RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive24

Imagine
I posted it on WIGO World but I'm off into the city centre to hear John Lennon's Imagine being played on the bells of the Anglican cathedral. I'm choked just thinking about it. 11:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

An older sort of tune
Talking to my dad a little while back (his birthday was today, by the way) and he happened to mention an old song his dad used to sing that dated back to the time of Napolean, from the point of view of a soldier at Waterloo. So he sent me the lyrics to the song which his dad called "Fields of Waterloo". It's an interesting bit of history (apparently it dates back to 1859-ish), which for some reason survives in coastal Nova Scotia. He sent my the lyrics his father sang, and taking a look around online I found some instances of the lyrics, but none of them are nearly as long as what he sent me (nine verses). Anyone have any thoughts what I should do with this little bit of oral history? --Kels 02:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Search for a wiki that collects old song lyrics? There's one called (I think) Lyripedia or Lyriwiki or some such that's mostly "pop", but at least if you stuff it there, it might be preserved until the aliens come back to check on how we've done ;)  02:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You go to university? Check out their History Department, see who specializes in Canadian history/oral history and maybe one of their grad students will find it relevant for her research. Amin7b5 03:31, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to college, actually. So it's more trade oriented than academia.  There are two universities here, although I'm not quite sure I'd make contact.  It's a good thought. --Kels 03:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Found this and several refs to a modern one by Arena. 03:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Try emailing the English Folk Dance & Song Society 03:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not the same song. It's actually pretty close to this, but the lyrics are somewhat different in spots.  About what you'd expect in a folk ballad, lots of variation.  I should try that email though.  See if they're interested. --Kels 04:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Googling: waterloo "folk song" brings up the Plains ... one. Suspect it's a variant? Chinese whispers had a lot of effect on traditional ballads, you can find a dozen versions of anything over 100 years old. EFDSS will probably be interested, ["From MacKenzie, Ballads and Sea Songs From Nova Scotia Collected from Harry Sutherland of River John, NS Grieg reported that this was said to be written by John Robertson, a bugler in the 92nd Highlanders [WRM]"]. Appears to have a North American flavour.  04:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sir Walter Scott wrote a poem called Field of Waterloo, not the same is it? 06:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. And to Toast, it's definitely over 100.  My grandpa died of influenza when my dad was pretty young (just before WWII, I think), and he'd learned it from his father, so that puts it in the late 1800's.  I'll probably email EFDSS sometime today to at least make contact about it. --Kels 14:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

My pal finally returned my call to advise that http://www.mudcat.org/ is where he finds all his folk and country lyrics and that it's pretty authoritative. 20:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

WIGORW?
Looking at RWW's WIGORW I've come to the conclusion that we aren't very lulzy. This is probably a Good Thing (TM) --PsyGremlinWhut? 11:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, definitely not much happening here that's worth reporting on. How about if I tell you to fuck off and you tell me that you fucked my mother and we go from there? 11:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * lol. I'll just accuse you of being a sock of CUR instead. (I'm reminded of a wonderful exchange between Glen McGrath and a portly Eddo Brandes. McGrath to Brandes: "Why are you so fucking fat?" Brandes: "Because every time I fuck your wife, she gives me a biscuit.") --PsyGremlinWhut? 11:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The next question is how can we artificially generate news for RWWW to report on? 11:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno - when was the last time we had a HCM5? --PsyGremlinWhut? 11:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sod knows, I tend to stay well clear of any discussion that goes to that size. 12:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The trick is to throw something down & then stand back while everyone else tears it to bits (I'll bet whoever never foresaw the consequences when they started a thread on talk:WIGOaSK that turned into Debate:Falsifiability). The less controversial something seems to you, the more likely it is to enrage someone else & lead to HCM. 14:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I see what you mean. --PsyGremlinWhut? 19:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but read my aim on the talk page or WIGO RW. It's not supposed to be commenting on the lulz, it's supposed to help people like me catch up on any interesting discussions that happened when we were asleep. 21:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As if we are going to say in the middle of an interesting discussion, "I should go liveblog this at another website for those who aren't here..." Nice idea, though. I thought RWW WIGO RW was supposed to be about our being asinine, a critique, of sorts?  03:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This is right up our alley
Interesting new story out of Minnesota today. For those too lazy to click on the link, the judge ruled that a family has to treat their 13 year old son with chemotherapy for his cancer, when they wanted to use natural medicine. I'm so torn; I hate natural medicine with a passion and would love to see it eliminated, but I hate safety legislation, such as seat-belt laws, but I feel this kid should have a chance, but don't his parents have a say in how he's raised? I'm so torn... 17:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, up in my neck of the woods. If it had been a matter of declining treatment with full knowledge of the consequences, I would be on the parents' side, but since he is trying to cure it with crank medicine, get him to the hospital on the double! 17:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think when an individual wants to ignore the treatment, then all power to them, really. They'll regret it. But in this case, it seems to be parents making the decision on behalf of the kid so is no different to the other things we've seen where parents pray for their kid and they die. And I partially agree with the lawyer, yes, when you think that alternative quackery is better at treating cancer than fully tested and effective medical therapy, then "Big Government" certainly is better at making decisions for you. (that's not defending the lawyer though, they've clearly come up with that to make their clients sound more rightous than they are, which makes them stink pretty badly) 17:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sometimes the State is right; sometimes the individual going up against it is right. If it is the latter the individual often winds up convincing the State of that. If it is the former the individual winds up looking like a whiny tax-protester type, rather than a hero. 17:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that "personal safety" laws are BS. But i think "child safety laws" are important and necessary.  Children should be protected from idiots.  I would so, though, that by 13, the child is mature enough to have a 1-to-1 with the judge to tell him what he thinks.  I would say in years 0-10, kid must be protected. 10-13/14ish Judge should talk with child to see if the child has any developed opinions yet, and try to rule with that in mind.  over 14, the child's decisions should sway over the parents in most all cases.-- 17:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC) (Edit con)
 * It does raise the question though of where the line for child safety is. In this case I think it's okay for the state to intervine, as the child has a 90% chance of recovery with treatment.  But where is the cutoff?  50/50?  10%?  Any chance?  We have to be careful on what could be a slippery slope.   17:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there really is an issue with a "cutoff" either they're more likely to survive with treatment or they're not. If they're 10% likely to survive with treatment and 8% likely to survive without (and treatment has the side effects of chemotherapy) then the doctors would almost certainly explain it to them, give them the choice and leave it there, similarly if they had a roughly 90% chance of survival either way. 18:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been hearing about this mostly on the Ron Reagan radio show. He's fairly tolerant of cranks and runs a bit woo-ish himself, but after a couple of days of calls and discussion (you know, calls from pracitioners of homeopathy, and people who quit chemo and got better), he came down on the side of "Science, it works, bitches!".  Oh, but the callers... you know, the people who sneer at "Western medicine" for getting it all wrong, etc...  18:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not unlike our own THC LOADEE. 19:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)I come down on the science works side too, but I'm concerned about where this will lead us. I agree that parents should be required to take good care of their kids, but what happens when it gets to the point where kids can't go outside for fear of potential harm?
 * It's my understanding that the kid doesn't want chemo himself - I guess if he can convince a judge I'm ok with him taking his chances, but if his main reason was "chemo made me feel worse", well, that's what it does. As far as the State forcing treatment on people in general, I'm agin it.  The whole area of parental responsibility (vs. "freedom") is a murky one, esp. when it comes to religious beliefs.  19:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * the article I read on it seemed to say that if the Judge was convinced the kid understood his condition and the likely outcome and still chose the alternative treatment the Judge would have allowed it. Since that was not the case (and apparently the kid cant read) the judge ordered the treatment. The Doctors in the case had x-rays showing the cancer reduced after the first chemotherapy. Hamster 19:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of the case years ago where some couple let their baby die a horrible death (colon obstruction or something) because their religion required faith healing (Christian Scientists), when I saw their photo in the paper one of them was wearing glasses. Why couldn't they just pray their eyes into focus?  19:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What if the parents thought that it was OK for the kid to engage in sexual intercourse? Our societies generally impose an age restriction on what we are allowed to do and I see no difference between consenting to medical treatment and consenting to sex. If the parents seek to impose their own views on the kid which may (on the balance of probabilities) be harmful then the state should have the right to intervene. If we really don't give a toss about kids then let's go whole-heartedly down the libertarian route. With sex it may be argued that adults exert undue pressure on a minor to consent but this is no different to the parents have indoctrinated the kid in the first place. The whole age of consent thing is mostly arbitrary anyway, we often prohibit our youngsters from enjoying sex or alcohol way past when we let them pick up a gun and go to kill people in foreign countries. 20:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Since when have youth below the age of consent been permitted to enlist in the army? 20:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia some US states set the age of consent at 18 but you can enlist at 17. 22:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[
 * Genghis, i would actually make the comparison a bit stronger, since the wishes of the child are not really under consideration in many of these cases. "what if the parent forced the child to marry or have sexual relations due to their religion".  is that really worse than death?  I don't think so.  so we are willing to say "no forced sex" but not "no forced death?"-- 20:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The alcohol example is much better. Here in USA it is illegal for a parent to provide alcohol to their own minor (<21) child in their own home.  20:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am only too aware of the alcohol ruling, and driving an automobile also varies. In the UK you have to be 17 unless you're in the armed services. I was just trying to make general point about at what age we confer the right to take responsibility for ones own actions or welfare and how political/religious attitudes affect what can be done. 22:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This kind of thing always makes me think of this. The situation mentioned in the link above is a bit different than those horror stories, though since the kid is just on the cusp of being at the age that he could make truly informed decisions about himself...still, at thirteen, what your parents tell you is still pretty much golden. He has no reason to think what they're telling him to do is harmful, which it almost certainly is. Personally, I wouldn't lose any sleep over the state insisting on proper treatment. I just don't think it's a slippery slope type of situation. -- 22:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Should I assume good faith or am I justified in thinking Nancy Brewster was deliberately killed? 16:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I hadn't heard ofher. I've cvopied a quote toNancy Brewster. 16:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Crap to debunk
Sometimes I just feel like liveblogging the crappy ads on my TV. Like "HD Vision" sunglasses. Reminds me of all the "digital ready" crap in the 80's/90's/today? HD (High definition) Vision sunglasses??? HD is still a less clear resolution than human eyesight. Fuck. Not sure where I want to put the redlinks (or stubs?) though. Here? My userpage? Should we create an "article title sandbox" for things we think we should write on but aren't ready to run with yet? Ideas? 05:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what type of article HD sunglasses would warrant. While it's clearly woo, it would just remain a stub; I feel that if you're not smart enough to figure out it's a scam, you deserve to send them a $20 stupid tax.   16:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Stubs are ok... at least if they're dead-on mission, I think. Anyway, that was just the ad that made me come make this section, I see/hear all kinds of stupid ads, and I know I could keep track on paper or in a user sandbox, but it might make sense to have a "wanted articles" page distinct from the red links version.  That way, things like the glasses wouldn't even become a stub, there's just be my "whine" about the ad.  Other things might just be a topic, suggested title, and anything the additioner had off the top of their head.  Hmm, so in a way, it would protect against pointless stubs, but also be a pool of things to actually work on.  Thoughts?  22:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. 22:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then what to call it, and should we replace the "wanted pages" in the RC/WL topbox with a link to it? or link to it from where?  It would be nice to have a place I could just edit and type in, say, "Co Q10", or, alternatively, go there and add some stub info to the topic, or eventually if motivated, make an article. It could have major sections like "advertising", "creationist websites", or some such?  22:34, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Saturday Afternoon Entertainment
Recently been introduced to the fun that is Jonathan Coulton. Found this on YouTube. (I also see he releases all his music on GFDL). --PsyGremlinWhut? 16:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Atheism Tapes, part2
These interviews ask some very interesting questions of the philosophers and scholars he interviews, such as "Is there a danger to letting religion go unchecked" and on the counter "is there a danger to demolishing religion". "What does religion as a whole provide individuals" "why are americans so deeply religious" (which brings up a consistent -and if you were to ask me, correct - analysis from all 5 of the scholars asked this question "they aren't religious, they are superficial... they are religious about *being* religious, but that does not make them religious" (I love subtleties like that. One of them said "the importance is having the importance of the belief in god, not believing in god". In other words, it's critical for politicians to say "And god bless you", but not for them to worry about and act as if god were around to bless or chastise you. These questions might lead to some wonderful debates around here.-- 19:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Eurovision Tonight
