User talk:AKjeldsen/Archive6

"Hell-fire"
You shall receive eternal punishment for your transgressions against spelling. 05:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * This coming from the one who misspelt "mouse".  05:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I have never mispelled mowse. It is you who have rather clumsily typed the word as "mouse", a painfully inferior version. 05:21, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Bah. Your simple murine mind just can't handle the high level of creativity that I bring to the English language. -- 05:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * That's all well and fine, but can you recite you times tables?  05:28, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I doubt it. I haven't had to recite a times table in, what, 15 years? -- 05:33, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Hey, RA! Instead of having a mowse in your sig, you could just change your name to "Murine"! Problem solved! 05:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * No thank you. I rather favor being a psychotherapist at the moment.   05:34, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I meant your actual name. It is something like "Murine", isn't it? 05:37, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * That's "Murane". And how did you find out my actual name, you stalker?  I only mentioned it once on a long-forgotten page that was pre-Jellyfish.   05:44, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * No, as I recall you used it to sign your "I have no idea what Ides is but I don't like it" letter, and it's on your RWW page, unless I'm much mistaken. 05:48, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Is that from the same route as "Murrain" - a generic disease of cattle? 'cos murrain is by far my favourite word. --JeevesMkII 05:55, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * That's his middle name :nods with authority: 06:04, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * As I recall, the first Murane was a horsethief. So maybe  ; )   12:04, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Sum questions
I has them. The first one isn't important, but it sets the scene nicely, don't you think?
 * 1) Why would looters on foot attack someone with an awesome horse like mine? Fools!
 * 2) What am I meant to be doing? Is it 100% sandbox or is there some kind of plot I should be looking for? 08:48, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Because their wretched poverty drives them to acts of desperation. Oh, that reminds me: If you buy a club or mace and whack them with that instead, you can take them captive and sell them to "Ransom Brokers" in the city taverns for 50 gold each (Assuming you have points in "Prisoner Management" skill, that is).
 * It's about 95% sandbox. There's no plot as such, but the most rewarding thing to do is to do quests for nobles or guilds and otherwise defeat enemies and take their stuff until you're powerful enough that a noble will hire you as a mercenary. Then, through the usual combination of bravery and sycophancy, you will eventually gain enough status that one of the realms will grant you a fief. That's usually when you start waging war against enemy realms and besieging castles and such. You could also be a trader and buy and sell goods between the cities, or a highwayman attacking caravans, or whatever else you fancy, but there's not as much sense of accomplishment in those. -- 09:10, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I think I did knock one of them out, actually. But it wouldn't let me capture him. Perhaps that unhinged jellyfish riding around him in endless circles made him too dizzy to travel.
 * Can I be a highwayman and a fief owner? 10:14, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Possibly, but I think it's more likely that you didn't have points in Prisoner Management. You can have five captives per point. Oh, and remember to have enough food in your inventory for your troops. They get rather distraught when they have nothing to eat.
 * Certainly. Attacking the caravans of your enemies is both good strategy and rather profitable, as is attacking the enemy villages. -- 10:27, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * 1. No, it definitely said he was dizzy. "+11 Dizzyness", it said. Right there on the screen. In words. 10:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Oh. Well, in that case, I guess you must be right. -- 11:11, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * You are refreshingly honest today. But in your comment I sense the bizarre implication that I'm not always right. How do you expain  this?  13:42, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Moderate doses of paracetamol? -- 16:50, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * What kind of linguistic rebel are you if you so scorn my pioneering spelling reforms? 16:58, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * A bad one. I'm sorry. Oh, wait, rebels don't apologize. But if I'm a bad rebel, maybe it's okay to apologize. What do you think? -- 17:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I think you've gotten lost. Let me draw you a diagram:
 * [_______]
 * ^This is our conversation.
 * This is you.
 * Would you like me to go through that again? 17:09, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * No thanks, I got it. So what were we talking about again? -- 17:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * You were rhapsodising about L, and I was listening patiently. 17:18, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I told you I'd call you about that job. Drowning in other projects at the moment. Have to think it over. Certain you understand. Keep up the good work and all that. -- 17:25, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * AK, with freelance rhapsodising like that, we're glad you're not in the trade. You would put us all out of business. 17:30, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I must warn you: If you persist in this, I may have to be mean. And you know you don't like that. -- 17:39, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Mean in what way, exactly? 17:41, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Mean in the way in which I try to explain that I'm not really interested in "rhapsodising about L". -- 17:45, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * But that type of mean's not fun at all :(
 * Alright, what did you want to talk about? 17:48, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * That is sort of the point, which I why I thought it best to give you fair warning.
 * Let's go back to M&B. Have you gotten anywhere so far? -- 18:02, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I tried to track down a fugitive, but when I found him he knocked me out and I failed the mission. And since I chose the "don't let me exit without saving" option, I had to close the program down with task manager. Is there a way I can turn that off, perchance? 18:07, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I don't think so. As far as I remember, it can only be set at character creation. And there's a reason for that. The reason is that it's only wimps who don't choose the "don't let me exit without saving" option. Take your defeats like a man/woman/thing. The worst that can happen is that the guy who gave the mission gets a little angry. -- 18:11, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * ...and fails to give me all his money. You forgot that part. I don't want to take defeat like a thing/mineral/vegetable, I want to take it like a rich jellyfish. 18:18, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * You'll just have to fight better next time, then, won't you? If you want to be rich, though, I suggest plundering villages. Just be careful that the peasants don't come after you. And don't do it to someone you might want to work for at a later point. And expect the realm in question to consider you a wanted criminal. -- 18:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
 * You'll just have to fight better next time, then, won't you? If you want to be rich, though, I suggest plundering villages. Just be careful that the peasants don't come after you. And don't do it to someone you might want to work for at a later point. And expect the realm in question to consider you a wanted criminal. -- 18:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Vatican Webiste
Hi AKjeldsen. I've just been looking at the Vatican webiste and I want to avoid misrepresenting it. So, as our resident expert on such things, I wonder if you could clarify something in advance. Is it fair to say that anything there is the official policy of the Roman Catholic Church? I'm working on the assumption that it is - but in the event that I'm mistaken could you clarify in advance the relationship between the webiste and church doctrine? Thanks. :-) --Bobbing up 12:53, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I don't actually know who's responsible for the Vatican website, but it's probably a reasonable assumption that it doesn't contain anything not in line with official Church policy. Were you thinking of anything in particular? -- 15:28, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Not really. It's fairly dense stuff, I was just putting a few search queries in- "prayer", "miracle", "contraception", "condom", "exorcism"  to see what came up, and I was wondering if I could reasonably quote any text that came up as "the Catholic church's opinion" or if that would cause some problem and "according to the Vatican webiste" would be better.--Bobbing up 16:37, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
 * It's a bit complicated, but I think the best way to approach it is that you won't find anything on the site that is against Church policy, but not everything there is necessarily fully official Church policy. As long as it's from one of the official offices - the Pope, the Curia, the various Councils and Congregations, etc. - it'll probably be policy, but the Vatican is an organization with lots of factions, and they of course each have their own opinions and interpretation of what exactly that policy is. -- 20:15, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Is there a reason why you keep saying "webiste"? 20:19, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
 * The Latin word for website? ThunderkatzHo! 20:27, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Just to (hopefully) clarify what I mean: A couple of days ago, we had a discussion, er... somewhere around here about Cardinal Trujillo and his charming views on birth control, I think it was. The problem is that that on the one hand, Cardinal Trujillo is the chairman of the Pontifical Council for the Family, so in that way, his opinions could be interpreted as the official Church policy on family issues. But on the other hand, the Cardinal is also a pretty hardline conservative, and it's certain that his views are not universally shared inside the Vatican, probably not even on the Council itself. So one needs to be very aware of whether he speaks in his official capacity as Council chairman, in which case his opinion will probably have been thoroughly vetted by the bureaucracy and can be considered policy, or whether he speaks simply as an individual member of the hierarchy, in which case it probably can't. Same thing goes for e.g. the Pontifical Academy for the Sciences, to take the other end of the spectrum.


