RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive42

My first reply from a Creationist!
Ok, I think I'm going to do a more detailed video on ring species when I get the time to better explain it, but I decided to leave my original video up, since my primary goal is to bring Ring Species into the debate. I decided my video was too low profile to attract attention on its on, so I've been messaging some prominent creationists requesting responses. So far, NephilimFree has commented on the video as follows: "Ring species do not support evolution. An inability of one species within a kind to breed with another is an evidence of baramins. It supports creation. Speciation does not cause change to morphology - it does not introduce new morphological features or transform extant features into new ones with new biomechanical function. The loss of the ability to breed between varieties within a baramin﻿ (kind) is an example of how variety is a mechanism that moves all life towards extinction. Refuted." (arrogant little prick, isn't he)

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone would like to comment on how I'm doing in my responses (now on my second one as I write this). Also, I'd appreciate ratings (be honest, I'm not asking for five-stars, but I imagine that even without being votebotted this tactic will lead to me getting several one-stars, and I'd like some non-creationists to delude that effect). The video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiTGxTl3dAk&feature=response_watch  --Mustex 00:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Did a video giving him a longer refutation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMuz0xlAHG0  --Mustex 04:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)--Mustex 04:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Rush, your stupid side is showing again.
After trashing Obama and the World Wildlife Fund for 'indoctrinating school children', Rush comes out with this little number to show them how indoctrination is really done. -- CodyH 03:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A pity that Mr. Limbaugh has more issue with the message the children are parroting than with the fact that they are being stuck in front of the camera at all. 03:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm more amazed Limbaugh missed the fact the kids probably are, y'know, paid actors. (Well, their parents get paid, but still...) Those kids aren't personally endorsing anything, no more than my six year old niece, aka Her Worshipfulness, would be making a serious political statement if I taught her to say "Palin/Prejean in 2012" (which would be a good way to annoy her parents, who are liberals like me.) MDB 14:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

2012
To celebrate the release of the movie, I present you all with this. Enjoy! -- 00:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The odd thing about that article was that even though it called out conspiracy theorists on some of their bullshit, it wasn't really a total refutation of 2012 theories, and it did not rebut all of the pseudoscienctific claims that it brought up. All I could think while reading it was "teach the controversy." 00:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait and see, I guess. 00:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's like death: You don't know for sure whether there is life after death or not, but sooner or later you will know. So why worry about it? 00:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Depressingly enough, one of my American friends is into all sorts of nonsense (she tried to give me a tarot reading last time I was over there. I declined, and she said "I'm not surprised you don't want it - typical Aries"). She is convinced the world is going to end in 2012. So convinced, in fact, that she recently insisted on a bet with me. "If I'm right, you owe me $50. If you're right, I owe you $50". I agreed, but obviously don't plan on collecting the bet come 2013. I don't know how she plans on collecting the money if it turns out she's somehow correct. Dreaded Walrus t c 06:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you ought to collect and give the money to a sceptical organisation (or the Red Cross). If she loses money it will perhaps make her thinks a bit. 157.193.206.103 18:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiSnail iPhone/iPod app
WikiSnail is an iPhone app that should allow me to read RW on my iPod. Anyone try it before? Sterile 02:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's just a reader? The browser experience on iPod touch and iPhones is great to me. What more do you want than the full interface including your monobook? 02:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to click on "Recent Changes" etc. Editing is awkward, too, I think.  You certainly can do everything on RW on an iPod normally; it's just the interface isn't the best for the small screen.   Sterile 02:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How does the mobile version of Wikipedia work? I find that much better than the default interface on the iPod. 21:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Which one? There are a ton of them.  Search wiki in the app store.  I can't figure out if there are any that can be customized to a different wiki or if they are "set" to Wikipedia.  Sterile 00:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * ListenerX might be referring to the official WP mobile sites, 1 and 2. There's a list of some iPhone apps here, but they appear to be primarily WP-only. Dreaded Walrus t c 07:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like the first one has a different software to interpret the database, which makes sense. Actually, that would require being at the server end, so it's probably a nonstarter without further investment.  Oh, well.  Not a big deal.  Sterile 14:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That is, uses Hawhaw Sterile 14:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, to show my complete ignorance, could there be a Javascript gadget that would make a more mobile-friendly version of a wikiscreen? My impression is that that is not what Javascript can do. Sterile 15:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

crap!
so i just managed to slice my lip open while shaving and 15 mins later i'm still sitting with a towel pressed against it trying to get the bleeding to stop. not one of my brighter moments. -- Psygremlin  12:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Shame dude, I hate when that happens. I don't think I've managed to cut my actual lip before though... 12:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)I hate to break it to you, but you are going to have to put a band-aid on it and walk around looking stupid for a while. After you do that you can find award names for me. 12:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * $\pi$'s lying, he loves that he's broken that news to you. It's how he gets his kicks, the sick bastard. 12:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I must confess, I do. I like the thought of you sitting there with a band-aid on your mouth, searching Conservapedia for pictures for me. 12:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I did indeed go the band aid route... and then had to go shopping. *sigh* Lemme know what pics you're looking for and I'll have a scrounge for you. -- Psygremlin  15:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am running out of ideas for the CP day awards. I am looking for head shots, preferably pd. so we can upload them here. I would actually like more than one option per award so the mob can choose, but at the moment I'll settle at having an award for each category.  23:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be the "Psygremlin Self Facial Mutilation Award for [Insert Award Name Here]." 23:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do they have pictures of Psygremlin on CP? 23:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Easy fix: Stop shaving your tongue.-- 23:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What and just let it get all furry? You are weird. 00:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I the only person who keeps a styptic pencil in their bathroom cabinet? 09:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not when I find out where you can buy them. 09:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When I started shaving they didn't have all these fancy multibladed gizmos and the occasional nick was par for the course. Any old-fashioned shaving kit would have included one. It's much harder to cut yourself nowadays (unless you move the blade sideways) so there isn't as much call for them but any large chemist/drug store should still stock them. I must admit that it's not the sort of thing that you're continually replacing so it it was probably about ten years ago that I got mine. Also with all the present concern over cross-infection via blood products they may not be as popular as they were. 16:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I Got Mine.
So Ray Comfort's people were on campus today. got my copy of the new edition of OofS. Sadly, the clone that was there was not at all interested in discussing the project. Still, lookin' forward to reading it. TheoryOfPractice 18:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have seen enough of this heresy online to never need a copy myself. AceMcWicked 19:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ToP: Sounds like you just volunteered yourself to write a commentary :) 19:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A commentary on a commentary? Have we learned nothing from the recursive black whole that is rationalwikiwikiwiki? tmtoulouse 21:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Or can you just scan it so we can all have fun tearing it apart? 21:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not so much a commentary than an introduction that only really consists a rehash of Ray's tired, old Hitlerum and a part-plagerised biography. So, put that way, we hardly even need to bother reviewing it... but for the sake of completeness it's possibly worth examining one or two points in detail for the Origin 2009 article. 21:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The most satisfying things I did with the previous books Ray's people sent me for free this summer was to take one nice picture of them on my desk before chucking them into the garbage. 22:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I heard there were some pro-science people trying to organize to hand out flyers or something telling people that Comfort's introduction is nonsense. Did you notice such people around, or did that effort fizzle? OneForLogic 03:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The only thing I've heard about people protesting it, or "ripping out the introduction" (along with the obligatory "shrill/angry atheist" comment) is from Comfort's or the general creationist 's camp. So I reckon protests, if any, are either A) wildly exaggerated or B) totally made up for purposes of denigration and publicity. 09:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I was being serious. Ray Comfort's people were on my campus yesterday, too. I'm on a mailing list of science students who have been organizing to make posters and flyers and gather people to hang out in the vicinity of any book distributors they find. My understanding was that this was going on at most of the universities Comfort's people planned to hit, and I was curious to know if that effort ended up being at all visible or effective. OneForLogic 14:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Saw nothing on my campus. Go Blue! TheoryOfPractice 14:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I got a little prize in the mail today from Creation Science Evangelism. I love this stuff... is Eric Hovind Kenny boy's brother? They also namecheck Banana Comfort with some blurb about the "Origins of Species". Didn't know the title was plural... and the announcement of a new website joining the "CSE fleet", VisitCreation.com! 22:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, cretist math: "Creation Science Evangelism began in 1989 from a desire to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ through the science of God's creation." vs. "With over three decades of research in the sciences, Creation Science Evangelism has become a trusted source for information pertaining to the creation vs. evolution controversy." 22:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahhhh, summer in Australia
The sky is orange at the moment. That is all. 04:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Its not orange in Melbourne but we just had our hottest November night on record, 28.1C (82.5F), and its going to be the hottest November ever. Which is no good cause my rat bastard landlord is dragging his feet installing the air-con. Rad McCool 04:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was about to bitch too, but Rad beat me too it. Where the hell do you get nice orange skies? It is white where I am, as in white hot. 04:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression RedBack was in South Australia but don't know where that came from. Its 43C (109.4F) there at the moment. Poor buggers have been hovering around there for over a week.Rad McCool 04:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm on the NSW/Vic border. The wind is coming from the north, bringing all that lovely red dust with it. 05:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's moments like these I'm glad I live on the tropical coast. Might be warm & humid most of the time, but rarely as hot as you guys are experiencing just now. Also amazed at the difference in Adelaide's temp today (43) & the forecast for tomorrow (29).RagTop Gone sailing 07:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Change of wind direction. If the wind comes down from the north it blows across the desert and is freaking hot, if it comes in from the west it is a sea breeze and is pleasant, from the south it is Antarctic wind and is freezing. 09:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Ahhhh, summer in NZ
It'll be nice and balmy for a week then inexplicably it'll rain and be cold for a couple of days. Suddenly it'll June and I'll have a groaning bank balance, wondering what the fuck happened. AceMcWicked 06:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WTT one warm day for one nice, moderate day. PST. Argh! Too much WoW in my veins! 06:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am blocking you for egregious use of Warcraft links. Fucking geek etc. AceMcWicked 07:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ace, around here "geek" is a compliment. 21:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not to sure about that. Also I was using the term in a derogatory fashion. AceMcWicked 21:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well of course you were using it in a derogatory fashion, but some people - myself included - aren't very insulted by the label "geek." 21:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hell, if you're gonna spam a WoW link, then spam this one. --Kels 21:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Those things are starting to shit me off, every time I go to check my mail/bank/AH I end up with a mohawk. 23:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, it's like the pumpkin heads, limited time only. Mind you, I've been in Desolace lately, and NOBODY wants to stay there. It's boring. --Kels 05:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Andy at Rutgers
(I've moved the recap to Essay:Andy at Rutgers - November 2009 per the very reasonable suggestion below, and comments are welcome on the Talk page there.)


 * Hey Spiny give the length of this do you want to prematurely break it off as a debate or a discussable essay or something? 07:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I'm fried, though, and will do it in the AM, unless you want to relocat it now for me and leave a link to it here.  'Nite.  --SpinyNorman 07:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Great read! Thanks, 08:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fascinating stuff. I suppose it shouldn't be a surprise that he's as nutty in RL as on CP, but it's still a bit weird seeing his opinions coming out like that. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 09:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, fascinating reading and well reported I have to say. If only you were wearing an RW t-shirt at the time... 10:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Any biologists here?
Hey, I don't want to post links to all my videos here in the Saloon because I know I'd seem like I'm a complete attention whore, but is there anyone here who can, and would be willing to, give me feedback on them, to make sure I don't make any blatant factual errors??--Mustex 14:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Why I debate
One question that a deeply religious person asked me today struck a chord. He asked me why, in my agnosticism, did I care so much about debating him on the Bible [though he, to be fair, told me that the Bible is the truth, starting the debate] instead of having conviction for my belief. I told him i'd get back with him, and I went home, and thought about it for a while.

I think that it irks me, not just above but the entire belief system I disagree with, because I was once like that. I used to believe in fanciful things as a child, and at times I still do, though before it was magic and Gods, now it's FTL drives and colonizing other worlds. But as I grew, as I moved between belief and belief, I discovered that the knowledge that we have progressed far enough to have the understanding of nature we have now, and knowing that we are nowhere close but on our way to discovering so much more, is more comforting than any story. And, until God is proven or disproven, that is all we know the Bible has to be. Stories.

That is why I am driven to correct people who say Sarah Palin would be a good choice for President. It is why I am unafraid to tell people that the Bible is outdated, and isn't doing their God justice by making him look like a petulant wizard. And it is why, with everything I can muster, I will point out when commentators, left or right, are bats**t insane.

