RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive44

Pope Trope
Just for fun:

If you were to be elected Pope, what would you choose as your regnal name?

Note that the joke "We've already had two Pope John Paul's, so we need a Pope George Ringo" is old.

I think I'd pick Pope Homer, in honor of America's greatest living philosopher. MDB 13:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Pope Zaphod the Extremely Relaxed. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 14:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pope Tyler of Durden. 14:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pope Theresa the Antichrist. Doin' a Pope Joan on 'em. 14:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Alexander IX. While there was a VII and VIII, no one's going to use that name nowadays due to VI.  14:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pope Biggus Dickus 15:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pope Aye the Sailorman Totnesmartin 15:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, Pope Goes the Weasel then. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 15:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pope Javias. Sounds good to me [[file:th_unsure.gif]] 16:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pope Paul VII, in tribute to Paul of Tarsus, at whose feet an incredible amount of evil can be laid.--Tom Moore fiat justitia 17:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pope Nolo Contendere. DickTurpis 17:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pope Beyoncé. 19:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pope Meatwad. Corry 19:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pope Bender. 20:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Vatican budget on sacramental wine would shoot through the roof. (And it's a pretty high roof.) Corry 21:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pope Strangelove. 22:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pope IV the Bitchin', and then I'd be my own successor, Pope IV the Bitchin' the Second. Also, I would replace the curly top of the pope staff with a large pink ball horn, because.  Also, maybe Pope Freud.  -- 23:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Pope Ular Mechanics? Me!Sheesh! Mine! 14:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pope 86 the Celibate Sprocket J Cogswell 05:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

List of already awesome popes
See here. 22:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Suspected to have had male lovers during pontificate - Pope Paul II (1464–1471) was alleged to have died of a heart attack while in a sexual act with a page." - pwned by god for being a filthy homo. 12:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wahey!


Look how popular I was after the whole TK thing yesterday! 20 messages in one night. I love my yellow boxes. 13:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't messaging you about ThickKunt though. 13:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. You got replies there und your mailbox. 13:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hotmail? Ugh. 17:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Dinner
Well, why break with tradition. This steak is so good it's like sex. Except I'm having it. 19:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, sex. You don't miss what you never had. 21:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Those are french fries in both cases. Speak English!
 * French fries are for dipshit yanks. 21:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we're English twits and we have CHIPS. 21:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * At least we don't call them "freedom fries" anymore. 23:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well what do you unamerican people call potato chips then? Or have they even been invented yet, "across the pond?" /snark Totally agree on the freedom fires how stupid was that? 72.218.139.46 23:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Our imperialistic cousins call them "crisps," I believe. Sprocket J Cogswell 23:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * An English friend of mine, now resident in the States, once went to a British theme pub over there whose menu advertised "traditional British fish & chips". They got the fish about right (fried in batter) but served it with a stack of crisps on the plate next it.  She didn't have the heart to them "no, that's not it", so she just grinned & beared it.   00:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's amazing. I've never seen crisps served as "chips" when presented on a US menu as "fish'n'chips".  But then, I live in a fairly anglophilic part of the country.  Now sepherd's pie, on the other hand, I have seen some abominations, but of course that's a fairly flexible "recipe".   Except if it's not like my mother's, it's not the real thing!  00:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That particular episode of Friends comes to mimd... but speaking of chips, I've heard that there's a takeaway near to me that's doing chips as a pizza topping. 01:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Our redneck friend scored him some Bambi a few weeks ago and was nice enough to share. Very tasty, and nice and lean. Yum. Now for some Bambi and Thumper stew! 06:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Frau Cogswell was kind enough to schlep a take-out antipasto back from the corner grille, it being Friday and all. Two kinds of swossage lurking under all that Thumper forage on a roll that I found hanging around the kitchen. Balsamic vinaigrette from a foil pouch, and there you go. Next time I may put on a skim of Marmite as well. We can't get Vegemite here, have to sneak it in across the border from Canada. Sprocket J Cogswell 21:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Should we use RevisionDelete to hide IP addresses that have been accidentally revealed?

 * Moved to Debate:RevisionDelete 23:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Nazi userboxen
Does anybody know if we have any? I sure would like one. If not, then I can make one. 01:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free. 01:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just remember that all userboxes need to be submitted for approval by the userbox subcommittee. DickTurpis 01:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There, now we have one. 03:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That userbox is full of hammers. 07:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there also an Anti-Userboxen userbox? I want one. --127․0․0․1 13:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact there is! I had forgotten about making it...-- 18:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Dinner, Ace wise...
Aceof Spades 06:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Bland and boring. And your cola beverage is obviously spelled incorrectly.  06:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a see-through table? I guess I shouldn't have expected anything less. 08:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ace, that is a perfectly presented plate of beer, although I would have liked to have seen some garnish on the plate as well. 10:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some sausages and mustard lovingly arranged around the can. That's proper garnish. -- 11:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Or dry roasted peanuts. 11:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A medical doctor and sports coach kept a lecture for us on training, physiology and nutrition. One of his points was: "athletes, remember that beer is a complete meal, with all the necessary nutrients". Editor at CPmały książe 11:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ace, this gave me a chuckle. I had beer for my post-food dinner last night, followed by a dessert of beer rounded off with cheese and crackers, followed again by a beer supper that evening to help me sleep. 12:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Beer is food, but it doesn't work terribly well as a meal replacement. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well fucking damnit, this was merely a serving suggestion. I had poured beer onto plate, added some garnish and made it look pretty when my fucking network crashed and has only just righted itself. And my see through table is actually my desk in the study. Not my dining table. Aceof Spades 18:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A see-through dining table is one thing...a see-through desk is another, less fortunate thing. Get yourself some nice hardwood...feel the warmth. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I brought it as it were cheap and is large (I tend to have a lot of papers and other important crap covering it) however I am moving in a couple of months and it may well end up as garden furniture. Aceof Spades 18:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm getting tired of your excuses. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am living a lie - excuses are all I have. Aceof Spades 18:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This is my dining table. Solid oak, albeit French oak. Neveruse is right. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 18:44, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My dining room table is made of a nice dark wood - not sure what kind of wood though. Aceof Spades 18:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) Looks good. An interesting piece. If you own that place, it's time to invest in some ceramic tiling (if that's not already). Then maybe take that shelf down and put some chair rail up...adds depth. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:floorboards.jpg|thumb|centre|400x400px|Ace's nice wooden floor.]]
 * Never mind the tables for a second - what I really dig is my floorboards. Made of Kauri (a native hardwood) and about 120 years old. Aceof Spades 19:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Really cool. Lots of character. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Aside from the bathroom, the whole house retains the original boards. Very nice. Aceof Spades 19:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Very nice indeed. @Neveruse - no, I don't own the house alas so I can't do anything about the floor or the shelf. I had to drink a couple of whiskeys before buying that table. It wasn't the cheapest thing I ever bought... –SuspectedReplicantretire me 19:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(UI) Us rationalwikians have wood! 21:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Prop 8 - The Musical.
We've all seen it, right? TheoryOfPractice 14:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that Jack Black as Jesus?!? 14:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, Black Jesus, that'll piss them off. 15:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It is--and Neil Patrick Harris, and my girlfriend Maya Rudolph, too...TheoryOfPractice 15:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Any Marilyn Manson fans here?
I thought, in honor of Ray Comfort's birthday, I leave you Manson fans this hilarious attack piece against him by Ray Comfort and Junior. Enjoy. 17:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * MM is pretty badass. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 17:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. And that's why the religiously wrong don't like him.  17:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You live with apes, man, it's hard to be clean. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 17:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Aww, I love the little goth kids trying to be cool. Yeah, Satan is so bad arse he can't even teach his followers to do their makeup professionally. -- 18:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be a freak to recognize Manson's uncanny ability to fucking rock. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I can still listen to a few of his videos. But here's my question in YA. Is this video weirder than anything that Marilyn Manson has ever done? :-D Civic Cat 18:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Manson is actually quite intelligent if you ever listen to interviews with him. I like his commentary in Bowling for Columbine.  19:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * His interview with Bill O'Reilly is also quite entertaining. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought she was great in "The Seven Year Itch" and "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes". Her new look and musical career didn't do much for me. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 19:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Boring, derivative, samey music and obvious targeting. He has the potential to be an excellent satirist and songwriter but he'd rather pick easy targets and preach to the easily impressed. Without him, music would be exactly the same. Totnesmartin 20:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While he may be a mediocre shock rocker, I do like a lot of what he has to say outside of music. In reality, his attitude is kinda like mine. 04:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Are US (and Canadian) soldiers glorified welfare recipients essentially involved in "make work" projects--including those in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I'm thinking of that Gang of Four song "I Love A Man In Uniform" and Dead Kennedys "Kinky Sex". Just a while ago, I posted it in Wikipedia's RD--here's the edit that had it but it's been removed (and now I put a question about the question in their Help Desk). Here is my posting on AB. Thanks for any help. :-D Civic Cat 18:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

World Cup Draw.
Fuck! That's all I'm saying. -- Psygremlin  18:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Woot! That's all I'm saying.-- 18:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Brits and (especially) Italians present should be celebrating. Kiwis are pretty screwed. Aussies... tricky but doable. It's the Netherlands and Brazil groups that will be fun. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 19:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well we knew we were screwed before today. How good is Slovakia?--DamoHi 21:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As a Kiwi I'm just happy we got in and I think we'd be screwed regardless of the pool. Unless we had say American Samoa, now the fattest nation, to play.Rad McCool 01:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm an ignorant American and I have nothing to contribute to this discussion. That's all I'm saying. 03:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You should be happy. The only real competition we will have is Algeria.
 * As an Irishman, you can all fuck off, you with your poncy World Cup codology.  Gits.   DogP Marmite Patrol 05:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't jump down my throat but aren't you a little embarrassed by the reaction from the Irish football organisation appealing to have the game replayed or even to be the 33rd team. I know it was a fuckup and whinging is fine, but asking for special dispensation is a little childish in my opinion.  --DamoHi 05:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC
 * Agreed, but Henry can still go fuck himself, cheat.Rad McCool 05:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I say: "start all over again". How the fuck does a championship end up in a draw anyway?  Someone needs to rewrite the rules.  I suggest user:jfraatz, since he knows all.  06:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes, Damo = that was mad shite.  We eliminated Georgia from the competition with a ludicrous penalty given against them back in February, so indeed I have little sympathy for the FAI.   You win some, you lose some - shit happens, and them's the rules of the sport.  And I don't support video refs either.   I don't have much of a problem with the incident, actually, just pissed that we're not going to be there, that's all.   So youse shaggers who all have teams off to sunny SA can all go fuck yourselves, I'm grumpy about it and that's just that.   Fuckers.   DogP Marmite Patrol 07:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And there ain't nothing wrong with that attitude. I felt exactly the same way after another certain referee missed certain things in a certain rugby match in a certain rugby tournament.  In fact I am still angry about it.  --DamoHi 07:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Your favorite Android apps
tell me them. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 21:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The three rules one. Y'know, an android can never harm a human etc. 21:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yo, your new phone is insanely great. It's got a 28.8bps modem. -- 23:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That beats the crap out of my original 1200/300 modem in 1985. 00:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A modem? You mean one of these? --127․0․0․1 00:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Reading
T'other day we bought, among others, Freakonomics. I (Toast) have been reading a couple of the others but my other ½ (Marghanita L) insisted that I read Ch 4. He (the author(s)) postulate a direct link: Roe v Wade &rarr; increased abortion &rarr; reduced crime rate (it's not as simple as that, of course). Interesting - wonder how the fundies deal with that? Specially the right wing tough on crime and pro-life types.
 * It caused a furor and some criticism when the book was released. It's not really very solid scholarship, more of an interesting idea that a workable thesis.  But then, that's Levitt's penchant.  Too bad his latest (Superfreakanomics) ventures out into less familiar territory, claiming that global warming can be solved by sulferating the atmosphere.  But still, there's some good and fun stuff in his work.--Tom Moore fiat justitia 09:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed reading it about a year ago, only I think it had a different name. I remember that chapter very well.  Not totally convincing but well worth a read.  --DamoHi 10:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought freakonomics was complete fucking garbage. Popularising the obvious. Aceof Spades 10:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)P.S. (By obvious I don't mean truth - just drawing conclusions like we all could and writing a bullshit book about it. You dig?) Aceof Spades 10:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No doubt. But it was well written and interesting.  --DamoHi 11:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Nativity chic
Now why am I not surprised about this sort of crap? Half my friends are facing job-losses but some people have money to fritter. 08:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Back in my day we made do with teatowel and a dressing gown! And I turned out fine. 14:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Back in my day we just wore our regular ordinary clothes. The rich kids always always got the best roles though, Them and their fancy unstained undarned caftans. Sprocket J Cogswell 15:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As much as nativity plays make me puke, the charm of them is in their innocence and amateurishness. As soon as they become some sort of fashion parade for tots then the religious message is trampled underfoot. (Not that I care, of course.) 17:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Nice thing about growing up in Wales was that we all tended to have the odd crook or two lying around in the attic, so playing "shepherd" was an easy outfit. 20:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Odd crook"? Don't talk about your Uncle Dremidydd like that! –SuspectedReplicantretire me 20:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that would be more like Uncle Dychwfydd... 00:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * These tabloid-filler festive "news" items on the theme of "it's not like it used to be" are among the many deeply obnoxious things about the xmas season. Complete junk.  Why is the BBC, which is supposed to have a non-advertising policy, giving so much column space to anecdotes from Debenhams?  It looks a lot like the hacks making a story out of nothing, & then looking for a random retail spokesman to back them up, especially when they mention, briefly at the end of the article, that other spokespeople from different stores said the exact opposite.  00:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Most annoying Christmas carols
Carol Vorderman, Carol Smillie (get that joke out of the way first)