 * So there's really a hierarchy of decisionmaking that needs to be considered. If the Pope says or at least endorses something, it's always policy. If a high-ranking cardinal or prominent office-holder says something, it may be policy. And if it's just an individual cardinal, it probably won't be. A good case in point is Cardinal Schönborn with his comments about Darwin a few years ago. What he said was not policy, but just his own opinion. -- 20:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
 * That was the point I was trying to clarify about the Vatican website . In fact I thought it was clear, but now I'm a bit confused again. Your first comments seemed to confirm that if it was on the site it would at least not be contradictory to official church policy.  But your later comments seem to be saying something not quite that clear.  So in order to not raise doubts about whether what is said on the official Vatican website is, in fact, official Vatican policy, it would be better to say, "According to the official Vatican website" and not, "According to the Vatican" - as the two things apparently may or may not be the same.  Is that correct? --Bobbing up 04:08, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Bob, www.vatican.va is just that - a website. It is not a journal or official bulletin. But every page you visit should be tagged somehow with its provenience: a quote from an enciclica is much more official policy than an article on L'osservatore romano. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 04:15, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Now I'm even more confused. Are you saying that the webiste "www.vatican.va" is neither endorsed nor controlled by the Vatican and that it has no official status as a mouthpiece for the Vatican?  If so, then I'm very glad I asked before quoting it!--Bobbing up 04:35, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * It is endorsed and controlled by the Vatican for sure, like every .gov-site is by the US government. Still you can find many things in .gov-sites. www.vatican.va is the official website of the Vatican, but it's not the Official Bulletin or anything like that. If you have noticed, it has many different sections. Which of them are you taking your quotes from? Editor at CPLiar at RP! 06:35, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Actually I haven't taken any yet - I'm just trying to cover my back and make sure that if I do quote from it then nobody is going to criticize me for claiming that it has an authority it does not hold. I see that Wikipedia refers to it as the official website of the Holy See. I guess if I call it that when (or if) I quote from it, then nobody can complain?  --Bobbing up 06:52, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Again, it depends on what you are quoting. I'd say most of the documents there are official ones. But if you happen to find a columnist's writings in the Osservatore Romano newspaper, you are quoting someone's views, not the Vatican's. If you happen to find a document by some organization, it's that organization's view. Definitely, if you want to discredit the Catholic Church by using its own words, I suggest an encyclical, preferably by the current Pope or his predecessor. Dismissing them as "personal opinion" will be difficult. Just avoid quote mining and all the other tricks CP is so proud of using. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 07:28, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Bob, I think most of the confusion here comes from the fact that the Vatican itself can be somewhat confusing. While it may appear from the outside as one single entity, it is actually made up of an array of executive, legislative and judicial offices and agencies, just like any other government is. In addition, again like any government, it is divided in different factions that usually go across these organizational lines. These offices and groups all have their own agendas and disagree with each other over questions of policy, just like e.g. the US Departments of Defense and State often has disagreed with each other on what exactly the American policy towards Iraq is.


 * The difference, however, is that where the State Dept., the DoD and the other government agencies each have their own websites and other channels of communication, the Vatican channels are more unified. This of course means that these differences of opinion and policy will to some extent be reflected on the website. While there's probably no need to get bogged down in political details, it's still best to consider the source of a given quote. Again, as I said above, what the Pope says is policy by definition. If it's from one of the Pontifical Councils or other official institutions, it will most likely be policy as well, but as interpreted by that particular institution. All sources below that level need to be considered carefully, but again, things may not be entirely obvious - a high-ranking cardinal who is close to the Pope may actually be a very good of policy, even if he doesn't hold any official office. -- 07:38, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * (Edit Conflict) Is the Osservatore Romano newspaper part of the site? I haven't explored it page by page. But anyway, if I were to write, "According to the official website of the Holy See", I assume that nobody would be in a position to dispute that? (On the proviso that I had not quote mined - that is to say providing that I had not deliberately distorted the meaning by ignoring the context). Am I covered now?--Bobbing up 07:41, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Couldn't all this confusion be avoided by simply stating the actual source of whatever it is you wish to quote? Write e.g. "According to the Pontifical Council on the Family" and then just link to the page in question? -- 07:45, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * (Edit conflict) What AKjeldsen said (but he is always more precise, concise and... right). Editor at CPLiar at RP! 07:50, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * (Edit conflict) Yeeees, but that might not mean a lot to people who don't know what on earth a "Pontifical Council" is, whereas the "Official websiste of X" is clearer. The solution "According to the Pontifical Council on the Family as expressed at the official website of the Holy See"  is just a little too wordy. But I'm just trying to get any potential wording problem out of the way first. Presumably there is nothing wrong with "According to the official website of the Holy See" - it's a factually accurate statement?--Bobbing up 07:53, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * As factually accurate as quotemining: that is while technically correct, it might give a false impression of the Pope himself putting his stamp of approval on something, instead of his country's website merely reporting the ramblings of some obscure priest or scientist. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 07:58, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

