are much, much unhealthier as a result of a higher percentage of our food being processed than in previous years. 21:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As with Crundy - my microwave is for butter and defrosting stuff. Also for experiments (for example a microwave does not kill a cockroach). I enjoy cooking lavish meals. Although when Crundy says "I'm with Ace" I am not sure to what he is with? Aceof Spades 22:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tet, it really depends on what food one buys at the supermarket, not their overall product line. If one buys lots of fatty, salty, overprocessed junk, versus healthier fare.  Education and convenience are major factors, of course - the "easiest" way to slap together "food" is, yes, to nuke some preprocessed crap.  Education leads to better knowledge of what is better to eat, and how to prepare it reasonably easily.  22:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Forgetting the health aspect for a bit, I find it absolutely amazing that the vast majority of people I meet don't have even the most basic of culinary skills. How to chop an onion, how to make a roux (and a bechamal / cheese sauce), peeling garlic, making an omlette, the different types of pastry, making stock, what spices match with what. The absolute basics. Let's not forget that Delia made a "back to basics" series which started with how to boil an egg. Really? Boiling a fucking egg? 22:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I lived with some freakish scousers in London who had a recipe that consisted of -
 * Boil water
 * Add pasta, cook as per packet instructions
 * Drain
 * Add sauce
 * Enjoy
 * And they would refer to it everytime! Aceof Spades 22:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, I know that recipe too! What a coincidence! @Human - well of course it depends upon what we choose to eat, but let's face it: most of us 'Merkins choose processed food because it is cheaper and easier and more available. And as Crudy says, this leads to less culinary skills. 22:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(UI) Alright, let's take Josh's meal above. I was quite impressed because I'd assumed he'd poached a fresh salmon fillet in court bouillon (or at least stock from a cube), made a cream / creme fraiche sauce and mixed into some cooked pasta. But no. Microwave fish and "potted carbonara". If I were a student again then I'd be eating for free by tempting the other flatmates into "chipping in" to a meal I cook each night, the cost of which would be negligable (50p - £1) but would pay for my portion as well as giving me a little beer money. The dish I made above made 2 portions (using cheapo british (no sow-stalls) pork) and worked out at about £1.60 for the lot. double up and charge a quid per portion to people (reasonable to have a decent meal made for you) and you would be eating for the grand total of 20p. It's a fucking no brainer. 22:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I make all my food from scratch. It tastes better that way, and is probably healthier, too.  -- 22:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC) [[image:Apple Pie.jpg|thumb|right|My recipie for pie, for instance]]
 * You can't make an apple pie without first creating the universe. By the way, although I do frequent supermarkets, I do try to make an effort to buy my meat from the local butcher and my veg from the farm shop, because if I don't then I won't have a choice soon. 22:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, that recipe takes longer than recipe:trilobites in Aspic! 22:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I don't care what anyone says, you must have a good knife to be a good cook. You're more likely to injure yourself with a blunt knife than a sharp knife, and if you splash out on even just one decent multi-purpose knife then your life will become much easier. My favorite style is the oriental chef's knife with the American "non-stick" grooves (like this, which I have two of for reasons I won't go into). Beauty and precision come at a cost, but if you look after it you'll never have to buy another knife again. 22:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. I buy a cheap new knife every few years and they do me just fine.  In fact, better, since I don't have to care for it at all.  Too many guests or girlfriends or dishwasher or whoever abusing knives.  A Wal-Mart (or Lotte-Mart or whatever) cheap chef's knife and paring knife are all that's needed.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 22:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well Crundy is certainly right about the injury factor. I have seen people slice themselves with blunt knives many, many times. If you really like to cook then he is right, a sharp knife is a must. 22:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * @Tom: If you actually buy a decent knife then you will only have to sharpen it twice a year on a dual wetstone, even with daily use (as long as you aren't trying to cut through bone, that's what a cleaver is for). How is that more hassle? 23:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not more hassle, it's just much easier and with little loss of efficiency. A cheap knife can be abused and still keep a decent edge for a year or so, and it will cost three or four dollars.  A decent knife will generally cost at least thirty dollars even at the lowest end.  But with a cheap knife, I don't need to be afraid to trash it.  I can scrape, bash, and so on with it to my heart's content.  I can put it through the dishwasher, something you're never supposed to do.  And I can lend it to my girl or a guest when they are cooking without worrying about them using the blade to scrape up the chopped onions or whatnot.  It's just easier.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 23:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do try an expensive knife one time. It's liberating. 23:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not speaking out of ignorance; I have owned expensive knives before. My $45 chef's knife - with beveling and a raised handle so you don't rap your knuckles - died a death brought on by my mother's borrowing it and chopping a dozen onions on ceramic.  Since then, I have gone through probably a half-dozen cheap knives for less than twenty bucks, and seen little decrease in performance.  Even though I cook almost every night, it's just not worth the hassle to me.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 23:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. A decent knife can go through the dishwasher, and most definitely can be used to scrape a chopping board. The only thing you shouldn't do with a decent knife is cut something hard like bone. 23:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree on both counts. It dulls a knife badly to put it through the dishwasher, as the heat and the beating from the particle-and-soap-filled water tend to make the edge off straight, and you should never use the blade to scrape a chopping board (the back of the knife is fine for that, of course).  I do agree that cutting through bone can be bad as well, though.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 23:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My favorite "cookery book" is On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen by Harold McGee. Recently updated I notice (my copy dates from 1984 - first edition? - must check).  00:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and on knives it really gets my goat that my wife thinks that those glass surface protectors are chopping boards. Consequently I have to hide my special sharp knife at the back of a drawer where it's too much bother for her to get it out. As for washing knives, I often put stainless in the diswasher but carbon steel is hand washed and dried immediately. (Don't get me started on my wine glasses either. My wife once demolished half a tray of Wedgewood crystal red wine in one fell swoop, so I won't let her touch my Riedel shiraz glasses except to sup from them). 00:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I chop on whatever I please! Surface protectors, wooden boards, on a cheap platter, or wherever!  And anyone can use my knife!  Need to pry up that brick?  Sure, take it, I can get a new one!
 * But keep your fucking hands off my cast iron.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 00:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Aah, that's better. Just spent a few minutes out in the kitchen with the mandoline and some cauliflower. Not sure why, but that's what was requested. It seems to involve big slabs of tofu under a splatter screen in the big cast iron skillet, and interesting smells. Maybe I oughta trot up the street for a six-pack... Sprocket J Cogswell 01:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cooking: my single most favourite activity.  Really.  It's just so satisfying.  <font color="#00F0A20">DogP <font color="#993300">Marmite Patrol 07:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Even more satisfying if the produce has been cultivated by yourself. Getting fruit and veg fresh from the plot to the pot is really delicious. Sweetcorn cooked within five minutes of picking, warm strawberries and raspberries straight off the plant, herbs freshly chopped. Some of my best days have been spent in my vegetable garden with a bottle of wine for refreshment and the butterflies, birds and bees for company. 22:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)