Away in a Manger - 17:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * HA! Yesterday lunch we were in a pub with effin' Xmas songs on t'muzak for almost an hour. so: ALL OF 'EM. 17:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ditto Toast. Especially since our shops have been playing them since October. Oh... and today I heard Bob Dylan's Xmas carol CD. Which confirmed for once and for all what a sad washed-up wanker he is. -- Psygremlin  17:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A bit of reading comprehension please folks. The title says most annoying. They are all annoying, but which one really gets up your goat? 18:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Paul Westerberg released an absolutely rocking version of Away in the Manger last year though he called it "Always in the Manger." I listen to it all year 'round. The whole digital EP is actually quite good. The most annoying general purpose Christmas song has got to be "Jingle Bell Rock" Me!Sheesh! Mine! 19:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I rather like that "Do They KNow It's Xmas Time At All" song. Oh, the question was "most" irritating.  Nevermind...  20:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a carol as such, but that Paul McCartney effort - he's been annoying since about 1974 but this is his annoying Christmas song.Totnesmartin 20:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Little Donkey. And Macca has done a few good things since then... I liked London Town, McCartney II, Pipes of Peace and Tug of War, and (small) bits of his later stuff. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 20:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK then Genghis: anything with Harry Webb or "whichever one's on at the time"! (except Fairytale of New York; that's a horse of a different coloured kettle of fish)  01:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Anything heard during December in the grocery or any other shop. IE, all.  I guess I'm with Toast on this.  06:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm with Toast as well. The problem with Christmas music is that there are only so many songs, so you end up hearing the same ones sung by different people, which is intensely boring. 17:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a carol I know but I love all the implied stalking threats in Santa Claus is coming to town. :-)--BobNot Jim 20:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For me, probably "I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Clause," if only because every time I hear it, it is so horribly off key. Kinda like how I feel about O Holy Nightmare.  19:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

How about non-annoying Xmas songs? My playlist includes Fairytale of New York, The Hanukkah Song, Trans-Siberian Orchestra's Carol of the Bells and What Do You Get a Wookie for Christmas (when he already owns a comb). --Kels 19:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd have to say, as far as actual favorites go, the Boston Pops Orchestra's rendition of "Sleigh Ride." I hate that song with the lyrics, but I do like how the Pops Orchestra arranged their instrumental rendition. 19:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Creepy new username trend....
So our newest (bunch of) troll(s) are taking usernames in the format: "insert girl's name here" is hot. I'm prolly not going to get a lot of agreement on this (not a lot of people seemed to thinK that falldown's using the wiki to threaten to "assrape" a particular person using her real name was a huge issue), but if those are real people's names being used by some Internet creep, does the community think it would be wiser to expunge those usernames from our database? TheoryOfPractice 20:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are only three, and a name on its own is virtually meaningless. 20:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless you happen to be that person. And we might entertain the possibility that this is happening in the context of broader stalkerish behaviour. TheoryOfPractice 20:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with ToP. Our revision-delete policy allows for removal of personal information posted without permission, which would include other people's names with comments about them, & the same approach should apply regardless of whether the comment is posted in the form of a username.  (Obviously there are common sense exceptions for comments about famous people etc.)   20:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with ToP as well.TallMan 20:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Back in 1996 when I first made my web debut I was the only person with my (IRL) name that showed up on any search engines. Then there was a DJ in Alice Springs with the same name and now I can find about a dozen others. While there may be only one Terry Koeckritz or Ken Demyer, most names may apply to several different people so a name on it's own is not personal information. When the name is geo-located then it becomes personal. As for stalkerish behaviour it would only be the case if those names belonged to editors here. We cannot make assumptions about every name that is used on this site unless we go for the opposite of CP's naming policy. 21:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Kelseigh Nieforth is hot. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 21:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew that! 23:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Bah, anyone could have a name like that. --Kels 16:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point, you stick me into Wikipedia and there's 6 or so articles. None of them are me, though. Yet. But still, that name might only apply to one person on RW and it's fairly clear, at least to them, who it means and who it's targeting. Therefore it's less about privacy and more about malicious stalking. 16:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Cryptic crossword clues
Does anyone else have any favourites? (Select the space to the right for the answers) 23:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Harken to a sexual deviation (5,2,4,4) PRICK UP ONES EARS
 * 2) HIJKLMNO (5)  WATER (H to O)
 * 3)   (1,6,1,4) I HAVENT A CLUE
 * 4) ABCDEFGHIJKMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ (4) NOEL
 * 5) Wolf (3) EBB (Flow back)
 * Hehe, cool. I do have a favorite puzzle   00:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding number four, that was the "theme" of a December puzzle I did with letters missing from answers. 01:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Private Eye's my favourite. Anyone got 4 across - I seem to have a blind spot on it? 01:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm still blanking on that one, too. 02:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * is often seen as "your ears. 01:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Great film, too... 02:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean 4 Royal family's surprise taking in of Posh? (6)? posh = U, surprise = start, Royal family = Stuart.
 * Why is posh "U"? a slight insult, as in "you are posh"?  04:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, The Posh is Peterborough U. -- 07:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See here 08:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm terrible at cryptic crosswords. I presume there's some little secret I'm missing. "1 Down: Upwards banana flies over, excited darling?" 21:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Westboro Baptist Church is coming to my hometown, hooray
I love in Cherry Hill, New Jersey and apparently the Church of Phelps is coming to protest at one of the high school's due to it's diversity. Figure's something like this would happen. Ryantherebel 04:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Freudian slip there methinks. Please sign talk page entries using four tildes (to include date/time) like this: ~ or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png, on the toolbar above the edit panel. Thank you.  02:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Other people's gods still love homosexuals. 02:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you know anyone counterprotesting, warn them to be careful and obey the law. Westboro is basically a moneymaking enterprise; they've funded their ministry and enriched themselves with hundreds of thousands of dollars they've gotten from suing people who infringe on their rights.--Tom Moore fiat justitia 02:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the Mayor made an announcement basically telling us to ignore them. We'll see how it goes.Ryantherebel 04:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI They don't always show up; they've done that before. Sterile 04:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WBC has dropped by my hometown before. Sadly I was out of town when they did so. They were outside one of the high schools as well. It's probably the only time the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and the Gay-Straight Alliance ever collaborated in an event to counter-protest. ENorman 06:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For what its worth, WBC has often stated they'll protest and not shown up. "Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing", they are. But Tom Moore's advice is good: my former pastor was an attorney as his day job, and we were once concerned WBC was going to protest our church (they didn't.) He told us that WBC very much knows their rights, and will sue you if you infringe on them in the slightest. The tactics that work best against them are the ones that try to drown them out, like the motorcycle riding veterans who rev their bikes, or just try to "hide" them, like the gay counter-protesters who dress as angels with large wings and obscure them from view (at a legally safe distance.) But don't get physical with them; that's a sure ticket to a lawsuit you'll lose. MDB 13:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They're sneaky gits like that. And don't forget they tend to bring young children with them as seen on the Louis Theroux documentary. While I'd like to blame the guys who threw the can that hit the kid on the face for being twats, I also prefer to blame Westboro for using young children as human shields. 15:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Need academic resources
Would someone who has student access to Mark Tushnet, Critical Legal Theory (without Modifiers) in the United States, 13 Journal of Political Philosophy 99 (2005) and is willing to email it to me please contact me. 03:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that, whatever it is, something I might find at my local uni library? I haz card and stuph. 06:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Try emailing Ames? 08:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I will send it to you. tmtoulouse 08:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)\

I haz been surved. Kthx. 21:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Invisible Idiots
I saw the cryptic crossword thing up there (which I'm bad at) and it reminded me of Spider Robinson's invention, Invisible Idiots (which I'm also bad at, but you lot might like 'em). Essentially, what you do is take a famous name or something, break it up into sound-alike parts and then jot down synonyms for each of those words (first and last names separated by a semicolon). People have to figure out who the original people were. Wanna give it a go? Here's a couple of fairly easy samples.