And I feel, excuse the word, blessed that I am with the unit I am with. I've been called out on several occasions for being wrong, and it's made me better for the trouble.

Though I would like to pose the question here, just for an exercise: why do we continue to debate things like religion and obsolete views? I think the responses will be interesting. -- CodyH 03:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because >gasp!< religion is not actually obsolete? 03:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * agnostic ≠ "don't care about religion" anyway --  = w =  03:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean those two together. Creationism [or ID] is an obsolete idea, anti-vaccine paranoia [in it's current incarnation] is an obsolete idea. Holistic Medicine, on a whole, is an obsolete idea. Religion in my mind isn't obsolete, thought it may need an update. -- CodyH 03:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I basically agree then. I don't know why we spend time interacting with closeminded people. I guess because its quite fun most of the time? --  = w =  03:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How are you going to update the Judaism, Christianity or Islam? Except if there's a coming of a Messiah, it's hard to imagine how to update religion that is based in a text. Sterile 03:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a start. Stop worshipping texts. --  = w =  03:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) The liberal strands of Christianity, the ones that do not practice bibliolatry, have done a fairly good job of it. 03:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When a messiah appears, the religion generally splits into two faction: those that believe that he is a messiah, and those that don't. Since the second faction is larger in the beginning, the first usually says something to the effect of "well fuck all you guys", and splits off, leaving the others to go upon their merry way.  -- 03:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would argue that most "formal" religions (Shinto, animistic ones aside) are based in a text, even the liberal versions. You can update the morality, but how so ideas on origins and miracles?  Sterile 04:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) Judaism was once updated by the appearance of prophets (and, as the Dead Sea Scrolls have shown, the texts were not altogether static). Christianity and Islam both scrapped the role of prophet.
 * Sterile, gap creationism and day-age creationism were early attempts at this. A more current version is theistic evolution. 04:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that. But what is theistic evolution good for?  That is, how could anyone tell the difference between theistic evolution and non-theistic evolution?  I would think, for example, a pattern of mutations detected that couldn't be by chance, could be explained by something other than "regular" evolution.  (Although, how one links that to a designer is still not clear.)  But it's never been observed, and it's not even clear in which type of organism or under what conditions it could occur.  I guess the question is, do you update the scriptures to reflect modern science, or do you accept that they are perhaps non-literal stories with a decent message?   Sterile 17:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand the distinction between theistic and non-theistic evolution. To reference the thread below, it is a "why" distinction, not a "how" distinction, and the theistic vs. non-theistic interpretations are strictly a philosophical matter. Also, most proponents of theistic evolution do think that Genesis is a "non-literal story." 17:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Though I would love to continue the discussion on 'updating the bible' I fear we're getting off topic. Back to point: why do we 'debate' [for lack of a better word] what we don't believe in or know is false? -- CodyH 04:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If I think I have a hope of convincing someone to my point of view, I debate for that reason. If not, I still debate in the capacity of gadfly, to keep the opposite side from getting complacent and seeing my point of view as beyond the pale. 04:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, my atheism is irrelevant to my life. It demands no acts or thoughts.  It only comes up when discussing religion or, worse yet, religion that attempts to supplant actual knowledge.  So I'm not an atheist thumper unless provoked by people who believe - or claim to know - things that seem on the face of it absurd.  04:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PS, I also do think "religion is ... obsolete". We no longer need gods to explain thunder, or birth, or tides (ad infinitum).  What does religion give people today other than a reason to think they are right when they are wrong, a reason to go to war over whose god is bigger, and a sense that they are somehow "better" than those of other religions? Religion is heading towards the "ashcan of history", it's just going to take a long time because it is built on incredibly strong memes, and because so many people still feel a need to believe in something magical because day to day life sucks so badly.  Or because they feel a need to be "holier than thou".  04:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What science addresses is the how of thunder, births, and tides; the why, however, is not its province.
 * Also, you are putting altogether too much emphasis on the universalist, "our way or the highway" sort of religion. 04:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no "why" of thunder. It is a physical phenomenon.  I find religion's answers to "why" to be unambiguously stupid, so if I care I make up my own.  As far as the "our way or the highway" religious, yeah, because they are the only ones who cause me to have to address what I don't believe, usually.  People who keep their superstitions to themselves don't bother me at all.  And the ones who can make them funny and amusing and even philosophically/ethically useful are the best. As an old SCA/pagan/tarot reading/astrologer once said, "you aren't a believer, so I won't bother to run your chart."  05:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "There is no 'why' of thunder." Says you; someone who has just had his house destroyed by a lightning bolt might be slightly more curious. But at any rate, even the strong rationalist has his answer to that question: "Such are the laws of physics." 05:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking for meaning in random events is a human trait. It most certainly does not imply that random events actually have meaning.  But as Listener implies, this attempt to imagine that random events have a personal cause or meaning is probably behind a lot of religious thought.--BobNot Jim 06:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if there is a "why" question that needs to be answered, ListenerX, it's difficult to see how religion has any way way to answer general why questions. Sure it can answer questions such as "Why is the pope wearing a funny hat?", but anything outside of it's doctrine or beliefs is really just guesswork. The supernatural, superstitious, and doctrinal elements of religion actually make it harder to answer "why" questions. Christianity could blame thunder on God being angry, or a random act in a world that was corrupted by the fall of man. Norse mythology may claim that it's Thor riding his chariot around in the sky. Religion is great at finding whys that don't actually exist, so it's hardly providing why answers. I've very little time for the notion that religion somehow provides a special way of knowing things. I could sit here with a six-pack of beer and some friends and come up with answers that are just as valid (good and bad ones).-- 15:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of these "why" events are really failures of most people failing to grasp statistics. One-in-a-million events probably happen 60 times a day in the UK but many people attribute them to luck, punishment/reward from god or some special ability. The only real why question is "what is the purpose of our existence here" and any answers to that are just pure guesswork. But I suppose some people do feel comforted or reassured by a made-up explanation. 15:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Religion is great at finding whys that don't actually exist, so it's hardly providing why answers." One can only say this if one repeats the questions and ignores the given answers.
 * "Most of these "why" events are really failures of most people failing to grasp statistics..." Statistics do not explain why a particular event should have happened to a particular person, only that such-and-such a number of events will happen.
 * "Norse mythology may claim that it's Thor riding his chariot around in the sky." That is a myth, not a "why" question. 17:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * LX, it's an "answer" to a "why question" provided by the religion of the ancient Norse. Next question: how are we to distinguish between "myth" and "religion"?  19:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is instead an answer to a "how" question, the literal interpretation of which is now falsified: "How does thunder roar?" 20:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also the answer to "why is there thunder?". I'll await your answer to my question.  22:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As it does not explain per se why Thor should be riding his chariot around the sky, it only adds a layer of indirection to the question.
 * As to the distinction between mythology and religion, the myths are a set of stories and the religion is belief that, at some level, they are true. 16:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, so religion is caused by the human desire to imagine that there is meaning to random events.  I'll accept that.  It says nothing about whether random events actually have meaning. And there is no evidence that they do.  But it's a good explanation for religion's popularity.--BobNot Jim 19:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no reason why a particular statistical event happens to any particular person, shit happens. But people don't like that, they think that shit should happen to other people or that the good stuff should only come to them so they try and ask for divine intervention. Religion based on personal interaction with a "god" can be a very self-centered and even selfish way of looking at the world. 21:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note how you are presupposing that anything except utter selflessness is unconscionable; also that people who pray that "bad stuff" does not happen to them are praying for the "bad stuff" to be palmed off to other people. 16:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(<=) The reason I debate with people about religion is because they insist on trying to get their bloody religion into my life. There are obvious examples like abortion and gay marriage, but in the UK we even have bishops of the church as de facto members of our law-making bodies. If people want to believe that the world was created 6,000 years ago and that we are all descended from one family that escaped a flood, that's fine. But their devotion to that meme shouldn't give them authority to decide my laws. Even worse than that is that some of these idiots demand their idiocy be taught to children as fact in science classes. No. Fuck off. Keep your superstitious bullshit to yourselves.

Given the huge head start these people have, it is necessary to point out the contradictions and lies in their initial set of beliefs to undermine their hereditary credibility. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 21:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if I were a creationist, I would still object to creationism being taught as science. 21:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you really were a creationist I suspect you wouldn't. But it's a pretty hypothetical point.--BobNot Jim 21:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * By "creationist" I meant "person who believes that the world was created in six days 6,000 years ago." It is possible to believe that and still prefer that such things be taught in Sunday-school instead of science classrooms. 23:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In all fairness to the bishops in the House of Lords, although they may seek to impose some of their god-bothering views on the rest of us, I doubt if the teaching of a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis is a widely held viewpoint. (I still giggle whenever I see the phrase "Book of Genesis" after a Graham Garden/Tim Brooke-Taylor sketch back in the 70s about a monk spending his entire life illuminating a single page of the Bible - The Book of Benesis) 21:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The Lords Spiritual do not even vote, do they? 23:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Semantic point: Probability predicts that such-and-such number of events will happen. Statistics records that they did happen. I also agree with Bob: Why must there be a why? If there is one event (my getting hit by lightening) we can't determine if the occurrence is by chance: you would need repeat trials. You can't compare one occurrence to a predicted distribution. But I bet if you mapped out people being hit by lightening, you could make a model it with patterns of weather and population density and that the statistics of multiple, repeat trials could match that model. You could make a model of weather based on temperature, pressure, water currents, etc., and population density based on the dynamics of city growth, agriculture, economic distribution. At some level, there will be "randomness" involved, although that is different than saying these aren't predictable. (The molecules that go from high to low pressure do so predictably, but are still moving "randomly.") There is no a priori reason to include a supernatural being into the model and there is no way directly or indirectly detect its presence. (That's not to say I know 100% that a supernatural being does exist; but it is useless to me to invoke one.) Evolution is much the same: The randomness of mutations is explainable through regular biochemical processes (the chemistry of which is the same as non-living chemistry); that's not to say that evolution is "random": Given a certain survivability rate, a mutation will become fixed. So where does God fit in all that? Mostly, you can't tell whether or not God exists in my opinion. Sterile 02:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I take your point on the semantics although in real-life it only applies to mathematically constrained systems like coin-tossing or dice rolling. The probability of being killed by a bolt of lightning is actually derived from the statistics so it becomes a bit circular. 08:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that there does not have to be a "why" for everything, and that there is no way to tell (scientifically, at least) whether or not Gods exist. Also, I am not claiming that religion provides the only answers to the "why" questions. 16:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

hehehehehehehehe
I know the guy is ill but this tickled me. Hehehhe. AceMcWicked 07:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "That being said, rational wiki is slightly less stupid than conservapedia." Heh heh. Considering RW doesn't set its bar too high, I'll take that as an exceptional compliment! 09:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good to see Jinx is still true to form. "Gosh, pigboy, you're an even bigger shit-for-brains than I thought." when Wilbur calls Jinxy out. And how about that signature: "I was... ordered to drop my pants, bend over and spread my cheeks." How about putting that on your CP userpage Jinxy? -- Psygremlin  09:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not so much still true to form as the posts are a little old, isn't this what crops up quite high on google for "rationalwiki"? 10:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What's funniest about that is it isn't us!! The CH thing he quotes is the archive I made of the New Hampshire Gazette's chickenhawk articles.  I guess he forgot to read the notice at the top of the page.  19:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is why Jinx is my favorite CPer to read. Bigoted, foul mouthed, impervious to criticism and totally shit for brains yet somehow believes it is everyone else around him that is wrong. AceMcWicked 19:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That was hilarious. I was laughing as soon as I read the title of the post, which called RW "Rational"Wiki (with quotes around the rational). 20:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is also interesting in that several users on that site appear to side with us as far as is concerned..  16:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Tourism
I was just watching a travel programmme - not a very good one, but it covered some places I had been last year. Anyway, the presenter visited Medjugorje (Bosnia Herzegovnia), where, in 1981, half a dozen teengers had visions of the Virgin Mary. Now it is major tourism. The day the presenter visited, one of the (now much older) visionaries was expected (?) to have a vision, and so thousands of tourists (pilgrims) were there, clutching amazing photos of the VM. In due course there were cries and screams from within the house and then the visionary appeared amongst some minders with some words of wisdom. Tears and emotion all round.

