RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive11

Goody vs Schlafly
Supping my morning cuppa today I couldn't help but muse over the possibility that all of the efforts of Schlafly and co. to frighten people away from the HPV vaccine are being thwarted by a young woman who, in many regards, epitomises all that they detest. Fair enough, she has found religion in her twilight days, but on the whole she is just the kind of young lady that eg Ed loves-to-hate/s-to-love, has an appalling education and lack of scholarly ken, is of poor white trash descent, famous and wealthy purely on the basis of celebrity, has no discernible talent, previous form for promiscuity and four-knee-cation, etc etc. And despite all this, it would appear that the majority of parents, in this country at least, who had misgivings about the vaccine, have found said misgivings kicked into touch by the harrowing images and rapid descent from well to terminal of la Goody. Fox 07:56, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * What are you talking about? 128.46.100.232 10:47, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Jade Goody, who is "famous" because of her appearance on Big Brother in the UK a few years ago. It was recently announced that she has cervical cancer and will probably die very soon. Consequently she has received rather a lot of press coverage, including the fact that she was christened yesterday (which Fox alluded to). Although I'm slightly surprised by the amount of media coverage she's getting, it seems to have raised the awareness of cervical cancer here by quite a lot. alt 12:40, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

gods-answer-to-cancer
just found this webshite. God's Answer To Cancer: Just kill it by using this health machine to flood your cells with "Chi" Energy!. Does it deserve a woo article? You can get a machine (which looks suspiciously like a voltmeter) - not that they'll sell you one, but it's free with a $300 donation. 15:32, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Read the last paragraph of that main page. This is snake oil for the twenty-first century.  God bless the Philippines where the government has embraced Alternative Medicine.   16:46, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * It surely deserves a RW snartikle! Nice find. Nice meter, too. That could be adapted to make a low-grade irony meter with a little work and a few spare parts.  ħ uman  20:57, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Oh, and they debunk the Hulda Clark zapper mid article !  ħ uman  20:57, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Check it out, you can also buy the disinfectant model. Wow, the ability to cure cancer, HIV and save me a trip to the supermarket when I run out of Glen-20, convenient! -Re dba ck 07:15, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Thoughts on how to help create a post-CP Rationalwiki
Let's face it- eventually CP will either completely tumble down in a flaming shit heap, or TK will finally conquer it and kill all fun forever. So for RW to maintain a purpose when the inevitable happens, we have to broaden our horizons. Obviously more pseudoscience and woo-related articles would be beneficial, but also possibly de-stubbing several articles as well. My math is probably off because of miscounting, but almost 25% of the featured articles are CP-related. More articles should be improved to reach featured article standards so that this percent is lowered a bit. Additionally, the WIGOs for other sections should be added to. Perhaps split up the WIGO clogs to have ones dedicated to other CP-ish sites, such as WND, etc. (possibly bring more prominence to the 4th Reich WIGO?).

I'm sure this has been talked over before, but I'm re-opening the discussion I suppose. Blagh... ENorman 20:10, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Weird laws, litigation, examples of hypocrisy by religion etc. There is always something to debunk. CP just brought us together.--Nate River 20:24, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * See the section above for 2 or 3 more potential articles.  ħ uman  20:59, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Maybe you are thinking this out too hard. One thing about the internet is a plan, sure... the other is capturing opportunity the second it happens.  One of the reasons I came here (and i know, looking at signups, i'm not alone) is because of your quick, effective and concise reply to the Lenski affair.  Really, you need to be on your toes with things that are going on out in the real world -- especially creationism, that when anything news worthy happens, you are there not only to refute it, but to be a source of info *on* it.  There are no less then three major challenges to Creationism & Evolution issues in the schools, including two in Texas (One regarding textbooks).  We should be up on it, not as a "toss aside", but so people can say "go to ratwiki for more details".  It's great to have other stuff, but you need to find the "big story" to refute.  -- 21:39, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Yeah, that's the big difference. It's whether you're just reiterating what has been done before or doing something new, responding as it happens that is the difference between what RW could be and what it may end up in a post-CP world. Watching CP closely has enabled us to do this, but we need to find other things to keep a close eye on and make sure the enthusiasm is there for people to be on the ball.  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 06:14, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * We could start by following Fox News and World Net Daily. Totnesmartin 14:51, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Articles on our talking points. Like more fundy related articles, more science related articles, etc. Those would help create a post CP RW. -- 14:57, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

