Template talk:According to

WE NO LONGER USE THIS PLEASE GO HERE INSTEAD.

ALL ENTRIES AND ARCHIVES HAVE BEEN COPIED OVER

TALK LEFT HERE FOR POSTERITY

What "According to" is for
Please do not archive this section Feel free to debate, but I think this should be for "on mission" craziness. It is turning into a (US Democratic Party) news blog feed, which is boring and, I think wrong for the intent of our main page. There is no need to update it every seven seconds. Please just add new MISSION-CENTRIC items - or discuss here if you think I'm wrong.  ħ uman  04:36, 19 July 2008 (EDT)


 * I think a judge blocking the attempted re-endangering of a species is pretty important (while not technically within the letter of the mission) anyway, I think it's a lot more interesting than the four or five Anti-Mccain things that have been poping up SirChuckB  04:38, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Also, in my defense, I think trying to stick simply to issues that are directly withing the mission is going to lead to a very stagnant According to. SirChuckB  04:42, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Let's not discuss specific issues here so much as the general intent. What it shouldn't be is the DailyKoz lite.  I agree, the anti-McCain crap sucked too.  As far as wolves... why not make an article or a debate topic?  It's not exactly a "black or white" (apologies...) issue... No offense for commenting out your inclusion, I nailed another, and I am really sick of these silly political news items getting into "According to" - it's not what we started it for, but we need to discuss this, one and all.  ħ uman  04:47, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Trust me, I've been here way too long to get offended at someone else editing my stuff :) But I just wonder what the actual rules are gonna be for posting things... My general feelings are usually if I read something and think that others will find it interesting or whatever..... So is that how this should work or is there some other litmus test we should be using? SirChuckB  06:35, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I guess I am asking you to help develop some guidelines for this highly visible part of our main page?  ħ uman  07:00, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I would be happy to... sadly, it'll have to be postponed until my return from the great white north... Hopefully the world won't end before that. SirChuckB  11:37, 19 July 2008 (EDT)
 * It started out as things from (other than CP) nutjob sources that make you go "whoa"... but we've never really been very tight about goes in and what shouldn't. And I sure as heck have no right to arbitrarily limit it without at least some interminable discussion and some sort of consensus (which may decide that it should be exactly what "I" don't want it to be, but at least then I'd know and not wield the mighty comment code when things actually belong...). Hopefully some other people will chime in here.  ħ uman  19:47, 19 July 2008 (EDT)

Rules
I have just created RationalWiki:Frontpage Rules Please come let your voice be heard SirChuckB  02:44, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Pope
I tried to change the wording of that.... while it was technically correct, it seemed to be a rather unfair shot at the Catholic Church.... I'll concede this probably isn't the best verson, but we should keep to the spirit of this article rather than the technical story. SirChuckB  17:09, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Very responsible of you Chuck. After all it's not just the Catholics:

The World Council of Churches, when they had their congress in Canberra back in the 1990s, that was the best business period ever. Genghis   17:20, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Don't look too far into it... I don't really care for religion in general, but I like to see a fair representation of what's in the article That said, I do like the work of JPII SirChuckB  18:56, 5 July 2008 (EDT)

Wedge
What wedge are you referring to when you say Obama and McCain "[drive] the wedge deeper?" -- 12:52, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
 * My first guess was driving the wege deeper in terms of liberl/conservative..... You know, keep the people fighting against each other and they don't notice that everyone (but the super rich) are being screwed. SirChuckB  19:30, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
 * As in asking for and reporting their opinions on a fairly irrelevant word, as opposed to an issue people actually care about? I dunno, for some reason Lyra deleted the phrase anyway. I guess it could have used a link or a better description?  ħ uman  19:35, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Seriously...
Have we fallen so low that we need to turn to the Torygraph for our snarky lulz now?! I shall go and hang my head in shame forthwith, and I urge you all to join me at your earliest convenience. -- 16:40, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

PZ and his crackers
Section moved to Debate:Did PZ Myers Cross the Line?
 * "Meanwhile, a 19-year old college student understands what the PhD and his horde of commenters don't."
 * This sounds like it was copied straight from CP's front page. Is it meant to be a parody of their style or was it written with a completely straight face? [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis   17:05, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Poll
I have commented out the CNN poll as the poll says there are 10% unsure. If it add to over 100% I could see the joke but any poll that has less then 100% means people are either noncommittal or voting 3rd party. $\approx$$\pi$ 21:19, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
 * It's not about >100%.  It's that you can't poll people and not have a sampling error.  I guess I give up.  You've all been conned by CNN. Sterilesnore! 08:32, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Okay, I see the joke now. It should say statistical rather than mathematical impossiblitlity. $\approx$$\pi$ 23:54, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Isn't it nice how we all just get along.... weep, sob, smile!  ħ uman  01:55, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Phrankinthenthe
That should be an article... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  02:21, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

Calling on gospel to call off debt
I'm not sure this is really AcTo worthy. It lacks punch and the external link is buried. Any other views? <font color=Blue>Genghis   07:34, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Personally, I'm not all that amazed that different groups of Christians interpret the Bible in different ways. I'd be more amazed if they actually agreed on an interpretation. ;-) -- 07:58, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I think it's too wordy. Simply saying "Some call on gospel to call off debt" ought to be enough. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  19:22, 20 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Having read most of the article even that headline is misleading, really. They're just doing financial counseling in the churches, from what I can see - they certainly don't appear to trying to get divine intercession.  Is it an interesting story?  Yes.  Belong on our front page?  I don't think so.  But then, I don't think much of what is on AT should be there...  Anyway, perhaps a nice snarky link to the story from our prosperity gospel article would be good, though. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  19:34, 20 July 2008 (EDT)

The cracker is dead
Thoughts? 14:50, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Glad it's all over with, maybe. 15:07, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * AKjeldsen is not going to like it. Personally, it just brightened up my day. [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]<font color=Blue>Genghis   15:22, 24 July 2008 (EDT)
 * It should be at WIGO:blogosphere, not according to. In fact, if we get those WIGOs cranked up properly, According to is going to be close to obsolete... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  17:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)