 * 1) Burn, fewer; Attempt, succeed
 * 2) Penis; Truck
 * 3) Beam; Sympathize
 * 4) Colour; Bam!, cistern
 * 5) Wealthy, greens; Sweet, relatives

I'll put up answers in a bit, but have a try. --Kels 16:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As for number two, I stick my neck out for nobody. Not even in Cairo. Sprocket J Cogswell 16:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Three, peel me a banana. Got some first names, but others are being evasive for now. Sprocket J Cogswell 16:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So, at a risk of sounding like an idiot. Would the first name of no.5 be Wealthy -> Rich, Greens -> yard i.e, Richard. So something? Although I'm not sure that's right. 16:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going with Rich chard on that one. Sprocket J Cogswell 16:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the "sweet" there, though. Closest I can come is tilting head to side and going "aww" ... Sprocket J Cogswell 16:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 is Ray Comfort. I'm baffled on the others... unless there really is someone called Dick Lorry. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 17:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops - I missed the earlier banana edit. Sorry about that. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 17:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Doing well so far. Yes, 3 is the Banana Man himself, 5 does start with Richard, and Sprocket and SuspectedReplicant are on the right track.  Should I reveal the answers now, or wait a little longer? --Kels 17:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't notice that Sprocket got #2 right as well. Although I did crib that one from Robinson's "Callahan's Crosstime Saloon" books. --Kels 17:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay... I don't get this any more. Truck -> Blaine, or am I totally misunderstanding? –SuspectedReplicantretire me 17:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sort of pleased you didn't decide to split Comfort's surname up. But that's a good one, anyway. 17:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) hehee -- Skate; orgasm, stacked up sofa cushions
 * Sprocket J Cogswell 17:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ha! --Kels 17:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, folks are getting a bit frustrated now, so time to cut it short. Here's the answers:


 * 1) Charles Darwin (char, less; dare, win)
 * 2) Peter Lorre (peter; lorry)
 * 3) Ray Comfort (ray; comfort)
 * 4) Huw Powell (hue; pow!, well)
 * 5) Richard Dawkins (rich, chard; d'aww!, kin)

As an aside, the name for the quiz comes from the possibly apocryphal story of the translator who changed the phrase "out of sight, out of mind" into the literally correct "invisible idiot". --Kels 17:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This one's fun, but a little rough. "Also, rendered; Irritate, field" --Kels 18:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Pretty obvious, but I don't know about the irritation. Wow, forgot all about Callahan's. Haven't been there since dirt was re-invented. Remind me to toss an empty glass into the fireplace in your honour next time I pop in for a shot and a listen. :-) Sprocket J Cogswell 18:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I kinda went off Callahan's when it started to turn into a franchise. I've read the first three books, and they were good, but I tried one of the later attempts and found it kinda full of its own hype.  The "magic" of Callahan's wasn't subtle any more, it was overt and tossed in your face, which kinda defeated the concept of the original set. Didn't bother with the rest after that. --Kels 18:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I kind of facepalmed the Darwin one for not getting it. But I'm still stuck as to how Daw got translated to "sweet", it's something I've not come across before. 18:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Aww, how sweeet!! Ah, well, Callahan's... to every thing its own life cycle. What starts out as radical heresy becomes mainstream, then bohrringg.. Sprocket J Cogswell 18:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and in case nobody got my little bonus one up there, it's our old friend "And, drew; Chafe, lea". --Kels 21:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Whew, that's a relief
I saw the Ray Comfort birthday greetings and was afraid he and I shared a birthday.

Fortunately, his is the day after mine, and I can share mine with Pappy Boyington, Wink Martindale, Max "Jethro" Baer, Jr., Dennis Wilson, and, less appealingly, Gary Gilmore. MDB 13:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're lucky. The only vaguely (in)famous name I can find (or that I actually recognise) that shares my birthday is Joseph Mengele. Go figure. Oh and Erik Estrada. Oh yay! -- Psygremlin  13:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Joan of Arc, Jakob Bernoulli and Sun Myung Moon. Possibly others. 14:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mine is tax day in the US. Births include Leonardo da Vinci, Kim Jong-Il's dad, and Catherine the Great's mum. --Kels 16:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Marcus Aurelius, William Shakespeare, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Rudolf Hess, Charles Richter, David Coleman, Koo Stark, Roger Taylor, and lonelygirl15. are the most famous ones on my birthday. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 16:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was born on my own birthday. How's that for a coincidence. --⁠ 16:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing interesting on mind. Well, that singer died on it. Who was it again? Jackson? Mick. Oh yeah, Micheal Jackson, that's it. It'll be an interesting time next year, I'll want to get pissed and everyone else on the planet will want to mourn someone who - until his death - they all thought was a child molester. Fucking great. 16:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My friend at uni was born on christmas day, I mean the odds of that are like a million to one. 21:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tom Waits, IIRC. 22:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Yup, and Noam Chomsky. And Larry Bird and Johnny Bench, and some woman whose only available photo lacks garmentation.
 * I have one of the neater birthdays. William Shockley, Jerry Springer, Kelly Hu Chuck Yeager and Mina Suvari. One day, my name will be on the list of notables, as well. -- CodyH (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Prehistoric nuclear war
Interesting. Anyone know much about nukes etc. to debunk (or possibly even confirm!) that this sort of thing is possible? It's a nice, romantic idea that we're not the first intelligence on the planet and that a previous one tore itself to pieces, but the timescale needed for deep-time to erradicate all evidence that a massive civilisation existed numbers in the hundreds of millions of years, if not billions based on the oldest unchurged rocks that exist on the surface. There just doesn't seem like there's enough time for evolution to a sentient species to happen twice given that. 16:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there'd be evidence in the radioisotope ratios. Kind of like how we wrecked carbon dating with our nuclear tests.  Also, he seems to think it wasn't "very" prehistoric, though I don't think he risks picking a date.  I only Schlafly-skimmed the tripe, though, so he may be correct.  22:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I was thinking. But the imbalance in radio-isotopes probably wouldn't be detected after millions upon millions of years because they'd either decay, or the non-transuranic ones would be mixed up by the rock cycle and produce something that looked natural. So it's almost plausible that it could happen and we wouldn't detect it - albeit if you smacked the earth with a hundred nukes half a billion years ago or so. But, the majority of "ancient nuclear war" ideas seem to be much more recent, to the point where time just couldn't hide it and we'd notice. So it seems like a woo-tastic explanation for some archaeological anomalies and some mythology. You're right that he's very sloppy with the dates, there's not a single date mentioned; you'd expect a nuclear war to happen more or less at the same time (that gives more chance for records of it to be destroyed and for it to go unnoticed by history) but the things the guy mentions seem to be scatted across a lot of history. 19:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Michael Moore's The Awful Truth
Anyone else think that Michael Moore has a tendency to accidently accidently make the wrong point? The first episode of this show being a perfect example: If you can publically shame healthcare companies into changing their policies, why do we need the government to do it.--Mustex 19:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Haven't seen the show, but the answer would be, I guess, if we really can do it across the board, there's no need, correct. However, part of what can make "public shaming" work is the potential or looming threat of government action (like the big etailers with bricks'n'mortar stores deciding to pay local sales taxes).  23:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Part, yeah, but not all. I think there's also the risk of people changing to another company if yours becomes more notorious than the others for refusing to provide treatments.  The example was a man who had two conflicting clauses in his contract with Humana.  They said they'd cover all treatments related to his diabetes, but that they wouldn't cover organ transplants.  When he needed a new pancreas for his diabetes, they refused to pay for it.  First Moore and the man came to their office, under the pretense of a meeting to look over the claim, but actually to give the executives an "invitation" to the man's funeral (printed invitations reading Date: Very Soon, Time: Is Running Out), and to ask for advise picking out coffins.  When that didn't work, they held a mock-funeral for the man in front of Humana's office building, and Moore made it clear that, while most episodes of his show deal with different issues, if they refused to pay he'd do a follow up every week for the rest of the season (this was the first episode).  Within a week they paid up, they then decided to change their policy and cover all pancreas transplants.--Mustex (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for details. One company, one procedure.  Great for people who have a health insurance company and Michael Moore on the spot.  For the rest of us?  Give me single-payer National Health Care before the capitalists make death a "profit sector".  Or did they already?  04:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, not just one procedure. The risk for scandal caused them to change their policy to cover all pancreas transplants.  Granted, that doesn't help the uninsured, but the episode wasn't about the uninsured.--Mustex (talk) 12:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Almost all of RC is logs
Is this some sort of record? 20:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably, considering we had MC to deal with and then Crooked Penis shows up to make things worse. 20:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Am i the only one who thinks they are one in the same? Aceof Spades 20:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, guyz, just got back from the library. What the fuck? I mean, what the fucking fuck? TheoryOfPractice 20:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * MC decided to reveal that he wasn't a childish fuckhead by being a childish fuckhead. Nothing really unexpected. --Kels 20:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey ToP, whats up man! You missed some fun! Aceof Spades 21:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah ToP you missed MC's hissy fit. 21:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Didn't MC confess to trolling once before? Broccoli 21:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Stupid library. Stupid book-learnin'. Will go read recent changes. Stupid MC. TheoryOfPractice 21:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would start way, way down, from when MC makes a section on his talk page called "Burnout". 21:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, what did I miss? I tried to post something last night and the site locked up, so I just came back now and all hell broke loose again? 21:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You missed MC have a meltdown and start a block war, then start deleting pages when the block war he started wasn't enough. 21:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That reminds me: was Human here for all these shenanigans? 21:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Human was MIA. 21:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Too bad, he would finally have gotten to see MC's true colors. 22:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know. It was all fun and games until he actually started trashing the wiki. Then we (especially Ace and I) decided he could get fucked and vandal binned him.  22:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * TBH I'm surprised you lot put up with that cunt for so long. How much of a moron do you actually have to be before the bouncers should throw you out? 22:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Th thing of it is, we'd vandal bin him, and then he'd go "I'm not a vandal, look at my logs" and then some drunken sysop would go "He's right, he's not a vandal" and let him out. But, this morning CDT, he actually did finally start vandalizing the wiki, giving us the ammo we needed to purge his ass for good.  22:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He'll be back, no question. He has nothing else and he needs his superiority fix. Aceof Spades 22:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but now he's vandal binned, and I will fight tooth and nail to keep him there for good. 22:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was pretty interested in his essays I gotta say. I wanted a whole one dedicted to me. Aceof Spades 22:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I hate to say I told you so. But, I told you so. Next time we get a disruptive arsehole chewing up time and bandwidth around here, can we please, please just get the fuck rid of him sooner rather than later? -- 22:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If I had a nickel for every time I said that... --Kels (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * He was vandal binned because he vandalized RW, not because he admitted to being a troll. -- Nx  / talk 22:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And you don't see that as a flaw in the process? Or to put it another way, we want avowed and persistent trolls here because...? MC wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes at wikipedia. Our stupid policy prevented us from effectively dealing with someone who was obviously up to no good, and he knew it and exploited it to the hilt. It's time to change the policy, and not cling to a point of principle that really isn't terribly important. -- 23:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No. -- Nx  / talk 23:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "MC wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes at wikipedia." Indeed. Neither would most talk page threads at RW. -- Nx  / talk 23:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Trolls make a valuable contribution to RW. We just haven't figured out what that is. --Kels (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I despair. Even after having your nose rubbed in the fact that there are people out there who are pricks, and will always be pricks no matter how many chances you give them to reform, you're still blindly refusing to acknowledge that, in general, it would be best if such pricks were elsewhere. Every other damn community site on the internet knows this, and has a process for implementing it. The thing is to pick a good process and stick to it. Having no such process, and refusing even to consider one, is just rubber stamping their licenses to troll. I guess I'll just continue my policy of being generally elsewhere too. -- 23:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We already have a process, we just need to enforce it better. MC should've been binned for violating CS, and we shouldn't have let any random drunken sysop unbin him whenever they felt like giving him another chance. -- Nx  / talk 00:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I, for one, would argue that I think this wiki has, hopefully now, learned its lesson. 23:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent) After TK, I hoped the same thing. And others in the meantime. No, the wiki will not learn its lesson, and continue the "soft on trolls" policy. Oh, and MC will at some point be Sysop again, under that name. Remember, I called it. --Kels (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One things for certain: if he is ever unbinned, let alone sysopped, again, it'll be after I leave and never come back. I promise you that.  23:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If he actually contributes to the site (unlikely, I know), he can get out of the bin. Otherwise I agree that he got too many "one last chances". -- Nx  / talk 00:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have taken the final step and banned him. A self-admitted troll by definition cannot contribute positivley- why give him more opportunities to troll. Please do not unban him.  -- 01:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Banning is pointless, and philosophically not desirable. I vote vandal-bin until substantial evidence of positive contributions is forthcoming. That's what the vandal bin is there for. To make vandalizing, trolling and being disruptive less fun.-- 02:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur. If MC just writes his little essays and comments on talk pages that would be ok by me. As long as he is not blanking pages. 02:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That may be accomplished by not making him a sysop again. 08:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I may be a twisted shell of a human being, but I like having MC around. He's pretty entertaining. Of course, that tolerance doesn't extend to him damaging the wiki, but scrolling past one of the pools of bile that he's left on some talk page makes me laugh every time. Please don't ban him. Fedhaji (Talk) 10:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL!!!! Please ban me! Let little dicks like Theemperor decide the ideological basis of this website! I got such a laugh from this page alone, honestly, Jeeves cracks me up every time. If RW is meant to be serious, banning me is perfectly acceptable and thus justified. But it is quite literally not serious, as you all admit. If RW is not serious, then banning me shows that none of you are capable of understanding that having me around is a credit to your system. A system which tolerates trolls (And a troll who points out the truth is infinitely more damaging than a troll who lies) is good system. Don't be nob-ends and break your principles over one person. MarcusCicero (talk) 11:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And just like that he's a troll again. 13:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As regarding the 'trolling with truth' thing, I am not alone in believing this: Him being an asshole doesn't excuse you being assholes too, or violating the community standards, or inventing a new rule that goes against the principles of this place. All he does is troll talk pages and "improve" articles by removing stuff he doesn't like. For the latter we have the vandal bin if it gets out of hand. As for the former, ignore him. Or does it hurt so much because what he says is true? -- Nx / talk 23:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Assholes. MarcusCicero (talk) 13:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Something a little bit different
Here's my two cents: I think that the intellectual content of what MC is saying is irrelevant. I consider him a troll and a nuisance not because of his message, but because of his means. No other editor has ever been allowed to get away with so many insulting remarks towards other editors. Regardless of his contributions to articles and/or discussions, the problem is that he treats the rest of us like shit. Though I am in favor of having dissenting views, there is no reason why we should have to put up with personal insults every half hour. That said, I think we should give MC another chance to clean up his act. If can be more civil, he can preach the message of his reform society all he likes. However, though I am willing to forgive MC, I do not believe he should be given sysopship again (at least for a while), since he clearly abused it. (And I say this as one of the first people to support his campaign for sysop.) If he can control his temper, then let him stay. But he does need to lay off the ad homs, which are, I think, the underlying issue here. 16:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I should also add that my series of essays will continue. Being in the vandal bin makes it awkward, but the hypocrisy is still there. It'll be interesting to see if natural autocrats like theemperor will be capable of tolerating dissent for much longer. Also, the next theme of my series of essays will be on authoritarianism - wiki style. The subsequent essay titles are in the process of inspiration but revolve around the following themes; 'expulsion and decline', 'The TK argument', 'Delusional superiority' and 'MC- an internal justification'.&mdash; Unsigned, by: MarcusCicero / talk / contribs
 * Not sure why you're bothering, seeing as you already told people not to take you seriously. Not that they were in the first place, but nobody's pretending any more. --Kels (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