Since we've been talking about Europe and TV it's an apt moment to remind people that it's that wonderful celebration of all the best of European TV with the Eurovision song contest tonight. Weird songs, suggestive costumes, perhaps some talent, cynical commentators and then - the voting. What suspense! Will the Nordic countries back each other? Will the slav block-vote wipe out the disorganised west? Will club Med come together? Allegations of back-stabbing and secret deals. Europe in a microcosm and at its best.--Bobbing up 17:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are we live-blogging this? 19:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Add your own comments if you like. (Sign with three tildes)

How about linking all these to teh youtubeys or something? 21:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What? The UK gave 12 points to Turkey? Silly twit 21:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Congrats to Norway with a record number of points. 22:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Eurovision Song Contest and Rational (wiki): quite an oxymoron. Editor at CPOh, Finland! Why? 07:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yay, I managed to avoid watching, hearing about or even knowing about another eurovision. I've saved my brain from dribbling out of my ears for another year, phew. -- 15:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I gave up when I found Wogan wouldn't be commenting on it. 21:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Norton was actually quite good, he still took the piss just as much as Wogan but wasn't so much of a dick about it. The Eurovision drinking game went well, drink every time your selected country gets points. Unfortunately for us, the "wildcards" were UK, France and Russia which, although not very high scoring, did get points very regularly... Damn carnage it was. 22:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Crimethinc
is a lifestyle-anarchist website. For all you information prospectors, if you sift carefully you may find some gold. Maybe. Here's some of their stuff. I think there's a lot of crap but also a lot of humanistic ideas presented in thought-provoking ways. I was really into this stuff in 8th grade, hah. Just my too sense. 05:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are some people who find it an affront to their freedom that they are required to live in the real world. 06:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess it is an affront to their freedom, as suicide is illegal. Easy to break that law though, so no big deal. ;) The real world: a sliding scale of blessings and curses measured by the instrument of perception. 06:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

R-igg
This right-wing "answer" to Digg made me laugh. Rigg? Florida 2000 anyone? Incidentally what is it with the fundies making their own "alternatives" to regular websites? Conservapedia is just one among many. Why id there Rigg, or Godtube, or Let's Get This Right? Can they not stand being part of normal sites? Totnesmartin 17:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They're really good examples of exactly what's wrong with right-of-centre politics these days, worldwide.  They've ghettoised themselves so much that the only political vision they have is of creating "A World Without Liberals".  Even in the darkest of days of the right-wing thinking across the globe during Bush I & II, Reagan or Thatcher administrations, liberals were not found imagining "A World Without Conservatives" -yes,  there was a desire to fight back, to have liberal views represented, but there was no vision that the solution involved removing oneself from contact or dialogue with the opposition.  It's the Atlas Shrugged/Going Galt approach - "I'm taking my bat and ball and going home and I'm not coming out to play again - EVER!".   It's ludicrously naive politics at best, and stupid, immature and completely self-destructive at worst.   I believe conservatives (in the US anyway) are only at the beginning a long and deep slide into irrelevancy, and my guess is that it'll be ten or more  years of hate and bitchy infighting before they're back with any kind of vision, leadership or authority - look at what's happened to the Tories in the UK for an example.   What's politically attractive about a group whose argument is so deeply rooted in division and  negativity?   DogP Marmite Patrol 18:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The current state of the Republicans always reminds me of another party in crisis - Labour (UK version) in the early 80's. They spent the thatcher years tearing themselves apart, sat on the opposition benches for 17 years and only got back in after ditching a few of their core principles. The GOP is going through that strange phase that parties sometimes do after a defeat - turning away from the centre in search of ideological purity, taking their eyes off the ball and making themselves unelectable. Totnesmartin 18:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's often the case that when a party holds what most people might think of as extreme views, then they blame electoral defeat on not being extreme enough. I can't say that I have ever seen the logic of that argument. Whenever I failed at chatting up the opposite sex I never thought that next time I should be even more lecherous and fumbly. 20:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "My diet didn't work, I should have eaten more cake" is what they're saying. Totnesmartin 20:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I remember my history teacher warning us back in the 70s about the "radical conservatives". Normally, the conservative position is "don't change, or at least change slowly".  The radcon position is "change it back (to my imaginary ideal past)", and requires a very different mindset.  Instead of being a position that advocates the status quo, and holds certain "ideals" generally based on a pessimistic view of human nature, radcons have a position that advocates for what think was some status quo in the past - ie, radical change but in a regressive direction.  Their "ideals" then become whatever seems to fit in with their historical utopia.  Now, of course, the modern cons (neo and radical) also have positions that reject change - quite a few of their social positions reflect this (homosex stuff, say), and some resist changes that happened within memory (abortion rights, say).  But the basic philosophy they wield these days seems to be a desire to return to the halcyon days of yore, when everything was simpler.  This covers their social agenda, and also much of their warped economic agenda (the simpler days of the 50s, when a good American brand was all you needed to buy, TV was nice and clean, and the "less desireable" elements stayed undercover/in the closet/etc.).  The trouble is, they don't really have answers for the questions and problems of the modern day (except "cut taxes").  And, yeah, they want to go back before Nixon said "we are all Keynesians now".
 * So, anyway, the result has partially been the fostering of CP-type isolationism - much of what they want to roll back can be hidden from as long as they create their own little places to operate. Don't want gay rights?  Don't go anywhere they are accepted.  Lather, rinse, repeat, and you have this extreme version of people only hanging out with people just like themselves (we all do a bit of it, but this group takes it to the extreme).  Teabagging, Going Galt, refusal to compromise on any political solutions, etc.
 * One onlyhas to watch that CBC vid of Andy & the kids to see the effect - the homskollar at the beginning expressing how appalled she was that WP didn't credit xtianity for its great contributions to western civ, which she was taught, she didn't "learn it" for herself. 20:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

CP Finale
What does the mob say to a finale of sorts? A massive vandal parodist attack, and when it's over, no one ever edits Conservapedia again? -- 18:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * no. what part of "RW does not target CP for vandalism" don't you get, anyways? Amin7b5 18:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC) 18:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See below comment. 18:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because a) we don't condone vandalism (and TopKunt still has to wipe himself every 2 minutes over a passing comment made in an obscure newspaper article) b) it would entrench TK's position there, whilst the actual aim to get his fellow sysops to wake-the-fuck-up and boot him into touch c) 99.5% of us (Andy gave me the number, so it's right) can't be bothered setting foot into that cesspool of teh stoopid again and d) I'm having too much fun being TK anyway - just now I rangeblock myself. --PsyGremlinWhut? 18:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you taking up space here with this stoopidity when you should be getting laughed at for this on talk wigo cp? 19:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (Smacks Arthropleurus outside back of head)--Nate River 23:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (Bites Nate River's head off) -- 23:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

UK TV licensing / BBC rant
Where I live at the moment, we're getting a lot of threatening letters from the TV Licensing Authority about not having a TV licence. Personally, I pretty much just use the TV for watching DVDs (which doesn't require a licence) & barely watch any broadcast TV because there's barely any worth watching. The people I live with watch TV, & won't bother getting a licence. The situation is bugging me a little, because I really can't afford to get fined, & want to avoid any kind of legal hassle, but also don't want to end up in a finger-pointing confrontation with my housemates about whose responsibility it is if we do get stung.

So I looked through a few websites today for advice & info about TV licensing & detection, & the more I read about it, the more it pisses me off. It does seem a ridiculously outdated & somewhat bizarre law to need a "licence" for watching TV at all (although it seems a surprising number of other countries have similar ones). & The TVLA tactic is a send a series of increasingly intimidating letters to any property not on their database, warning of possibile prosecution & hefty fines, then send an official to make the same (usually empty) threats in person, til they get their money. This is part of the same organisation as the BBC, carrying out the dirty work under a different banner to allow the Beeb to keep its traditional reputation as some sort of marvelous national institution.

Moving on to the BBC itself, I wouldn't care so much about paying the licence fee if I thought they were providing a good service for the money. But nowadays it really isn't. Supposedly you're paying for the privilege of watching TV without advertising, but then the BBC runs several minutes of adverts for its own services between every programme, which are every bit as irritating as the product commercials on other channels. As for the quality of TV itself, of the contemporary TV shows I occasionally watch, few are BBC productions. & What really galls me is that, after showing any good programmes a couple of times, the BBC then sells off the rights to repeat them to other (usually chargeable) channels, & long-ago sold away broadcast rights to all its famous "classic" shows. Compare with Channel 4 (funded by advertising only), who keep nearly all their decent TV shows from the last few years available for free on their website, & regularly repeat them via E4, More4, etc. With the BBC, you've paid (via licence fee) to watch any new TV shows only once - when they're on or during the next seven days only on their website - & then will probably have to pay again if you wish to see them again (on DVD or a pay-channel).

I don't like privatisation of national services, & think it was a mistake for British Telecom & British Rail to be privatised, but I would gladly make an exception for the BBC & see it funded through commercial means like other channels rather than legitimised extortion. Having one provider monopolise a market (via TV licensing) but still compete with other providers over the same service just doesn't seem fair any way you look at it. In some ways it's comparable to the wonky situation with BT post-privatisation - BT still has a monopoly on the network of lines & exchanges, but other companies compete for the use of them.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject. Any comments welcome. 00:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree it's out-of-date. I also think the (best of the) Beeb is worth generating.  They ought to just get financed out of general funds and drop the silly license thing.   Back to the out-of-date, I think when I was a kid (60s) there was BBC, BBC2, and the upstart commercial ITV.  Has there been any move at all towards cable television there?  Probably not... Otoh, here in the US broadband via cable works well but is an overpriced private monopoly (entry fee is ca. $50/month, double what most people pay).  Something's gonna suck wherever you live, I guess.  How do they do the "dvd only so no license" thing?  Prove you have no antenna hookup?  Oh, and how much is the license?  00:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The licence is currently £140 per a year, so a bit over US$200 at current rates. Sky & Cable are both available, but you still need to pay the TV licence as well as what you pay in subscription to them.  Re the "dvd only so no license" thing, they work on the assumption that everyone watches TV, so if you're not on their database of homes which have a current licence, they make with the threatening letters.  If you tell them you don't have a TV, or you only use your TV for DVDS, they'll still want to send a guy round to see if your story checks out.  From what I can gather, even if you let an Enforcement Officer into your home & show them that there's no TV receiving equipment connected, you might still have to go through the same rigmarole every year just to show that you're still not dodging the licence.   01:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The liceence fee gathering bit has been privatised. If you have equipment capable of receiving Terrestrial TV signals (Dunno about satellite/ internet) you are due to pay even if you can prove you never do. They do assume everyone should have a licence so in effect it's a property tax. Don't want the ads on Beeb £140/52= £2.69 - not bad for the radio alone IMHO. Get your cohabitees to stump up their share weekly & regale them withstories of grannies being jailed for non-payment. 02:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It does, of course, give them the illusion of independence which would be untenable if funded out of the general tax fund. Sticky problem. 02:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm with the slightly charred and scraped for presentation then placed in holder to get cold's opinion that at the very least you all need to chip in on the crummy license. If you can make the case that you never watch broadcasts - ever, maybe you can get them to foot the bill.  But, er, "barely watch any broadcast TV" = "some".  Get your cheapskate roommates to kick in and avoid the fine, or else cut the antenna wires and hide the splicing tools.  03:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If it were just up to me, I'd choose to give up what negligible amount of TV I watch rather than pay the licence. However, I would also gladly pay my share of the licence just to see the whole thing settled.  My housemates are being obstinate with the "nobody round it pays it & nobody ever gets fined" line.   12:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You've only got to look at ITV (Ch3) to see why it can't rely on populist programmes funded by advertising revenue. Ch 4's a strange beast, it's subsidised by the Beeb & ITV: So hitting the licence system'd hurt them too.  03:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (strikeout: My bad: it ain't so no more 04:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC))
 * In Australia we have the ABC which is funded by our government and they have to wait to see what they are given each year with the budget. Under our old "privatisation is the be all and end all" government, they made them sell their broadcast network through South-East Asia and then rent the time on it (no shit they are renting something they used to make money owning). Come the Tsunami, they didn't have control and so were unable to begin an emergency broadcast across it. They also just had their licence taken away in Fiji, something that would have been a lot harder if they still owned the network. The point is without a guaranteed stream of income the government can force them to make stupid decisions. 03:55, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We should start a debate to solve for once and for all time how corporations and governments should be allowed to abuse our communal airwaves. I think I just gave away my position ;)  04:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You even have to give full address details if you buy a dongle for a computer to pick up TV 04:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I should be extremely sorry to see the Beeb privatised. Their non-commercial structure gives them advantages not shared by any other broadcast network in the world. You only have to look at the BBC iplayer service to see that in action, a service that enables you to watch any of their TV programmes either live or time shifted minutes after broadcast on a really vast range of devices and operating systems. There really is no comparable service available from any other broadcaster. Compare the wimpy and anaemic services offered by Channel 4, or the totally non-existent services of the satellite and cable broadcasters.