I have given it some thought, I have come up with a list of possible reasons why Conservapedia is such a popular aspect to our site:
 * (1) Conservapedia takes all of the standard conservative positions, and takes them to the extreme. The extremist aspect is important—means we can freely call them idiots and pick on them mercilessly.  If they were substantially more mainstream, they wouldn't be nearly as attractive a target because we'd have use nuance and deep thought to refute them, which is much harder than mockery.
 * (2) Conservapedia lays bare all of the hypocrisy we generally attribute to right-wing organizations. There it is on the talk pages, in the edit history, and in the logs—all the nepotism, hatred, double-standards, intolerance, internet dramam, and dirty office politics on display for all the world to see.  Fox News and WorldNetDaily are much, much harder—the only part we get to see is the final product, all polished and shiny and displayed on their TV channel and websites.  It takes a whole lot more than a casual viewing and some trolling to dig up the most egregious and offensive stuff, and even then you don't get to witness the backroom processes like we do with CP.
 * (3) Conservapedia is right-wingnuttery in a highly concentrated form. All the bad stuff to patrol is right there in recent changes—just one click away.  It is a rare converging of all the craziest parts of Christianist and conservatism on the great tree that is the internet.  Other right-wing "resources" are much less concentrated, often spread out among several loosely affiliated websites and shoved into numerous nooks and crannies on the internet, and they keep no public log of changes.  Keeping tabs on them would require actual research and a constant vigilance on our parts — things rarely demonstrated by, or asked of, our community.
 * (4) Conservapedia is participatory. On no other right-wing site can you sign up and vandalize, litter content with parodies, or work your way up to moderator and then betray the site.  Other sites only allow you to view and maybe comment on the final product, with no opportunity to sabotage said product or screw with the administrator's heads.

In conclusion, I remain a pessimistic about RationalWiki retaining more than a fraction of its traffic and userbase should Conservapedia go under. 18:11, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

(I was tempted to start ranting about a community that wrings its hands about whether the site can stay afloat after Conservapedia sinks, yet mocks and belittles those who take the not-immediately-related-to-Conservapedia parts of the site seriously, but I decided not to.)  18:11, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Red links
I noticed on the chalkboard that someone noticed that there are 3000 red links. I can't find it mentioned either here, main page talk or anywhere sensible so I'll bring it up here; most of these links seem to be from talk pages and archives. Is it okay to just go and edit them out of those pages? There is no need for "talk:cunt" or "goon squad on a plane" to show up on redlinks at all.  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 06:23, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * There's a zillion on Edgerunner76's subpage (forget what it's called). I've left him a note. I see nothing wrong with removing 'em. A lot are from imported stuff - I just copy out to a text ediitor & search/replace &  with nowikied versions. Go for it.  06:34, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm currently going through and killing some ones that look interesting by adding the stubs. It'd be nice just to turn off redlinks for archives, but that'd probably just cause problems :p  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 06:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * If we're going to regularly import stuff en masse, it might be worth working something out. Copying from CP or WP, we can find and replace " A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 08:15, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I went on a redlink blitz a loooong time ago, and people whinged about editing of archives and stuff, so I gave up. Totnesmartin 14:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I think it's a losing battle, except for red links that obviously should be articles. Keep in mind that people create them for "fun" all the time (I've seen dozens made in the last few weeks).  Although, sometimes they are created as potential article titles that get better titles and should either be delinked or redirected while they are fresh.  Also, people make "to do" lists that are red links that I gues shouldn't be removed...  ħ uman  16:53, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Mind you, people who make to do lists obviously have the intention of getting them done. By somebody else, true, but they get done. Totnesmartin 12:11, 10 March 2009 (EDT)

Many times all a red link needs is a minor tweak to point it to the correct RationalWiki article (though that may sometimes require some searching to even find if we have one). Otherwise, I'm a fan of just removing the link (if it's irrelevant to our mission goals) or, if it's a CP import, using the fake red-link template (so as to highlight the inherent ugliness of CP articles). 06:04, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