OOH, I wonder who the third one will be about! -- 18:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So he's still here. What happened to "I am a concern troll" "Adios RW!" I wonder?--BobNot Jim 18:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't as grand as he had expected. He found himself missing the attention in its wake.  He'll give it another try, and maybe in a month he'll be all, "Even though I told you I was a troll, you still got trolled by my awesome essays!"  And then he'll vandalize some more because someone was kindhearted enough to take him from the bin.  This is not an original schtick he's been following.--Tom Moore fiat justitia 18:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Tetronian, did you forget that he went through and massively vandalized in an unfunny way, deleting numerous articles' content until someone stopped him? No one gives a shit about his personal insults, since he's not terribly insightful or clever and they're pretty clearly designed to capitalize on an already-obvious difference in attitude amongst a few of us.  It's the vandalism we had to revert.  He stays in the bin, because he is a massive vandal who has done it before and will just do it again.--Tom Moore fiat justitia 18:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * @Tom: No I didn't forget. But that's why we should parole/bin him rather than perma-ban him. My point is that I am willing to give him a second chance, but obviously if he continues vandalizing he should be banned for longer periods of time. And my point about insults is that he is being deliberately disruptive, which he needs to stop doing if he is to win any forgiveness from me. 18:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "My point is that I am willing to give him a 4,000th chance" - Fixed that for you. 19:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, besides yesterday's deleting pages he has made no serious offenses that I can remember. He has merely acted like a piece of shit to virtually everyone, which is a different issue, I think. 19:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Jesus fucking christ almighty. Why do we keep having this same fucking conversation for fucks sake. he can stay in the fucking bin, post his little essays if it makes him feel better, we'll all laugh and that'll be that. Fucking hell, what the fuck is wrong with you people? Aceof Spades 19:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, I can't argue with such an eloquently stated point: keep him in the bin, and let him eat cake! He can still write his essays and all. 19:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that he's come out not as troll, but as a Concern troll then I think we should know how much weight to give his essays.--BobNot Jim 22:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn straight. In the bin and he can spin his wheels.  Policy. --Tom Moore fiat justitia 23:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Aaaaaand cue Human with the predictable. Presumably responding to the massive support taking him out of the bin for any reason that we see here. --Kels (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. How many times. How many times can one person be stupid enough to fall for the "please don't throw me in the briar patch, br'er fox" act. All MC's pleading to be blocked is a stratagem designed to keep him unblocked so he can troll, nothing more. He's playing us, and we don't seem to be able to muster the will to fix the problem. -- 11:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Leave him in the bin forever and never ever give him sysop again. He'll get bored eventually (when he grows some pubes and his voice breaks). 13:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I really shouldn't drink whiskey while browsing the links from MSN Messenger's startup screen...
A couple of the gems which have just given me, intermittently, my best lulz and my worst throw-up-in-the-mouth moments of the week:

10 Totally Ridiculous Combo Gadgets: Think combo taser/MP3 player...

20 Worst Restaurant Foods in America: What kind of sick fuck invents a dish with over 3000 calories and triple-digit saturated fat?

Junggai (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, whiskey is just one of those things. I, regrettably, outed a genius sock of mine the last time I chugged a ton of whiskey. 23:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I only got to "18. Worst Sit-Down Appetizer" before I encountered the first dish obviously meant to be shared... 00:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My forehead-slapping moment was the over-1000-calorie kid's meal. Junggai (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

As an underweight person, the restaurant food list looks both delicious and useful. Thanks for contributing to my future heart disease! - Clepper is too lazy to sign in

Two Books
How to Win a Fight with a Liberal and How to Win a Fight with a Conservative. Apologies for the links to a multinational conglomerate, but I thought y'all'd be interested. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 17:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen those. I truly hate stuff like that, as it encourages a rift in American politics and public life that is making our country worse every day. 18:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * From what I remember of the web sites for the two books, they're largely photocopies of each other, with "liberal" and "conservative" swapped as appropriate. Note that the same author wrote both books. MDB (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Mmmmm....
The smell of baking bread has to be one of the most pleasant aromas in human experience. MDB (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You know what else is? FAART! Apologies all, I know you hate it when I do this, but I couldn't resist...  23:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dammit Josh, don't ruin MDB's baking! There are few things better than freshly baked bread and pastries. 01:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a difficult choice but if I had to decide between freshly baked bread, roasting coffee beans and new mown hay... nah, can't do it. Bob Soles (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * New mown hay? Ah... ah... ah.... CHOO! Lousy allergies... MDB (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Fun day today
So I went to visit my friend in the hospital (I still feel bad about cracking his rib while we were playing American Soccer), and I am sitting chatting to him and cracking (ha ha) jokes. The other guy is hooked up to a bunch of machines, and my friend mentioned that he was shot and can't feel anything below his navel, and can never walk again. As I am getting ready to leave, a woman comes in with a bible (you can guess where this is going) and chastises him for not being faithful enough to walk again. *sigh* 00:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether to go cry or throw something through a window. There are few things I hate more than people who impose and apply their narrow viewpoint onto everyone else. Fuck them. 01:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was a tactic on her behalf to piss him off so much he'd regain the use of his legs just to jump out of bed and kick her in the head for being a bitch. 01:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, now that I've calmed down a bit, this issue merits consideration. What exactly is it that is so goddamn aggravating about it? I suppose its just the fact that the woman is blaming the poor guy and insinuating that the world is a fair, just, and perfect place under God when it is obviously not. But that can't be the only thing about it. It's odd, Javascap's story angers me so much and I can't even figure out why. 01:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Tuesday
Somehow I didn't put two and two together and realize that I'm getting a delicious double dose of crazy on Tuesday. Not only is Andy going to be on Colbert, but Sarah Palin is coming to do a book signing at Borders. Any suggestions about what I should drink afterwards or during?
 * Hemlock and bourbon, neat or on the rocks. 08:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fly-Agaric with a whisky chaser to make sure you have the right glint in your eyes. Aceof Spades 09:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Brugmansia and BromodragonFLY, chased down with meths. 11:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

So I'm stuck at home...
...with mono and I'm bored out of my mind! Anyone have fun stuff to do on the net? Games are cool, as are good humour sites, good tv shows etc. Many thanks RyanC
 * I think we have an article that might help. 03:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Public. Library. 04:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Build a phase shifter to make "fake" stereo? 05:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's always this great standby in times of boredom. 10:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mono sucks. Convert to stereo, or preferably Dolby 5.1 and you'll be having a much better time. 21:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually mono can be very impressive if well-produced - you can actually get width, height, depth from one speaker playing good program material. That said, there's probably only six recordings that fit that description.   And 5.1 is so 2002, nowadays you've got nothing unless you've got 9.3.2  22:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Good TV series lively to be found on DVD: Deadwood and Mad Men. Deadwood is particularly engrossing, you cocksuckers. <font color="#ff0000">Me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! <font color="#6ff6633">Mine! 16:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you've not visited before, then Lileks can kill an awful lot of time. 16:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Trivia
The word subaltern does not appear a single time on this wiki. 23:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As well it should not. It is an evil, vicious word that should not be used in good company. --Kels (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Nobody should read those Marxist Post-Colonial philosophers. Bad company. 00:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact the word "subaltern" appears twice on this wiki. Coincidently, both times in this section.--BobNot Jim 17:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As does the phrase "Marxist Post-Colonial philosophers". Why are we discussing this? Man am I bored today. Need some... what do you call it... the stuff you eat when you are hungry. But I'm too tired to get up. Where is everybody? Marxist Post-Punk... whatever. --⁠ (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess than now that MC has come out as a troll that everybody has lost interest in the wiki.--BobNot Jim 18:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nutty is absolutely correct. The word subaltern does not appear a single time - it now appears three times. 17:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Question
So what's the average age of editors here? I keep reading the Conservapedia talk voting thing.