This innovation is made possible because they don't have to wait for the stodgy advertising industry to figure out how to make money on t'internet. It'll be five years at least before you see anything approaching iPlayer growing out of services like Hulu. -- 07:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

When I lived in a Nordic country, we didn't pay for it. The trick was not to open the door to them - or open it but so that TV was not in their view - and they had no weapons. They can't force you to let them enter into your house, nor they can get a search warranty (?) from police. Regarding who is obliged to pay and who isn't, there was a stir when the country turned digital terrestrial. "I have an analog TV set and am not getting the digital decoder, so why should I pay?" was answered with "your analog TV set can always get a signal from Russia or Estonia, which are broadcasting analog. Therefore you have to pay us". Editor at CPOh, Finland! Why? 08:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Jeeves, USian PBS is pretty good, although cutting govt funding has squeezed them closer, one might worry, to the corporate sponsors of their programs. Actually, PBS (and some of its bigger contributing stations) give the Beeb a run for their money for high-quality programming, IMHO. For most of the same reasons, of course.  21:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I saw there was a not insignificant amount of quality UK content on PBS. Also the BBC often have joint productions with WGBH-TV. What I didn't like about the PBS I used to watch in Dallas was the fund-raising drives. They got to be as annoying as the ads. However, commercial TV in the UK is more watchable than what I have seen in the US where the frequency of ads accelerates towards the end of a movie. At the end of the day someone has to pay for it and it seems like parasitism if those that watch don't make a contribution. It should also be pointed out that the elderly in the UK are exempt from TV licence fees. 23:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The obvious problem with the TV licence as it is now is that you only have to pay if you watch broadcast TV. I don't, so I can benefit from the excellent, BBC website, peerless BBC radio, and watch all the programmes I want on the iPlayer and not have to pay anything. Hardly seems fair. Privatisation isn't the answer though - maybe instead of the licence there should be a levy on all new TVs, radios and computers?-- 14:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Real soon now the whole marketing model is going to have to change. I haven't watched an add in ages - I time slip everything using Sky+ and fast forward through the adds. More and more this, and similar technologies, will become the norm. Add to this downloading and all TV pricing models are fast becoming obsolete. Silver Sloth 15:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

ambien...
google it, it's lovely stuff. I feel like my limbs are somewhat reomved from my body and like my normal sensory appendages have been replaced bt wads of cotton/..d I will be slleeepp soon. see you eik then morninhg...goofnhotmt.

```````````` ```04:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)Amin7b5 04:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * hope ya dont sleepwalk while on it Hamster 04:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * or if you do, buy some pyjamas. Totnesmartin 21:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was on that for quite a few years. Don't take it with alcohol, otherwise you may wake the next morning to find you have no friends. Crundy 12:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hilaaaaaarious
Karajou blocked me on Conservapedia again! Terrific. I missed that guy. I created two accounts, "TerryP" and then "NVBright" (standing for not very bright, wondering if anyone would get it) made literally one edit which was on Terry's page saying "My name is Terry!" and I got deleted. Within literally twelve minutes. 18:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So? --Kels 18:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It just brought back memories. The fun of being blocked by Karajou. And how all I did was create two accounts and got them both deleted immediately. 18:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, with a little practice you'll be almost as good a sockpuppeteer as CUR is. -- 19:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost. No one could ever beat CUR in sockpuppet shows. 19:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Boy Josh, you seem excited by this. Would you like a tissue to clean yourself up with? Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 20:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you taking up space here with this stoopidity when you should be getting laughed at for this on talk wigo cp? 23:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had a shower already to clean up, thanks Ace. It was everywhere this time. 16:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

An Amusing Series of Accidents
Heh, so I had an impromtu party at my house on Saturday. At first it was just a dinner party but many people showed up. We went through a bottle of tequila, a bottle of vodka, 6 bottles of wine, 3 dozen beers and 2 bottles of champange. Even my ex girlfriend showed up for some reason and I somehow managed to go from standing to the kitchen floor without actually moving. It was then I discovered I had actually collapsed on top of someone. I stood and lit a cigarette and went to the bedroom. As I walked down the hall I veered off to the right, even though I felt as though I was walking a straight line, and stumbled into the bathroom and pitched myself headfirst into the tub, grazing my head on the metal edge of the spa jet. I got up shut the door and barricaded myself in and my fiancee had to tempt me out with a shot of tequila. Then I remember nothing further until I woke with my friends wallet in my hand. Anyone else have a amusing weekend story to share? Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 23:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Only the Eurovision drinking game and my fiancee was unlucky enough to draw Norway. She's still hungover. 23:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ace: you'd better write it all down, 'cause sure as hELL you won't remember it in your dotage (assuming you live that long) and it'd be a shame to deprive future generations of your history. (If you can remember the sixties Ace's youth you weren't there) 00:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * poor ace, fallen off the wagon already ! didnt you swear to be a nice teetotaller a few days ago ?
 * Turns out the wagon was full. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 04:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What a shame. When's the next one due? (BTW, one of the signs of bing a true alcoholic is that you regularly give up alcohol "just to prove that you can") 12:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then I am not an alcoholic as I didnt give it up and wasn't trying to prove that I could because I can't. Sweet, let the good times roll. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 19:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Price of cigs (rant)
Saturday night a friend kept nipping out of the pub for a smoke. She admitted to smoking 20 - 30 per day. Now at approx £5 per 20 pack that's £35 - £50 per week. Horrid! Not to mention the health damage what about the wealth damage? She's been smoking since she was 16 (about 30 years). Think what that cash could have done. 00:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And quitting after that many per day will be a nightmare... As you've mentioned that your friend is female, (I'm going to annoy every feminist on the site with horrendous stereotyping but in my experience this actually works), calculate the money spent not in £££ but in pairs of shoes. 00:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh! The shoes'd be Doc Martins in her case! (not a girly girl) 01:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If only they'd invested the money in lottery tickets instead! Over a 70 year life span, spending that much a week on lottery tickets, you'd have about a 1% chance of winning at some point. Good odds! -- 01:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been smoking about 15 years and the price continues to rise. Its now $9 - $12 for a pack. I am a pack a day smoker so I have switched to roll-ya-owns because its way cheaper. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 01:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I speak as one who stopped smoking when the ban came in force on 1st July 2007 - there are two reasons people stop smoking - health and wealth. The UK is pretty good at pushing both of these with (a) high prices for the cigs and (b) really scary health warnings on the packs. It's only when you stop that you find reason three - that you've been an antisocial bastard for the last however many years.
 * It still costs my wife ~£40 per week and I wish she'd stop as well - but, from long experience - I smoked for 40 years before stopping - it's not that easy unless the time is right. Then it's a piece of cake. Silver Sloth 08:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I here that S.Sloth. You cant quit smoking unless you want to. I have never tried and the reason being I dont want to yet, the time aint right and if I tried now I know I would fail. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 09:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, Think about what that cash could have done? Most of the price is tax, so it's gone on things like paying teachers, building roads, funding the arts, and of course third and fourth homes for lots and lots of hard-working consultants.-- 09:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to mention the healthcare for smokers like me.....if you live in a commie socialised health care country....like me. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 10:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I quit quite a few years ago from 30 a day to just stopping by reading EasyWay. It actually does work because it brainwashes you into believing that quitting smoking is the best thing in the whole world, and makes you happy when you stub out the last ciggy. The worst thing you can do when quitting is to mope around complaining about hard it is to stop smoking and how you're jealous of the people who are smoking. If you see someone like that you can practically count the hours until they spark up. Crundy 11:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The science behind precognition.
Okay, so I read this recently and it looks like the guy who wrote it wasn't taking the piss (though the aim was to discredit "supernatural" theories). Just wondering if any RW guys have any thoughts.

I recently wrote something of a theory of my own design regarding what causes precognition and why its effects are more pronounced for greater worldwide events rather than smaller more personal events.

Just looking to get some feedback and generate discussion

The magnetic nature of materials, rely on the orientation of the spin of the electrons to be aligned in the same direction to generate a magnetic field. Every human cognitive reaction is the result of an electrical impulse travelling through the cerebral cortex.

All electrical impulses are amongst other reactions, a result of calcium ions that flow through the pre-synaptic membrane, rapidly increasing the calcium concentration in the interior. This then activates a set of calcium-sensitive proteins attached to vesicles that contain a neurotransmitter chemical. These proteins change shape, causing the membranes of some "docked" vesicles to fuse with the membrane of the pre-synaptic cell, thereby opening the vesicles and dumping their neurotransmitter contents into the synaptic cleft, the narrow space between the membranes of the pre- and post-synaptic cells. This is not an exhaustive explanation of the basics behind emotions or thought process, merely a small portion of the reaction that occurs which I shall refer to herein as the “calcium reaction”

Every time this “calcium reaction” occurs there is a minute chemical reaction and change the calcium levels in the brain, therefore changing the number and behavior of the calcium in our brains.

We can accurately predict that a large number of different events can generate very similar emotional states. As all emotional states are in fact physical states, these can be quantified and predicted using electroencephalographic equipment. While still measuring the same factors behind the “calcium reaction”, this process differs by interpreting a different reaction. An electroencephalograph will measure the electrical activity along the scalp by the firing of neurons within the brain. The same “calcium reaction” is tracked, but is instead measured by the physical reaction of the electrical discharges of the dendrites and post synaptic neurons.

Returning to the “calcium reaction”, every time there is an emotional response to stimulus that can be predicted, we must accurately assume there is a corresponding change in calcium levels and behavior. Calcium, like any atomic element is comprised of an atomic shell of electrons and protons that behave in a specific way. Only when electrons begin to spin in an organised and aligned fashion or orbital motion do they exert a magnetic force. Ordinarily, the motion of the electrons is such that there is no measurable field from the material in question, but under certain conditions, the motion can line up so as to produce a measurable total field.

A series of subjects that exhibit the same emotional state, at the same time and within close proximity could theoretically produce the same “calcium reaction” and generate a magnetic field between them. The effects and duration of this field would be negligible. While direct family members share similar genes and rudimentary behavioral patterns, it would be impossible to sustain identical “calcium reactions” with any continuing accuracy, as no two subjects posses identical thought process and cerebral topography. A single event such as the death of a shared family member would evoke the aforementioned flashpoint event to generate the field.

To expand the theory further, a global event that causes a unified emotional state such as sorrow, anger and fear, such as the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001 would generate such a massive emotional and prolonged state amongst such a large cross section of the planet, that a magnetic field would have to be generated. A similar theory has been postulated by the “Global Consciousness Project.”

The Global Consciousness Project utilises random event generators (REGs) in an effort to tap a postulated human consciousness field that may encircle the Earth. The REGs have been operating in the background, all around the world, for seven years running. When a significant event occurs, the REGs display patterns that should not exist in random sequences. This was noted with the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001.

To further extend the logic, if we accept in Einstein’s theory of general relativity that all time exists, and that we travel a single linear line through time. If we also accept that when events happen, such as the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, they would generate magnetic fields by human emotional reactions to them, we can begin to postulate the existence of temporal ley lines that permeate linear time caused by these unified magnetic fields. These temporal ley lines would operate in the same way as normal ley lines and be composed of flashpoint events with apex and nadir at opposing points in time rather than space.