"Atheism is a religion" again
Human, would you mind helping me with this? Yes, it's bringing up an old topic, but I'm not arguing with you, I just want to defend our ideals. Okay? Anyone going to help me? -- 09:53, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Why the hell does the Werelist forbid viewing of topics without logging in? It just drives people away. 15:21, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Job concerns. I have no particular reason to doubt that employeers just might be a bit nervous about hiring a therian. Aside from that, many forums do the same thing for some sections. And you are allowed to see some sections. I could ask them for a rational, if you want. -- 15:25, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Fine, but give us screencaps of the discussions with any private data removed, or stop telling us about discussions there. 15:38, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * How do I do screencaps? And do you really want 50 screencaps of the werelist in the image section? I think not. -- 15:41, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * You could always host them externally, and link to them. As for taking screencaps, since you're a heathen and are using Windows with Internet Explorer I can't help you. 15:45, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I have no idea how, and talking about them is much safer than a link to an image. Less likely to start HCM. And this is really just a help thread for advice. But I think I beat him. He hasn't come back, and left (I hope) with his tail between his legs, to use a fitting idiom. -- 15:48, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Or you could copy and paste the posts to a user subpage, but don't come to us for backup if you won't even show us the debate. 15:50, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I just won't bother you again. Sorry, everybody. -- 15:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * To read the link you've posted requires registering on a Therianthrope community resource. Er... I don't think so, I'll leave that to those so inclined. Silver Sloth 10:02, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * BTW, a simple Google of "Is Atheism a Religion" results in multiple interesting sites. Start here Silver Sloth 11:21, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Any advice though? He's using a defintion and calling us people with 'sub-par intelligence.' -- 11:53, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * RTFA - all of it - right to the bottom where there is one of the best Atheism is not a religion arguments I've seen. Alternatively try using the same Google that I did and follow any of the myriad links it brought back. Come on, CUR, do some of the work here. Silver Sloth 12:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * The people who believe in the man-in-the-sky are the ones who believe in figments - now who's sub-par? 12:11, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * * facepalm* Not you again. I didn't enter this discussion for a debate, I wanted help. Either give it or go away. And I got that quote from the Encyclopedia of Philosophy. He isn't online, so I have no idea how he will react. However, another atheist there had already pwned him several times. -- 12:14, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * You can also try here and here.  12:15, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * My first comment included a link to that page. I'll link to the second one. -- 12:17, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Remember that, by my own admission, my main argument in that essay, concerning the unsuitability of current definitions of "religion," is unsound because many people here do not consider pantheism a religion. 12:21, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * True, but good points are raised on the talk page about why it isn't. And I'm going to link to you in my signature. If that is okay. I will wait for approval. -- 12:23, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * "I'm going to link to you in my signature" — Do you mean that you are going to link to the essay in your response on the Werelist forum? 12:30, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

(unident) No, on the forum, you have a signature (like on the RW forums) and I wouldn't mind linking to this sites main page in my signature, as it is the closest thing I have to a place where I feel truly at home. -- 12:48, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Ah. Perhaps that question should be in a new section; the way you posted it before it sounded like you were only addressing me. 13:01, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * It fits better here, though. -- 14:39, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I forgot my password...  ħ uman  16:57, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Archive change
Rather than cutting and pasting when archiving, couldn't we move the pages to the archive, preserving the edit history, then remove inappropriate formatting, like the bartop template, and add it back to the original page? 15:52, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Not a great idea. It would screw up links (e.g. at Rationalwikiwiki if they're using any difflinks to the saloon bar).  Plus it's best for a page's entire history to be in one place, not spread around in the archives.   16:20, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * And it also wouldn't work if you only want to archive a few sections, not the whole stuff. --  Nx / talk 16:22, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Actually, archiving with a pagemove would keep the diffs intact, as only the rev id numbers matter. Nx, good point. I shall think about that. 17:06, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Yeah, @ Nx, we almost never archive the entire thing. It doesn't make sense, really, to move the history to the archive - it's all here where it belongs.  ħ uman  17:27, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