Y'know. Just wondering. :3 Pedobear (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 50, in a few hours. 02:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? HAPPY BIRTHDAY HUW!! 02:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) 04:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * See, the place is full of kids. 06:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * [[file:Francis.gif]] 06:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 28 - 32....moving forward one in a few tens of hours. Aceof Spades 07:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Happy birthday Human, you old tempestuous dog you.  As for me, I'm only a few years behind you.   <font color="#00F0A20">DogP <font color="#993300">Marmite Patrol 07:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, you're 50? No wonder you didn't know "Pedobear."  Happy birthday!  You're only a bit too young to be twice as old as me.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 07:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy B.Day Huw....your present is in the post. 100% pure Ace...Aceof Spades 07:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 31 on Wednesday. 11:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mid-30s. 11:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I just turned 43 last Friday. Since I am undoubtedly middle-aged, I am contemplating purchasing a motorcycle (sports cars do nothing for me) and dumping my partner of ten years for a trophy boy. (Okay, I'm not really contemplating dumping my partner. I have thought about buying a motorcycle, though.) MDB (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the editors here fall into two basic groups, age-wise.
 * Firstly there's the old fogeys. I'm one at 56, Huw, Susan, MDB, Ghengis, and a few others. We all, presumably, contribute from our place of employment. If only my boss knew what I did all day...
 * Secondly there's the young whipper-snappers, mostly University students who really ought to be putting in the hours to get that starred first they know they're capable of.
 * Bob Soles (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy birthday, Human. 35 here. -- 14:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And then I looked above to see two editors in their 30s completely blowing my theory out of the water. Someday I'll learn to look before I leap. Bob Soles (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * One more here (36). Happy birthday Human. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 14:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not an 'old fogey'. Old fogeys are the people older than me; young kids are the people younger than me. Just like the people driving faster than me are maniacs, and the people driving slower than me are morons. QED. MDB (talk)

Happy B-Day, Huw. Me? 42. The ultimate answer, and my age. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 45 but I could pass for 44. <font color="#ff0000">Me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! <font color="#6ff6633">Mine! 16:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whippersnappers, all of you, especially the ones in need of a sprotscar. I beam kindly upon you all from atop my grizzled eminence. When Huw first drew breath, I was a army brat in the middle east, whooping it up raising dust running around the vacant lots with the local sub-teen kids and my co-American buddies. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm 1X. I refuse to reveal X. 19:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I was very disappointed to turn 42, because I could no longer obscure my age by giving it in hexadecimal (since 42 is 2A in hex.) And to my fellow geeky smart-asses: you don't have to point out my age in octal or binary. MDB (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * God dammit you guys are so fucking old it creeps me out. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think of myself as a 20 year old with 16 years' experience. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 19:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I may be chronologically old, but I've tried to remain mentally young. As I say before I get to see my six year old niece and her eighteen month old sister, "its nice to have playmates at my mental level." MDB (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 21 in March--Thanatos (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to everyone who wished me a happy birthday. So, back to the question, overall, RW has hosted editors from 14 (1) and 16 (3?) to well into their dotage, and, it seems, everywhere in between.  21:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't mention it. There are few accomplishments more important than being shoved out of a birth canal. 21:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I never thought anyone could truely hate the concept of peace
but I was wrong. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJY-fBXCncw&feature=video_response Fortunately thought, there's an effective response. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f70Si6REWj8 Ryantherebel (talk) 02:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Give punching that guy in the face a chance. --Kels (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Another problem solved by violence. Fedhaji (Talk) 10:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm with Kels. That was the kind of rant I would have gladly called a moratorium on peace for years ago when I still got in fights at taverns. 14:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a sad fact that war has caused the fastest and most prolific increases in our technological capability, that I won't deny, but it's not an excuse. And that one that said "ooh, but what if the other guy wants war?" is EVEN WORSE! 19:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You just lost The Game
Speaking of birthdays, the wife was going to buy me Assassin's Creed 2 for the SexBox, and I told her not to bother and I'd buy it when the price drops just before xmas. Do you think I'm talking shit and should just fork out the £36 for it now or should I be patient? Do they actually drop the price before xmas or keep it nice and high to fuck the parents with kids? 15:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You've got it backwards; they drop the prices right after christmas, not before, especially for a late release game. And, really, just pick it up, it's totally worth it.   15:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hrmph. How much do you think it might drop to after xmas? 15:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They usually drop £10 or so if you get 'em on Steam or something similar. Yahtzee quite likes AssCreed II but I'm not sure it's quite my cup of tea. I've been playing Dragon Age: Origins and that kicks ass. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 16:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know about you Brits, but games in the US usually drop about $10 after the holiday season, so there's not much difference.  16:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate it now that I have a SexBox that the games are all an extra ten quid, just coz of the console licensing. Shame I can't hog the Media Center PC in the lounge :( 16:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

FUCKER! I'd been going for over a year without losing! I had a great streak going in The Game, but not anymore! Goddamnit!--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 17:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah too bad Tom. 19:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey everybody!
Look over here! 17:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, what are we sposed to be looking at? I've seen talk pages before, & a lot of them are more interesting than that one.   20:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First off it's VERY exciting, and secondly, I was addressing the "Sod's Law" issue. 20:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This is my hate speech against the British.
What the hell? We fought a war against you for freedom and liberty, but you won't let us be! We had to force you to stop enslaving the people of Africa, and then rescued you during World War 2 and the Korean War and the War of Scottish Aggression, but you gotta keep dogging us with this "rationalism" stuff. Hey, it's not a "lorry," it's a truck! Get back in the "lift" to your "flat" and go eat some "bangers and mash." That doesn't sound like food! And the stuff in pub windows doesn't look like food! And what the hell are you doing with a monarchy? And why won't you give brave and noble Canada her freedom? Doesn't Canada deserve independence too!?--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 18:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Before reading any of that, fuck you. Now I'm going to read it. 18:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I've now read it and I remain none the wiser. Fuck you!! 18:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They persecute at every turn! Witness:  User talk:SuperJosh/Box of sand‎; 18:40 . . (+152) . . Moriarty (Talk | contribs | block) (Created page with 'As far as I can tell, "sandbox" is an American term. Over here I've always heard it called a sandpit.  When will the tyranny of King George (or whoever it is now) end?!  --<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 18:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually that does make a lot of sense... 18:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, to be fair, there's logic in both names. It realy depends on the design. 18:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be reasonable! Stop being reasonable, villain!--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 18:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Treachery! Benedict Arnold and TK rolled into one!--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 18:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hang on... I didn't really study history, but didn't the UK end slavery before the US (or whatever it was back then)? 18:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * A British lie designed to make us look bad! Lord Somerset, from Alabama, decided that the air of America was too pure for slave lungs, and freed them all with the help of Abraham Lincoln and George Washington at the Wannsee Conference.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 18:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 19:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

(EX, u/d)Heh hehe hehe heh... A friend of mine (a very occasional RW editor) once came across someone in a forum who tried the "we saved your ass in WWII" thing and bitchslapped him with a history lesson regarding the Eastern Front from 1941 onwards. Because apart from nuking Japan (and I always find it hilariously ironic that the one country in the world who has used these things in anger feels qualified to say who can and who can't have nukes) the US contribution to WWII was major, but very secondary to that of Russia (maybe even ranked behind China in some respects). But the rest, you can have. 19:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No indent as there's a lot of indenting already (heh). The "We saved your asses in WWII" line is v offensive, as we saved ourselves completely by winning the Battle of Britain completely unaided, after which Hitler abandoned all invasion plans. Initially the US demanded payment for war orders in gold or dollars of which we had neither. when Congress voted to allow credit, it was called "Resolution 1776" just to rub it in. We could easily have negotiated a reasonable Armistice after the BoB, and left the Russians to their lot. That the Russians won the war for us is also a complete myth. They had the complete crap knocked out of them by the Nazis and it was only through US and UK assistance that Leningrad was saved from starvation or defeat. they als invaded poland just after the Nazis and ought to have been declared war on as well, if it had been feasible. After Germany invaded Many Soviet units were put on the East side of Moscow to stop the population fleeing, except the Stalinist elite of course. The mere fact that the UK was still in the war meant German troops were tied down in the West that could have been sent to the East. China too was utterly hammered by the Japanese. At the end of the war vast areas of continental Asia were still in the control of the Japanese army. The WW2 was a primarily USAnian victory, but the line in the film Pearl Harbor "I think WW2 just started" is to me anyway, very offensive. The US only entered the European theatre because Hitler was dumb enough to declare war on her, to Roosevelt's (and certainly our) relief. The us of the nukes was completely legitimate, if it was legitimate to use the mass conventional bombings useed on both Germany and Japan. What does it matter if you destroy a city with thousands of bombs or just one? The real US warcrime was the thousand bomber raid undertaken by the US after Nagasaki before the formal end of hostilities - gratuitous massacre and completely forgotten in the fallout of the nukes. Ok guys, I know you are going to kill me for this!!! PardreObe (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In defense of Truman, the bomb was used to save lives (American ones, at least), not in anger. 19:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense! When Winston Churchill came back talking about "peace in our time," it was a very brave Roosevelt who told him what the real score was!  And when Teddy Roosevelt did that, was your nation grateful?  No!  They just were too busy trying to kill Mother Theresa as she led India to independence!--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 19:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely that was Chamberlain. Churchill was more "war in our time". 20:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good Lord, man, I'm not serious about any of this! The USA didn't help Britain in the Korean War, and there was no War of Scottish Aggression, and Britain freed her slaves way before the USA with the Somerset decision, and Lord Mansfield who made that decision was British and not American, and Abraham Lincoln and George Washington never knew each other, and the Wannsee Conference was where the Nazis determined upon the Final Solution and had nothing to do with America or slavery, and yes it was Chamberlain who said the above and not Churchill, and it wasn't Teddy Roosevelt in WW2 it was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Mother Theresa had nothing to do with Indian independence because it was Gandhi who did that.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 21:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahhhhhh, now he tells us. (just kidding) 21:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, what was the war of Scottish aggression? Some joke I missed? 19:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You should have paid attention in history. That was when the Scottish states in the north decided they didn't want England to secede as slave states, and so they fought to keep the British Union in one piece.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 19:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, that one. Yeah, I only did up to the Early Modern Age. Funny I've never heard it mentioned before though, being a Scot and all that... 19:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And lets not forget that in 1812 you Brits tried to take the US back by force. And yet, in spite of that, we still saved your arses from the commies! 19:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What pissed Tom off enough to go on this racist rant in the first place? I think I missed something. 19:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sandboxes being called sandpits. 19:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it was because Prime Minister Bush led us into these terrible wars in Iraq and Afghanistan!--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 19:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This War of 1812? [[image:Drinks drunk.gif]] 19:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup that's the one! 19:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You got your own back in New Orleans in January, mainly because Major General Sir Edward Pakenham was a total dick, but that's another matter. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 20:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Why hasn't anyone mentioned those ridiculous fake accents and the bad spelling habits? "centre?" Give me a break! No one thinks its cute anymore. Sort of like "shoppe." Also, who but a confirmed nation of perverts eats spotted dick for desert? You need to take that jenk to the doctor, yo. <font color="#ff0000">Me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! <font color="#6ff6633">Mine! 16:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As an aside, Kurt Busiek, the writer of the very excellent American comic book series Astro City once wanted to include a reference to an English supervillain named "Spotted Dick". His editors frowned upon that, so he renamed him "Clever Dick", and instructed the artist to portray him with spots on his face. Incidentally, this was not published by Marvel Comics, who, during the Seventies published, I swear to FSM, ''Giant Size Man-Thing. MDB (talk) 12:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

RW Awards
As the end of the year is coming 'round I thought it would be fun to create some RW awards like the CP ones. The page is here at RWW. It's a bit basic at the moment as I don't want to invest much time if people aren't interested. Please feel free to add categories and nominations.--False Flag (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah thank you for pointing it out. 19:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I just created it.  In a spirit of fun I also added your nomination for the category "Biggest attention whore" for nominating yourself for something.
 * Ahahahahaha! Good, I hope I win. 19:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we all know who's going to win that one hands down. Though I think with "attention whore" the joke should be that the award is never issued to them. There's the nominations, the voting and then it all gets deleted. (add "mwhahaha" or whatever, here) 19:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that would be funny. 19:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I should get an award for just putting up with you scumfilled zeros. Aceof Spades 19:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Who you callin' scumfilled?  21:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You love it really. [[image:Invision-Board-France-355.gif]] 19:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering the categories, perhaps I should be flattered I have (so far) remained unnominated. But then, for most of my life, I have qualified as "mostly harmless". MDB (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooo that should be an award! 19:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you feel in need of recognition of some type then I recommend that you add yourself to the "attention whore" category.--False Flag (talk) 21:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As someone who has been here for well over 2 years (according to RWW, I can't keep track) I sort of feel like I should have some sort of recognition. However, having done my best to transcend the petty squabbles and drama that seem to be the hallmark of these nominations, the only category that seems tailored to me is Drunken Editing. Perhaps I should wear my drunkenness on my sleeve more (I'm thinking Fox now; maybe that's a bad idea). I'm only a very little drunk now. I'll be back in an hour. DickTurpis (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ay, now there's the rub: Legitimate contributors such as yourself get ignored, while annoying pricks like myself get noticed. 01:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I demand a lifetime achievement award in authoritarianism, right now. And maybe one for hubris.  -- 01:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Legitimate contributor" may be quite the overstatement. Let's just say "slightly less insufferable prick than many."
 * Back to my eggnog.... DickTurpis (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but who the hell could win "legitimate contributor"? 16:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Results so far
Liveblogging from RWW

Some surprising and not so surprising results so far. MC looks unbeatable in "most annoying", while Human is not even in sight of Ace in the "drunken editing" award.