It seems to jam everything in there, whether it's relevant or not. Obviously, it doesn't actually do any explaining behind precognition, just a bit of woo behind magnetism. It's hardly fitting of the term "theory" but I'll let the original wording stand. I'm pretty sure it may need to be filed under "not even wrong", particularly since calcium is non-magnetic last time I checked. I think the "calcium reaction" part shouldn't be confused with the release of Ca2+ ions which trigger muscle contraction, which I thought it was until I re-read it closely. 00:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I love the random slapping of the general theory of relativity on at the end, to try to create a reason why you can see an event before it happens. However, last time I checked you could not violate causality, even with "temporal ley lines that permeate linear time". 01:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can't beat 'em with brains, baffle 'em with bullshit. Pseudoscientific claptrap, not worthy of comment, sorry Armond. 01:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no comment we could make that would be more interesting that the text, or that could refute it more emphatically than it refutes itself. Totnesmartin 09:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought as much. Definitely one for the "not even wrong", then. :S 09:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if a given emotional state resulted in an external magnetic field, the idea that they'd "add up" in any way is ludicrous. The whole thing is silly...  21:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Found this, may be interesting to look into and refute. I'm 99.999% certain that humans aren't magnetic to any major degree, otherwise MRI would just be plain impossible. 17:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Plate tectonics, evil from Satan .. proof !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inN_MfgnPWc&feature=channel_page its got diagrams and HITLER Hamster 04:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See my comment in the section above... but for this one we can at least sit back and watch the guy making a fool of himself. Is there a creationism drinking game for these youtube posts? A whisky for "plate tectonics is unscientific", a schnapps for MOAR HITLER, etc... Totnesmartin 12:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ask Ace, surely he'd be the one to know, and probably have tried it. 12:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do hope you didn't miss the part where this is parody. -- 19:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Somewhere around the "most artists are gay... by choice!" part. Well, actually from about 3 seconds in but I figured that line was worth pointing out as especially funny. 20:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Just venting
So, I'm currently working on my MBA, and I just finished the most ridiculous class so far. The class itself wasn't hard, but in every other class, assignments are due on Monday. This class had all assignments due on Saturday, two days earlier. It might not seem like a lot, but when you're writing a 25 page paper and you need to analyze industry best practices, those two days make a big difference. I'm just so glad it's finally over. 15:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Atheism and my Family, take II
Well, the college year is finially over, and I am now back at home. Just yesterday, my mom bought up the fact that I could go camping with the Order of the Arrow (The Boy Scout honor society, for all extents and purposes). I inform my my mom that the boy scouts forbids membership to Atheists, Agnostics, and Gays, citing them as "morally inferior". MY moms response? "See how you are limiting yourself?". 16:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * She just wanted you out from under her feet for a while. What she really meant was: "See how you're limiting me". ;-) 16:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL to toast's comment. But seriously, I'm sick of how they turn this stuff around to make things we do for ourselves, be against them.  Colorado is working on making "Civil Union Light", by passing laws one at a time to give gay couples, basic rights.  Some of the laws include 1) right to adopt a partner's children, and 2) right to define your partner as your beneficiary on any and all documents (regardless of what the company may want), and right to go into any hospital as the Next of Kin.  Right winger's response "By guaranteeing the rights of gays and lesbians, the stae is infringing on the rights of people who believe homosexuality is wrong for moral or religious reasons."  Why? are they forcing you to be gay or do "gay things?"  Oh, right.  They are just forcing you not to be a biggot.  got it.  grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!-- 16:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Part 2 of th same interview. "We have a rich, diverse, free and open society..." Mitchell (state rep) said.  "The current march of the law [towards being more gay inclusive] is aimed at stamping out diversity."   If you tell me I can't act on my hated of gays, I don't get to be a biggot, and that's not letting diversity flow (or something).-- 16:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ack. Tell your mum that if Jebus wants you for a sunbeam, then he's welcome to inform you himself. Meeting her halfway, like... --Robledo 20:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To Java, sorry to hear that, it really sucks. My maternal unit and I still argue like crazy of religious issues, so I feel ya.  To WFG, yeah, I saw that as well.  The sad part is that a few years ago, we wrote discrimination into our state constitution, so this slow inch by inch crap is all we can do at the moment.... I've always loved that "you're infringing on our right to hate you" line.  I guess that means I can't support lynch laws, as I'm just depriving the KKK their right to mob justice and random murders of completely innocent minorities.  Damn  02:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

From the people who brought you "Gathering Storm"
For anyone who hasn't seen it yet, NAMBLA the National Organization of Marriage has come up with another classic anti-gay marriage propaganda ad public service announcement. 21:31, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, nice. Use the kids! -- 21:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, there appears to be a small amount of vomit in my mouth now... maybe I should put it in an envelope and send it to Governor Lynch. 23:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's us! Fingers crossed that they get it done.  23:27, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You've got to teach the kids how to hate before they're too old to question it. That way the indoctrination is most likely to last long enough for them to teach THEIR kids how to hate.  It takes time and energy to teach hatred to your children, but think of it as an investment!  Corry 23:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PS, the area code is 603 in case anyone was curious. 23:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I just emailed him to let my voice be heard. 23:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

@the video: Now that's vile. How does one even parody that? It's already a mockery. "God created Adam and Eve, that's so old fashioned!" Are these people that out of touch with reality? Well, I suppose you'd have to be to believe sky man watches you and disapproves of the sexual orientation he himself gave you, and that you'd better stop jacking off to the thought of that guy at the gym and have efficient protestant sex with you wife and have a litter of twelve. -- 00:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Or those who believe that we are tramping on their (god given) right to be biggots, when we say the STATE and other public service types cannot discriminate.-- 01:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The true irony is that is this is the same camp that screamed bloody murder when a group of school kids went to the state capitol for their teacher's gay wedding in California. They went crazy with their claims of everything from indoctrination to child abuse.... but this is fine... Yeah, this is good.  02:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I love, love, love watching these hateful people slowly, inexorably lose their fight: they are fighting inevitability just as George Wallace did. The icing on the cake is the appeal to religion, which should have nothing to do with legislation in the first place.  Corry 03:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm with you Corry. It's the same feeling I get when the Campus Greens attack me between classes and try to convince me to eat nothing but organic and stop wearing anything made from animals.... I show them the picture of me in my leather trenchcoat and the look they give is priceless.  04:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The cover of What's Going On?? Sorry, couldn't resist.  I already had the CD and still bought a used vinyl copy just for the cover...  06:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Angels and Demons
So this time I watched Angels and Demons at work last night. In spite of mixed reviews, I thought it was good. Horrific scenes of self-immoation and such. Although it's been a few years since I've seen Da Vinci Code, I thought it was better and easier to follow than the first. Thoughts anyone? 08:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mark Kermode (sp?) said it was so awful that it would be a success because people would go to see it for its absolute comicness. 08:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Google
Teh Streetview car's just been! Up, reverse, down, away. It moves bloody fast. 09:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Flicking through the photos and judging by the amount of irate traffic stuck behind it I clocked the thing at around 30mph max. 16:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What, didn't they even give you time to don a clown costume and assume an incriminating pose with one or more beloved pets? -- 16:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Naar, just saw the camera mast above the garden greenery. It wasn't really fast, but didn't hang about: in and out of our cul-de-sac in bloody short time. 16:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing link
I wonder how the bunch of bigots across the hall are going to treat the finding of the missing link? Andy will probably ask for it to be sent to him so he can study it. Extra win for them naming it after Darwin. --PsyGremlinWhut? 12:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't pander to their delusions by calling it a "missing link", we've got enough enough fossil of the stages of primate and hominid evolution that the phrase is totally meaningless. It's just a neatly preserved fossil primate previously unknown to science. -- 13:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense! I've heard that Ida's tears cure cancer. Corry 13:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, too funny. I was just comming "over" to RW from Dkos to post this link and see if it was "real" news, or old news just recycled in the media.  -- 14:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually they (Google) call it 'missing link'. 16:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I always knew google was one of those damned liberal search engines. Good Conservatives (Tm) have to make a new search engine that only directs links to accepted sites.  I mean, what is this world coming to, when a search engine dares to *celebrate* not only Cinqo de Mayo, but now some ape monkey baby that we all know is just a hoax or is simply the stupidity of modern scientists-- 17:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hannah Montana is behind all of this. I blame the Disney Channel for programming the youth of tomorrow with such liberal ideas! But on a more serious note, I don't care how liberal or conservative Google is. That's something so trivial, if I spent anymore time thinking about it, my brain might just asplode from the sheer stupidity. Big news though.--Mike the Etcetetran 17:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Coincidence or design?
Hmmm, so a few days ago I succumbed to temptation and sent Ray Comfort my address such that I could get free vapid, mind rotting books to make fun of. Today, a pair of god botherers appear at my door. The first time that has happened in years, since I've already been extremely rude to all our local evangelists. This pair seemed to want me to feel hopeless for some reason, and seemed very disappointed when expressed cautious optimism about the course of world events. Coincidence or the gears of the god mill grinding? You decide. -- 16:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Dude. Not coincidence at all.  Clearly it was GOD himself using the bodies of those two, and your own pen to show you the light.  Wake up.  Get God.-- 16:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What? You gave Ray Comfort your real address?!?!?!? 16:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How many times do I have to tell people this; PO Boxes!  17:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I did it too... no godbotherers yet, also no books. It will be fun if a few of us end up with them, won't it?  19:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When I saw the offer, all I could hear in the background was Admiral Ackbar, yelling "IT'S A TRAP!!" 20:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but what's the trap? I guess if you have kids around the house the botherers might try to convert them when you're not around?  20:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Moar XKCD
These just made my day: and --PsyGremlinWhut? 14:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Secretary Pt 1
 * Secretary Pt 2
 * Pt 3
 * Pt 4
 * pt 5
 * just wonderfully bizarre
 * As always, XKCD is full of win. I loled so hard at the hearing; I plead the third.  You mean the fifth?  No, the third.  Gold.   16:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My favorites are

e to the pi Trolling More math

And my personal favorite- 1 2 3 4 5

Enjoy! Theemperor
 * I am still trying to deal with the fact $$i^i=e^{\pi/2}$$, an imaginary number to the power of an imaginary number comes to something both real and positive. 03:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And all coming from someone who's name is an irrational number. 00:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Where DO we put stuff about "Ed on Wikipedia"?
A poor [sic] sap appeals for help on the Brazilian WP. He gives a helpful link to an explanatory page. Good luck Malves12. 17:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I love Ed's talk page on wikipedia; every other entry is an article he created nominated for deletion. Way to contribute, Ed!   17:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish he would are archive the thing already. 00:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And the follow-up: "sorry, I can't speak portuguese so i can't help." I had to pitch in and offer a link to WP's Brazil project. Ed obviously hasn't been around WP long enough to know about Wikiprojects. Totnesmartin 18:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I like how he's been on this tear lately about Hrafn's supposed personal remarks, presumably for stuff like this, which is actually pretty accurate. I'm getting to like this guy. --Kels 18:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a few people on WP who'd be good here actually. I know of someone who's constantly being told off for letting his pro-science stance get in the way of WP's policy. Maybe I could point him this way. Totnesmartin 20:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I follow everything Hrafn & DaveSouza get involved in. They're like an outpost of RW on WP. 20:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to remeber the pro-science guys from my Paranormal Wikiproject days. ScienceApologist, Orangemarlin... who else? Wahkeenah was there for the lulz, he'd have been good here. anyway, . Totnesmartin 20:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I, myself, personally ...
A Telly report just commenced with the above phrase. I squirmed. 17:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I, myself, personally reject, deplore and confute the excessive, overdone and redundant phraseology of the language used in the media, on television and by other means. Totnesmartin 17:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They love the smell of their own colon so much they can't hear anything outside their arse. 19:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point in time, the language to which you refer is the most ideal for discussion and coverage of events, news, and current affairs.  DogP Marmite Patrol 06:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with Toast more is the telly report had started with the phrase - but that's just one of my little bug-bears. Silver Sloth 08:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No comment
22:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I, myself, personally, are not overly convinced by that, it seem more like one guy stating his opinion rather than any actual research. 00:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Common sense anyway. Religion requires followers to blindly believe pseudo-facts without question and to have personalities which deep-root cognitive dissonance. A higher IQ means a higher likelyhood to ask questions, demand evidence, and admit error. Crundy 13:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

YouTube censorship strikes again?
Was interested in finding out that one of the people I subscribed to on YouTube, dprjones, had their account suspended, and came across this video in another of my subscriptions. This is the video that got him suspended. 02:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's weird - what was so bannable about that? Unless YT are feeling uncomfortable about VXF's nonsense. --PsyGremlinWhut? 10:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of it going about recently. Basically there's something like a vote bot that reports things enough for YouTube to take action. Thunderf00t and co. are watching it closely and occaisionally these protest vidoes get circulated and mirrored by people. Overall it seems to work, but it's a slow and far from hassel free process. 16:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

GOP stops name-calling
The GOP has officially stopped their campaign to get the democrats to change their name to the "Democrat Socialist Party". Think Michael Steel reads CP?--Nate River 03:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Cardinal -> Lord?