<- Bob, it depends on how accurate you want your quotes to be (and since you brought this up in the first place, I guess that you want them to be fairly accurate), weighed up against how much detail you want to include. However, I think it is worthwhile to include such details, because they add another level of depth to the discussion - instead of talking about "the Catholic Church did this or that", we might actually begin talking about "this part of the Church did this or that". On the other hand, I don't really think it should be a concern that people don't know what a Pontifical Council is. Wikipedia is just a click or two away. -- 08:31, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Just saw this by random, and thought I'd drop a line that the only real authoritative source is the catechism, found here. The words of cardinals, popes, or any other authority bows before this one (unless of course the Pope is speaking ex cathedra, but that is very rare). It can be cited with absolute authority as the official doctrine of the Catholic Church, and is simply cited.--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 02:12, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Time travel!
I am 100% certain you won't like this song, but I'm afraid I really don't care. let's hear it for bright colours! ^_^ 19:50, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Also: "I know you're a person of great modesty"...? Have you even met me before? 19:52, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I may not have been entirely serious in that comment. However! I am nothing less than shocked and amazed that you like Daft Punk. Even though you, as might be expected, picked probably the weakest song of the whole album, this still reveals a most surprising glimmer of taste. This really forces me to adjust my world view considerably. -- 20:05, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
 * But I've played you Daft Punk before! Indeed, I played what is undoubtedly their finest song, Voyager.
 * I shall expect some manner of confectionary to demonstrate your contrition for this most terrible of transgressions, Andreas. Hmmph. 20:11, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm afraid I don't have any confectionery at the moment. I do have half a biscuit lying around, though. It used to be a source of an epic conflict between me and User:Wikinterpreter, the exact cause of which I can't exactly remember, but it did involve the exchange of a number of thermo-nuclear devices. I guess you can have it.




 * Anyway! You may have played Daft Punk before, I don't really remember. But I notice that you're still somewhat deluded by calling Voyager the "finest song". This honour clearly and in fact indisputably goes to Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger. -- 20:22, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
 * It most certainly does not, Samael. HBFS is, at best, a three star song, a chance radio hit, whereas Voyager is magical, and may well have been written by Jesus himself during one of his many well-documented collaborations with Daft Punk.
 * Now depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. 20:40, 18 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Interestingly, Ben Ratliff of Rolling Stone Magazine stated the following regarding the album Discovery:

Discovery helps you get your mainstream on but only for its first half. The songs that grab you are loaded up front. The momentum of "One More Time," the album's first track, continues through "Digital Love" - a shameless bite of the Buggles' Eighties synth boogie - and rolls up to "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger," which is Euro dance music at its absolute best: hand claps, a clanking ride cymbal, funky stabs on the Fender Rhodes, vocoder and all. The first five songs are the work of a real band, Daft Punk, whoever the hell they are.

But then the handprint of the maker grows weirdly faint. "Crescendolls," which is one bouncy two-bar loop over and over, hints at the problems to come; then there's the short "Nightvision," which has the eerie, ambient feeling of 10cc's "I'm Not In Love," without vocals. Where are we going? As for the rest, it grows anonymous, and not in the artful way that Daft Punk used to capitalize on. The album becomes muddled - not only in the spectrum between serious and jokey but in its sense of an identity.


 * I am confident that this convincing argument will convince you that you are wrong and I am right regarding this matter of the album Discovery. -- 20:57, 18 September 2008 (EDT)
 * AKjeldsen, I certainly won the debate regarding the goodness of Ulrich Schnauss. Do you own a copy of Discovery? If so, I would be deeply appreciative if you could describe to me the tracklist. Secondly, I also wish to add that you have not demonstrated your contention with regards to Discovery, that Voyager is not amazing and that Discovery trails off in the middle, and I would be deeply appreciative if you did so. Given the absolutely 100% better-than-HBFS amazingness of Voyager, I think you will find it quite difficult to demonstrate your contention as regards Discovery :) hking 21:11, 18 September 2008 (EDT)hking
 * hking, I found your above post rather silly. RationalWiki links to the Rolling Stone website which is recognized on the Internet as a high-quality site regarding the matter of music. Many other websites on the Internet contain similar views. I promise to contact these websites within a period of 697-2391 days. Also, you have not provided documentation for your statement that Voyager is 100% better than Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger. In short, you have utterly failed to demonstrate your main contentions -- 08:41, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * AKjeldsen, I was made sysop at RationalWiki because of my opinions in regards to Voyager. I am guessing you will not be made SYSOP given that you have not attempted to substantiate your position as regards Voyager. Secondly, I have never heard the publication Rolling Stone mentioned in scholarly discourse. If you would care to substantiate your contention that it is reputable, I would be deeply appreciative. Secondly, you wrote above regarding Discovery the following: "you, as might be expected, picked probably the weakest song of the whole album." Your source, the publication Rolling Stone, certainly does not support this contention. If you could direct me to a source that does support this contention, I would certainly be deeply appreciative. Lastly, you did not describe the tracklist of Discovery, as I asked above. If you are unwilling to continue this debate, I will ask you to get off my talk page, as I do not have time to read your rather silly comments. hking 13:40, 19 September 2008 (EDT)hking

I am not the judge of this competition, but I momentarily usurp the title and declare Chaos! the winner of the first round. Daft Punk versus Nightwish, do I need to add more? Editor at CPLiar at RP! 14:08, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I think we passed the first round quite some time ago. But, nonetheless, I accept this great honour (in fact, I accept it very very quickly, before AK can protest). 14:11, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Now just a moment there! Is that it? "Sorry, Daft Punk trumps Nightwish." Just like that? What about closure? What about accountability? Think of the children! Save the whales! -- 15:26, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * It's only the first round, dear. And I like to think I earned my victory through my undoubtedly superior imitation of Conservative. Plus, Voyager is better than your silly song. 15:28, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Granted. I don't do Conservative imitations well. I think it was actually the third or fourth round, by the way. -- 15:33, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Picky picky. Who's going to decide who won the other rounds, then? Wasn't RA going to be our judge at one point? 15:41, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, he was, but I must say that he's been rather negligent in his duties so far. Also, I believe Ed@CP was made chairman of the rules commission, due to the unfortunate lack of any available Mongol warlords to fill the position at the time. -- 15:46, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * As the chairman of the rules commission, I declare that I haven't viewed or listened to any piece of evidence after the first few songs. In fact, it was AKjeldsen himself who let me know about the Daft Punk video. Thus he himself gave the first round victory to his opponent. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 16:21, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Edit mutton

 * You mean you didn't watch my Digital Love video?? I am horrorstruck. Please correct this terrible wrongdoing at once, Editor. 16:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * This is an official admonition. Next time you will be sanctioned for trying to influence the jury and insulting behaviour. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 16:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Oh, go on. It's a great video, is all. 16:35, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