My question is - is there a name for this sort of tourism? We have ecotourism, gay tourism, health tourism etc. See here for more. Is this christo-tourism, religo-tourism, god-tourism? Any ideas?RagTop Gone sailing 11:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Pilgrimage? 11:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mmm, but no overtones of the mighty tourism dollar there.RagTop Gone sailing 11:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL-- 11:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a shame that "pilgrim" and "tourist" don't portmanteau together well. Tourgrimage? 11:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Pilgrist" could work?RagTop Gone sailing 11:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The gullibility of some people never ceases to amaze me. I need to have me some visions...  19:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Pilgrimage has always been a tourist trap. Arguably it was the original form of tourism.  In medieval Europe, for example, pilgrimage was pretty much the only thing (aside from warfare) that would take ordinary people out of their immediate locality & (sometimes) into foreign lands.  Churches and monasteries that had holy relics or were the birthplace of a notable saint or the site of an alleged miracle became enormously wealthy, as did the communities around them.   21:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And you should add "those along the way" as the pilgrimage routes such as those to Canterbury or Compostella were often well defined. Ultimately we are all gullible to some degree as we can't spend all our time questioning the validity of everything we come across. The trick is knowing what can be accepted as true because it could be independently verified if you could be bothered to follow it up. 21:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I grew up near the Clearwater Virgin, and when people started flying in to see it the papers called it just plain "religious tourism," although the local Catholic weekly called them pilgrimages.--Tom Moore fiat justitia 02:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would argue that a trip to Graceland borders on a pilgrimage in America, for at least a segment of the populace.
 * Oh, and as a complete aside, since someone referenced Roadside America, I grew up near theAirplane Filling Station. MDB 16:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

My semi-interesting day
You are highly unlikely to care about this post. I have had one of a weird day. First, I quoted Phyllis Schlafly to win a policy debate (I am on my school's debate team). Then I found out my results and found that though I had amassed far more points than anyone else, by some statistically unlikely series of events I had only won 50% of my debates. Later on in the day I got into an argument with a acquaintance of mine who happens to be a creationist. His argument (which I am still laughing at) is that I have "faith in science" just as he has faith in God. (Obviously I was able to refute that.) After than I had a nice discussion with an existentialist, who seems to think that it is ok to kill babies because their brains have not yet developed to the point where they can consciously decide that they want to live (provided they are killed painlessly, of course). (Strangely, I am still not sure how to refute that.) So yeah, it was pretty surreal. 23:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If the existentialist piqued your curiosity, read Peter Singer's Practical Ethics.--Tom Moore fiat justitia 02:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, is there supposed to be a connection between existentialism and believing it's okay to kill babies? Or was 'existentialist' just a filler description unrelated to his odd ethical argument? - Clepper
 * My wife pushed me into the milk freezer at Costco, then photographed me with her Blackberry and posted it on Facebook by the time I climbed out. That's pretty much an average day on this end. --SpinyNorman 04:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rocking out on my bass and annoying my roomate are how I spend an average day. Getting completely hammered is a typical evening for me, also.  05:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah that existentialist one is interesting... I'm not entirely sure if existentialism would say that's okay, in fact I'm sure it would say the opposite. But still, you can fault some reasonings; if it's okay to kill "dumb" animals for meat, say, then it's fine to kill children under the age of 10 months because most tests show that they're not sentient and have minds on par with monkeys. But as it's possible to take any premises and justify pretty much anything I'd call bullshit on the whole thing and just roll with instinct.  10:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, although I try not to roll with instinct if possible. 19:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Mac emulators
Anyone know any good ones? I run Vista, in case you needed to know. -- 02:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The real question is why would you? 03:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if the Windows equivalent of VMWare Fusion can do the same on Windows, but I run OS X Server in Fusion. Haven't tried it under particularly heavy loads though. -- 03:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to divide by zero again? Stile4aly 05:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait...what? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

HCM
Human and Nx seem to be getting in a pissing contest, ending, as these thing inevitably do, with leaving and never coming back, and hurt feeling all round. I've given Nx back his rights, and the blocked them both for a day so they cool down. While you two are perfectly capable of unblocking yourselves and the decratting me for abuse of powers, I would strongly recommend that you two both take a little break for a day or so and stop freaking out of this. -- 05:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I second this. Put your Rational minds back on.  05:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was pretty amazed. Nx spends hours pimping the site. The old man fears teh change and shakes his fist. Nx caters to Huw, which is just more change to fear. Moar fist shaking. Wow. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just looked at it. Human can really be a git. 19:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's particularly disputed. 19:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And then there's the fact that he thinks that if he doesn't like the change it was made against the will of the whole community. 19:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see RA's point more clearly now. 19:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Conservapedia Day
is tomorrow, being Conservapedia's third birthday. Damn, I feel old.

So how should we celebrate it? Brian Ugler recommends:


 * an improvement competition, to start on November 21
 * a poetry competition, subject Conservapedia
 * announcement of the first Conservapedia Awards?
 * have a virtual party
 * mention the top three contributors to News related wanted pages on the Main Page.
 * mention the top three contributors to News suggestions on the Main Page.
 * Announce new sysop(s).
 * a keynote article on the achievements of Conservapedia over its first two years.
 * A statistical analysis of the first and the second years' growth, accomplishments, and major contributors.
 * The top-scoring American History class student could be named and profiled on the Main Page
 * an essay competition, open to the homeschool classes, on a topic to be suggested here. The winning entry to be 'front-paged'.

Thoughts?

--  ䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡   ䷶䷀䷵䷥
 * We're already giving out awards. 16:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When are we giving them out? 16:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is if I tell you, they will lock editing or something. 23:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We should invite the class of '08 back (Bugler, RodW, et al) back to reminisce about the good old days. -- Psygremlin  17:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They're both already here, although I haven't seen fretful porpentine in a while. 19:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A poetry competition! Definitely!  Although it might be hard to rhyme many things with Schlalfalfly  19:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wandered lonely as a cloud
 * Screaming "I hate Lenski (and Dawkins)" really loud
 * CP is mine, I'm Andy Sclafly
 * And rhyming is a Liberal trait anyway.
 * Thank you, I'm here all week. -- Psygremlin  19:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How 'bout some Conservapedia Haiku? I'll see if I can come up with an entry later. --SpinyNorman 20:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rough winds shake the bough Cherry blossoms tumble forth Like lies from TK –SuspectedReplicantretire me 20:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The shining stream flows Its mirror-like surface bruised By Andy's bullshit –SuspectedReplicantretire me 20:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Liberal deceit Abortion brings breast cancer Five-year banhammer TheoryOfPractice 20:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The rainfall is gentle In the distance we can see Another Ed Poor stub -- Psygremlin  20:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just made Fun:2009 CP poetry contest for this; I'll copy yours over. 20:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

TGIF
What a shitty week. I haven't been happiest that it is now the weekend in a long time. Ex-girlfriends, useless fucking cash machines that decline your bank cards (I now have literally NO CASH on my person and I am relying on the £2 I have in my pockets to get me the bus home tonight), and important morning lectures which I overslept, meaning I lost a percentage of my course module.

Thank God for weekends. 16:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We're having our 4th (yes 4th!) day of non-stop rain (so much for the usual 1 hour thunderstorm). 120mm so far and it's only 16C and I had free tickets for the cricket tonight. *grump* I need a drink... and some dodgy viewing material... and maybe a chat with my local neighbourhood Nigerian. -- Psygremlin  17:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, apparently the next few days are going to be pretty wet. And I have to walk across a f**king field everyday (A magnetic and a grassy one, I'll let people figure out what one gets worse in the rain). Anyway, drinking is always good. 19:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

When will the injustice stop?
Once again, People Magazine has failed to name me "Sexiest Man Alive".

Truly, There Ain't No Justice. MDB 16:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not while I'm alive, there isn't :) -- Psygremlin  17:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They gave me the Lifetime Achievement award a few years back. It was the only way to give everybody else a chance. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 17:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's it. They keep passing me over because they don't want to discourage the rest of the less sexy men; they don't want them saying "how can I ever compete with MDB?" MDB 18:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

S
I stole a capital S from wikipedia. I was hoping for a comma, but this was all I could find. Use it well. In absentia 04:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly this joke goes way above my head. 04:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hardly absent, Mr Powell? In arcadia (ego) 04:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess we;re supposed say thank *ou? Well I;ve got plent* of esses. What I reall need is some w*es. Oh and some ;postrophes. 08:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

H1N1 Vaccine
Who here has gotten one and who hasn't? I just got mine today. 18:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I got mine Tuesday. 19:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No. I wasn't even aware they'd rolled it out for non-priority groups yet. 19:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They're Americans, remember. 19:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have never gotten a flu vaccine and am not going to start now. Flu vaccines are for people who are scared of germs and death. 19:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Last time I had a flu vaccine I caught pneumonia. Whether the two go hand in hand, I don't know, but it turned me off of flu vaccinations altogether.   20:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I got pneumonia when I gave up smoking. I've only had one 'flu vaccine and had a mild reaction causing me 'flu-like symptoms for about 24 hours. Fine after that though. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 20:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was fortunate enough to get jabbed as soon as they started vaccinations due to other health concerns. Seems my immune system is too busy killing off other parts of my body to really protect me against much else. How's that for intelligent design? 22:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I got mine at the beginning of this week, as part of our pre-deployment cycle. I joked with one of the medics about how I was being injected with a virus known for it's remarkably quick evolution. They smiled, jabbed me and sent me on my way. At least it wasn't the Anthrax shot, which makes your arm feel like it was on the wrong end of a golf club. -- CodyH 22:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already had the seasonal flu jab and I get my H1N1 next week. As my wife's had a stem cell transplant her immune system is not up to scratch and they don't want to take any chances. 00:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I might also add that the needles are so thin nowadays that you hardly know that you've been penetrated. When I was a kid the needles could have been used for sewing leather. Before the risks of blood contamination were known they would use the same needle for everyone. As the needles were pretty thick my I remember my father telling me that when he joined the army during the war most people didn't like having a jab because it bloody hurt. However, he always reckoned that it was best to go first while the needle was still sharp. 00:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Smallpox was fun. Didn't hurt much, but a zillion needles in a circle?  24.62.251.210 03:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that was TB. With smallpox you had a cut with knife. 08:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, a gin and tonic is what you need.  Booze has great preventative powers against H1N1.   Two G&T's can protect against AIDS.   And three can cure cancer.   I should be indestructible at this point.   DogP Marmite Patrol 03:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh. I'm old enough to be immune from the last time swine flu came around, and been out of the tropics long enough not to need G&T's any more. Immunizing kids on our way to Viet Nam was done with military-grade intramuscular Super Soakers to the deltoid-- usually two different doses, one each left and right. No needle, no need to even wipe them off between victims. Next! Sprocket J Cogswell 03:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ugh, do I have a story to tell from tonight. I went over to my girlfriends room to be with her and hang out with some friends. I mention that I recieved the vaccine today, and immeditially, the reaction across the room is "Why did you do that?!" I explain that the virus is infecting my age group in particular (18-24) and that the vaccine was available, so I decided to get it. Immeditially, I am some sort of biohazard, my girlfriend refuses to kiss me out of fear of catching the flu, and another friend is saying that she has faith Jesus will prevent her from getting ill, and that she doesn't need a vaccine because of that. I mention Christian Science, about how their prayers don't seem to do anything, and there is no rational scientific basis to assume prayer is effective. I tell her about the kids who died from laughably easily treated diseases, and she states that bringing the kids to the hospital would have been pointless, as it was "their time to go." What the f*$&. I call her god out as cruel and malicious, smiting kids just for the heck of it, and asks why she follows such an insane entity. She tells me not to pretend to understand the "will of god"


 * It gets better, she then says that vacccines are deliberatly designed to make you sick, and she thought I was crazy to have a virus sprayed into my nose, to which I respond that it is not contagious, and that the virus is a weakened version designed to give you an immunity (something I kept trying to explain over and over again). We argue and banter, then I bring out sources to show how harmless the vaccine is, and show that negative reactions are in the laughable minority. She says "we are all entitled to our own opinions, I know that vaccines are bad, and only infect people". I say back, "Yes, vaccines sure are bad. They have almost eradicated polio and mumps in the developed nations, have taken smallpox down completly, and have saved countless lives. We are entitled to our own opinions. However, we are not entitled to our own facts." Note: these were the sites I used A 80 million doses, 30 deaths by reaction.0 B