Brits might like to sign this Number ten petition  09:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why bother? As if the government cares what we think. Large demo against top up fees. Result: Top up fees introduced. Large demo against The War Against Terrorism (TWAT). Result: We dive headfirst into a clusterfuck of a war with the US. If anyone at #10 does read this it will just be before printing it to use as bogroll. Crundy 11:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As cynical as it may be, I'm inclined to agree. Though, if the government listened to petitions and the "voice of the people", imagine the shit we'd have as laws. We'd be hanging pediatricians (because idiots at large just hear "pedo" and go ape shit), shooting anyone wearing burberry on sight and petrol would be dished out on the NHS... Basically, can you imagine The Sun running the UK?!?!? 16:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm all for chav baiting but agree that the arsehole to reasonable person ratio in this shithole of a country is a bit skewed. We pay politicians to make informed decisions for us, but they end up using the cash for non-existent mortgages and donkey-prostitutes. Crundy 20:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Wolf T-Shirt
Anyone seen the comments on this page yet? Class. The BBC wrote an article about it. Crundy 13:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should buy this one for teh assfly? Crundy 14:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't need to spend money - just sign Andy and the gang up for notifications of liberal book releases from evil librul university presses and occasionally reserve them a book a two from their local Borders or B&N. A book like God is Not Great or the God Delusion. Or something sexy.  14:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Though you can't help but love how the T-shirt company is upset about it. raise your sales 2000%, but got to bitch anyhow.-- 14:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The other items viewed by people list had the world's greatest book. Yorick 18:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

EPIC WIN
Someone else on the internet understands evolution 13:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am so going to waste a lot of time trying something like that... Although I can't envisage M&Ms reproducing. 16:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What, you don't think Green is attractive enough to capture the attention of those boobs, Yellow and Red? -- 18:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Gasp! Social darwinism! Next you'll be having a night of the broken shells, where angry mobs go round and smash up the machines that make the blue m&ms. -- 18:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * M&M are clearly liberal deciet. Notices, the conservative Brown has been reduced to bit parts, if anything.  and the light Brown is gone from the pack, entirely, in place of... yes, BLUE.  Blue.  does anyone else see the conspiracy?  Reds abound, Blues are popular, and don't get me started on those Yellows!  Liberal.  Deciet.-- 18:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes! And there are no transistional forms from hersheys kisses into M&M's, clearly an example of professor values. 18:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And liberals will not admit that M&M cookies have been found in strata both with and without M&Ms. Why will they not admit this this basic fallacy?

Article idea
Shoot this idea down if it's crap, but on the main page we state that we're opposed to "anti-science" movement. However we don't have an "antiscience" article. Should we have one, or is the thing too amorphous and many-headed to round up in one package? Totnesmartin 19:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * maybe just a redirect to "woo?"-- 19:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * it's more than just woo, though - there's ID, the various global warming/moon landing etc denialists as well. Totnesmartin 19:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Anti-science. 130.113.218.226 20:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then it sounds like it's worth writing! I mean, if a one line article about a 2 page book in the bible is worthwhile, your article describing something we "focus" on is worthwhile. ;-)-- 20:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just made a redirect. I've found so many articles around here that we've written two times, or are on the "red link" because someone didn't find an article cause they didn't use an "-", or titled added and "s" in the search (Bagpipe vs. bagpipes, for example).-- 20:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday
Well in my crazy southern hemisphere, where people wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people, its May 22nd. Which means Happy Birthday RationalWiki. I have just sent a series of threatening letters to the head office of my local video store (not quite as threatening as the letter I faxed to John Howard some years ago wherein I address him as "Johnny Boy" and accused him of being a catamite) and now I feel like celebrating. Although I am seated at my desk, wondering why the fuck it is so cold and staring at the crazy woman of the office who is muttering to herself and complaining of a sore finger, I still feel overwhelming joy at this juncture and tonight, when the work is done, I will drink heavily, smoke lots and revel in RW's warming glow. Tomorrow, when you guys come around to my time, I'll join you for the celebration. However I will be hungover and I will be nasty but, hey, 'tis Ace after all. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 21:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait... Ace lives is Rand McNally? I thought you from New Zealand or some such place... Damn it man, you've ruined the Jinx Baiting line up.... Now we gotta import some Kiwis the birds, not the fruit.  Although fruity birds may work as well .  21:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehehehe well spotted Chuck! Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 21:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Holy fucking Hell, has it been 2 years? Jeebus, Linus and Icewedge must be shaving by now. Phallus of Satan 22:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hehehe... later tonight I figure I'll push the ratty furniture out of the way at my talk page to make room for balloons and goat pilaf and much drunken celebratoriations. Maybe around midnight my time.  Maybe sooner. A Splendid Time is Guaranteed for All.  23:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of Mr. TeeKay? 15:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was surprised it stood so long without anyone ever pointing it out... I know I wasn't the only one to get it. 01:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's to the future of Rationalwiki. May it be plentiful and full of snarky comments.--Nate River 02:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely this should just go up on the mainpage too? 10:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Two Years On...
And what has changed? Lots of new and immature kids about who seem to think being an atheist is rebellious, thats for sure! MarcusCicero 14:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, moron: No one thinks being an atheist is rebellious, we think it makes sense. -- 14:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course it makes sense dear boy! But what would an atheist be if he didn't spout his self righteousness all over the internets in the belief that he was holding the dear fight for reason by the end of a tether? Blast that religious worshipping majority, those worshippers of disreason! Take to the hills my dear boy, Dawkins on the left hand, Hitchens on the right, and smash through all those religious 'nutbags' that stand in the way of free thinking people like yourself! Yes, a brave iconoclast you are. MarcusCicero 16:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You may notice that we tend not to attack all Christians, just the ones like Andrew Schlafly or Kent Hovind. -- 17:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Word salad FTW!  16:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * @CUR: Bunk. 16:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You see, this is were the 'immaturity' aspect of it all comes in. A nerdy iconoclast truly is a wonder of the internet age...

MarcusCicero 16:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * indeed MC, indeed. hey, what are you doing tonight? Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 16:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, the immaturity probably comes from how you relate to people. When you engage people with an immature, petulant, adolescent mentality don't be surprised when they respond back with something similar. See to your own house first MarcusCicero. tmtoulouse 16:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Does any of this have anything to do with the Main Page, hmmm? Take it to the bar please, gentlemen. 17:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record MC, I am not Atheist, I am Agnostic and I don't really have a grudge against religion or any religious people. If you want to worship Weasombubu, The CD-R drive God, and sacrifice old CD burners once a month, I will support your right to do so. However, when you try to force your religion on the rest of the country under the cloak of morals, then we are in opposition.  18:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This could be construed as meaning that anytime anyone stumps for any "morals" in line with the values of their religion, they are covertly stumping for the religion itself, regardless if those "morals" have a good secular basis as well. 18:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone wanted to intentionally twist my meaning, they could. But I think it's obvious to see the difference.  If I campaign for tougher laws against shoplifting, it doesn't mean I'm forcing my religious values on the country.  If I campaign to reintroduce sodomy laws and ban gar marraige, there is no secular reason behind it, only religious.   18:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't anyone else falling down laughing at the humor inherent in who first answered MC's "comment"? 20:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Like Ken's shout-outs I tend to ignore MC's public-bar mouthing off. I've had more than my share of Irish guilt-riddled introversion telling everyone else that they're all fuckin' eejits. Hello, Dad! 21:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

22:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? You post the Stop template an hour & a half after the last post in this thread. . . . [[image:33.gif]]  22:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Better late than never, right? 22:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Two Years On is a classic Beegees album, for those who give a shit. 03:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

TK's new job?
I have never visited Sean Hannity's website before, but today I was following a link from a blog to it and was met with this message. Here is the actual page I saw. Now I do know I have a suspiciously foreign address and it is possible that someone else that has the same ISP as me has already got themselves banned, but this ISP is now banned from two right wing sites in America. Why is it that Conservative sites seem to block/censor/control comments more than liberals? You can't even view DeanS' blog any more. Why are they so block first and avoid debate? 04:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That tactic is specific to authoritarians rather than conservatives; communists, for example, once in power are known to shoot first to avoid debates. Anything to muzzle arguments that might debunk their world-view. 05:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Extreme views are more prone to criticism from people like us in liberal democracies, so people with far-left or far-right views naturally become more paranoid about who and want people are saying to/about them and find it easier to shut them off altogether. Like Listener said, authoritarians. 08:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Dean making his blog viewable by invitation only is pretty funny. What a coward.  If I remember right, his first two posts were "I like CP." and "I hate RW."  I can't imagine all the rational discourse that I'm missing out on.  Corry 11:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But with no way to protest the block? And I agree with the point on authoratarian, but Conservative values (with the capital C) are pretty damn well authoritarian. 16:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I always thought that having a blog was to get your point of view out there. If he didn't like what people were going to say, he could always censor moderate the comments. So who exactly is reading his blog? Ed, TK, Andy and the other sysops. And he could have said all that in the SDG anyway. Paranoia rules in conservadom. You can't even apply to view it. --PsyGremlinWhut? 18:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All the comments were emailed to him and he would post them only if he approved. I sent him one saying if he didn't like his article here he could update it. My comment never got posted, but for some strange reason an account that had not been used in nearly a year came around a few days later and started insisting we post picture of Dean on the page. 00:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sean Hannity? More like Sean Vanity. I counted the word Hannity 12 times and a picture of him 5 times (with his so-called "Freedom Concert" ad on display). Also I didn't know that Olly North sang C&W. 16:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing link or weakest link?
You know the funny thing about the newly discovered missing link? Actually, it isn't http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17173-why-ida-fossil-is-not-the-missing-link.html

Many mass-media claimed stupidly that it was the missing link. Some media dumbly think that biologist are still searching for the missing link. Actually, there was a long time since they are over it. Currently, the expression "missing link" is used by:
 * Those who believe in evolution, but poorly understand it ;
 * Creationists who want to discredit evolution.

Andy could use this new to show how "liberal media" dumbly claim that a critical piece of the evolution theory was proved, while it's only another species which raises more question than it provides answers. He would have been right.

But he prefers to erase anything from the front page. Fossil found? BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH, I CAN'T HEAR YOU! What a poor argument. Barraki 19:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OH MY GOD IT'S THE MISSING LINK MEDIA HYPES FOSSIL DISCOVERY!!!


 * Ahhh...I love it. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 19:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The term "missing link" will always be a problem for science. The simple fact is that we will never have every intermediate fossil, there will always be gaps. To say anything is a missing link is a mistake. Jimaginator 20:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone else notice this rather problamatic quote from the FOX article you cited above. "Having such a complete early specimen to study will allow scientists to better understand how primates, including humans, evolved, Hurum said. The jury is still out on that claim." That last line seems very Foxy, to me.-- 20:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My first reaction when reading the first article I read on the fossil was "wow, cool fossil". My second was "why are they saying such stupid things about it?"  20:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * They aren't saying stupid things about it, really. They are saying things a lay person, and school kids, and little old ladies can get excited about... and that's not a problem. So what if they call it a (or the) missing link.  it's mostly correct, the incorrectness is a rather small detail to us in the real world.  To you who studies and reads science all the time, it's really matters, but if I can get 10 kids to read something about science and paleontology and discovery by saying "missing link" more power to me.  I do, however, find it amusing that Fox News has decided that this "lemur" will not add to the knowledge of human evolution. -- 21:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Godot. I think it's like news items about "research for a cure for cancer". Considering the nature of cancer, there probably can't be a simple single miracle cure, but if they'd start explaining that in the news item, they'd just lose their audience. --GTac 21:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh Jeez, I just saw a commercial for a History Channel program called "The Link." The tagline is the "Our missing relative has just been found."  Well, the fundies will not be boycotting the history channel.  01:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I must say what has disappointed me most with the news coverage is they way it plays into creationists' hands. People now have the idea that this is the single piece of evidence that was needed and somehow without it evolution is unproven. With this one object in mind, creationists need only to attack this one fossil to convince people evolution is false. Look at Andy, he has found someway to convince himself it is fake and so once again evolution remains unproven. 01:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

AIG's responses 1 2 have been pretty lame, as well as the ID camp. Not much on disputing the facts, mostly media manipulation. Sterile 03:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I liked the quote mine job on number 2, nice to see creationist dealing with new finding in old ways. 03:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been thinking it's much more interesting due to the fact it's been hidden in a private collection for so long. Makes you wonder what else is being horded away from the eyes of trained researchers. 11:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that it could be very significant in understanding human evolution, because there are 3 or 4 primary theories of where human-type primates come from, and the "lemur-like" ancestor is one of those 3. Depending on what scientists do with this particular new info could either help elimiate the lemur as one of the "ancestors", or could strengthen the lemur argument. I have to admit, "it" worked.  That is, the "missing link" crap the media put out made me read as much as I could find about this little girl.  So in that sense, the hype did its job!-- 15:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree WfG that sometimes this simplification can atually help get youngsters interested in a subject. Only as they learn the detail of the subject do they appreciate the intricacies and nuances. Unfortunatet it ends up like one of PJR's information analogies. The simple model works so long as you don't need to do anything complicated with it but the POV-pushers then tend to enforce it as the paradigm and if it doesn't fit the linear model it's "wrong". 12:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Which proves that biologists are much more open-minded that creationists : we found a fossil which modify the evolution scenario. Hurrah, we made a new step! But creationist will point out how we contradict with previous theories.