Song war, round 4
Well, if Daft Punk is what brings you to the top around here, then let me waste no time in advancing what is surely their greatest song ever, regardless of what the babbling hordes otherwise might think. -- 16:54, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Tish and pish, Andreas. That still isn't true, despite your repeated claims to the contrary :P
 * Anyway, I found a nice song for you, which is related to a certain piece of recent news. Please treat it nicely. 17:30, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, I suppose that's not a bad little ditty, although I'm not certain which particular "recent news" you're referring to. Solar eclipse back in early August?
 * Just to stay with the theme. -- 17:43, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Hmmm. I quite like Mike Oldfield, but it's a crying shame he was born with no ability to detect the quality of cheesiness (most especially in titles).
 * Anyway, it seems you are behind the times a little. 17:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Sobs. Lunitics are in teh hall no more. (not sure who wrote that, though it's not Who.)...-- 18:00, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * * nods sombrely*
 * Anyway, here's my next entry... for when AK wakes up ^_^ 18:35, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm awake. Unfortunately, "This video is not available in [my] country." I fear that I'm being oppressed by The Man and his oppressive copyright laws. :-( -- 18:53, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I maintain that you are not awake. Your body is just spasming randomly on the keyboard. There's an alternate version here, if you don't mind moronic adverts. 18:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm very much awake, thankyouverymuch, but I'm sorry to report that The Man got to that one as well. -- 19:02, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Sigh.
 * Well this one should be less likely to be protected, being quite a lot older. It's slightly less good, though, I feel. 19:10, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * That worked, and I found it... slightly to moderately scary, akshually. So we'll move forward with all haste. Here's a bit of high culture, so rarely seen around here. -- 19:40, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * My first choice was scarier. By a little bit.
 * Anyway, the piano thing was very impressive technically, sure, but I didn't see the point, other than that. I'm sure it sounds different to you. 20:05, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * The point? It's Sviatoslav Richter. Playing Appassionata. One of the best piano recordings of the 20th century. What more point than this do you need? -- 20:14, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Again with your silly objectification of music :P
 * But, hey! If we're allowed to post songs with no videos, I have a new friend I'd like to introduce you to. (Pointless background information you won't care about: "The Tuss" in a thinly veiled pseudonym of that well-known rascal Richard D James.)
 * 20:22, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * It had a video. It's not my fault that video was only made up of a single picture. >_>
 * That was pretty wierd. I find myself moved to question whether it can truly be categorized as music at all. But I supposse certain concessions must be made to preserve the ongoing dialogue between the peoples genres.
 * And now for something completely different! With all the oppression by The Man earlier, the People needs to have their say. -- 20:40, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * AK, you've chosen that before. 20:45, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * But I'll listen to it anyway. Wait there. 20:46, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Hah! I told you you were asleep.
 * Anyway, I already have a perfectly good National Anthem of my own. Please don't expect it to make sense, though. 21:19, 19 September 2008 (EDT)

And the second (fourth?) round goes to Akjeldsen, thanks to two solid Russian performances. It takes time to get used to Richter's speed though. Situation Chaos! 1 - AKjeldsen 1 and now I'll leave the judge seat to its legitimate owner. I'll go sit in the spectator stands with my headphones on. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 03:13, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Your judgement has, sadly, been rejected by our panel of impartial jellyfish. Mainly because it rested upon the quality of an entry that should be disqualified for being a repetition of an earlier one. Don't make me sting you, now. 03:19, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Nowhere in the Rules or in the Regulations is repetition prohibited. Repetita iuvant, as they use to say. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 04:09, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * (breathless interjection) This is a great idea. All wars should be fought this way. Also, you started off with Daft Punk and Pink Floyd, which is tantamount to Awesome. -- 09:47, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I find this whole thing silly. Shouldn't you all be working in soup kitchens or something?   12:00, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * We can't all work in soup kitchens, RA. If we did, there would be soup kitches on every street corner, and they would all be so full of happy helpers that the needy would never get any soup. Surely you realize that this situation would not be ideal. -- 14:33, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Song car, round 5
Moving on, then. If you do not like this piece, I can only conclude that you're not alive, in any sense of that word. Not even as a cold, unfeeling cyborg. Because even a cold, unfeeling cyborg would like this. -- 14:33, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Did I ever tell you I failed a Voight-Kampff test? --[[Image:Cyan mowse 2.png|25px]] λινυσ (☮) 14:43, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Wow, the quality of this contest is very high. Neverending story now, Pink Floyd earlier (or so I heard). Congratulations, contenders. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 14:45, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Now, it is impossible not to like this. --[[Image:Cyan mowse 2.png|25px]] λινυσ (☮) 14:49, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * (EC)
 * Linus: Poor you :( That's why I gave you the mowse! Is a cheerful mowse ^_^
 * AK: It's supposed to be COLD, UNFEELING CYBORG, as in someone who does not react to something actually good, like Motion Picture Soundtrack. Your video was okay, I guess, but... 14:50, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * What, Linus enters the contest! We have a... triel then! Editor at CPLiar at RP! 14:56, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * It is also impossible to dislike this. --[[Image:Cyan mowse 2.png|25px]] λινυσ (☮) 14:59, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Slow down, dammit! 15:01, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Oh cool, I don't actually have to listen, because I already know the song. ^_^ Yay! I still think Travel Is Dangerous is better, though... 15:03, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * (EC)In that case, I shoot you both in the knees. (It's better when it's not live, but even so...) 15:01, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