HI
Whats the TL DR version of events over the last 2 weeks? tmtoulouse 15:57, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Hans Johnson retired and left me and Nx in charge of RWW. 15:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * And we discovered that the root password to the RWW section of the server no longer works. 16:03, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * This place is more fun after CUR's parents tuck him in each night. But there's not much you can do about that.  ħ uman  17:16, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

I've got a chip on my shoulder...what's your excuse?
Fuck you, Barack! HOW COULD YOU LET THIS HAPPEN! The precious wolves! WTF! Why the hell did you take it off the endangered species list?! *goes to hit head on table* -- 15:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * You stay away from those wolves, Idaho. Or you will regret it. -- 16:00, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Why do you all expect Obama to be a left wing saviour? Over here he would probably be centre-centre right. 16:01, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Because he was the best he had. But now he's turning into SARAH PALIN! I can almost see the GLASSES!

In 2007, Gov. C. L. Otter of Idaho said he favored reducing the number of wolves there to 100 from more than 800. He also said he would be the first to buy a wolf hunting license.

Officially, however, Idaho has agreed in its state plan to maintain a population of 500 wolves. Montana has agreed to keep 400 wolves. If the number of animals falls below 150 total and 15 breeding pairs for three years in a row, the wolf will be relisted in that state.

Yeah, let's go hunt an animal that's smarter, wiser, than us. A truly beautiful, graceful animal. Let's kill it, because we feel threatened by it. Wolves are almost as smart as humans (culturally, not mathamatically). So when are they going to hunt humans. Fuck you, Sarah Palin, dahm you, Barack Obama, may your neurons rot in hell, knawed on by wolves.(/rant) -- 16:14, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * You really are stupid, aren't you? Show me a wolf that can solve Pythagoras' theorem. 17:03, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I said not mathamatically. The point is that they have a complex culture. That was what was said specifically in intelligence. I think you misread me. -- 17:08, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * They are "smarter, wiser than us" just because they have a much simpler culture. That sort of things really annoys me, because they're inevitably incredibly illogical. Humans are the most intelligent animals in more or less all senses, except certain fields of raw computation. 17:13, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I agree with CUR on the idea that I think wolves should have a certain amont of protection (omnivores typically don't taste good, thus negating any reason I may have for wanting them dead), but you're way off on the whole smarter and wiser then us thing.DSFARGEG 17:15, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm not in favour of the killing of wolves, but when you say "wolves have a social structure and are therefore better than us because [list of silly things about harmony with rest of nature in blatant contradiction with reality]", I will argue. 17:20, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Obama will be coming after you next CUR. Arm yourself to the teeth I say. Ace McWickedRevolt 16:13, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * No he won't cheetahs are a protected species. I assume that's what you meant. -- 16:14, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Wishful thinking, CUR. But never mind, you'll be ready for the showdown. Wait until you see the whites of his eyes CUR. Ace McWickedRevolt 16:26, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * (EC) Are therians protected?  16:28, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * We are human. Though I know one person who had a nightmare about getting hunted by Sarah Palin. [[image:Wtf.gif]] -- 16:30, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * We hunted wolves almost to extinction for a reason - in their infinite wisdom and smartness, they thought the cattle we were raising were for them. Ditto our babies.  Now, if we could resolve those minor issues, we could redevelop strong populations in, say, NH, and we wouldn't need to hunt deer anymore to keep their population under control!  ħ uman  22:03, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * There's no time for idle chit-chat now CUR, time is running short for you. I have a cabin in the woods where we can hole up for the duration. It has enough food for a year and is well defended. Make haste for Denver airport. Once there, wait for my instructions. Ace McWickedRevolt 16:42, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I'm no fool. Just because I am a therian doesn't mean I'm paranoid. I'm sorry if that wasn't your intent, but that was the picture I got. I am not quaking in my shoes, waiting to be shot with a gun. Okay? -- 16:44, 9 March 2009 (EDT)


 * I'd be first in line for a permit to hunt CUR. I plan to execute my legal right to brutally murder him by blocking up one end of his den and then pumping carbon monoxide in to the other. -- 16:47, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Help. Oh, and if you do come after me, I will be in a well ventilatied area with multiple hidden exits. -- 16:49, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * What did I tell you CUR? See, the hammers coming down and they'll force you to pay whats due. They'll be breathing down your neck soon. Ace McWickedRevolt 16:52, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