 * With doublethink to the rescue, they even criticize us for being dogmatic with evolution and for modifying it endlessly.
 * Now I realize it's very hard for them to deal with this event: it's not necessary a huge leap in evolution theory, but how could they argue with this without admitting evolution is right ?
 * So they have to use wrong arguments. Barraki 15:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just seen a trailer for a new BBC programme (next Tuesday) called Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor: The Link narrated by King David Attenborough. I'm sure it will be good but I'll be interested to see how they frame "the link". 17:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Bible bill
This was an article from Politico that's worth reading for some giggles. http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090522/pl_politico/22832 -- 15:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The link is broken. 18:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then fix it dear Listener. Dear listener, fix it. Fixed. 12:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Scarred for life
So I'm out at a bar the other night and one of the gays asked me out.

I had to politely tell him I wasn't gay. Then we went back to what we were talking about.

It was horrifying. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 16:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You can;t just let that go Neveruse, the Gay will slowly take over you. You must go attack some Gay guy (or girl, but preferably a guy) to get it out of your system.  Go, Go Now or the virus will spread.  18:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And don't forget to campaign against gay marriage. I'm sure if gay marriage were legal, you'd already be gay married to him.   18:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * First things first, I'm going to burn that Burberry shirt he complemented. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 18:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Aw, give him a kiss ;) It won't hurt.  03:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah a Burberry shirt. What a giveaway! When I was young and blond rather old and balding I used to get a lot of propositions from Arabs. However, having just flown into New Orleans on a business trip few years ago I was doing some sightseeing along the riverfront with a colleague and we were approached by a nice young lady with a clipboard who asked if we "were here for the Pride Weekend". It was only a few hours later that we realised she thought we were a couple down for the Gay Pride festivities. Euugghh. 13:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

GRAAAAHARRRRGHH!!!!11
I just cut my finger. Had to stick a band-aid on it. I HATE THE ENTIRE WORLD!!!!!%$§ And no, I never overreact. NEVER!!!!!!!12 --Just passing by 21:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, this disproves God, for if there was a God, he would not allow this to happen TO ME! Plus, this also disproves Darwinism, because if there was a Darwin, he wouldn't allow this to happen TO ME either! AND it disproves religion, the beauty of autumn foliage, atheism, capitalism and communism and basically everything else for no particular reason except CAUSE I SAY SO. In fact, the Cigarette Smoking Man was right: "Life is like a box of chocolates - a cheap, thoughtless, perfunctory gift nobody ever asks for." --Just passing by 21:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no. It disproves darwinism because you didn't bleed out. Blood clotting is irreducibly complex. Or something. -- 11:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"If you gave him an enema you could bury him in a matchbox!"
Liberty University, the school that Falwell started, has disbanded the university chapter of the college democrats. More fundamentalists dedicated to our basic freedoms! Oh, I love news like this. It could only be better if Ted Haggard was involved. The only thing I'm really surprised at is that there are democrats on campus in the first place. Corry 23:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Got to love to comments by the Falwell Jr. on tolerance for differing views. In a nutshell, he'd be okay with a Democratic students club once the Democratic Party stops being pro-choice and acts like, well, like the GOP.  Kind of like the way CP encourages differing views (as long as they don't include liberal claptrap).  --SpinyNorman 02:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "You can't be a Democrat and a Christian" — someone should point this fellow to one of Jim Wallis's posters about how "God is not a Republican, or a Democrat." 03:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Other than the "skinny-challenged," there is only one group in America against whom it's still considered acceptable to discriminate… people of faith. In fact, it's outright encouraged these days.

And I don't mean crazy snake-handling, tongue-speaking holy-rollers… I mean anyone who believes in a power higher than oneself. It's literally open season on Christians, Catholics and anyone who does not worship "self as God."

I neither praise Liberty U, nor condemn them… I just think its about time someone stood up to the dangerous cult that is secular "progressivism."
 * I wonder if that is a JP we know and love? 12:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * @Listener - Shouldn't that be "God is not a Republican or a Democrat." or "God is not a Republican, nor a Democrat."? (Sorry, just being a pedant, Heil Toast!)  13:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was actually a period: "God is not a Republican. Or a Democrat." 00:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh noes!
I'm getting a DNS error from Wonkette. Say it ain't so! --PsyGremlinWhut? 16:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "It ain't so!" 16:42, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * While you're waiting for the DNS to come back up try this YouTube link - courtesy of the Wonkette. 17:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Have we done this one yet?
Human Virus Scanner

The virus that have infected you will be show here along with thier cures, if known. Viruses you suffer from:


 * Linux:Install the latest version of Microsoft Windows. Learn to love it.


 * British:No need for cure. Benign virus.


 * Politics:Stop caring!


 * Environmentalism:Consume more stuff! It's easier to buy new stuff than to recycle.

Viruses you might suffer from:


 * Junkfood (85%):Eat some real food. Something which you can identify the source of every ingredient, not the point of manufacture.


 * Religion (90%):Read "God's Debris" by Scott Adams (yes, the Dilbert guy)


 * Conspiracy Theory (95%):Face it, the elected government is in control. Actually that's quite scary.


 * Hippyism (73%):Free love is passe and potentially dangerous, and patchouli smells like cat piss.

17:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * How bizarre. It says I suffer from Pokemon, although I don't play it, USA even though I don't live there, and several operating systems I don't use.  It also tells me to listen to folk, which I enjoy already.  --Kels 17:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was diagnosed with 10 (Linux, Junkfood, Sci-fi, BBCB, Religion, 8-Bit, British, Politics, Brand Names, Environmentalism) and may have another 12 (TotL (85%), Free BSD (85%), Amiga (70%), Discordia (90%), X11 (60%),Computer Games (80%), Conspiracy Theory (83%), Hippyism (93%), Macintosh (80%), Cars (75%), Football (75%), Southampton (84%)). I did live in Portsmouth for a while but a lot of the others are just keeping my eyes open, reading computer mags and having been around for a while I guess.  18:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Viruses you suffer from: Pokemon Linux Junkfood BBCB Religion Japan Discordia Windows Politics Conspiracy Theory Environmentalism

Viruses you might suffer from: Free BSD (80%) British (80%) Sci-fi (70%) Brand Names (85%) Computer Games (60%) Hippyism (80%) Macintosh (80%)

I'm curious, which ones are the politics icons? 18:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

TotL

Go read Brunching

Sci-fi

Stop wearing the stick-on ears.

Politics

Stop caring!

Environmentalism

Consume more stuff! It's easier to buy new stuff than to recycle.

Computer Games

Stop staring at the screen and get some fresh air. You should see a doctor about the RSI in your thumbs.

Viruses you might suffer from:

Pokemon (60%)

Pikachu! Use your hyper-electric-get-a-life move now!

Linux (80%)

Install the latest version of Microsoft Windows. Learn to love it.

Junkfood (95%)

Eat some real food. Something which you can identify the source of every ingredient, not the point of manufacture.

Religion (70%)

Read "God's Debris" by Scott Adams (yes, the Dilbert guy)

8-Bit (70%)

Polygons, all the polygons you can get are not enough.

British (70%)

No need for cure. Benign virus.

Japan (60%)

Big is good. Small is bad. Giant robots would not make a good last line of defence for Earth.

UNIX (65%)

Anything this old must be obselete. Go and install a nice modern operating system. I hear MSDOS has come a long way lately.

Discordia (60%)

Buy a suit. Invest your money. Eat hotdog buns on a friday.

Brand Names (95%)

Having a well-known name doesn't make it good.

Conspiracy Theory (95%)

Face it, the elected government is in control. Actually that's quite scary.

Hippyism (93%)

Free love is passe and potentially dangerous, and patchouli smells like cat piss.

Macintosh (80%)

Use a mouse with more than one button.

Cars (75%)

There just hunks of metal which go real fast. Ride a bike through London at rush hour.

18:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * HEY YOU GUYS! Format your posts so that we don't run out of screen real estate. Repeating the same comments is lazy & boring. 18:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * @Nightflare - Politics: Labour party logo, Lib-Dem logo, old Tory party logo, Anarchist logo, CND logo, Communist party logo, Amnesty International, clenched-fist. I think that not all the same images are used each time. 18:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I thought the lib-dem, CND and Tory logos where peace/olympics symbols. 19:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK so you really failed the political aptitude test. However, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are dual purpose. Like the Portsmouth F.C. badge being used for both Southampton & football. 20:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Industrial (70%) - Everyone likes folk. No, really. Maybe you should listen to the Incredible String Band. Cars (75%) - There just hunks of metal which go real fast. Ride a bike through London at rush hour. Two I didn't notice above. 19:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * More or less the same as Susan. Now where is her cute smiley? Editor at CPOh, Finland! Why? 20:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...I thought that was going to be interesting and cool, but it wasn't.  DogP Marmite Patrol 22:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Life on Mars
Following on from the above topic I noticed the Visible Mars Project which compares UK and US Mars bars. I first noticed the difference in 1972 on a BUNAC trip to the USA for my summer hols. In the US, Mars Bars were called Milky Ways and Milky Ways were called Three Musketeers(?) - I write from a UK POV. I notice that the US Mars Bar resembles what I have seen in Europe as a Nuts bar. I've no idea whether Nuts bars are available in the UK. I must ask my retired Mars manager friend about it next time we meet up for a "wine, cheese, port and malt whisky" weekend. 18:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The transatlantically-displaced fan of confectionary is confronted with many such dilemmas.  I still don't know what Maltesers are - they might be called Boogers or Choos Choos or something similarly stupid, but I've always been afraid to try,   And then the manufacturers made it even harder by changing the UK name to a US product name.   Ooooh, the bastards!   DogP Marmite Patrol 22:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sailors fighting in the dancehall. Oh man! Look at those cavemen go! It's the freakiest show. Take a look at the lawman beating up the wrong guy. Wonder if he'll ever know he's in the best selling show! Is there life on Mars? 22:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As soon as I saw the title of this section, I knew someone would bring that up. Ryan 01:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maltezers are "malted milk balls" and are pretty much the same. What really sucks is that Hershey has the distribution/manufacture rights for "Cadbury" in the US, and they pass off their bitter, nasty concoctions as what God intended milk chocolate to be.  01:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Housewife Superstar
I'd thought of making some snarky joke about Phyllis Schlafly but kudos to this 95-year old woman from Portsmouth. I only hope to be so perky if I make it that far. 19:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Phantom island
Can somebody have a look into the deletion discussion? I'm new here, but I really can't see why this would not be a valid article subject. Most arguments ("it's dull", "it doesn't exist", "it has no links") seem to be bogus to me and I don't particularily like the constant threatening with removal either. M the T 05:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Aw... shucks. 05:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What is this? Tobacco...or Pink Floyd.