 * Now my friend is mad at me. No, I don't care about my speeling arrors. 04:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent)"We are entitled to our own opinions. However, we are not entitled to our own facts." Love it! I've seen plenty of people go on about it via Arsebook, particularly some American friends who keep sending me libertarian blog posts that scream "they're taking our freedoms with vaccines!!!11", to which I respond by sending them Cochrane Collaboration reports and papers pulled from the PubMed listings. I love being right. 10:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've said it many times, but I'll say it again - that's what's great about being British, as there is essentially no wingunt religious types over here. Although my housemate has a friend who's in Germany for a gap year, and apparently since she's been there she's dedicated her life to God or something like that - I mean full-on, "I'd jump off a bridge if Jesus said to do it" kinda thing. As her parents are here in jolly old England, they can't do much about it. 11:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is something about the UK that kind of keeps the crazies in check, there are probably dozens of theories as to why - I like to think the national consciousness just says "oh have off it, stop making a prat of yourself" to street preachers and evangelists. Although I'm not sure how long that will last as we're seeing it creep in. There's already been a couple of minor shit-storms over creationism and I'm starting to see an increase in flyers and posters advertising talks that say things like "How Christianity is Relevant to the Modern World" or "Moving Religion Beyond Faith" around campus. Although to balance this, the University's Christian Union has calmed down recently (apparently their evangelism is dependent on who their UCCF rep is, and that could change). 11:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's the "Are you embarrassed easily?" aspect of most Brits. If we see someone reading a bible out loud on a street corner, we walk past with our eyes averted. In America people would stop, listen, and cheer them on. I'm guessing a bit on that last part. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 12:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just think in a lot of respects the US if far more conservative than the UK. Quite possibly with the fall of the British Empire, lessons learned and such, Britain became more progressive and religion was, in turn, shoved into the background. Also @ Armondikov, I didn't know you were a student? 12:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought it was relatively well known that I was a professional boffin? 12:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I got the swine shot for me and my family because I am afraid of disease and death.-- [[Image:Asclepius staff.png|8px]]-PalMD -- 14:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My wife and I got jabbed middle of the week. She's a priority group (nurse) and I've got a risk factor. The weird thing is that so many people here in Spain - including some of those in the medical profession - are confused about the vaccine and whether it's a good idea or not.--BobNot Jim 15:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a public health failure in many countries (esp USA), a propaganda success in the antivax mov't, and some damned poor medicine from docs in the US and EU. -- [[Image:Asclepius staff.png|8px]]-PalMD -- 16:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

<<-- The fewer religious wingnuts in the UK seems to derive from two things. In the first place, all the old ones we had jumped ship and moved to America thus leaving us alone. Secondly the US is pretty much a free market in religion so there is vigorous competition to see who is the nuttiest. In England we have the good old state-sponsored Church of England which really started out as a protest vote agains the pope and pretty much stifles most new religious movements by actually not being very demanding. It wasn't so much an evangelical thing but more "we're not going to be told what to do by some guy in Italy". Despite the popular image of Britons being very conservative and not wishing to make a fuss we are actually quite anarchic and love to undermine those who think they know it all. There is even something of a British tradition of mocking the clergy. I remember some comments on the IMDB about Wallace & Gromit's Curse of the Were-Rabbit from Americans who were disgusted that the vicar character was not treated more respectfully and that they wouldn't be taking their children to see it. 19:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Somebody's reading us
was receiving error messages just now about the server load being too high (according to Trent's blog it was over 20). Even now, it says server load = 6.6 (very high). Somebody appears to have latched onto us. -- Psygremlin  21:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps its a result of the Dembski copyright thing? 03:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * More likely some innocent sysop edited a high-use template? In absentia 03:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know Nx and some other people are working on revising templates, and we did just change the logo. 03:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Job queue is empty, been about 10,000 pages view, appears to be normal. I have seen it as high as 30 before. When you edit a high use template it makes one change ever 10 pageviews, so it should not cause a server spike like that. The automated back up or the server update usually choke the server a bit. `

It wasn't the Dembski thing: the article garnered some 2000 views in total - not bad for such a dry mathematical subject... 08:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It probably was the backup, although I think the tech blog should update to mention when its running, it's not totally reliable. Although I have just checked Alexa and we're on the up again (although this is usually very fluxional), the three-month average is still down thanks to the summer holidays and the massive spike in mid-July. 10:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry larron, I did not mean to insult your paper, which is way, way over my head. 18:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * none taken :-) I actually liked the description of the whole as a Dembski thing 22:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And I think it is going to stay a lowly "thing," since I haven't heard anything more about it in a few days, which probably means that he's given up. Which means that we (or, more specifically, you) have won the battle. 22:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The Joys of Life
So I haven't been feeling well for this past week, this morning I woke and found that my minor nuisance has become a full blown throat infection. This makes number 8 or 9 in the past three years, and I am ready to scream (not literally, my throat is killing me). I asked about the possibility of a tonsilectomy, but they were not very receptive to the idea, saying that there is no guarantee it would help. I now understand the appeal of those bogus woo-inspired "cures." At this point, if someone came along and told me that my throat infections would go away by putting this mini glue traps on my feet when I sleep, I might have to seriously consider it. 03:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ur funny. In absentia 03:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But he has a good point. People will always try to look for an easy solution. 03:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should try the glue traps. You can still trick your body into inducing the placebo effect even when you think it's bollocks (although it will be mild, at most). 09:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I know the feeling. When you're in a painful or otherwise uncomfortable situation, the natural reaction is to seek the quickest and easiest way to cure / resolve it. 12:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a real bugger when you get an erection during a departmental meeting. 19:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I had my tonsils out when I was 10 (on the horrible socialist NHS) as I used to get very nasty tonsillitis as a kid. I then from about 17 to 21/22 I got a throat infection (which I understand was actually still a form of tonsillitis) every 10 months almost as clockwork.  Then it just stopped.    As for quack cures, the reason that they can appear to work is that when one takes them, one is often at the very height of their illness, thus they will soon be getting better anyway.  Regression to the mean, or whatever stattos call it.  Get well soon buddy.  PS.  Try a hot toddy.  21:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Your input requested
Ok, so today I had a very, very bizarre argument with a friend of mine. To give a quick bio: he's a math/physics type dude and a staunch materialist and determinist; he doesn't even believe that consciousness truly exists, and rejects emergence and the emergent theory of consciousness. He argues that if you consider something like a virus to be living, you must also consider inanimate objects like tables and chairs to be living - according to him, tables (like viruses) do not grow or consciously act to reproduce, and they do so indirectly via a host, a factory in the case of a table. The table unknowingly reproduces by influencing human beings to make more, and improves itself when new types of tables are created (because the old ones were deficient and uneconomical, new ones "evolve"). By extension, Von Neumann machines are also "living," and so in essence human beings are only complex bunches of molecules, just like inanimate objects. I say this is a load of crap, but I am interested in your opinions. P.S.: I'm having him and another one of my friends (a militant atheist) over to my house to talk this problem out. So I'll keep you updated. 20:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I think he's got a point, but purely on a philosophical level. Viruses aren't alive anyway...  20:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually he doesn't have a point. If he were arguing that "making tables" was a successful meme, then he would be on firmer ground. A table is simply different than a virus.-- 22:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * @Antifly: I'm not sure if I see what you mean - his point is that a virus is not categorically different from a meme. Obviously a virus is not the same as a table, but his argument is that they replicate in the same way.   22:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Um... If he thinks that memes are categorically equivalent to viruses, then he isn't a very "staunch materialist." The idea of memes is simply to point out that the propagation of ideas is similar to the propagation of physical features in human beings. But no one argues that genes and memes are the same thing, and its unclear that memes even exist.-- 22:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * False analogy and all. Viruses are not considered to be living  by most definitions.  I have to agree with him as far as materialism goes.Phallus of Satan 22:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If I want a table, I can make one, but no table is likely to come along and convert one of the local abrasive plants into a table factory. Making tables involves intent, conscious will on the part of the "host." A virus replicates by appropriating existing mechanisms, usually without involving the host's consent.
 * If your friend were a creationist, that bit about conscious intent might not work so well. In his case, try tapping him alongside the occipital bone with a heavyish hammer, and when he regains the "consciousness" of which you speak, ask him if he noticed losing anything. Sprocket J Cogswell 23:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I assumed that when he said 'consciousness doesn't exist' he really meant 'there is no mystical quality to consciousness; it is simply what happens when enough nerves and cognitive functions start hooking up and recursing'. As a staunch materialist / (quantum) determinist that is my take on it; I believe Dennett often explains consciousness that way. - Clepper the pseudointellectual
 * So we settled it over a 5-hour discussion and understand (and was able to refute) his argument. Unfortunately due to various beverages consumed I am unable to type more than this sentence. So good night. 05:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I love it: We solved all the problems of the world, but we kind of forgot the solution due to dilution...  06:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Audiophools and HiFi woo
After putting my eyes back in after seeing some of the prices for mains cables (fucking mains cables! AC cords!  Kettle fucking leads!) at places like this, I've decided to try to make some money from them myself. I've got a bog-standard kettle lead and put a braiding (sheath) over the top of it, then heatshrinked it at either end (it actually looks quite good). I'm going to stick it on ebay as a 'specialist screened AC lead' or somesuch; what do you think would be a good starting price, and how much do you reckon these idiots will pay for it? (If this one sells my next one will be a stupid woven one, once I get some wireable IEC connectors). 00:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand, provided you don't make any testable claims.-- 00:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, I'm going to be very careful with my wording, simply saying things like "I was very impressed with the improvement in musicallity and the extra precision" and similar bollocks. Although I'm more thinking of starting at £10-20, not hundreds (not yet!)  00:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You could use words like rounded, fuller, richer, complex, or holistic. They seem vague enough to be untestable. -- 01:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's less than 100 pounds, no respectable audiophile will be fooled.
 * Look around to see what hi-fi subjectivists say in their reviews. They have a very small vocabulary and are easily imitated. Also, if you go through with this, you are an asshole.-- 01:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all.  Mining the rich vein of woo to be found in the audio nerd set is long overdue.   You can call it Art afterwards.   I'd start at 1375.  Take the nerds for all they've got, that's all 'Russ Andrews' is doing anyway.   DogP <font color="#993300">Marmite Patrol 02:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would feel a bit of an asshole is I was charging thousands for something I knew was useless (a la Mr Andrews), but I'm merely doing this as an experiment. I will even offer a money back guarantee if they're not satisfied with the improvements it gives them.  I can't say fairer than that.  If this one sells, and I manage to quash my conscience, I may well take Dogged's approach.  I think it would be interesting to have someone buy it, be convinced of it's affect, and then for the maker of it to admit that it does nothing.  Far from being pissed off, I would imagine the audiophools would tell the maker that it actually does make a difference.  We shall see.  03:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Promise us that you'll keep a favourite good cause or the local homeless guy in mind when it comes to any profit you actually make with this scam. TheoryOfPractice 03:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Or RationalWiki. 04:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a great idea! It's all for charidy, mate!  04:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a highly dishonorable course of action that is not even worthy of the Conservapedians (except perhaps Mr. Schlafly, peddling his worthless homeschool classes over the Wiki). 05:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to add your stinkifaction at Audio woo!  06:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Children in need
The problem with it, and other appeals like it, is that it brings out my inner misanthrope. I should really stop, before I start kicking babies. 21:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a UK Liberal magazine called Liberator that has a feature called Lord Bonkers' Diary (I used to do their website - not any more: ugh!). It sometimes refers to the "Well-Behaved Orphans" group. Children in Need always reminds me of that. I think it's the title that I hate... "Do you want to give for Children in Need?" "No." "Oh - so you hate children?" "Fuck off". Plus the whole awful "Look at these famous people doing silly things!!!!!". Now *I* should really stop, before I start kicking babies too. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 22:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll never forget when Joanna Lumley stripped down to her undies for £1,000,000 back in 1983. I don't think that's ever been bettered. 00:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Jee-zuz, Terry Wogan was presenting it back then too?! Blimey... 23:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not as bad as when Billy Connoly streaked through Trafalgar Square (no link, find it yourself!) 09:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Kasabian
I saw Kasabian the other day, and have some observatios:
 * Reverend and the Makers (the support act) have a very very odd female keyboard player. She does strange dancing when playing the keyboard
 * There was far too much piss throwing going on. I haven't been that covered in piss since R Kelly showed up at my 13th birthday party
 * Tom has cut off all his hair, looks much cooler
 * LSF is a very very good song to finish on. People were singing the main riff well after the gig had finished outside
 * My mobile isn't very good at recording in the dark:

That is all. 23:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I've seen them a couple of times, however they're one of those bands that are not as good as they think they are, although they just about manage to carry off the Stone Roses-style swagger.  LSF is an excellent song, excellent live, and superb as a set-closer.  At where did you see them?  00:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * piss throwing?!??!? piss throwing??!?!?! TheoryOfPractice 00:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you know ToP. The throwing of piss... You don't... have that in the US? 00:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ummm, perhaps. Certainly not at the kind of shows I go to. TheoryOfPractice 15:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst not being a piss thrower my self, I am a pint-pot-pisser, but I carefully place it on the ground and nonchalantly kick it over. It always amuses me that people (like myself) think that after drinking 4 pints of lager that they (I) will be able to piss in to a 1 pint pot.   00:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We were in the middle initially, best view, but in the focal point of the piss throwers. After about the 4th we got fed up and moved right over to the side, which was great, because you could still see the stage, hear the music fine, and were right in front of one of the big screens. Also, if I needed a whizz then I could just nip out the side door and actually use the toilet. 08:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Am I a dishonourable arsehole for attempting to sell stupid mains cables to audiophools?
Let the people decide! Vote up for 'yes, you are an arsehole', down for 'no, it will be interesting to see if they sell, and besides; you're giving the money to charity'.