[Removed due to the fact that it was bloody annoying. 17:03, 9 March 2009 (EDT)] Self defense manuvuers. -- 16:59, 9 March 2009 (EDT) "Woe to you oh earth and CUR For the devil sends Obama with wrath Because he knows the time is short. Let he who hath understanding Reckon the number of Obama For it is a human number. His number is six hundred and sixty six." Ace McWickedRevolt 17:14, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Cur Freeman who was Gordon Freeman's brother was one day an office... Mei 17:54, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Oh no, Jeeves, you should flush CUR out of his den with napalm, and then savagely atack him with dry ice and only if he lives through that, then you should shove him back into his den, and then use carbon monoxide on him. (sigh) -- 18:05, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

Not a rant: more a ramble
One of the benefits (or is it flaws) of the internet, unlike almost all other media, is that at any point during a discussion, particularly if it's not going too well, you can stay stumm for a while (or indeed permanently), without admitting that you are unable to answer the point at issue. All manner of excuses for silence can be fabricated, from "my ISP bugged out" to "my mother in law demanded that I scrub her back in the bath", without having to prove anything. This means that when you are pwned thoroughly, you can just pretend to be offline while observing and planning your retaliation. This means that it is very rare for anyone to admit that their point is defeated or their argument is a load of crap. Just take a break & return as if nothing had happened. As soon as anyone realises that they are on the losing end - they'll just piss off - the chances of converting anyone to your POV are therefore minimal, so why bother? 20:41, 9 March 2009 (EDT) Tolerence? Mei 20:42, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * I have noticed that many prominent users on RationalWiki elect to ignore any post with thoroughly pwns them.  20:57, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * me for one! 21:02, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Well, you can say the same thing about a face-to-face debate. Two people face off against each other rhetorically, in front of an audience, and try to prove their point. At least one of them is inevitably destroyed. Yet it is exceedingly rare for one of the participants to either change their mind, or to simply acknowledge that their argument is bullshit. Why bother? Well, some of the people in the audience are capable of discerning who has the better argument. So the debate is valuable to them. Likewise, when someone is pwned on RW and buggers off, its obvious to all who happen across the exchange who has the better argument. That's the point.-- 21:06, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Don't forget Human, who never responds when his arguments get completely shredded. (I make a point of responding whenever I've lost an argument—that's why I have apologies littering every other talk page I'm on.)   21:15, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * FAFUXSAKE RA Stop it!!!! 21:17, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Sorry, sorry...  21:29, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * And apologising repeatedly gets on people's (well mine at least) nerves. Just think twice before setting fingers to keyboard. (and I think you were a bit heavy handed with that archiving - threads 4 days old gone? ) 21:40, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Thanks, Toast. Oh, and fuck you, RA.  Sorry I don't have a grudge file saved to respond with examples that contradict your assertion.  ħ uman  22:07, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Sorry's not enough.  That was really dumb.   Can you just let it go, and go outdoors now and again?   <font color="#00F0A20">DogP  11:36, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * This from the one who bitched incessantly during the last CP boycott.  11:39, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * "...I think you were a bit heavy handed with that archiving ..." —Toast. I admit I didn't put much thought into it.  I applied the same standard that I use when archiving any talk page:  archive the threads that were last edited two or more days ago.  I suppose I could move them back if you think I went overboard.   23:05, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * This feud is starting to sound like the Hatfields vs. McCoy's. Ace McWickedRevolt 22:10, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Seriously. There's no reason to take random potshots.  Corryundefined 00:03, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Except at id . I'm seriously begining to think he(she?) is retarded. Mei 00:10, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Actually id is cool. I was thinking of someone else. Mei 00:16, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * My Mom says I'm cool! --Kels 13:37, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * That's what she said!  16:40, 10 March 2009 (EDT)
 * Well that was weird. Smyth 13:31, 11 March 2009 (EDT)

Preaching to the Choir
This is a brilliant exchange between Alan Davies and the inimitable Stephen Fry.-- 23:49, 9 March 2009 (EDT)