So its midnight and I cant sleep so I'll regale you with a tale. Well, less of a tale and more of what interesting observations I garnered on Saturday night. My lady treated me with tickets to The Pink Floyd Experience. For what reason I dont know, particularly since the night previous we arrived home at 5am and I kept her awake all morning because I was falling out of bed, smashing my head, shouting obscenities at the floor, getting back in to bed, repeating ad infinitum. Then Saturday afternoon I had a fight with the cheese grater and although I beat the crap out of it, leaving it bent and twisted, I still sprayed blood all over the kitchen and have some cuts on my hand. So all in all, a normal Ace weekend. Anyway, back to Pink Floyd, after dinner and a some many drinks we parked the car and puffed on a remarkably strong spliff in the carpark. We wandered towards the venue, keeping an eye out for puddles and experiencing all paranoid blunders that come with the territory and lined up with all the other mutton chops waiting to find their seats. It was one of those terrifying wasted in public moments where a whispered voice becomes a shout and then you pretend you werent speaking at all. After some stumbling formalities we were shown to our seats. I took my coat off and looked around. My looking became staring and my staring became horror. All around were crooning ex-hippies and acid-heads from the sixties and someone was feeding drugs to these god damn animals. They were fumbling all over the place and slopping booze on each others shoes. A hand grips my shoulder and I turn suddenly to find an old hag who screams gibberish in face. Was there PCP in that joint I wondered? What the hell is going on here? The lights dimmed and I was welcomed to the machine. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 12:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you were just hallucinating really badly. Or awesome-ly. If they were just old hippies there, then that's the explanation. In a music related topic I just bought the first Dead Kennedys album and their version of "Viva Las Vegas" is pretty cool. 12:37, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are other versions? 20:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Coke up my nose to dry away the snot" awesome song that. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 12:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. You must be so bored. Go outside and have another green cigarette to help you sleep. Today we're having one of the allocated six days of sunshine we get each year in England. 12:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It was nice when I lived in the UK. Well, one day was. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 12:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's alright in summer, but relatively crap the rest of the time. I'm off, have a drink on me budd-ay! 12:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, I have had 5 for you. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 12:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Dammit, you're running up my tab! 16:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

That's one of the best covers of a song probably ever in the world. Even better than Shatner singing "Hey Mr. Tambourine Man." Corry 04:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Britain's Got Talent
I trust everyone is satisfied with tonight's winners, Susan Boyle and Diversity? I was ready to kill if Connie Talbot version 2.0 got through ahead of Diversity. In my mind only they, Susan and the violinist stood out. EddyP 21:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen either yet, but I just need to say that Diversity is one shite name for a group. Totnesmartin 22:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's much, much worse as far as their titles are concerned. The only guy I've ever cared for was the one that played the saw. Though, as a gripe about Britain's Got Talent, why is the "talent" seemingly completely limited to singing and dancing? 11:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Cos someone sitting down to write a poem isn't good telly? Totnesmartin 17:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

My kingdom for a plot
So, the writing bug has hit this weekend (never mind that my writing tends to be pedantic and monotonous after reading Ace's mere 'recollection' of his Floyd experience - oh, for talent, heh), and I rediscovered what I'd long known about me and the pen. I can manage to create rather sharp, natural sounding dialogue; my characters, while fairly sterotypical, are still alive and interesting; sunsets ooze with descriptive language worthy only of the best praise from a Community College Creative Writing course; and scene after scene lay unconnected begging for a plot. All you have to do, when writing a pocketbook romance level, is find one trivial thing to keep your characters apart for 180 pages. I swear there must be a "101 plots for Dummies" book out there somewhere. (And by the way, my vampires do not sparkle - they just gripe about old age).-- 15:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What a coincidence, I'm writing for vamps too, although mine is the more adventurous type. No time for angst or sparkling, there's a world to see and occasionally save. --Kels 15:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I do believe that there actually is a "Creative Writing for Dummies" book. A friend was using it when she was doing an adult education course. 15:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Let your characters interact. A plot will often surface and then you can (rewrite) start again with the plot in mind.. 15:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * you've got to get your characters individual speech patterns and idiosyncracies[sp?] working well. So that you can have a page of pure dialogue yet leave it obvious who's saying what - tricky. 15:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * EC :::My vamp is quite seriously having an mid/ancient life crisis. It's both humorous and quite touching, since his author, here, is having her own "what teh fuck have i done with my life in 40 years" crisis.  ;-) but alas and alack, the scenes rest with nothing that makes them a book, just really interesting introspections of an author using someone else to study herself.  Which in and of itself, is very useful.  But you can't exactly send it off ot a publisher and say "would you publish my chapter." heh.  I've written exactly 3 books.  None of them good enough to publish, say the publishers, and that's fine.  at least they pretended to have plots. (and yes, all three were romances.  I do enjoy writing, but i hold no illusions that I'm going to write the next "great American novel".)  Now to look for Genghis' plot aid.  -- 16:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've got a pretty good ear for dialogue, in fact, pushed myself once to write something I was working on without anything but dialogue. Tried to make sure you could tell who was talking by how they spoke, what interested them, etc.  That was a fun exercise.  My first full novel really did come from knowing who my two were, and what they wanted in life and when I stuck them together, with their past in place, the novel fell out in like 2 weekends of no sleep.  Hum... well, i'm off for a few hours to see where they take me.  Thanks and if you are in the States, enjoy your free Monday.-- 16:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My book was initially a conversation between two lovers after one had a life threatening accident. It devolved and evolved from there eventually under the tutelage of a writer's agent (google 'em) until I was able to submit it to a publisher (about 2 years later!) Don't despair & don't take the knockers word - have faith in yourself. I'm, concurrently with writing this, on my 4th or 5th rewrite of my number 2 for which I got a publishers' advance (not a lot, but it's encouragement). A critical friend is also useful. 16:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW: The Agent's essential. Publishers will  not  even read unsolicited script. Look for an agent who's had authors in the same genre as you and contact them via email or even (preferably?) snailmail. If they're even slightly interested, send a plot outline & chapter one. Best of luck. 16:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If you'd like some literary criticism and possible assistance in finding a plot, I'd be more than happy to help in doing so. You can send me a seciton or an outline, and I'd be more than happy to try setting up a plot for you (I usually have the opposite problem; I'm great at setting up the stories, but my characters are wooden and uninteresting, resulting in boring books). 19:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * EC) It's kinda a high, cause i havn't written in close to 10 years, maybe more. not seriously.  I mean once you do the school, 9-5 job, you find its' easy to lose that side of yourself.  So I'm back.  I write for me.  If anything is good enough to try submitting, I shall do that and enjoy taking that risk!  :-)  This one right now is kinda flowing finally.  I was at lunch just now (a strange joy, to sit at a Village Inn, Pancake House type dive, and write and write while they bring me iced tea.) and packed out 15 pages with a real flow.  Did't really try to set where its' going, just let the characters speak.  That's always when I write best.  but you have to tap into something outside of the 9-5 to pull it off.  here's to a brain teen dealing with the death of a family members, hum?-- 19:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

PS Vamps
So just what *is* this latest obsession with Vamps? about 7 years ago, I began finding so many romance novels coming under the term "supernatural" and having vamps, werewolves, etc as main characters. Then there's the stupid twinkling vamps, and True Blood. Maybe the Xians are right, and we are all being taken over by the Devil who wants us all to think Vamps are sexy and funny! ;-)-- 16:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One couple had sex just so they could name their child 'Edward.' Do we have an article on Twilight woo? -- 16:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Vamps are always popular to some degree. But like everything else it comes in waves.  More of a coincidence that I'm working on a vamp project of my own, but one of the goals of that is to subvert the various "classic" types one way or the other.  Vamp, werewolf, Frankenstein, mad scientist, etc., in a more entertaining and fun/adventurous form.  Definitely not taking the overly serious approach.  --Kels 16:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just on a pedantic note (and forgive me if I have misread your comment Lady Kels) but Frankenstein was a mad scientist, his creation is not known as Frankenstein. And to finish off on a witty note will your noveletta be known as The Book of Kels? 16:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are being pedantic, and unnecessarily so. I was using the vernacular version as shorthand for having to type out the full explanation in a quick list like that.  And no, I'm only co-author, and The Book of Half-Kels sounds silly. --Kels 17:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So sorry. Would you like to bite me, just here on the side of my neck? 17:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, I just had lunch. I know a few fetishists who might be happy to comply, if it's something you're really desperate for. --Kels 18:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite honestly you'd have to be mad to drink my blood. It's had that many tropical infections in it that the National Blood Transfusion Service won't touch it. About every seven years I come down with a wracking fever, vomiting and diarrhoea but am usually recovered (if a little knackered) by mid-afternoon. The first time the medic thought it was malaria but blood tests have shown nothing. 18:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PS If "The Book of Half-Kels" sounds silly, how about Halfnkels Saga? 18:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There you go, it's been done. No point me trying, then. --Kels 19:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I must re-read my ancient copy of Hrafnkels. I'd forgotten/never realised that he was a God-fearing Freyr worshipper and became an atheist. 06:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Vampire woo
Are we going to have an article or whatz? -- 20:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As soon as you write one. --Kels 20:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As a branch of otherkin that, apparently, even other otherkin snigger at, it could be fun to do. Totnesmartin 22:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hate to break your enthusiasm, but all the vampire otherkin I know think the woo floating around vampires is junk. -- 02:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So, er, do "all the vampire otherkin [you] know", um, think they are fucking vampires???? 03:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they just drink blood and get energy from it. Which makes a lot of sense, blood is a pretty good protein source. -- 13:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There was something on tele a few weeks ago about a dude that lived like he was a vampire, I'll go dig it out for you. 03:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Lives on blood, never dies because he's already dead? Or is he just nocturnal (like me) and sleeps all day in a coffin?  03:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ...like you. --Kels 03:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)He has taken the video off his blog. The guy lived in an old Gothic church and everything, he thought (or at least acted like) a vampire. I thought of CUR when I saw this. 03:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of CUR, whatever happened to the little twerp? Did he finally get a life and friends?  12:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I heard he built a raft and is floating to New Orleans and that he checks RW from his cellphone when he's sitting down on the banks of the muddy Mississippi catching catfish with his friends. That's what I heard. 12:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * His time on the computer was up and he entered Real Life. -- 13:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And I have no cell phone. -- 21:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sea turtles mate. 12:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Francis Bacon
Is there a hidden article on him or did we skip the founder of the scientific method entirely? And nobody suggest I write it or I'll torch the saloon. :) 23:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * How about you create it then?  23:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmmmm..... Baaaacon.... --Just passing by 07:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've red linked it above to make it even easier! 11:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, that's just how Ken does it! 12:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn, I'll just have to put in some effort then!! 12:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

How to troll an atheist
from ED.

"Jesus died for your sins."

"God doesn't believe in atheists."

"If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?" (this one in particular will tell you whether or not you have found the rare breed of atheist that isn't completely retarded, since most educated people can answer it)

"Evolution is only a theory."

Pretend to be really surprised and full of pity when the atheist mentions his lack of faith.

Complain about the bias against intelligent design.

"God did it...your science is NOTHING without God."

PROTIP: Always capitalize God, and then point out that such Atheists often capitalize science and nature, proving that they worship them; thus proving that they are pagans OMG!

"Science is ALWAYS based on faith because you don't know if your hypothesis will turn out correctly."

"Put your trust in Jesus, not science."

"Evolution leads to eugenics...just ask Hitler."

"Hitler was an Atheist."

Point out that their posts sound like evangelical preachers' rants, including their tone, intensity, rhyme and measure.

"I prayed for all of you unwashed sinners today."

"What up faith-cripples!" (Best to say when entering one of their forums)

"God loves all amputees, even faith amputees such as yourselves."

"Moral relativism leads to hedonism and persecution of minorities."

"Atheists are never moral because they do not believe in God," followed up by "Morals are God-given not man-made."

"Evolution can't explain [something that has nothing to do with biology]."

Suggest that if you were down and out in Calcutta, you'd much rather see Mother Teresa than Christopher Hitchens. (It is, however, not unlikely that the atheist will agree.) 03:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If by ED you mean 'cycloped drmatix, what is your point? 03:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the one. I found some of them funny. Also it's a good list to check against when wondering if it is worth to argue a theist. If they say any of those things, it's probably not worth the effort. I doubt it's very often worth the effort. Not my personal habit, but someone people quite enjoy it, seemingly. 04:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Trouble is, like most of ED, it's f'ing lame. But thanks for explaining. 04:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The list isn't humorous, nor are any of their articles on religion, but I find it informative. I think a lot of the images they steal from /b/ are funny. (ANTELOPE? Bullshit. I know a demon when I see one.) That's probably 'cuz i iz teh dum tho. 04:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Evolution leads to eugenics...just ask Hitler." Sounds like a creationist's bumper sticker. 11:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Or "Shit happens! (But not by random chance)". 12:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sonia SotomayoRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
I know very little, working on fixing that now. Anyone here know more? 216.221.87.112 16:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I've read, she has not made many big rulings on the hot button issues, but is something of a moderate. We'll have to wait and see.   17:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Moderate is relative. On a bench where Souter had become a liberal, she is "far left".  On a bench where Souter was the more conservative judge (as he was, just 15 years ago) she is a moderate.  She is no where near as liberal as say a Ginsburg, but she's very strong on following the rule of order, puts people before corporations, and believes that emotion, background, and race/gender are worthwhile aspects of any judicial approach.-- 19:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, I"m not sure what "hot button issues" are to you, unless you are meaning the biggies "gay marriage" and "abortion". But issues of privacy, of rights of government v. terrorist activities, criminal rights in procedural matters, rights of the Corporation and corporate body - she's got quite a record to be followed, but it's not an easy record.  Her rulings have been consistently contextual and non-ideological.  Her cases have been up to teh USSC many times, and her rulings have come come on the "left" side of the bench, and were upheld when the "left" was the majority, and the last two have been overturned - of course it's a right controlled bench.  She's got quite a track record of written material to see how she views the law, her job in the law, and how she writes usefull/useless opinions.-- 19:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that would be the problem then; I'm no good at reading legal documents and ruling, and must absorb my information via soundbites, and well thought out decisions don't make good sound bites. Woe is me.   20:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL. Yeah, i get to do it for a living now.  I'm not saying she's my first choice, and I would really have liked to see Obama push the limits, especially in a field he's specifically trained in, but he's not the extreme leftist I am, so I'll have to live with that.  I think you'll find her reasonable, and a good replacement for Souter, though in no way a new true liberal voice.  (I'm not sure you will see another liberal voice, true liberal voice once Ginsburg leaves... which is sad).-- 20:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking through some decisions now, the problem is she written much on the specific issues I am most interested in. Her church state separation has mostly been issues with religious people claiming undo incursion in their right to practice, not religion being shoved into the government. Her abortion record is completely absent. Her free speech record is contradictory, though her ruling on the highschool student's blog is disappointing. There is a lot to work through here, but my general feeling is "meh." I can live with her I think, but certainly not someone I can be happy or excited about. 216.221.87.112 21:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of trolling an atheist...