 * Given that we feel faith healers are dishonourable assholes, there can only be one answer.-- 15:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Dishonorable only if you claim the conductors to be silver when in fact there is only a light wash of that semi-noble metal on the visible parts of the connectors. Guilty, however, of wasted motion, since there are more needful items missing from the distribution chain, at reasonable prices. How altruistic do you feel? Sprocket J Cogswell 15:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Daily edits
What is the average number of edits in a day here at RationalWiki? It is just we currently have 997,301 edits and I was wonder when we expect to pass 1,000,000. 05:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This site is growing rapidly!!! TheoryOfPractice 05:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, asking for the last 5000 edits over the last 30 days brings us back to 15 November, here in the EST it is just barely 22 November. 5000/7 = 715 edits a day. We need 2 700 edits to hit a million, so 3 and a half, four days from now. BUT--there was a hot meat-eating essay-debate and an HCM over that time pumping up edit counts, so, really, who knows...TheoryOfPractice 05:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a bot project that would have pushed us over a million if I got around to it over the weekend, unfortunately that didn't pan out. 05:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Billions and biliions! 06:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 997,301 edits?? That's over 9,000!!! 12:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The site has quite fluxional activity so it's hard to say. Perhaps the times when activity is low will balance out the HCMs and debates. But a million edits is a pretty cool milestone. 17:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here we are just over a day later and we have 999,260 page edits - and a nice long job queue we have to finish still. 05:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow that's too many jobs...I am going to go ahead and manual run them. tmtoulouse 08:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you magic man. Our job queue was longer than Wikipedia's. 08:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the statistics, we've passed 1 million edits 41 edits ago (42 including this one if there are no ECs or anything between me clicking edit and save page!) 09:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We passed it as 6:12 UTC, if yo want to know the time. For some reason the edit came to halt. I was wondering if someone was running a bot that edit pages, but didn't change them. 10:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It'd be very interesting if the millionth edit was a bot. [[image:Banana.gif]] 10:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder if that was me? I was trying to add to the children in need thread above, and when I hit save it hung. I tried to go back to the saloon bar page and that hung too, so I just closed my browser in the end. 11:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's even better. The millionth edit was a fuck up! 11:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In the finest traditions of RationalWiki, we fuck up to get 1,000,000 edits. 11:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

(UI) So was it me? Do I win a prize for the 1,000,000th edit? Y'know, like supermarkets do in cartoons (but not in real life it seems) 11:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Capturebot
Is capturebot not working? I tried it here and got a redlink. 15:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to tell it to capture pages. The instructions are on the userpage. 16:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I tried again on Capturebot2's sandbox and it still doesn't work. 16:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Patience. It appears to have worked. 16:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha! Thanks. 16:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"Noah's flood not rooted in reality after all?"
No shit. TheoryOfPractice 16:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ToP, you need to have an open mind and not get your information from a website that clearly displays liberal bias. 16:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's more the origin of the monomyth, but I imagine that it occurs more because flooding is common and prior to good weather warnings and modern technology, quite disastrous. Hence big floods stick in the consciousness, even if they aren't a connected event, you'll find the same narrative cropping up everywhere. 17:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * wp:Black Sea deluge theory, could be an interesting one to add, I'm not sure how much of our flood articles go into this sort of stuff. 17:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Who?
I leave for a few months, and there's all these new faces. Or did everyone change their names? Nevermind, not important. Could someone fill me in on any major Conservapedia events that may have transpired in my absence? Is TK still a sysop? 86.43.183.113 19:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, a bit hoo-har over relativity, at least two exchanges based on it are now in the top 10 of Best of CP. Check WIGO:CP and scroll down a little. 19:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not much - TK hasn't kicked Andy off yet, although he did take time out for gender alignment surgery, so now he's a complete cunt instead of an little dick. Andy is busy rewriting the Bible, conservative style, Ed is still worried about the sexuality of little girls and Ken is going to announce the commencement of Operation Steaming Faeces any day now. -- Psygremlin  19:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, guys. I.p. out.  86.43.183.113 19:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey! You used my joke. 19:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry! It was a good joke though. -- Psygremlin  21:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The "gender alignment" thing? I thought that was fucking hilarious and is so getting quoted at every opportunity I can get. 22:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't annoyed, just flattered. 00:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it unwise to insult even the most foul, disease-ridden genitalia by comparing them to TK. Phallus of Satan 00:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just watchit who you're comparing CP editors to. Sphincter 03:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Should I express my opinion
Hey, I was thinking of doing a video response to one of Thunderf00t's videos, but I'm afraid it would cause far too much outrage against me if I expressed my opinion. Basically, it bothers me that Thunderf00t frequently uses the word "pedophilia" to mean "child molestation," when pedophilia only implies desire, not action. My fear is that if we tell people with a certain desire that they're bad for having that desire, which they didn't choose to have, then some might simply decide that if they're already bad people, they should just go ahead and do it. To use an analogy: let's say I was the least attractive man on the planet. And, for the sake of argument, we assume I had literally talked to every woman alive, and each of them had confirmed that under no circumstances, and for no reason, would they consent to having sex with me, even for money (this analogy works for me because, in my view, child molestation is wrong because a child is not competent to give consent). Now, given this situation, there would literally be no way for me to have sex other than rape. Under the same logic that pedophilia is bad, any man in this situation would be wrong to be heterosexual. However, I think we can all agree that, as long as he DIDN'T commit rape, he would not necessarily be a bad person. If anything, his ability to control his desires would be admirable.--Mustex 04:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm, yes. Do they have t'internet in secure units now?  09:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In a completely rational world you might be able to freely express the idea that it is the actions that are reprehensible and not the private thoughts or desires - often things that we don't have conscious control over. I'm sure many people have, maybe just for a brief period, privately wished someone dead but of course have not done anything about it. Indeed many have even verbalised their hate in such a way. However, saying that you are attracted to young children is regarded by society at large as completely unacceptable and I fear that trying to make some rational argument on this topic will only lead to a torrent of hate and possibly even place you in physical danger. I'd say better leave it alone unless you are really prepared for the consequences. 09:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about "frequently", and it would be quite a nitpick. The two are often used synonymously in common language. I also agree with Genghis, as much as wish it wasn't the case, you're likely to generate a shitstorm of people declaring "oh, you support kiddy fiddling do you?!!! DIE BASTARD!!!" for even hinting that paedophilies may not be raving monsters with 6 arms and acid for blood (see here and the relevant talk page, for example). So, while I think an intelligent discussion on the moral difference between action and desire, with this particular topic it's just not going to happen. 12:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd leave this one alone. I don't think anything good could possibly come out of this.  Corry 12:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

How can I defend my dog?
I have a German Shepherd. She is very friendly with other dogs and has no desire to be "top dog". If anything larger than her shows some aggression she's on her back showing that she wants no trouble. I'm not too happy about dogs who want to show they are boss like this but I guess that in the dog world that's how things go. After they have decided who's boss the two of them may go and play.

But it isn't always like that.

Yesterday I was walking along a track with her and there were three mastiffs on the other size side of the fence. My German shepherd is on the small size for her breed and these dogs are about three to four times her size. I often walk along that track and the mastiffs always make a fuss. Unfortunately this time there was a hole in the fence and one of the mastiffs squeezed through.

It came straight at us. No "Woof woof, this is my territory" but a direct attack. I got my stick up to threaten it but the monster just knocked it aside and went straight for my dog. She had no hope against this monster and went into submissive position, but the mastiff didn't care and continued with its attack. With my dog crying out in pain I stepped forward and started beating the attacker about the head and body with my stick. I had no desire to injure the animal, but equally I wasn't about top let it kill my dog in front of me.

While I was doing this a second mastiff got through the fence and came round behind me. But I was too busy trying to save my dog to care much about this one. Also I knew from previous experience that least one of the the three was not particularly aggressive and I had to hope it was that one.

Just as my stick broke and splinted over the head of the attacking mastiff he let my dog go and she took the opportunity to get behind me, unfortunately that meant that the mastiff changed his target and decided to go for me. He barred his teeth and lunged at me. I was trying to back away slowly, but when he was close enough I gave him a belt with my now considerably shorter stick. I have to say that this was with all the strength I had, and he finally seemed to decide that being hit with a stick was probably not that much fun and decided to simply snarl at me instead.

Moving backwards I found that the other mastiff was right behind me which gave me an unpleasant surprise as I had forgotten about him. Fortunately he was the less aggressive one and let us pass without incident.

I examined my dog but she had no serious injuries and was even playing with another dog a quarter of an hour later.

Now you may say that this is an exceptional incident - but it's not. This is the fourth time that I have have had an experience like this with different dogs. Three times with mastiffs and once with a very large aggressive German shepherd.

My wife carries a personal protection spray, but when we were attacked once by a mastiff she got the dog full in the face and it ignored it. When big dogs are on the attack they are pretty tough to deter and somewhat impervious to pain. When she spoke to the police once she was told that unless somebody is actually injured in an attack then they are not interested.