The definitive masterpiece of music. Please listen to all of it before posting again. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 15:07, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah, AK already posted that :P 15:10, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Ouch. The same exact performance? Or this, this, this or any of the other countless examples? You know, in classical music the role of the performer is very important. Luckily, someone comes to the rescue. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 15:14, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I think it was the same, yes. But then, I listen to that song all the time, so I know it off by heart :P 15:17, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * TAKE THIS. --[[Image:Cyan mowse 2.png|25px]] λινυσ (☮) 15:22, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * "Allegro non troppo" is a must movie - Disney's Fantasia with a soul. Its parts are conveniently found in Youtube. For an example, my feelings at the moment. Editor at CPLiar at RP! 15:27, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * That is, indeed, incredibly depressing. Poor kitteh :(
 * I must look that movie up some time... 15:36, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Hmm. It's been a while since we had some Nightwish. -- 18:05, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Has it? I hadn't noticed.
 * Anyway, I saw this and thought of you, for some reason ^_^ 18:39, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * It's good that you think of me regularly. That way, I hope to eventually influence you away from these interminable tapestries of sound-texture in favour of actual music.
 * Such as this! Best TV series intro ever. -- 19:24, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * There's something wrong with you.
 * And what's with this "tapestries of sound" thing you keep muttering about? I could almost see your point if I'd linked you to Treefingers, or something like that (yes, that's my submission :P), but you have absolutely no excuse for such ignorance when it comes to the beauty of Ulrich Schnauss.
 * Besides, your own Neverending Story video was far more interminable than mine. :P 19:40, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Ah, but the interminability rate of a musical piece is not directly related to length. Rather, it can be expressed as the length divided by the amount of harmonic and dynamic changes it contains, or "I = L / X"; squared if it's by Ulrich Schnauss.
 * In other news, semper aliquod novis ex Africa. -- 20:06, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * "Not directly related to length"? Perfect... *evil grin*
 * Plus, that piece also illustrates perfectly how it is possible to retain the interest of the listener without any showy changes in dynamics.
 * And stop picking on Ulrich Schnauss. 20:25, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Whawastha... Oh, sorry. I think I dozed off during that. Anyway, if you didn't keep bringing Ulrich Schnauzer Schnauss up, I wouldn't have so many opportunities to pick on him, would I?


 * But if we must indulge in the genre of repetitive music, we may as well do so properly. Japura River. -- 20:50, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Now why does that remind me of Monkey Island...? ^_^
 * Anyway, I think this is what you actually meant to choose, you poor confused woodland creature. 20:57, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * No, that wasn't really what I was thinking of. That's not even repetitive music, it's just Bowie.


 * But now that you mention woodland creatures, I came to think of Deer Hunter, and that of course led me to think of Cavatina. Who wouldn't? -- 21:04, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * What? You guys have started up again without me? I'm hurt. :( Anyway, I come wielding Peter Gabriel. --[[Image:Cyan mowse 2.png|25px]] λινυσ (☮)
 * That seemed familiar somehow...
 * And it's not "just Bowie", it's "just" beautiful :P 21:15, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Perhaps, but hardly among his best. And Linus, I'm afraid The Man is interfering again with his incessant claims that "This video is not available in your country." -- 21:23, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Hardly among his best?? Alright then, Mr Tough. Come and have a go if you think yer hard enough :P 21:29, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * No. No, I'm sorry, but Bowie or not, that is boring. Boring and non-descript. This, on the other hand is absolutely incomparable. -- 09:52, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
 * In keeping with my new policy of being nice to everyone, I'm going to allow you to guess what type of cyborg I'm about to compare you to. If you get it right, you win a stylish Ford Focus, and some raffle tickets :P 16:34, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Unfortunately, I'm not that familiar with the purely technical aspects of Cyborg Studies, such as which specific types exist or are common at the moment. You often speak of COLD, UNFEELING CYBORGs, but on the other hand, I guess the majority of cyborgs are COLD and UNFEELING, so that doesn't narrow the selection much.


 * Hmm...


 * I think I'll go with the Cybermen from Dr. Who. When in doubt, go with Dr. Who, is what I always say. -- 17:15, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Actually, I was thinking of SILLY and MISGUIDED. As in, "You're a SILLY and MISGUIDED CYBORG". I'll look after the Ford Focus for you, shall I?
 * Anyway, I couldn't find a proper video for this, so please forgive me. There was actually one with L in it (!!!!), but it had inferior sound quality. You have no idea what a dilemma that was to me :( This one is nice, nonetheless. 17:25, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I don't have a driver's license anyway, so I'll manage. Here's some good stuff. Nice and uncomplicated. -- 19:04, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Edit kitten

 * You is evil. 19:14, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Annoyingly, this version of the song in question is of noticably higher quality than the version that I actually paid for. Grrr. 19:19, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, I know I'm evil. Original sin and all that. How does my evil manifest in this particular case? -- 19:35, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
 * By posting songs by the Proclaimers. And by being momentarily convinced that good, sensible copyeditor mowses might have purchased said songs at some point. It's an intriguing manifestation of evil that afflicts you. Ye cursed. 19:38, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Nah, I'm just trying to multitask beyond my processing limits. Not recommended. -- 19:50, 21 September 2008 (EDT)
 * You brought this upon yourself. I wash my hands of this. -- 05:40, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
 * You not liek my nu naem? :'( 12:05, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Aw. Of course I like your new name. Still, you have to expect certain... reactions. They're practically inevitable. -- 12:18, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, they should go in the Complaints section of my talk page. That's what it's for [[image:nods.gif]] 12:24, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
 * But on the other hand, this was not so much a complaint as a simple reflection. Plus, it was a part of the long bar song war, and that's what this section is for. -- 12:26, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Did you ever finish your frantic multitasking? 12:42, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Ha! I'm afraid not. "Frantic multitasking" practically defines my life right now. -- 13:37, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, if it makes you feel any better, I found a rather amusing depiction of you online. Isn't the resemblance uncanny?? 13:47, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Perhaps... which one of the two characters in question were you thinking of, and in which ways? [/cautiously optimistic] -- 14:05, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
 * You're the big dragon, of course, silly ^_^ It's also very noticable in this strip. See? Uncanny! 14:09, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Okay, granted. That's totally me. -- 14:28, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm glad you agree! Can I maek you a Big Red Dragon usebox? It would be big and red, with a picture of that dragon, and the caption "This user AKjeldsen". And it would float above your talkpage like my PKD-Box. Pretty pease? 14:36, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Hmm. While I'm not a big fan of those floating things... okay, why not? But only because it's you. And because it's a dragon. -- 14:50, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
 * There you go! Isn't it lovely?? 15:06, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, it's very nice. Thank you very much. Now, you're not trying to distract me from the song war, are you? -- 15:29, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
 * No, of course not. But are you sure you want to keep songwarring while you're still Frantically Multitasking? O large dragon? 15:32, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

(<-- Yank!)

Of course. Surely you've noticed that a great deal of what I do is extremely strange, O little mowse. (Or whatever it is you are this week). -- 15:38, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

Edit mitten!