I got Ray "The Idiot" Comfort's books in the post this morning. I read it in the bath, since it isn't a long book and Ray writes like a retarded child. Ye gods, but that was some concentrated stupid. I did like one part though, where he talks about contradictions in church doctrine. He thinks that when two churches believe two seemingly contradictory things, they're both right but there's some super seekrit that god will reveal to him after death that will harmonise the two. In the mean time, it's his duty to shut up about it and not rock the boat by seeking after possibly inconvenient truths.

I think that just sums up his whole worldview. Lambast actual scientists who are conducting research to try and determine what is true and what is false, while at the same time brushing any niggling questions your own dogma under the rug. Blast these ridiculous ethics, if only I could bring myself to fleece those same two billion sheep, I could be making as much money as Ray off this dibble. -- 11:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Best. Excuse. Ever... Is the book going to get a full article and review too? 11:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably, if I get time. -- 11:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this the ne that one of bananaman's acolytes is supposed to be sending me?! Where are you that you got yours so fast? Or did you say you're extra atheist and need extra help? 12:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are the ones. I got mine extra fast 'cos god told Ray I was especially atheistic and needed the kindly light of his low wattage IQ. Oh, that reminds me. You know how Ray is always going on about how he knows and has a real relationship with Jebus/god? Apparently, the way god has spoken to him is through the Bible. Yep. He has exactly the same relationship with Jebus that I have, which is to say none at all. -- 12:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So that's, like, six people getting free books from Ray from this site. Are we his only readers or what?   13:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to get the books but it slipped my mind. Do you have a handy link? 19:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Mine arrived today, too. Hardcover You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence but You Can't Make Him Think, signed, and his little paperback atheist's bible. Not sure if I'll get past the introductions tho'. 20:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I get a free monthly magazine called "Tomorrows World". Its all about End Times and The Rapture and comes with awesome stories like "Who Really Controls the weather?" and "Evolution - Fact or Fiction". Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 21:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooh, I bet I can guess what the answer to that Evolution question is! --Kels 21:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I bet you could. As to who controls the weather I'll give you a hint. Its not Dr. No. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 21:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hah! The Evolution one (it's on their website) doesn't mention Hitler by name, but it gets Nazi Germany in there, for a lovely subtle variant of MOAR HITLER!  And bonus, they use WorldNutDaily as a reference!  --Kels 21:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, since we're talking about the bananaman, then the person who controls the weather is obviously the weatherman as voiced by the ever fabulous Bill Oddie. See? It all ties together. -- 22:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this a good place to mention I grew up watching The Goodies? --Kels 22:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem. You'll thank me for this. Or blame me. Probably the latter. -- 22:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

http://blinddrop.org/02-FunkyGibbon.mp3|autostart=no
 * I pick thanks, I think. That was loads of fun. --Kels 22:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I pick PERSECUTE!  22:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I pick the Cricklewood Shakedown! Totnesmartin 08:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

CA's clusterfuck
So in a ruling worthy only of a place like CA (Hollywood values and all) the Supremes of CA have come up with a **brilliant** (sarcasm in all it's dripping glory7) ruling. Gay marriage is illegal. Well, except for the 8000 gays who are already married. For them, it's legal. But no other gays. See, those gays are SPECIAL. Hello... can anyone else say EQUAL PROTECTION? If it wasn't already an issue between gay marriage and "straight" marriage, how much more is it in issue if my gay twin brother can marry his lover, but I can't marry my gay lover cause I happened to be in Baghdad at the time. Oh what a web we weave, when first we practice to DISCRIMINATE.-- 19:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fuck...I was hoping they would call them off so it would bring the debate to a boiling point...I guess the supreme court isn't that stupid. Oh well... There's always next year, I guess?
 * The whole situation is a f'ed up. But I wouldn't worry about that discrimination with the 8,000 gay couples; the Republicans are way ahead of you on that. Maybe 2010 will be the year. 20:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, I think the SC of Cali actually made the right decision in this case... The opponents of Prop. 8 should've filed as a federal discrimination, they tried to focus on arcane California law... Wrong way to fight it... and Don't get too upset Godot, remember, we darkies lost a bunch too. Your Brown vs. Board of Education is just around the corner. 20:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nate Silver is no joke. If He says so, the Gay Agenda© will tirelessly march skip across this country. Alaska in '09? I'd be shocked... &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 20:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm mostly upset because they created a serious issue by saying *some* gays are special gays. *some* gays get to have marriage but not all gays.  But I finally read teh decision, adn that's actually not what it says.  What it says is... well, really really interesting.  Basically, it *seems* (and i'm a paralegal, not an attorney) to be saying "well, ok, have your WORD marriage, doesn't change our prior decision that you can't discriminate against gays". (ie., make all "marriages" civil unions in the eye of the courts/govt.)  Aclu has not yet posted a full reflection of the opinion, Kos has 2 good entries, so we'll see what the experts say.-- 20:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Its the only way the decision could have come down. The issue here is that idiotic referendum system in California. You should not be able to amend a constitution with a 50 percent and one more vote of the populace. But the law is very clear, that is how it is done. So the constitution is amended, the Supreme Court of California has to abide by the said constitution. But the decision was a very narrow ruling, saying that there is nothing in the processes that invalidates the proposition. So it is not a ruling on gay marriage (remember this is the court that originally said marriage should be legal for everyone). The fact that they didn't apply it retroactively also makes since. Laws are not designed to go back in time before they were created. It is the only decision that could be made and is the "right" decision from the stand point of the way the legal system works. The solution is to change how California amends the constitution (it is has created and is creating massive problems for them across the board). In the mean time, the repeal prop 8 campaign is all ready getting started. 216.221.87.112 21:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Call your state congressperson today to repeal it as an election promise in 2010. Brought to you by .   02:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh? State congress people can't repeal this.  It's a constitutional amendment.  Only way it can be removed is by another constitutional amendment.
 * Well, They can set up a convention to do this (after they define whether a special election is required for the delegates or simply the existing state congress which are elected), as par Article 18 section 2.  13:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * B.o.N. is right. They decided based on the law, and it happened the only way it could.  The people with which to be disappointed are the voters in California when they passed Prop 8; the California Supreme only followed the law.--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 08:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Francis Bacon...
First semester of last year (junior year in HS)(it's summer break now) our class managed to convince our AP Literature teacher that allowing us to bring bacon to class would increase our ability to write essays about Francis Bacon. It was a very eloquent and startlingly original proof. Something like,

1. Knowledge is power. (A=B)

2. Bacon is delicious. (C=D)

3. Thus, bacon is knowledge. (A=C)


 * corollary: power is delicious. (B=D)

Q.E.D., mo fo. 00:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * How did you arrive at step 3? You fail basic logic. 00:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OR(!) I fail basic humor. That could be a possibility as well. 01:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mmmm, bacon! 01:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * True, it is the no.1 cause of vegetarians giving up their sick and sordid religion and returning to the Way Of The Meat! 12:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Asking for help
I am trying to find well-known personalities that can be loosely associated with the following quotes. Please resist the temptation to google, you may ruin the fun by finding they are all from the same person (I am trying to describe him as a blend of other nutjobs). Thank you for your help. 17:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) (When talking about the goal of the practice) In the end they can free themselves from the worldly state. I know that human lives are not created from the dimension that human beings think they know.
 * 2) What I can tell you is that human moral values are no longer good.
 * 3) (When ask about the location of his teachers) They were in the mountains.
 * 4) The biggest cause of society's change today is that people no longer believe in orthodox religion. They go to church, but they no longer believe in God. They feel free to do anything.
 * 5) The aliens come from other planets. The names that I use for these planets are different . Some are from dimensions that human beings have not yet discovered. The key is how they have corrupted mankind.
 * 6) (When ask about whether he is from earth) I don't wish to talk about myself at a higher level. People wouldn't understand it.
 * 7) The human body is the most perfect in the universe. It is the most perfect form.
 * 8) Future human society is quite terrifying. If aliens are not to replace human beings, society will destroy itself on its own.
 * I'm taking a guess DOCTOR Gene Ray Hexagonic and Sanest Human Yorick 04:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Elvis Pressley
 * 2) Newt Gingrich
 * 3) Keanu Reeves
 * 4) Michael Savage
 * 5) George W Bush
 * 6) Valentine Michael Smith
 * 7) Rush Limbaugh
 * 8) El Ron Hubbard
 * 9) CЯacke ® 04:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1-9 Some guy named Pommer.
 * 10 05:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Too many connections error
Did we just get DoSed or are we that popular these days? 03:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Naw, just my router crashed again. Wait, that wouldn't affect you...  04:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You do not talk about Rationalwiki
I've just found out that that is an unspoken rule on Conservapedia for the stuff surrounding JewishConservative's musings on us and Jpatt's deletion of it and JC's subsequent taking up of it with Andy here. TK says we're a vandal site, declared so by the media and that is "significant." That's not perchance the same media reknowned for spouting liberal affirmative action and Hollywood values all over is it? Or is it possible that Conservapedia are just selecting what fits their worldview best, ignoring the fact that they attack the liberal media at every God-given opportunity? 15:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're in the in the wrong room with this.  17:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * RW1 was the vandals. I can only hope that as RW2 grows over time, it can become a helpful tool in debunking the anti-science movement. However, CP sees this as RW1, no matter how much time passes.--Nate River 23:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * TK calls RW a vandal site all the time, but he didn't half whine about not being made a sysop when he was here. Totnesmartin 08:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I read those archives, fuck he bitched and moaned non-stop like a petulant child crying "its not fair" and stamping his little foots. Ace McWickedDisco Jesus 08:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * TK just jacks himself repeatedly over that Times article that basically says "by their own admission, comits vandalism to the site"... although that really was back in the day, after the same people had tried inserting actual facts and reason into the site and failed. Thus, RW1 resorted to being a collection of people who would just try to take down CP through taking the piss. RW2 has gone beyond that and rarely do any of the "senior" (read, "borderline geriatric") members bother with mindless vandalism (although CP sysops haven't moved with the times and understood this). 11:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The Link
Just watched Uncovering Our Earliest Ancestor: The Link on the Beeb and thought it was quite well done. For those who cannot yet watch the programme the palaeontologist who first examined it gives his thoughts here. 21:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, nice link. It's nice to get the slightly more "scientific" description of what's going on.  I wonder if Sci Am will run a cover story on it soon?  00:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wanted to catch this last night but I was out and didn't get home til after 11. Very annoying. 10:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's on again on June 2. 09:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

worth a RatWiki article?
New Scientist: How to spot a hidden religios agenda 23:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if you can find out more about the legal threats for sure. 00:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think toast means an article on the same topic, only with our special RW sauce poured on it (and I'd say, "yes, it is worth it"). Although the legal threats are an interesting issue, too.  01:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely. How to spot a hidden religious agenda, Spotting religious agendas or How to spot a religious agenda, redirecting to the same thing (as some of them are far from hidden!!). I should come back in a moment after I've done some real work and fill out the red links if no one else wants to. 11:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What happened?
I would like to know everything interesting that has happened over the last four days. 15:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I made home-made potato chips. Not bad, but I need a better method. --Kels 15:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I nearly shat myself with happiness when I was the first person to slap a welcome template on Gonzoid's talk page. Ace regailed us with a tale of the Pink Floyd Experience, marijuana and insomnia. That was about it. 16:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I finally guaranteed that I will receive a diploma by "finishing" my independent study notebook(gym credits are tricky things). North Korea has done something involving some radioactive substance, and I have started reading Cryptonomicon. Yorick 04:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I went to the beach and my friend got chased by a red-eyed devil crab. Totnesmartin 09:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Rapture™ happened, but no one qualified, so everyone's still here. 09:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * President Obama of the US nominated someone to the Supreme Court, there was a big bombing in Pakistan by the Taliban, and it was revealed that a full 10% of all local, state, and federal spending the US goes towards drug-related programs.--Tom Moore fiat justitia ruat coelum 10:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)