So what advice can yo give me? I don't want to have to carry one of these

So what other options are there? Does anybody have any experience with audio deterrents? Cheers.--BobNot Jim 11:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I no longer have any dogs :( but I know that other dogs can be a problem, especially if they are not being controlled by their owner. You could try this. Alternatively, you need a bigger stick. Unfortunately fighting off a pack of mastiffs is not something that crops up on the Dog Whisperer. 11:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW the site you linked to also has an ultrasonic deterrent and recommend that it is used with the dog pepper spray (don't forget that the dog might be deaf). Spain is a bit more relaxed about some of these things but I would be surprised if I could get hold of one of those batons in the UK. But then we do have the Dangerous Dogs Act and I'm sure the police wuld be more inclined to intervene, after all you might have a young child with you. 12:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Walk it somewhere else. If the cops aren't interested then tell the local paper about it. They'll pay attention then. 12:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are set on buying some sort of weapon, I would think that bear spray or an air horn would be the best choice. They are lightweight, non-lethal, perfectly legal and almost guaranteed to stop a dog. Knives are probably not such a good idea, but you could simply start hiking in heavy steel-toed boots. If it were me I think I would just find somewhere else to walk.-- 12:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Finding somewhere else to walk isn't that easy. The problem can come up anywhere around here - I live in the countryside. Yes, I've already got a bigger stick. I've got no real desire to damage the animal but it's a question of priorities.  I agree that going jaw to knife is not a good idea.  Are air horns directional?--BobNot Jim 12:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But looking at the ideas, ultrasonics looks like the way to go.--BobNot Jim 12:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Horrible as it sounds, just give the dog a swift kick when it comes at you next time. If it keeps coming back for more, kick it a bit more 'til it gets the message. And don't wear steel toes, cuz then you will kill the dog. Where's its owner anyway? 12:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A mastiff is probably about as big as me - though I'm not a big chap. I don't really want to get close enough to the things to be able to kick them as it would certainly put me in bite range. The owner is presently laid up with a bad back so he's not able to take proper care of his property. It is no excuse.--BobNot Jim 13:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The answer is clear, Bob - a largely defensive weapon of gun. --  ䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡   ䷶䷀䷵䷥
 * Talk to the owner and try to come up with a reasonable solution. Or try and scare the dog by shouting at it, that's what I'd do. LessThanAverageJosh 14:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I've already spoken to the owner. He's laid up with a bad back at the moment waiting for an operation. This is the fourth time I've had a similar experience with outright, full-on attacks - but with four different dogs in four different places. This does not count multiple confrontational situations where I've only had to wave my stick and shout at the animals.  So I'm looking for general solutions rather than specific ones to this situation.--BobNot Jim 19:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Mace? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you mean the spiked iron club beloved of knights from the middle ages then you could be onto a winner. If you mean the personal protection spray I'm not convinced. As I think I mentioned above, my wife gave one of the beasts a face-full of that a while ago and it made sod all difference.  When these boys are coming in it takes something pretty noticeable to put them off.--BobNot Jim 19:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What about a cattle prod? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That might be a good idea. I was reading up on them and some people say that they are a good idea and others they they just infuriate the animals further.  One of the problems is that I don't really want to go testing the things on docile animals, but on the other hand, waiting until you have a critical situation isn't the answer either.  I was sort of hoping that somebody might have had some experience.  In the end I think I'll get one of the ultrasonic ones.--BobNot Jim 20:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say that since you don't seem queasy about hitting an attacking dog with a stick, you just need a better stick. They sell nice ones at sporting supply outlets, made of willow or ash depending on the local customs.  They are made not to break under heavy impact.  Or just make your own "hiking staff" out of a nice piece of sturdy oak or whatnot.  That would actually be better than the "sports stick" since 1. it would actually be practical under normal circumstances and 2. being longer it keeps you further from the marauder when engaging it. In absentia 21:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just thought I'd post my closing thoughts on this. I'm going to get an audio device and see how it goes. There are a number of reasons for my decision.
 * I have no confidence in the sprays. I don't know if the european ones are low-quality or not but you only really find out when you've got to use one in a critical situation.  It's not really something you can test beforehand on some poor unsuspecting animal. Secondly it's a close-range response.  The animal needs to be close to biting distance before you can use it.  And if it doesn't work (or even provokes the dog)  then you have a big problem.
 * I'm not keen on using a stick. I have no real desire to injure the animals who are only doing what they think is their duty.  Using a stick of sufficient size and thickness to guarantee stopping the dog in its tracks runs the risk of killing or injuring it. Secondly a stick is also a relatively close-range response.  If the dog gets near enough to you that you can hit it with a stick it's already too close.
 * The audio devices on the other hand claim to work over long distances and cause no permanent harm to the animal. It would also be possible to test the device without injuring an animal.
 * Thanks to all those who took the time to comment.--BobNot Jim 12:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Bob, you're always such a nice, polite guy. 12:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Good luck, Bob. I hope the audio device works well. Corry 13:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Bob, the animals might be "doing their duty", but when they threaten your dog and you, they are just "out of control". When I was about 8 we had out dog put down because it nagged a sheep to death - not a good thing on the sheep raisin' mountings of S. Wales. A few years later, we had new neighbors in Exeter NH who had a big fucking dog chained in their front yard (no fences). My sister was about 3 or so. Ripe to be ripped by a confused dog. Dogs are not holy brahma cows, they can be vicious (even if accidental) killers. If you kill a dog that is attacking you and your dog (who is rolling over in submission), what sane judge, or person, would fault you? That said, air horns like they use at athletic events are directional. But press loudly and carry a big stick. Don't lose your lovely darling puppy (or your leg) to unmanaged curs. 06:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I take your point, but I'd still like to avoid killing or injuring them if at all possible. Also some posters may not have fully understood the nature of these dogs.  They are descended (I think) from war dogs.  Later they were (and still are) used in Spain to protect flocks of sheep from wolves.  They live with the sheep 24 hours a day and take independent action to protect them.  Nowadays they are used in this part of the world for area protection.  They are selected for size, aggression and territoriality.  So these are nothing like over-excited family pets you can scare off with a shout or a kick. If that worked they would be useless.
 * So when I say they are "just doing their job", they are really. Or at least they would be if I were trying to get into their territory. Obviously there is a big onus on the owner to keep these monsters away from the public so as to avoid my recent experience.  But it's the owner who is to blame.
 * Also, I always carry a stick - though in future I'll carry a stouter one.--BobNot Jim 07:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

BBC News tech reporters
I worry slightly about the people doing the tech reports at the BBC: "SSH is a file-transfer program that enables users to remotely connect to their phones." Umm, no, SSH is a secure shell (telnet) client which allows people to connect to remote servers from their phone. (Yes, I know you can use SSH for file transfer, but that isn't its primary function) 13:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * SSH and Telnet are two separate protocols serving the same purpose. And (just guessing here) they might be referring an SSH server app for the iPhone? 17:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen much, much worse reporting than that. Have mercy on them. 14:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely. The BBC's science and technology reporting is pretty good. Consider that most people don't know what the fuck SSH even is to start with, you're picking at the kind of minor detail that's like "oh, that's not burntumber, it's <font color="#8B36264">tomato 4 !!". It's not like it's the Daily Express declaring that the HPV vaccine is more deadly than cervical cancer. 17:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) Ugh, I don't get it? It has a default password, so one would guess what the BBC calls 'SSH' is an SSH server; that makes the reporter completely correct after all. Indeed, the first Google links seems to imply the root password of the iPhone is to be changed . Pietrow 17:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't get me started about bad science and technology reporting. The phrase "volts of electric current" is enough to launch me into a fifteen minute tirade. MDB 18:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Gah, the way this iPhone story has been reported is madness everywhere - even tech cites like CNET are misreporting the story.  None of the stories ever explain that to be vulnerable to this you must hack your iPhone, AND then not secure it.   It's just more FUD.   The Beeb has been been blatantly anti-Apple for years, for some inexplicable reason.  <font color="#00F0A20">DogP <font color="#993300">Marmite Patrol 16:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah. It's kind of like saying that Toyotas are easy to steal, when neglecting to mention that all those stolen were owned by people who drilled out their locks and left the key in the ignition.-- 16:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly!  Nice one CR.  <font color="#00F0A20">DogP <font color="#993300">Marmite Patrol 17:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny, that's a feature I like about my '78 Chebby truck. Key optional.  Quite amusing, really.  Everyone else uses the key. Aw, my redneck lifestyle (keys in cars) ain't got much to do with this thread...  07:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just don't leave your banjo unattended. People 'aint honest around these here parts. -- 09:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

New logo text
Are we keeping the text/font the way it is now? tmtoulouse 21:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WHERE IS NX? HE IS SUPPOSED TO CARE ABOUT THESE THINGS FOR ME. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 22:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I like it the way it is, I say keep it. 22:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I like it. Corry 22:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WHY IS NOBODY ELSE PANICKING? P.S. I THINK I LIKE THE LOGO. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 22:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I like it, it's clear and readable with instant impact. The subtle serif gives it the air of well-thinking modernity and gravitas that we look for in both ourselves and our target audience, while the subtle curves convey accessibility. No, seriously, I've read some PR and corporate identity stuff about fonts and they really do think like that. 22:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, why are you panicking Neveruse? 22:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * BECAUSE NX IS GONE. THIS WIKI WILL EVENTUALLY BECOME UNOPTIMIZED AND LACKLUSTER &mdash; SINCERELY, NEVERUSE513 / TALK / BLOCK 22:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Add "impending lackluster and lack of optimization" on your list of reasons you have quit? tmtoulouse 22:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE RETIRE DOESN'T MEAN THEY GO AWAY, THEY ARE JUST NO LONGER VERY PRODUCTIVE AND FREAK OUT ABOUT LOTS OF THINGS LIKE NX LEAVING THE GOD DAMNED WIKI TO ROT. &mdash; SINCERELY, NEVERUSE513 / TALK / BLOCK 22:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * From entropy, to entropy. tmtoulouse 22:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The logo is good. 00:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The new logo is good. You wouldn't mind responding to the question about it I left on your talkpage, please? 01:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is unargueably without a doubt undoubtedly the best wiki logo text I have ever seen. (And I've seen some wiki logo texts, believe you me)  09:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I must say, despite neveruse's obvious anguish, that this wiki logo text is the ''best evah'. Or close to it. 07:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Climate Change and African Conflict...
So this article would probably ignite some interesting debate around at least one Thanksgiving dinner table--it's got the PNAS (of Lenski fame), "climate change/global warming " (an obvious liberal hoax) and starving Africans (an eternal target for faith-based meddling and a great opportunity to show how conservatives are more caring and charitable than liberals). On the serious side, it's good food for thought in terms of the social and political costs of overconsumption. On that note, Naomi Klein has some interesting thoughts on the overdeveloped world bearing some of the costs of dealing with the effects of climate change on the rest of the planet. TheoryOfPractice 16:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "If temperatures rise across the continent as computer models project..." These are perhaps the dodgy models from the University of East Anglia? And let me take a wild guess and posit that Ms. Klein's plan has something to do with either shaking the First World down for cash or guilt-tripping it into abolishing capitalism, while leaving what remains of the Second World as it is? 16:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me you're a climate change denier as well as a McCarthyist. 18:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am neither. There is a large amount of other data supporting climate change, but anything out of the Climatic Research Unit should be checked over again carefully. 18:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, classic Dylan
There's no other way to chill out than kicking back with a beer and a ciggy and listening to Bobby. 18:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Which album you listening to?  18:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Compilation album. The Essential Bob Dylan. Has all the best ones, Knockin' on Heaven's Doors, All Along the Watchtower, Tambourine Man, Hurricane, Blowin' In the Wind, Don't Think Twice It's Alright, Lay Lady Lay, The Time They Are A-Changing. 18:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I see your Dylan and raise you Tom Waits - Asylum Years. Now that's music. -- Psygremlin  18:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Dylan is a boring old croon. Sorry, that may be unpopular but there we have it. AceMcWicked 18:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * BURN THE HERETIC!!!! 19:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Midnight to six, bands for the first time from Jamaica ... and you go looking for punk. &mdash; Unsigned, by: in absentia / talk / contribs
 * While I appreciate his contribution to music and the social movements of the time it still boring. Besides, I can't relax to Dylan because I actually am unsure of how to relax. AceMcWicked 19:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Unsure of how to relax?? Ace, I can't imagine you in a mental state other than relaxed. 19:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well think again. AceMcWicked 19:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Midnight to six? White Man in Hammersmith Palais. One of the best Clash songs and my favourite to jam out to on guitar. 20:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Tis indeed, although picking "the best" out their many great songs is hard... I'd put it around #10-15 or so, I think. In absentia 20:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * White youth, black youth, better find another solution... wanna phon'a Robin Hood, and ask for some wealth distribution? 04:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A conversation on The Clash, Tom Waits, and Bob Dylan, and of course, I'm late to it. Typical. May I throw a Nick Cave, Ewan MacColl and The Pogues into the mix? DickTurpis 04:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Only if Skinny Puppy and Sonic Youth are allowed to attend. 04:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Skinny Puppy"....now there is a name I have not heard in a long time.....a long time...........DickTurpis 04:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Ain't It Dead Yet?" What I liked when I bought my Social Distortion CD ("Between Heaven and Hell", I think) is where it went in my collection of coasters. "Even the flowers are ugly..."  05:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

NPR on Darwin
Very interesting... Although it's pretty much the same summary of the evolution/creationism debate that we see everywhere else. Still, it made a few good points. 20:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * One being that this is creationism vs. evolution, not Christianity vs. evolution. 21:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is pretty interesting. No surprise that most controversies and arguments spawn from misunderstandings.-- 13:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