 * I am, indeed, a little mowse. Please to not tred on mii.
 * Bringed you thys gyft. 15:55, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Thank you, that was not too bad. I wanted to stick with the dragon theme, but incomprehensibly, it seems that no metal band has ever written a song about dragons (or at least that no one took the time to upload it (or perhaps I'm just incompetent)), so this was the closest I could get. -- 17:05, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Could it be you actually enjoyed an Aphex Twin song??? And an ambient one, at that! I'm very impressed, Mr Dragon ^_^
 * Anyway, enjoy the--
 * 07:50, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Fun fact: Depeche Mode is almost as old as I am, less a month or two. Let's have some more of that. -- 17:22, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I think I'm the same age as MBV. While I'm trying to think of something to play (I've used up all music known to man!!), do enjoy this comic version of me. It's scarily accurate. 21:03, 23 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I guess I am older than both of you (all 12 notes/tones in that wonderful intro). Editor at CPOh, Finland! Why? 02:46, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Pink, when you say "all music known to man" I believe you actually meant "all music known to me". (It's a common mistake to make.) Fortunately, we're here to help you broaden your tastes in music. Ed, you mean you're as old as Louis Armstrong? I think that is a little older than both of us. :p -- 07:05, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Well Louis Armstrong was more of a direction in time (=older). I am older than Depeche Mode and younger than its members. I decided to come to this world the day after I (that is, my parents) assisted to a concert by this man. Member of the RAT pack by the way, should he and his fellows become Honourary members of RATwiki? Editor at CPOh, Finland! Why? 07:24, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Well Louis Armstrong was more of a direction in time (=older). I am older than Depeche Mode and younger than its members. I decided to come to this world the day after I (that is, my parents) assisted to a concert by this man. Member of the RAT pack by the way, should he and his fellows become Honourary members of RATwiki? Editor at CPOh, Finland! Why? 07:24, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

Did the Song Contest die off? I was inspired by it for my userpage, not that I suggest checking it out. Editor at CPOh, Finland! Why? 05:48, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
 * The Song Contest will never die, but it does go on hiatus from time to time. -- 08:36, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

BBC2
It may be old hat or simplistic to you but I've just watched an interesting programme on the Gutenberg Bible by Stephen Fry on BBC2. Генгис   15:19, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * This one? I can't watch it here outside the UK (The Man strikes again!), but it looks interesting. I seem to recall they've run series of medieval-themed programs like that before. -- 18:20, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes that was the one, I must have missed it when it first ran on 4. I thought you were in the UK now? You could try these proxies, they have worked for me with C4 before but that was only to check for viewing rights on something I'd already downloaded.   Генгис    19:31, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Good old YouTube. Генгис    19:58, 20 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Ah, perfect. -- 20:10, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

Indeed!
07:45, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Quite. Should action be taken in this connection? -- 07:55, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Probably! Did you bring the mechanical banana-picker? 07:58, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Of course! Never leave home without it. -- 08:07, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * O RLY? And where does it fit in your crimson frock coat trenchcoat?
 * Jellyfish wear tenchcoats. 08:08, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * It doesn't. I employ a personal valet to carry it. -- 08:11, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Interesting. How much reach would you say this banana-picker has? Could it, for the same of argument, reach the top of a large tower and carry a very slight-figured royal personage down to a safe ground-level height? 08:14, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * That would of course depend on the exact height of the tower, but it could probably handle a fair-sized tower, yes. -- 08:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Can it support the weight of a person?? Without actually damaging them??? 08:23, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * If it's a very slight-figured person, probably. -- 08:29, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, you've certainly passed the elementary safety test.
 * Now how long do you think it would take you to pick all the bananas in the plantation behind you? You may rest every twelve hours, obviously. 08:36, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * It would take me an eternity, but my valet could probably do it in two weeks, give or take a few days. -- 08:44, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * That would be cheating. The King says the bananas have to be picked by a dragon. 08:52, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Um. I'm guessing there's some sort of silly, old prophecy involved here? -- 09:00, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Correct! It was laid down by Queen Beatrix III, in medieval times... not that you'd have any interest in that. 09:05, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Hmm. If your king wants his bananas picked, I would advise him to pay less attention to silly old prophecies and more to the modern mircoeconomic realities. -- 09:17, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Stupid realistic historians.
 * And why aren't there any dragons in Bount & Mlade? 09:24, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * That's because it's "Mount & Blade", not "Dragon & Blade", silly mowse. They could be modded in, though. -- 09:26, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * It would be better with dragons. And magic. And an epic quest with ties to the awakening of a fearsome and long-dormant evil in the chill wastes of the Northlands.
 * Call me a liar. 09:30, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Hmm. I seem to recall that game has been made already - and I contest, to a certain degree, that it was better than M&B. -- 09:37, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * "Bah", indeed ^_^
 * Anyway, I seem you are wrong, because I do not know what game that might be. Or rather, I can't narrow the possibilities down to a small enough field to be worth mentioning them. 09:43, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Really? I thought you were referencing the Icewind Dale games. Also, you're not being a nice little mowse, making fun of my presently sub-par writing skillz. :-( -- 10:03, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I was sort of referring to fantasy stories in general -- I think the description I gave could apply to dozens of them. And your mad writing skills are unconventional, not "sub-par", you silly large dragon :P 10:18, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * It could indeed. It also applies to Song of Fire and Ice, for instance. It just sounded so familiar to Icewind Dale that I thought you knew it. Which you should, because it's an excellent game. Although not quite as excellent as M&B.
 * Actually, a Song of Fire and Ice mod for M&B would probably approach the pinnacle of perfection. -- 10:31, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I thought "A Song of Ice and Fire" (:P) was a "straight" fantasy story... ie, no magic and dragons? Just knights?
 * Also, for the purposes of completeness, I must inform you that I dreamed this conversation (or the last few minutes of it, anyway) about three days ago.
 * Also, I own Icewind Thingy, and I agree that it is good, but I've never got very far in it. I'm afraid I'm not actually very good at most games unless I've owned them for years. 10:44, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Being good at games is a question of state of mind or of lowering the difficulty level . And Song is tricksy in that way. It starts out all straight and realistic, but then...
 * You seem to dream about a lot of interesting stuff, BTW. Special ability? Ancient curse? -- 11:06, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I vote "more accurate perception of time while asleep". And furthermore ("Also^4"!!), I must confess that I hardly ever play games at levels higher than "easy". Feel free to pelt me with fruit.
 * You have piqued my interest with this Song of Thingy stuff. Please either link me to an online version or relate the entire plot to me here. With sockpuppets (not "Mob o' Doom") 11:20, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Nah, it's okay. I usually play on easy as well. I tend to have a very low frustration treshold.
 * While I'm certainly interested by your idea of interpretative theater using sockpuppets, the plot runs to several thousand pages and a cast of thousands, so I don't think that's... realistically doable. There exist these things called bookstores, however, where I'm sure you could acquire copies. ^_^ -- 12:09, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * What on God's polluted brown Earth are you two talking about?  12:27, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Human sacrifice rituals of the Cathars. 12:31, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * (arthurdent) Sigh... There also exist these things called "bills", like the ones I install on my pet parrot, which are very expensive. Could you just give me the gist?? Pretty please with a cherry on top? 12:31, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Okay. Um. See, there is a kingdom involved in a succession struggle between its two primary noble families, the Starks and the Lannisters. Beside those, there are about half a dozen other noble families all involved in various fights and plots. In the North beyond an ancient Wall built of ice, there's the big ice waste which hides an ancient and terrible evil which in the future will threaten all of the civilized world. Meanwhile, the last heiress of a destroyed noble house discovers another living legend far to the East, and of course, there's the old kingdom of Vikings who unite under a new leader and seek to regain their old position of domination, and... uh, it's sort of complicated. But great. -- 14:04, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * And what is this ancient and terrible evil concealed in the icy wastelands?? 14:23, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Why do you hide behind that sofa, brave knight? Come child—buck up!  You are a bureacrat—one of the guardians against evil in this place!  You must not show cowardice in the face of the unknown!   15:02, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Why do you hide behind that sofa, brave knight? Come child—buck up!  You are a bureacrat—one of the guardians against evil in this place!  You must not show cowardice in the face of the unknown!   15:02, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Edit Crighton