MC is also ahead in "Most Abusive" but there is an outside chance he could be caught by Human or Fox. On the other hand, Human can't really be caught in "most prolific".

RA's "parting shot" is out in front, and RA is also ever so slightly ahead in "most missed". But "most missed" is very tight and he could easily be caught by PalMD, Caius or Ajk. So we need your votes on this one.

Proxima is ahead on both "least missed" and "lest coherent" but she's got competition on "least coherent" from Mustex and Earthland. Again your vote will count.

For obvious reasons we will not comment on the nominations for "attention whore".

In a BIG surprise ListenerX with his classic work "The reds" is trouncing up-and-cummer Earthland with his "Abortion" opus under the "Obsession over single issues" award. In fact, Lx looks unbeatable, and the bookies are poised to be taken to the cleaners on this one.

That's all for today.--False Flag (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey! You forgot "biggest n00b," which is obviously rigged because I am losing. 22:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The craziest thing just happened to me!
So I'm sitting at my house, minding my own business, when my house starts rattling and there is a really loud noise outside. (I should mention that I am on EST, meaning it is 10 at night, or 22:00.) So I look outside my window and there's a giant fucking helicopter hovering over my house with its searchlight on. It's going all around in circles shining a searchlight and hovering ominously, so I'm thinking, what the fuck is going on here?? So eventually I decide to call the cops and they tell me that there is a robbery fugitive on the loose and they are looking for him. So this damn thing flies all around my street for a good 20 minutes with this big bright searchlight pointing everywhere. Finally it leaves, but since no cop cars showed I assume they couldn't find the guy. Weird shit overall though. Very Big-Brotherish and all. And where the fuck did my suburban town get a helicopter anyway? 03:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Lock your fucking doors. Yikes!   03:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually that reminds me of a time I was at the local amusement park, and a fully armed Apache helicopter was hovering over the parking lot. What the hell was that about?   03:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mimes, probably. Nasty little blighters. Once your theme park gets infested with mimes, a hellfire missile is the only cure. -- 06:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Living in the drug capital of Nottinghamshire, we get them at least once a week. They generally seem to be chasing idiots offroading on motorbikes where the fuzz on the ground can't follow. They do rattle the building when they get low.
 * An infestation of mimes calls for the most extreme measures wherever it happens. Try Edinburgh during the fringe: they're a plague. 07:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Bloody hell, if I saw a police chopper buzzing around my house I'd probably microwave my hard drive. 09:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Found this for my local fuzz chopper:


 * 09:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's helicopters all over the shop in London. Most interesting thing that happened with me with choppers was that on 7/7/2005, London bomb attacks, a chopper had to land on my Sixth Form playing field to get supplies, because of the increased terrorist threat it wasn't safe for it to go to the nearest RAF base. 11:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You do seem to have been a bit sheltered if you get this excited over a helicopter! Or maybe it's because I'm from one of the less salubrious parts of Britain and police helicopters were a regular sight.  (And I rely on helicopters to get home from work, so yes I like sitting on a big chopper)  12:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you see I live in a little suburb in New Jersey, where helicopters are basically non-existent. 13:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Two or three house moves ago there was a ball field nearby that often got used for a life flight helipad. After a while we got used to lights and noises in the night. They looked a bit like, and sounded a lot like the speedy little numbers we called Cayuses in RVN, not the whopwhopwhop of a Huey. Don't even get me started on what a Sikorsky Skycrane will do to unsecured items on the ground, when it is working hard. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I do wnat to know that. Syria was nice to visit in the late 1950s, but the grownups occasionally seemed tense. The first live fire I ever heard was around then, just before the Turks hung Adnan Menderes. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Being on Fort Riley we have to deal with helicopters a lot, unless the weather grounds them for the day. Still, you get used to seeing them in the air. Also, Want to really freak some people out? Try leaning out of a helicopter with a camera during a division run. Your shop will get some interesting calls after that one. -- CodyH (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Doonesbury
Today's strip is a great one on Sarah Palin. For background, they're recording celebs doing SatNav directions. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 07:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Good show. Slate did a recent writing contest that gives us more off-the-cut mavericky verbal garbage to chuckle about.

Chemical warfare, chemical warfare, chemical warfare, warfare, warfare
I was out with my dad and brothers last night in the local pub, and after about 4/5 pints we started the usual horeshite talk of philosophy, politics, religion and war. It was quite interesting to see a more liberal side to my old man on the whole issue of war and such. While I'd say he's an economic conservative, he was very anti-war, saying both Iraq and Afghanistan were pointless, how Obama's promise of the West being out of the Middle East by 2011 is bollocks, and how religion fucks everything up by causing war. I've never talked extensively with him about politics and it was just interesting how things like this crop up.

As you were. 20:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I normally end up playing Daily Mail nutter trumps with my dad. He'll go on about the evil Jews, and Hitler getting a few things right, and there's no point in being rational about it, since I know it's in one ear and out the other. The approach I found is to become more extreme than anything he's saying, i.e. he says that the Jews should be killed, so I'll start describing in graphic detail how the children should be dealt with. It normally snaps him back in to reality for a short while, but before long we're back in to Daily Mail land. The joy. -- 20:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Daily Mail just makes me sick in general, along with the Daily Express. They're the typical right-wing commentators who go on about how the country is going to shit, how the rest of the world includes foreigners, and as such terrorists, and how we're running out of oil. They're the typical right-wing commentators who would have no fucking clue what to do if they got into power. 23:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, the newspapers of choice for armchair brownshirts. When he's visiting I normally end up browsing a copy or two of the Mail, and I wonder how anyone could possibly read that without shooting themselves dead over breakfast.-- 09:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually admitting it's POSSIBLE to run out of oil means that by American standards, they're a gang of tree-hugging hippie ecofreaks. Here in the US, that's just Not Talked About in Polite Society. --Gulik (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice birthday present
Well, it's my birthday in just over an hour, and I've just had a phonecall from the vet telling me that my cat (who was hospitalised last night) has feline infectious peritonitis and will not make it through the night. Life sucks. 22:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry to hear that. It's not been a good year for animals, apparently. My brother's dog (whom he'd had since he was 5 years old, my brother is now 19) died last September 2 days before my brother's 19th, and it ruined my brother's birthday, too.  It sucks when an animal friend dies.  22:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * :( 23:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I woke up one birthday morning to find the fish I had received as a birthday present several days earlier dead. It was also in my bed which was odd. Aceof Spades 23:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The death of pets can be quite traumatic. I happened to be away from home when my dogs and most of the cats either died or had to be put down. Our last cat, who still seemed like a kitten even after 15 years, had a cancer and needed to be put down which my wife insisted that I supervise. I took her to the vets and she passed way without any distress. However, she was an outdoor cat and just as she died three fleas made an appearance on her fur. They obviously sensed that their food supply was no longer extant and were looking for a new host. 00:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They didn't go for you, did the Genghis?? The biggest thing I've ever owned is a hamster. Last one I had (Chelsea) died of 'wet tail disease' which I'm guessing is the equivalent of terminal bowel cancer. Quite upsetting for an eleven year old kid. 00:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fleas are nothing. When I worked in Colombia we had vampire bats flying around the office in the evening and one horrible bug which was about 3 inches long and had what appeared to be a hypodermic needle as an undercarriage. Never found out what it was though. I also got to drive a hovercraft there, bloody hard to control on river bends. 01:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My condolences. He is/was beautiful.  04:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, unfortunately he died at 06:30 this morning. The vet wants to do a PM to see what was actually wrong, but I'm not convinced it will help anything (unless it was quite an infectious disease and our other cats are at risk). 09:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to hear it. Pet bereavements are always hard.  Hope you can still have an OK birthday.   20:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ground Control to Major Tom
Developed a taste for David Bowie lately (as well, to a lesser degree, the solo work of John Lennon). Any suggestions on what should go into my playlist?--Thanatos (talk) 04:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone with talent?--Llort (talk) 06:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I made notes. In 1978.  And I can't find them.  But that Jones, David boy did some good work. Check the fanboy sites?  06:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, never fell comfortable in those. BTW, John Lennon (not beetles) welcome too--Thanatos (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * With Lennon, leave Plastic Ono Band on auto-repeat. There are one or two less good songs but Mother and God are as good as you will find anywhere. From the other albums, I've always liked #9 Dream, Starting Over and Watching the Wheels. Oh, and Instant Karma, of course. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 09:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My partner is a huge Beatles fan. Sadly, he is also a Yoko Ono fan (yes, there is such a thing.) We had this conversation once at a music store.
 * Him: (slightly contemptuously) You're buying a Led Zeppelin CD?
 * Me: Let's compare. I like Led Zeppelin. Key influence on rock and roll -- seminal influence on bands for years to come. You like Yoko Ono. Key influence on rock and roll -- broke up the Beatles.
 * Him: She did not! Even Paul says it wasn't her fault!
 * He also likes Barry Manilow. Amazing the things you'll tolerate when you love someone....

(UD) Lennon and Ono Double Fantasy is a sweet sweet record about hope and looking forward; it includes a few really cuddly songs for Julian. Diamond Dogs, Low, Ziggy Stardust and Let's Dance are great Bowie records. Always on my iPod. 16:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Protection
Is it possible to protect a page so only sysops and up can view it? 09:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not with our current configuration, even then it didn't work on Conservapedia. 09:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And why would we want to do that anyway? 21:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To hide sensitive urls or stuff from the various spambots that frequent here without creating an account 22:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Youtube comments
The stupid, it burns!! There should be a quick mandatory IQ test before posting video comments.

From an Assassin’s Creed 2 video:

JACKB34N (1 day ago) Leonardo from Vinchi, amazing inventor didnt finish his work but friken amazing at making Videogames :D

CanadianPancakes (10 hours ago) Ummm you do realize that its Leonardo Da Vinchi not From Vinci right?

JACKB34N (5 hours ago) Were was he from then ?