My life today
I was riding on a train to get home from college today, and I am sitting in a seat. This little kid, couldn't have been older than three, comes up to me, really cute kid, giggles lightly, and hands me her cup. You look like daddy", she says. A few seconds later, her mother comes and takes her back, and I hand the cup over. That made my day  05:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's really sweet. I always get nervous when bonding with people's kids in the supermarket.  Creepy old man and all.  But still, cute kids, and I'm not a creep.  I talk to strangers and make them laugh.  05:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was at some outdoor festival some years back and my lady and I were catching some shade on a bank, surrounded by a few thousands people, when this guy with a pram containing two kids tapped some stranger and said "Excuse me, can you mind this for a second?" he handed over the pram and ran off. The patron (who was some weird hippie) looked a little taken aback and stood around nervously for 5 minutes waiting for this guy to come back. When the guy did he was carrying three more children and said thanks before running off again. No doubt to find more kids that he'd left in charge with strangers. Not sure how this is relevant but, yeah...AceMcWicked 05:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It was all relevant until I saw who wrote it... then it became simply psychedelic. Do you have a witness?  05:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes my lady and she is the straight, polite, sober side of me. AceMcWicked 05:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you return the children as expected, or roast and eat them? (Sorry, 'tis the season here for roasting 16 pound, um, "children") 06:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I remember when tehmizzus and I were in the supermarket once and there was a little kid standing by himself crying in the middle of an aisle. My wife said "go and ask him if he's lost", to which I replied "fuck off, I'll get arrested. You go". So she did and was walking him towards the customer service desk when the mother showed up and thanked the wife. Imagine if she'd have seen me walking with her kid towards the customer service desk which is next to the exit doors. 11:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of this, well, specifically "Thou shalt not think that any male over the age of 30 that plays with a child that is not their own is a paedophile, some people are just nice" (about 25 seconds in). 12:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When I was a kid my mum always took me shopping - she didn't trust me in the house alone after the golf club incident. Anyway, when I was very small, probably about 4 or 5, I was in the supermarket with my mum, I sat down in the aisle to read a Thomas the Tank Engine magazine (I loved him when I was a kid) and my mum walked off without me, thinking I was right behind her. About 10 minutes later she showed up again. I'd been so engrossed by the prose of Thomas the Tank Engine that I hadn't realised there were announcements going out over the supermarket for a lost child, that turned out to be me. 13:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just have an image of a 4 year old, on their own, hearing the lost child announcements basically thinking "will that kid just go to the help desk already, how hard can it be? Idiot. At least I know where I am!" 13:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

XKCD
Had me laughing out loud. This one too.-- Psygremlin  18:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I saw that. I loved the silent hammer one. 18:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just checking up on xkcd this morning and ended up reading through most of the Blag. I'm wondering whether to take him up on the offer of printing this article and sticking it in some toilets. 18:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Humour for the few. 86.43.183.113 19:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hatguy ftw! Unfortunately, my enjoyment of xkcd was seriously lessened by discovering xckdsucks; I can't help myself but read those stupid blog posts. 19:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I probably enjoy xkcd more after seeing xkcdsucks, it's good to know that Randall has seriously annoyed some bitter arsewipe who's probably just jealous that his own webcomic never took off. 19:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * XKCD wouldn't be so annoying if the artist actually tried to improve. Pity, it's pretty smart, most of the time, and creepy for the rest.  86.43.183.113 19:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got over the dip caused by that stupid blog, and I've started enjoying it again anyway. 20:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say Randal has improved. He can definitely get stick figures to be very expressive, which is quite a talent in itself. Not all artwork is about photorealism and sometimes it's good to hold back. 20:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * xkcd has its ups and downs, but there isn't a better webcomic on the net. I just received my (signed) copy of the book, which is how much I like it. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 20:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This reminded me of Andy's hardon for action at a distance. Conservapederast 00:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * xkcd rocks! I've got this as my desktop wallpaper at the moment; I challenge anyone to honestly say that they have not done this (what the cartoon guy does, not put a webcomic as wallpaper)  09:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost on a weekly basis, actually. 14:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Err no ... must be a boy thing (looks a tad phallic?). 15:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. It's just a thing that people compulsively do with measuring tape. 15:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Toast, you've never tried to so that? I'm amazed, I thought everyone has tried it at least once. 20:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a "boy thing" as in "how long is your thingie", it's a sport indulged in by everyone who has ever needed to extend a measuring tape over a "gap" of space. 04:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can see that, but I just tend to go "damnit" & work around. Not try again & again and specially not at the def phallic angle in the comic (looks like a variant on "who can pee highest/furthest" to me). I've just had a go & got a 6foot (OLD!) reel fully out by extending it at just less than vertical (80&deg;+) - no problem except I had to go outside to do it. 09:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Account creation
It seems like account creation has shot up in the last few days. In early November and October it was around 2-3 a day but now it's up around 9-10 each day. I'd say it was people socking up, but Alexa shows that RW is on the starting edge of a spike. Anyway, it's probably nothing, I just thought it was odd that account creation was unusually high. 17:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I joined yesterday (or was it the day before? Damn insomnia.) and I was account number three thousand four hundred and something. Indeed, the site is growing rapidly. 18:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They're all Human. Probably. Totnesmartin 18:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * At least the ones that start with "in - " 19:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No we're not. In cognito 17:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I too joined a couple of days ago. Not a sock, just a former lurker.  I used to think CP was just a barrel of laughs, but I'm getting increasingly worried at the irrationality of the conservative movement in the US.  That's what pushed me into creating an account... (And no, I'm definitely not human.) Fawlty 21:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I suppose we could chalk it up to socks. We tend to have random spikes in traffic anyway so it's possibly coincidence. It'd be interesting to see if anything does drive people here to sign up, rather than just read. As Trent has said, we get a lot of passive links which indicates RW is being used as a resource for certain descriptions, but that does imply that people think RW is complete, which it isn't. On my googling to find out what people think of the site I found a lot of critics are whining about articles that possibly aren't up to standard (that doesn't make them right, the Ron Paul brown-nosers were laughably bad at trying to actually refute the contents). Anyway, I'm off to ponder making some socks myself. 22:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I hit the Alexa link on my bookmarky thing, and yeah, we are seeing a big increase - not just in "editors" but in pageviews and pagerank. For what that is worth. 04:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's always impressed me that RW gets good pageviews/user ratings compared to other sites - so this means either A) people come to the site and have a bit of a "tab explosion" (I try to put in as many inter-wiki links and "see alsos" as possible to facilitate getting around) or B) We have few visits, but the ones we do are mostly active editors, hence the high pageviews/user rate, and neither explanation is pretty bad. Whereas Conservapedia gets enormous hit-rates - their traffic rank still dwarfs RW by a long margin - when they hit the news about the CBP or Lenski or whatever, their other stats tend to stay quite mediocre, and are either on par or lower than RW. 12:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