 * "Child"?? You're not that much older than me, Mr Fikomen. And in that spirit, I grant you one :P, for use however you please.
 * And I find the sofa very protective and comfortable, thank you. I shall emerge under my own schedule. 15:09, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * The Others, little mowse. Ancient creatures of fear and ice, harbingers of the next Long Winter, ready to send their hordes of undead wights to ravage the southern realms. They feel no pain and no fear, driven by otherworldly motivations incomprehensible to mortal men. While the rest of the realms descend into civil war, only the select, but mostly forgotten forces of the Night Watch stand between them and the human realms, tenaciously guarding the Wall in their quiet vigil against the coming darkness. -- 15:18, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * This sofa sure is nice and safe. I might just stay here a little longer. Could you bring me my duvet, please? 15:20, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Of course. Hot cocoa? -- 15:27, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * And some biscuits. 15:33, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Here we are. Sorry it took a bit. -- 16:26, 27 September 2008 (EDT)


 * Aw. Thank you, AK. They look lovely.
 * And, on a practical level, I now have sufficient supplies to stave off a siege from these ravenous undead hordes. I expect the heart-shaped biscuit at the front will act a charm to repel such evil creatures, also ^_^ 16:35, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Ah, but how much use are cannons and charms when you won't know they're upon you until IT'S TOO LATE! >:-) -- 17:02, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * You're supposed to be being comforting. Focus, please. 17:07, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Sorry. I'll be here keeping the bad wraiths away. -- 17:15, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Try using a broom. They don't like brooms. 17:33, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, that depends on how old you are. You are either a very immature thirty-year-old or a very mature twelve-year-old.  : P   16:44, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I am eight and three quarters. 16:56, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Decades? Moon cycles?   16:58, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Years, silly. I have a blue bicycle. 17:06, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Hmm. I suspect attempts at deceit. -- 17:15, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * You always suspect that. And without any good reason, I might add! [[Image:Shakinghead.gif]] 17:33, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, that makes you the most adorable smartass ever, then. : )   17:35, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * You really haven't seen any Death Note, have you? :( 17:38, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Another obscure eclectic anime series? -- 17:44, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Um. The same one, actually, since I'm fairly sure it's the only one either of us have mentioned in your company. It's the one with L in it, you know ^_^
 * Not that other animes shouldn't have L in them, possibly as an exchange scheme. 17:49, 27 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Ah. I should have guessed it was the same one. I apologise for my lack of awareness. -- 17:53, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Repetitive? Me?
[http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=kLrWUjMeVaw Repetitive? Me?] 12:00, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
 * No, "repetitive" is not a term I associate with you. Nice video, even if a bit limited in actual music. To compensate, here's something with a lot of music. (Please excuse the cheesy bird sounds). -- 13:26, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I must admit, I chose that video mainly for the video. The songs from Homework are far too repetitive, as I said, to really enthrall me.
 * Your submission: That was quite nice. In parts.
 * Anyway, I think you'll find this quite pleasant in its thematic congruence. 14:00, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I did indeed. Holst and Seiji Ozawa are difficult to surpass.
 * Considering your apparent preference for ambient music, I thought you might like Erik Satie, whose music was a major inspiration for the later ambient/minimalist movement. This is his Je te veux (it should be obvious why I picked this particular vid). -- 14:36, 28 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Indeed it is. Ha ha ha :P 09:18, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Don't panic!
Just take a few deep breaths and remember where your towel is! 09:18, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Thanks for the reminder. However, I think I'll keep up my state of semi-panic for a few days anyway, just to be on the safe side. -- 09:53, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Might I ask what you are panicking about, and how a tiny mowse such as myself might be of help? 10:14, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * This comment certainly isn't a test of my new signature. 10:39, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Oh, I'm afraid there's very little anyone else can do. I'm locked in battle against the faceless bureaucratic forces of The Man who're trying to limit my inalienable rights to cross-border mobility. -- 10:44, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * You're moving to the UK, then? 10:47, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * (I really can't see why that sig doesn't work.) 10:49, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Oh, right, wrong directional backslash...
 * Please ignore my sig woes. 10:51, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Duly ignored. Yes I am, in about a week, God and The Man willing. Unfortunately, a few unexpected last-minute complications have appeared. -- 11:05, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Is there any other type? 11:12, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Don't worry about it. The Man in the UK is quite open-minded, to the best of my recollection. I'm sure it'll all turn out fine. ^_^ 11:12, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * You're probaby right Of course you're right. Unfortunately, it's The Danish Man who's troublesome at the moment, and he's not been quite as openminded so far. -- 11:41, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * That's because the cloggy sadists want all the Kjeldsen Logic to themselves. Show them your wrath! 11:58, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Hmm. I'm not really good at showing wrath. I was thinking more along the lines of making some really stern telephone calls. Or maybe even writing a letter. (!) -- 12:09, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Display your antlers and make threatening movements. ^_^ 12:19, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I'd have to buy some antlers before I can display them. Unless I get some branches pretend they're antlers. I don't think most bureaucrats would know the difference.
 * Or maybe I could threaten to unleash my flock of ferocious parakeets upon them if they do not accede to my justified demands. -- 12:29, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * You mean these ones? I'm not sure they'd be much help.
 * No, I'm sure you have antlers. They're very fetching. And what exactly are your demands? 12:47, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Never underestimate the power of hypothetical parakeets! My demands mostly have to do with money and Very Important Documents. Or rather, Very Important Documents about money. The ironic thing is that while I more or less have the money I need, actually proving that I have it is more of a challenge than I thought. -- 13:30, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * They're amoneyists [[image:nods.gif]] We moneyists need to show them the error of their ways. 14:26, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm not sure I'll feel comfortable as a moneyist. Were it not for the harsh realities of the world, I'd rather be a chocolate cookieist. -- 14:38, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * What kind of chocolate? 14:58, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Dark chocolate, of course. What else would one use for chocolate cookies? -- 15:06, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Something that tastes nice? 15:12, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * You don't like dark chocolate? -- 15:14, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I don't mind it, but it pales in comparison to real chocolate. 15:19, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Now I'm a little confused, because dark chocolate is exactly what I would call "real chocolate". However, as always, I patiently await your explanation of how I have erred in my ways. -- 15:23, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Why should that be the case? Milk chocolate is much nicier. 15:37, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * My dear Pink, why in the world would you want your chocolate diluted with all those milky additives? With dark chocolate, you can actually taste the cocoa. You know it's the real thing you're eating. -- 17:10, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Right! And who would want their alcohol diluted with any liquid that isn't alcohol? Anything less than 100% is for wimps and... er... yellowbellies.
 * With milk chocolate you can actually taste the nice. You know it's a nice thing you're eating :P 17:16, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I don't think anyone ever died from eating 100% cocoa, so I question the relevance of that comparison.
 * But why not just drink the milk, then? That way, you'd get even more of "the nice". -- 17:22, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Now who's making silly comparisons? :P 17:26, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * And I beg leave to inform you that many jellyfishen have in fact died from eating 100% cocoa. 17:27, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * They should have known better, then.
 * Both of us are, apparently. Shall we then agree on a nice and fluffy chocolate ecumenism, that all chocolate is good to a certain degree, although there may be disagreement on the details? -- 17:29, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * I s'pose so...
 * Or! I could use psychosocial control  on you to make you agree with me! I've never used my Evil Theist Powers before, and it might be fun to try them out ^_^  17:36, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Feel free to try. -- 17:49, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * ...It's trickier than it looks. 17:59, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Come on! You can do this! -- 18:09, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Can't. Is hard. 17:08, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Anyway...
Have at ye, vile swine! 17:08, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Now you're not being nice. You know that means I have to play Gorky Park for you. -- 17:26, 30 September 2008 (EDT)  <- Sorry, but I don't make the rules here. 
 * I very much fail to see what I did to deserve that. 17:47, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
 * It's not so bad. My mates and I listened to Gorky Park a lot back in the early 90's. It's an important part of our heritage. -- 17:49, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
 * As... Russian-Americans? o_O 17:58, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
 * As citizens of the world, dear Pink. As citizens of the world. [[Image:Nods.gif]] -- 18:04, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
 * This is because I said "have at ye, vile swine", isn't it? Sigh.
 * Arlight, I respond with a fusillade of missiles.  18:10, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
 * As our good friends at CP are sometimes fond of reminding us, "actions have consequences". In this case, the cause and affect chain is practically mechanistic in its clarity: You call me a vile swine, you get to listen to Gorky Park. ^_^
 * Anyway, since it seems like we're running a bit of a Cold War theme here... -- 08:05, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Cold war? I thought we were talking about Twin Peaks... 16:25, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
 * That's right, we were talking about Twin Peaks. Back in August, I think. And that's right, I didn't. Not really.
 * Right now we're talking about the Cold War, or at least we will be until I get distracted by your indefatigable chaoticness. Before that happens, please mind the Crossfire. -- 16:40, 1 October 2008 (EDT)
 * "And that's right, I didn't. Not really" -- Well... I care not! *wipes tears on sleeve* 12:16, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