To my American brothers
Happy Thanksgiving. To enter into your holiday spirit, I am thankful for hair gel. It increases my sex appeal from 6% to 6.2%. 13:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * +/- 0.5%? Corry 14:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For me its more like minus 10% for a total of -20% 14:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * God dammit, Josh, it's not the fucking 1990's. No one uses hair gel anymore. Get yourself a nice pomade and get with the program. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 14:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you still here Neveruse you gel-less fucker?!?!?! I thought you'd left and never come back!!!! 14:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm retired, fuckwit, which means I hang around, do nothing and critique the productive members of society. Now use the fucking pomade. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 14:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * All you people with hair are starting to piss me off. --SpinyNorman 14:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Pah! I spit upon those who use hair gel! Though I am often accused of using it, for some reason... 14:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably all that spit. 15:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If I had enough hair left I'd probably still use Brylcreem. (Ha, I feel another Blightynet article in the making!)  15:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I must one day take a photo of this guy that works in my building he has a full "what the fuck was he thinking" hairstyle. It seriously looks like one of those characture 50s haircuts, with the raising slope so it is about 6 inch above his head at the forehead. 01:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I graduated from hair gel to wax. Wax is much stronger stuff. It is a cycle of addiction. The effect of hair products on my sex appeal is a moot point. I'm once again and eternally thankful for bacon and kittens but not kitty bacon. <font color="#ff0000">Me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! <font color="#6ff6633">Mine! 16:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The advantages of long hair is that you don't need to bother with wax or gel every morning and topping it up throughout the day and brushing and washing it out every night. 17:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy Turkey day you lot. (on the hair thing - I made a healthy, informed decision a few years ago to climb into my mop every 2 weeks with a number 1 razor. saves ages in the morning... and hides the grey.)-- Psygremlin  18:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't tell a vitalis man ...... (that should find out who the old codgers are)--BobNot Jim 18:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Pomade is the hair product of the 21st century man. This discussion is fucking over. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So why did it feature so prominently in "Brother Where Art Thou" or whatever it was called? Sure, I know it was George Clooney, but it was set in the early 20th century...  20:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The important parts are that it's in vogue now and THIS DISCUSSION IS FUCKING OVER. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want Fop, goddammit! I'm a Dapper Dan man!  Corry 21:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Doug Hoffman Re-Concedes...
Hoffman finally accepted that it's over. Something else to be thankful for tomorrow. --SpinyNorman 14:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Odd academic practices
I overheard one of the departmental academics outlining his idea for how graduation should work. They guy's a bit of an arse, but I can't help but find these suggestions amusing: Thankfully, there is no chance in hell that I'll get him as my external examiner. 21:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For undergraduates: The undergraduates enter the exam hall to sit their final exam. They have the exam paper in front of them and an envelope. They open the envelope and the letter inside reads "Here is the degree classification that we are offering you based on your performance so far: (1st/2:1/2:2/3rd, etc.). If you are unhappy with this, please feel free to take the exam in front of you. Be aware, your awarded mark may go down as well as up based on the results of this exam."
 * For postgraduates (PhD): "I'm not going to read this thesis in advance. I'm not going to ask you any questions. When it comes to your viva, I'm going to put it on the table and open a random page. If there's a mistake on it, you fail."
 * I would like an undergraduate option of "Once you have read the question paper, please tick this box and leave the exam hall if you wish to take the result of your mock exam in this paper as final." KlapauciusEsteemed Constructor 23:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)As someone who has spent time in academia I would say that their is a large number of people who have their heads firmly rammed up their arse. My hypothesis for this is due to the fact that as all academics get paid roughly the same amount and the scope of promotion is very limited (in our system there is only 4 levels), the currency of choice is egos. He sounds exactly like my honours supervisor who I went out of my way to avoid when becoming a PhD student. He has since left to a near by university for a promotion, and a large office (the office being the main thing), nobody has said a nice thing about him since he left. 23:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Cats who Stare at Goats
I know that by admitting to reading lolcats I'm lowering my already low status in your eyes, but this one seems appropriate for RW. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 08:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Icanhascheezburger is my only source of information. Iz nawt homskoold, so iz da only website iz can reads. --127․0․0․1 10:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * AKA CUR meets RW. -- 12:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And in other news
I am going to be going to New Orleans from June 28, 2010 to July 6, 2010 to help build homes for the residents of New Orleans. While down there, I am going to meet Condoleezza Rice, Peyton and Eli Manning, and Spike Lee. I am looking forward to this... 05:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Jimmy Carter, too, maybe? Good for you.  05:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to Samoa in March - not to build but fancy $$$$ will help provide infastructure. AceMcWicked 05:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Commiseration on the Spike Lee thing. 05:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a Spike Lee autographed Genesis 3 woofer hanging on my wall. Why you hatin' on Spike?  06:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate when people do shit like this - think they are helping but instead leeching off good causes to make themselves feel better. If you had any morals, you'd donate the money you've raised to a charity helping New Orleans families get back on track rather than pretend to yourself that you're doing a good deed for no discernible reason. MarcusCicero 12:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What? Are you mentally ill MC?  Someone has to do the building.  The little dollar bills don't grab hammers and 2x4s and put the house together by themselves.  13:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As others have noted after me, cretin, the point is that the money would be much better spent in paying local firms to do the work (As well as automatically being skilled workers, and hence will do a better job) than getting some infantile middle class guilt kid to come along and fix the problem. It all bears the typical hallmark of the aristocrat admiring his noble savage! MarcusCicero 13:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Have fun in New Orleans. From the time you hit town till the time you leave, you should be eating. Constantly eating delicious cajun and creole food. Arrange to have a feedbags of gumbo strapped to your face at all times, if possible. If you're not obese, you might want to consider becoming so while in New Orleans. Corry 12:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)Although I agree with MC a little, that's only really when I'm feeling really cynical, and my respect for humanity is on one of it's peaks at the moment. There's lots of people who do charity work for selfish reasons (middle-class "gap year" students who just do it to put it on their CV will be first against the wall if when I rule the world) but there are equally many people who do it for genuine reasons. Some people really are nice or want to help or don't just want to sit around being a faceless chequebook. I'd much rather give time to a charity than money because, frankly, that's what I have more of at the moment; I can't quite spare the cash to pay for a day of work but can probably easily find the time to do it myself. It's far more sickening that you even have to do this in a first world country that can afford $150 billion a year on "defense" that doesn't include the billions that it spends dropping bombs on other places. But either way, enjoy the trip and the experience. 13:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's like the Band Aid single - whilst I hated the way certain celebs used it to resurrect careers there's no getting round the end result. Getting all snotty about the motives doesn't stop the end result being worthwhile. Incidentally, I'm not snotty about the motives. It sounds like a great thing to do - way to go Jscap! Bob Soles 13:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, doing the work directly helps. When you donate to a large charity these days everyone takes a slice when it's on its way to the people who need it. So that $50 you donated turns into $4 for the needy and a nice fat cuban for the MD. 13:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Doing the work directly only helps if you are of skilled labour. If you are going down there to pick up buckets of paint then don't bother, spend all that money on a NGO to spend on materials and skilled labour. Its just a waste of time and emotional masturbation, it really is. The middle class child cannot absolve his guilt by shabbily plastering a wall with white paint; and neither should he feel the need to do so... MarcusCicero 13:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You bring up an interesting point, although I wouldn't have phrased it so harshly. Yes, charity work is very inefficient and often poorly executed, but that's the nature of the beast. You have to remember that charity organizations want to get people directly involved (even if doing so is inefficient) because it will make them feel good about themselves and thus be willing to participate again. 13:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And of course, you get what you pay for. Free, voluntary labour = marginally inefficient. Efficient and professional labour = A fat wad of cash. So unless providing money to pay locals stimulates the local economy - and this is usually the case if you're talking about the middle of Africa - it actually makes a bit more sense to rely on volunteers. 13:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Marcus, you make some very good points. That said, you have the social graces of a hemorrhoid.  Corry 14:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Marcus is just being a prick. To get things done you need money, materials, time and labour, oh and also some enthusiasm for the job. Throwing money at a problem may be one of the more selfish ways to help; it smacks of buying indulgences and is often the rich-man's cop out. I have seen many charity events where the wealthy vie to appear more generous by writing a (tax-deductible) cheque for an overpriced bottle of wine or a week's use of some time-share or condominium. Paying professionals to do a job is also subsidising profits for someone. A lot of charity work like this is quite menial labour and does not need particular skills. Sometimes it's just digging holes, clearing scrub or collecting litter. Also where skilled work is required this is often also done by professionals as a charitable act or retirees. Taking a week or two (maybe longer) of your own time is certainly not the easy way. Working in a group of similar-minded individuals can also be inspiring, sometimes those who need help may just need a bit if encouragement to get out of a rut or find a particular task just too overwhelming to do by themselves. In the US the minimum wage is $7.25(?) so if you work two 40-hour weeks you are donating the equivalent of $580 (or £464 in the UK). I'd like to know when MC last forked over that amount of money for charity. Actually getting involved in charitable projects also brings you into contact with those in need, which often gives you a better understanding of what they really need and what they have to experience which can be crucial in changing one's outlook. It's too bloody easy to put 50p in a collecting box or type a text message for Children in Need. Also, most NGOs are charities or volunteer organisations so I fail to see why MC says to give to them instead, they still need bodies. 15:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It has come to my attention that a troll has posted. For that reason, I am ignoring it. Don't feed the troll has been engaged. 17:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, anyway... Some good points here. While for some people it may be more practical to do their professional work for pay and donate money (well-paid jobs often don't allow for taking time off to work for charity, also some of the skill sets don't transfer effectively, making the volunteer just another "amateur"), for people with more time than money, it can be very effective.  As noted, much work on a construction site is grunt work, or easy to learn.  Carrying brinks to a bricklayer or 2x4s to a framer can be done with a bare minimum of understanding of the local language.  Even if the volunteer works, say, half as fast as a pro, as long as they don't get in the way they can be incredibly useful.  Anyone who has worked on a car with a friend just hanging out can attest it really helps to be able to say "please pass me that 13mm wrench" rather than crawl back out from under and get it yourself.  A master electrician can say "run this wire from here, through those holes in the studs, and leave a foot hanging out of that wallbox" and anyone can do it.  One can learn basic framing techniques in a few hours.  While construction projects have to be run by people who have a strong skill set and lots of experience, much of the labor requires little of either.  And if the volunteer does have a small skill set/experience from personal DIY projects, they would easily be as useful as a professional day-laborer.  And those are just practical considerations - the other dimensions mentioned - working with like-minded people, meeting the people you are helping, etc. - perhaps even learning enough of a skill to be able to DIY later inone's own life - are also of high value.  21:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You might also add a bit of skill transfer there too. Someone goes to New Orleans, say, and learns the things you mention and has a good time doing it, might be a lot more inclined to help with similar projects back home, thus adding to the volunteer force locally and be a bit better at it as a result. --Kels 15:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My problem is the motive of Javascap. He is going to have a good time (No problem with that) but he's masquerading it as a good deed. I'd rather he be open and frank. Too many middle class gap year students like to pontificate about how they are in Indonesia building hospitals or whatever but the reality is that its absurdly patronising and bigoted to do such things. Better give the money you would spend on yourself directly into infrastructure projects, which in turn boost the local economy. Essentially when a white guy goes over he is completely leeching off the system, wasting money on airlines and other needless frivolities. Give even a fraction of that directly and you'll make a real difference.
 * I also recognise that for Javascap its different, he's going to a major US city where his charitably donation isn't as important, but the reality is that it is purely a selfish deed and not in any real or meaningful way an objectively selfless act.
 * He can lop around the accusation of troll all he wants, thats usually the response people give when they have no opinions or nothing to say. MarcusCicero 13:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So it's impossible that he's doing a good deed because it's a good deed, and is looking forward to the experience, then? --Kels 15:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course that is possible, but I doubt he's thought about the inherent hypocrisy in what he's doing. I doubt he's thought about it much at all. Volunteerism in itself is a noble and virtuous thing - plenty of people devote time to help at homeless shelters, answer phones for the Samaritans and any number of other good things. Its this whole 'we're going down there in person to help them rebuild things' I disagree with. Such a waste of time, money and self congratulatory nonsense. MarcusCicero 17:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Does make you wonder why groups like Habitat for Humanity and the like encourage it so much, then. Seeing as apparently it's so wasteful and potentially damaging.  I see you seem to have backed off a bit from accusing him of going solely for a good time and lying about his motivations.  That's good to see, it implied you were reading his mind based on a three sentence comment, which I'm sure we'll agree is impossible. --Kels 18:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As much as I hate to agree with MC, there's some right in what he says. Every person putting up a house for free is taking away work from someone who can be doing it for a living (and what's the unemployment rate in NOLA these days?). After the 2004 tsunami, Western groups sent tons and tons of rice to Indonesia. One of the consequences? The bottom fell out of the Indonesian rice market because local farmers and merchants couldn't lower their prices enough to compete with "free." Made it very hard for people who relied on that market to make a living the next year. The impulsion to do good is a powerful and noble thing, but rich people are more powerful than poor people, and charity/humanitarianism is often an expression of that power. TheoryOfPractice 15:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Come on people. Money is bad and golden rule and mc is from now on called lollipop and stuff. --194.197.235.240 18:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if someone could help me out here. I've been trying to find information on volunteer home building projects (Habitat for Humanity being the primary one, of course) costing jobs for local firms, and I'm having no luck. I would think with the amount of volunteer and charity building they do there'd be a lot of commentary on a subject like that, especially in today's economy, but I can't really find any. Perhaps one of the folks who have been making that claim has better access to figures and the like, could bring some links forward for the good folks here. That'd certainly shut down the people saying it's not doing harm on a local level. --Kels 01:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia in crisis
See here. I had no idea, I'm pretty surprised. 19:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is just the economic crisis, I am guessing. 19:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably. I'm not sure if "49,000 editors" means 49,000 active editors, but even so that is a huge number. 19:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What do they mean by "lose" anyway? People "leaving and never coming back" on Wikipedia is 10 a penny and far more common than it is here, but it doesn't imply that they were accidentally deleted or something like that so I assume it's people quitting because they get disenfranchised by the policy. 19:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * They've still got 159,000 active users, altho I see they also only have $1.2 of the $7.5 million they're trying to raise. Countdown to Andy orgasming about this in 5...4...3...-- Psygremlin  19:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone, please, for the love of god, tell Andy. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Online encyclopaedia Wikipedia "lost" 49,000 of its volunteer editors in the first three months of 2009, University research suggests." That is all.  20:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Amusingly enough, I just learned of "deletionpedia", which archives articles deleted from wikipedia. Sadly, my article on Brendan Hogan wasn't there. And whoever deleted it at WP couldn't be bothered to follow through on my request for userfication (meaning the words I wrote have effectively been stolen from me, since I can no longer access them). 20:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone unilaterally deleted the page on the Douglas Adams Society. I was less than impressed with that. It had been there for 2-3 years, what the fuck is that about? 21:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quite unilaterally... KlapauciusEsteemed Constructor 23:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has gone a bit weird lately. Anything you try and change gets reverted / deleted with no explanation. I remember when I'd just finished watching an episode of "Meerkat Manor" which was titled "The Killing Fields" and the wife asked me to look up something about it on WP. I noticed in the episode listing they had it listed as "The Quiet Fields" so I changed it. Within minutes someone just reverted it back without even bothering to check it. I note now that it's been changed again, but they left the alternate name underneath. 11:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is pathetic and run by the same principles as this absurd 'mobocracy'. On wikipedia, 2 idiots are twice as important as 1 genius. This is the essential flaw which Wikipedia refuses to tackle head on.
 * I enjoy wikipedia, I enjoy the retarded articles. Some are even funny. But the delusions of grandeur make me sick. Ordinary people, who are otherwise intelligent, are using Wikipedia as a reference point without really thinking about what they are reading. Wikipedia is so flawed its beyond the ability of the English language to convey that point correctly. MarcusCicero 14:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Come now Marcus, you disparage yourself, it's never beyond your capabilities with the English language to take an oh so superior attitude to the poor fools who make up the rest of the world. Bob Soles 14:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here we go again Bob, we're back on this rotating circle. Can you really not get it into your head that I'm the antidote RW needs? There's too much joshing, backslapping and general sycophancy around here. You need a critic and skeptic on board to keep you honest. MarcusCicero 17:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The operation was successful but the patient died. 21:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Smileys and public domain
Are all smileys in the public domain because the original creator let them go public? 04:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a story about the iconic "Have a Nice Day" smile-face having been sold by its creator for, like 50 bucks or something(wait...here it is...) As for the myriad of internet smileys, I imagine--but don't know--that some are pd and some were created by companies and belong to them....TheoryOfPractice 04:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sure most of the ones I have uploaded are pd, but I can't remember where I got them all from. Some I have just taken off messageboards and when ever one too my fancy. 04:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We might want to do better than "I grabbed them off the net from someone else who stole them". Google image search might find originals?  If you can't prove PD or at least CC by SA, we'll have to delete them, won't we?  04:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nicer answer: No. Just because they put them on the web does not mean they relinquish copyright.  I put images on my website, does that make them PD?  No.  Even without my copyright page, it doesn't.  04:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Smileys often come off sites that have thousands of "free" smileys. Are they even theirs? Who knows. They seem to have a sort of mystical PD about them in that everyone uses them and nobody claims to own them. 04:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a thought whether images like that would be eligible for copyright. I assume so. The newer (well, they're years old now) ones used in MSN messenger probably are. I've trawled through the emoticons on DeviantART (there are so many it stopped being funny) and although none are released under CC, the creators do imply in many cases that they want them to be used. 08:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone that wants to verify the provenance of an individual smiley through a Google search simply has too much time on their hands and might be better suited to being a Wikipedia administrator. It seems like a fool's errand to me. Either get rid of them all or live with it. It may not be the most ethical way but soemtimes you have to be pragmatic about the situation. 09:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * True dat. [[image:33.gif]][[image:Angry stare.gif]][[image:Ashamed.gif]][[image:Banana.gif]][[image:Beer.gif]][[image:Birthday.gif]][[image:Bishop.gif]][[image:Blush.gif]][[image:Bored.gif]][[image:Bow.gif]][[image:Bunny.gif]][[image:Chat-smiley.gif]][[image:Clapping.gif]][[image:Coffee spray.gif]][[image:Cry.gif]][[image:Cry2.gif]][[image:Darts-048.gif]][[image:Darts-048.gif]] [[image:Defensive.gif]][[image:Dictator.gif]][[image:Doh.gif]][[image:Drinks drunk.gif]][[image:Drive by.gif]][[image:Evilgrin0003.gif]][[image:Evilgrin0005.gif]][[image:Evilgrin0042.gif]][[image:Excited.gif]][[image:Face.gif]][[image:Facepalm.png]][[image:Falldown.gif]][[image:Falldownlaugh.gif]] 13:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I hereby withdraw any objection to any smiley that isn't an obvious work of art due to the wonderfully dubious arguments above. 09:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)