Deedle dum-dum, deedle dum-dum, there once was a turtle by the name of Bert
Thanks for the YouTube link..this film never ceases to crack me up with its stupidity ;) Secret Squirrel 18:01, 29 September 2008 (EDT)
 * Cheers. It's certainly a... very interesting relic of the 50's. -- 18:09, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Unstable
I'm sorry to hear about that. Would you like some Christmas cheer? 12:12, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Hmm. I'm torn. On the one hand, I still think talking about Christmas in early October is an abomination. But on the other hand, yes, I would in fact like some Christmas cheer. -- 12:24, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Alright, firstly: [[image:Th_hug.gif]] (I like that icon :)
 * But the main event! is this. Which is reassuringly silly, I think ^_^ 12:35, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Very nice. Although not very Christmas cheer-y, is it? -- 12:42, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
 * :P
 * Alright then. You can hardly blame me for what I must do now. 12:51, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
 * >_<
 * I suppose I set myself up for that. But you didn't have to do that, you know. You could have risen above the temptation and posted something good instead. Such as this. -- 12:58, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Hey! That was a good song! You just can't appreciate it with your muddled Danish ears.
 * Two things: 1. You've posted that before :P And 2. Canon isn't really Christmassy.
 * Have a proper song. 13:12, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I must disagree in the strongest possible terms that "Last Christmas" is a "good song", and your claim that I "can't blame you" for posting it clearly shows that on some deeply buried subconscious level, you know this to be true.
 * Also, OMG HE TOTALLY ATE THAT SPACESHIP WHAT'S UP WITH THAT!?!?!?!?!?!?!
 * ... *hrmn*
 * Ad. 2: What do you mean? It's totally Christmassy. It has "Christmas" right there in the title. It doesn't get much more Christmassy than that. -- 14:14, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
 * Firstly, I said "you can't blame me" because I could sense you would not like it. That doesn't mean it's not excellent.
 * Secondly, do I sense an admission of the splendid quality of my last submission? ^_^ Go on! Admit to your admission!
 * And thirdly, I have located the most Christmassy song in existence, after months of careful experimentation. Careful be ye! Do not look directly upon it! 14:26, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
 * I admit nothing.
 * And I'm... quite at a loss of words. That's probably the most kitschy thing I've ever seen. >_< -- 14:35, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
 *  (Go on admit it)
 * I know! Isn't it lovely? ^_^ 14:46, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
 *  (No)
 * No.
 * I refer you instead to this. -- 14:53, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
 *  (Go on)
 * Bah. That was silly. I defy you to the end! 15:18, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
 *  (Won't)
 * While I won't deny there's a certain charm about the rampant naïvety of "Scrooge", I don't think it's healthy to watch that stuff in anything other than very small doses. Also, I'm getting a little confused now. Is this just an exchange of Christmassy stuff? Or is it a part of the song contest? Because in that case, I'm forced to point out that there wasn't much actual music in that last one. -- 16:52, 4 October 2008 (EDT)