Fuck me. 13:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * YouTube comments rival Yahoo! Answers for the single greatest concentration of stupidity on the InterNetz.
 * There should be some type of intelligence test to use the Internet, or at least post something. Maybe just something like a picture of Ralph Wiggum captioned "You must be at least this intelligent to post." MDB (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of Yahoo answers, here's a good one. The question was "How can I humanely kill my pet mouse?":
 * ''a POISAN WILL WORK THE BEST IT WILL KNOCK HIM OR HER OUT RIGHT AWAY NO PAIN
 * OR HAVE A VET PUT HIM OR HER TO SLEEP
 * Source(s):
 * IM A VET''
 * Yes, of course you are. 14:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pondering turning off the comments on my PooTube channel, the inanity of these is grinding. I mean, the vid is completely apolitical and non-offensive, but some of these guys are just idiots who seem to think that they're the first person ever to go "RROD LOL!!!1!1". 15:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The other ones are the people who seem to confuse youtube comments with tech support, e.g. on another AC2 walkthrough:
 * "hey ive got a problem.... i dont know what happened but in my assassins creed II the weapons, the money, the metal sounds, the pistol, etc, cannot be heard.... at first my game was OK but one day, i think after i entered the animus after training with Desmond, those sounds﻿ were not there anymore, i can still hear footsteps, water and voices.. SOMEONE HELP ME PLEASE"
 * What the fuck do you think this is? Go find a fucking support forum you twat. 15:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The stupid, it burns!!!! Seriously, it's an embedded system for playing games. What the hell is wrong with humanity? 15:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So that charity I gave ten bucks to last year?
Has now surely spent more than ten dollars in postage and printing costs asking me for more money. Tell me again how the private sector is more efficient? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I really hate the big charities these days. They've turned from do-gooders into greedy corporate businesses with everyone taking a slice. I'd be interested to see what percentage of donations actually makes it to the cause. 15:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for ListenerX to appear and tell us what's great about privatisation. 15:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, some charities just have completely tilted ratios of money spent on the cause they represent versus administrative cause. Sometimes 40% of the money they receive goes to salary and expenses. Ugh
 * Only 40%? Please. 22:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends on the charity. The ACLU and Sierra Club never bug me more than once a year.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 22:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the great thing about giving blood. All they do is ask you two or three times a year if you can part with a little bit of blood rather than money to pay for the administration. 22:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura
Anybody happen to catch the premire of this show on the TruTV network? It is absolutely, without a doubt, funnier than anything that David Icke or Alex Jones has ever done. It could only be funnier if Jesse Ventura actually wore a tin foil hat during the show, and it looks like tonights episode is going to be Loose Change worthy, as it's about 9/11. Here's a link if anyone wants a good laugh. 15:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * [[image:Wall.gif]] Ventura is evidently an idiot who will believe whatever he is told. 16:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know, but isn't the show great comedic fodder? I hope it doesn't get canceled, as it's far too entertaining, even if for reasons contrary to the show's intent. 16:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Particularly stuff like "your brain is radio waves", and you can just see from Ventura's expression that he's thinking "ZOMG!!!11!! there controlin or brians!!!111!". 16:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The part where Gabe goes on a rant: I like the part where he tries to gain access to a classified facility by throwing around his Navy SEAL and ex-governator credentials, and get mad when they tell him he doesn't have the clearance. The funny thing is, there's tons of secrets I have access to with my "Secret" level clearance, and they are secret for a damn good reason. But the government won't comment on any part of it because the slightest misconception may not only compromise national security, but also for diplomatic reasons. If, say, some other nation thinks we are building a death ray (and we're really building a solar power plant), they, themselves, might think we are starting a new arms race and then things might go out of control that way.  But nobody ever considers that aspect of classified projects.  16:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ooh, ooh, secrets! Can I have some, please, please, please! 16:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, because I'd be releasing classified data on the United States governments plan for a gigantic bug zapper that is being build in the Arizona dessert, but I can't tell you anymore because the government want to hide it from people because... well... because they want to, that's why. 16:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I used to have a high level clearance myself, and I like to tell people the vast majority of government secrets are quite dull. And they are, because the reason they're secret is not because of the facts themselves, but how we know those facts -- what the professionals call "sources and methods". For instance, lets say we know Kim Jong Il likes scrambled eggs for breakfast. Okay, that's no big deal. He knows he likes scrambled eggs for breakfast. That's not an especially useful fact, unless we want to try to poison him. But we might know it because his chef is on the CIA payroll, and obviously, we want to keep that a really big secret, because the chef could provide us with more useful information, and would be killed if Kim found out he was a CIA asset. Even if Kim just found out that we know, and not how we know, he could still fire the chef (or worse) out of paranoia, costing us the asset. Now, I've picked an admittedly slightly silyl example, but you can extend it to much more serious matters. MDB (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Kinda like some of the experimental materials we work with. They're classified not because they are anything new, but because the way in which they are used in, for example, vehicle armor would make every single MRAV the United States own obsolete, because then, say, Al Qaeda could figure out a way to penetrate it based solely on what they know.  It's not that the material itself is a secrect, but what it exactly is and where it is used on given vehicle is important to keep secret.  16:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(unDent)And looking at the above, with Ventura trying to get into secret facilities by pointing out his credentials.... a Navy seal should know better. Having clearance level X does not instantly grant you access to everything at X clearance level or lower, because the concept of "need to know" also comes into play. That's just what it sounds like -- you have to demontrate you need to know something to get access to it, even if you're otherwise cleared for it. So, the guy that specializes in Kim Jong Il's breakfast menu doesn't automatically get access to Osama bin Laden's plans for lunch. MDB (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Jesse Ventura making money off of and giving credence to 9-11 truthers makes me want to punch him directly in the face except I'm pretty sure he would then kick my ass. I find it offensive that he is making a paycheck off of a whackadoodle distortion of the deaths of thousands of people. <font color="#ff0000">Me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! <font color="#6ff6633">Mine! 17:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What's worse is that I'm sure some dolt will go "Well if he said it, it must be true" and then go from being apathetic on the topic to being a Loose Changer, much like the Tea Baggers when from being some of the most uninformed Americans to Americans informed only by the likes of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. It makes me puke in my mouth a little, and that's before I realize just how gullible most of my fellow Americans really are. 20:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear fuck...
Having done my monthly pop over to spEak You're bRanes, I decided to have a gander at the Have Your Say page. The one on climate change is particularly impressive.

'There is a difference between real climate change an that peddled by the 'green' lobby ...

The latter is political, the first is real as the Earth's climate has been cooling down an warming up for 100,000's of years, ever since the start of the current ice age some thirty million years ago.

The only certainties are that the ice will return ... an the 'green' lobby won't be happy until we are all living in mud huts eating soggy cabbage.'

I am fed up hearing about climate change - its all a big con started by a few scientists who manipulated the system. I did hear that volcanos cause more problems for the atmosphere than the whole of the nations on the planet.

The kind of deal I am looking for from Copenhagen is one that refunds to me my share of the taxes I paid for the conference.

Ok, if all the science for MMGW is so convincing then why isn't the opposing science allowed to be broadcast, especially by the BBC? Why the conspiracy some ask? Another ploy to control the masses and introrduce a One World totalitarian government. Wake up you gullible lemmings.

I swear they're using the twat-o-tron just like a certain individual we know seems to use our quote generator. 17:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The last one is particularly stupid. 17:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This why the "best of the public" is superior to so-called experts. Silly twit (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably because Andy, while certainly expert in something, is not really going to ever become an expert in most the fields for which he seems to claim an odd amount of expertise. I like to think of Andy as a renaissance man, post-lobotomy, and full of horse tranquilizers. Armon, thanks for the link to that site. Never heard of that one before. -- 18:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

UFO's am confirmed!
Pretty lights! EddyP (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * More on this, from Bad Astronomy.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 22:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Schlafly on Colbert
Somehow I thought on national tv he'd TRY to sound less insane on national tv, particularly on a show where he knew the audience was much more liberal than him (maybe try to win a few converts). But, seriously, he says the exact same stuff he always says. Honestly, when he said "we have no gossip" I had to pause the video to insert my own "like links to an interview where you brother admitted he was gay?"--Mustex (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? Andy dialed down the crazy considerably. Other people I talked to said that he didn't seem all that crazy either and that Colbert should have actually used quotes from CP to show him for what he truly is. That was Lawyer Andy, the small part of him capable of living with the rest of us. NetharianCubicles are prisons! 06:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Please keep this trash on talk:wigo cp, no one cares about such silliness here. 06:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

New Dan Brown
Just reading the new Dan Brown Novel. It's a quite remarkable mixture of pseudoscience, quantum woo, magical thinking and conspiracy theory. I get this desire to beat my head against the wall in sadness and desperation, but I also keep wanting to see what stupidity he comes up with next. A weird sensation.--BobNot Jim 15:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just remember it's a novel; it's fiction. I read Angels and Demons and the Da Vinci Code and they were both basically entertaining reads, but there is no reason at all why anyone should take them seriously. DickTurpis (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm with DickTurpis -- Brown's science and history are loads of crap, but he certainly knows how to write a thriller. The problem is that Brown seems to believe a lot of the crap he writes about is true. (I'm not sure how much he's said about the latest novel, but he certainly seemed to indicate he thought the big secret of DaVinci Code was historical fact. And don't get me started about the science of one key part of Angels and Demons.) MDB (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I read and enjoyed the first two as well. But this one is something else.--BobNot Jim 15:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the author believes it, the audience clearly do. Remember the churches that had to put up signs following The DaVinci Code that said "NO! FOR THE LAST TIME, IT'S NOT REAL AND WE DON'T HAVE MARY MADELEINE'S TOMB HERE!!!" At least CERN have a documentary on the special features that says why it's all BS. 15:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Masons seem to be the heroes of this one - at least so far. But on the science front it seems that thoughts have weight, and the more people think about something the more weight it has and so the more gravity a particular thought has. Wow.--BobNot Jim 15:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely that's taking a metaphor a little too far... 15:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of trying to convince my older sister that the more songs she puts on her ipod the heavier it gets. I think she got slightly more skeptical after convincing her that heavy boots were necessary in Antarctica if you don't want to fall the Earth. DickTurpis (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(unDent)I also noted Brown failed at a pretty basic bit of fact checking. There's one point in the latest book where he has one of the characters seated on the "hard plastic benches" of the Washington DC Metro.... which I was reading while seated on the not uncomfortable padded vinyl seats of the Washington, DC Metro. MDB (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And JK Rowling described the wrong train station in Harry Potter, getting confused between Kings Cross and Victoria, I think. But that's what you get when you set your story in the real world! 16:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but fortunately very few people confuse Harry Potter with reality.--BobNot Jim 17:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This lot think so. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * * sobs* 18:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * From looking at the site, "this lot" seems more like "one person with limited English skills". MDB (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Spambot IP blocks?
What are we meant to do w/ anonymous IP spambots? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As an operator of many such spambots, I am firmly against indefinite IP blocks. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 17:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if it's only "anonymous only"? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I guess that's fine then. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think, at least what I've done in the past, is block them for about 2 weeks. That way, the program they run off of will be disrupted because it can't do anything, and will then cease continuing to run. I have noticed that this is effective, as I employed this strategy against the lemonpartiers with some success.  00:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the idea has always been that if you let an IP create an account, you can block it for as long as you like. 09:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Dr No" is alive and well in Spain.
Somebody has just sent me this link from the "Mataha Foundation" who want to build some kind of "Doctor No" style survivalist hideout in the Spanish mountains. Apparently it's all because the world is going to end in 2012. More on the facility here.

But it's all a bit hard to believe. (Apart from the world ending stuff I mean.) It's almost 2010 now and buying the land, getting permits to build in a protected area and then actually doing the building is a bit of a tall order by 2010. But I can't immediately find anything saying "hoax". Any thoughts?--BobNot Jim 21:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's like those survivalists in America waiting for the end times. (do we have an article on them?) These silly spaniards may have left it late but this isn't the first such structure in the world. I guess if their hold on reality extends to believing 2012 guff then their grasp of legal and administrative matters may be...shaky. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the Mataha Foundation claims to be based in Belgium and the US. They've apparently chosen Spain as the best site to build. The Spanish are wondering what it's all about.--BobNot Jim 07:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Given how slow the Spanish land courts are, it will be well into 2015 before the case even gets to court, never mind settled. They'll long be Raptured away by then... CS Miller (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Matt Frei
Hits the nail on the head. A very interesting piece, and as far as I can tell his analysis is spot-on. 22:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Comcast for your crappy service
So I get home from work today to try to prevent what was becoming HCM 1, only to find that my internet is out. I call my provider, Comcast, only to find out that it's some maintenance they are doing that will cause my internet to be intermittenly down.... FOR THE NEXT 5 FUCKING DAYS!!! I ask the person how often, and they respond "about 50% of the time." So, if I'm suddenly not around, I apologize. Thank the fuckers at Comcast. 01:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I just banned you for 5 days. You won't miss a thing. DickTurpis (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know
I am, in fact, a sock of Bohdan.
 * Who? 22:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked the fossil record. It's MC--Thanatos (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * DFTT everyone. That is all. 22:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see. Well, if it's MC, then . I'm sorry I cared. 22:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whats a fossil record? I'm telling you that I'm a sock of Bohdan. I have been this entire time. God that was fun.

22:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd believe that if you displayed any of Bohdan's intelligence or humor. Since you don't, I think you make up silly stories based on ancient RW history. 02:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And if that really is you, Bohdan, I am disappointed, my Danish friend. 04:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I know I am violating my own DFTT rule here, but if he really was Bodhan he would know what a fossil record is. 04:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not even a month, I was wrong. Ceux qui rient le vendredi, pleureront le dimanche.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 08:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Mormons and Malfunctions
Why do all bad things happen on the same day? And why is it that only the weirder sects try street/doorstep conversions? &mdash; Unsigned, by: Broccoli / talk / contribs
 * How else are they going to get followers? 21:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Mormon strategy seems to be to have their women pump out as many as physically possible. Fedhaji (Talk) 06:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * They're not the first to come up with that one. 04:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't the FDIC insure Credit Unions?
Ok, first off, what's the "official" reason for this? Secondly, am I being a paranoid conspiracy nut when I suspect this is an attempt to "unofficially" keep Credit Unions from growing, and thus ensuring that lower and middle class people never collectively control a large amount of economic power?--Mustex (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought that there was another, similar agency that performed pretty much the same service for credit unions. And yes, you're probably being paranoid.  Corry (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Mustex, why do you hate America? Put your money in a proper, PRIVATELY-owned bank, like any good, proper, God-fearin', red-blooded American boy. Credit Unions are for REDS! REDS! REDS!!!!1!!. My credit union has deposit insurance through the NCUA for up to a cool quarter-mill. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, someone told me they weren't insured, so maybe I was wrong, but if that's the case someone please tell me (and if they are insured, please explain why banks haven't been outcompeted by not-for-profit organizations?). And, I know you're being ironic, but for the record I'm a libertarian, but think that the main problem with socialism is that its SO BIG that no one's individual efforts make a difference, and hence there's no incentive.  But more small-scale collectivism (like the Landless Movement in Brazil) can work because the efforts of one person CAN make-or-break the whole system if there's only a few dozen or a few hundred people working.  This often makes me wonder if co-ops aren't being suppressed by some level of government favoritism.  Have a system that divides up the money between its employees, but that isn't so huge that no one's efforts matter (or is divided up into branches who's profits are determined separately), and they should work harder.  Have a financial institution that doesn't have executives taking percentiles, but instead tries to make just enough money to pay off its customers, and employees (with bonuses for good work), and it should be able to offer lower rates.  Granted, maybe I just don't understand some factors that are inherent to the real world, and this is just my own idealized model (please, correct me if I'm wrong, I may be a little bit kooky with some of my ideas, but it doesn't mean I'm dogmatic about them).  Oh, and P.S., seriously, if anyone knows of an organization that does insure Credit Unions let me know.--Mustex (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice rant (sorry tl;dr). Paragraphs work well every few hundred words, to keep your readers excited about what might come next.  Also, to separate your ideas in a clear way.  08:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC) I now see that your post was duped.  I deleted one half of it to make life easier for mortals like mysefl to absorb.  08:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry.--Mustex (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Credit Unions are insured by the National Credit Union Administration. The limit is $250K, just like FDIC-insured banks. I've been a credit union member since 1986, and, to my knowledge, they've been Federally insured as long as I've been a member. MDB (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, so I was wrong, sorry. So, why are most Credit Unions so much smaller than banks?--Mustex (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Credit unions have to have some defined criteria for membership -- usually an employer. My credit union is affiliated with a large Federal agency where I used to work. Even though I no longer work there, I can stay a member for life, as could my family if I had one. We've also got several much smaller sponsoring organizations, including a local teacher's union and my current employer. Note that you can have honkin' big sponsors -- for instance, the US Navy has a credit union. However, they can't take just anyone as a customer. MDB (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What stops anyone from forming a Credit Union without these criteria?--130.160.99.1 (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Federal law. MDB (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A modest proposal

 * Each user shall have an attached parameter list, to include the following:
 * Trollhood
 * Wandalism
 * Newbitude
 * Potty mouth
 * Sockage
 * Useful contributionsTM
 * Social butterflappery
 * Trustworthiness
 * others TBD


 * Each parameter shall have an associated forgiveness function, in the form of a time decay.
 * Any user may smite or uphold any other user's parameters.
 * The weight of smiting or support shall be strongly correlated to the trustworthiness of the evaluating user.
 * An overall Fitness Score will be obtained from a convolution of the various parameters and decays; meta-parameters of the implementation TBD.
 * It will matter, and users shall go in fear and trembling of their fitness reports being smitten.
 * Be very, very afraid.

Discuss, but be concise. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC) damn, that was hard to type, what with all the backspacing


 * Very idiosyncratic, as I've come to expect.
 * P.S. You forgot the part where we propose to alleviate global hunger problems by the cooking alive of Irish Catholics.
 * I'm ignoring you in the following fashion: That is neither part of this problem nor its solution. Have a nice day, thank you for your cooperation. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I do hope you understand the Swift reference? &mdash; Unsigned, by: some guy / talk / contribs
 * Is this like a Dungeons & Dragons thing?  19:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No dice. It's a way of maintaining transparency, giving credit where it is due, and assigning a credible validity score to everyone's input. Or maybe a valid credibility score, haven't yet worked that part out. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)If there isn't a Chaotic Neutral option, I refuse to take part. 19:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Is this like a Dungeons & Dragons thing?"
 * "No dice."
 * I don't know if that was intentional, but if it was, to quote Dr. Zachary Smith or Ship's Counselor Deanna Troi, "the pain... the pain... the unspeakable, unbearable pain." MDB (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If we can't finagle a way for me to be a ranger or a rogue I want no part either. DickTurpis (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to be a Drow Malkavian Street Samurai. Nerdliness ownage.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 00:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Real mature, guys! This is serious psychoceramic psychosocial metrology I'm advocating here. But if that's the way you want to be, I get to be Gurney Halleck, without having to look or sound like Patrick Stewart. Some other wanker can be Yoda. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no Foundation roleplaying game. Fail.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 00:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, you can be the Mule then. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So when do we start eating each other? Can I be Jeffrey Dahmer? [[Image:AndyToad.gif|20px]]<font face="Comic Sans"><font color = "Green">Norseman  Cyser Melomel  00:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC) PS I like this idea. While it won't "solve" any current issues, it's a start.

Dammit, I was expecting Irish babies. I'm gonna be craving one all night, now. --Kels (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relax, have some caviar instead, get The Cook the Thief His Wife & Her Lover going on the screen, put up your feet, and enjoy! Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Dammit, I want to be Seldon!-- 02:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Leaving and never coming back coming back after the new year
Greetings RationalWiki. I will be leaving tomorrow for "home" and will not be back within close physical proximity of the server till after the new year. Traditionally this has never been a problem, but last August saw a bit of a disaster while I was away. I have made a lot of changes since August and hope everything is in place for a solid run while I am away. If the worst happens, remember the tech blog will be my primary form of communication during any down time. tmtoulouse 23:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy trails, fearless leader. --[[Image:Flag of Soviet Canuckistan.svg|30px|IN SOVIET CANUCKISTAN, BEAVER DAMS YOU!!!]] <font face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Yossarian <font face="Arial Black" color="#CC0000">The Man from the USSR 23:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The way this place has been the past few weeks, something tells me a week or two of no RW connectivity would a bit of good. Either way, Merry Christmas Happy Hanukkah  Merry Kwanzaa happy holidays! [[Image:AndyToad.gif|20px]]<font face="Comic Sans"><font color = "Green">Norseman   Cyser Melomel  00:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. We'll try not to bust the joint up.  Happy Christmakwanzakah!   00:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Trent, for all you do. Enjoy your time away.  Sterile 02:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Happy Holidays, Trent. Thanks for all your hard work in keeping this community running--I really appreciate it. And I really admire your ability to stay above the bullshit we produce. You rock. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Trent is truly awesome. Happy holidays, I hope your trip goes well. 04:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, he's more likely to be around on the wiki. He just won't be physically near the server so we're relying on all that cool stuff he did in September to keep us up and running.  Enjoy your time at "home", Trent!  04:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * TTFN I'm sure the rig will be fine without you for a short while at least. [[image:33.gif]] 13:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

RW financial update
As some may remember there was a strike called at my university. The whole long protracted story of what went down is somewhat interesting and worth sharing (I think at least) once things have settled down enough that I feel "safe" in doing so. The gist of the situation is though I have lost about 35 percent of my pay this month due to the strike action. This is going to lead to two consequences for RationalWiki that I wanted to pass along:

1)Since I will barely be able to even make rent next month my solution is to run away to home for the holidays as early as possible and leach off my family for a month. This means I will be physically away from the server for close to a month. Everything has run smoothly for over a month now so I am optimistic there won't be a problem, and if there is we have more tools available than last time to try and fix it. But its something to be aware of.

2)I like to keep about $150 in RW funds in reserve to cover any emergencies. We have about $120 at the moment, however, I am going to have to tap into this to pay for the internet connection for December. Probably on the order of about $60-$70. Leaving our reserve about $100 short. So if you have not tossed a few bucks RW's way in a while it would be great if you considered it. There is no need for the funds right away, but I would like to get things back up to the $120-$150 range by January.

That's about it. tmtoulouse 00:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Bummer about the lost pay. I am in a similar position as you are at my university and (though there is no hint of a labour dispute at the moment) I would very much like to hear your thoughts on the whole shebang. I am somewhat ashamed to say that until a few moments ago I had never tossed any bucks RW's way. I've enjoyed this site for more than a year, and it's certainly worth keeping online. Thanks for all your hard work.-- 02:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't afford to donate again at the moment, but get paid in a couple of weeks so should be able to throw you another £20 then. 08:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If we wanted to contribute, how would we do so? MDB 14:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * here Bob Soles 14:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we word the little 'Donate' section on the sidebar more strongly?  I suggest "Donate much needed funds to RationalWiki' or somesuch.  <font color="#00F0A20">DogP <font color="#993300">Marmite Patrol 16:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In all honesty, I find the donate section practically invisible. I didn't reven realize it was there till now. Which is normally good -- I wouldn't want the site to be reminiscent of PBS during pledge week -- but I was barely aware you even solicited donations. MDB 18:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added some formatting to MediaWiki:Common.css to make it stand out some more. The wording is at MediaWiki:Sidebar (only plain text works there, but it can be styled via css). Suggestions are welcome. -- Nx  / talk 18:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

What does PayPal charge you to receive donations? Fedhaji (Talk) 18:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not a whole lot, it scales depending on the donation, a few cents on the dollar mostly. tmtoulouse 19:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Donations get solicited every now and then, usually when Trent is strapped or news something new and shiny. This is one of those times. 19:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Trent does FAR too much for this place, and if you appreciate his dump, hurl some cash his way.  I've added some jaunty copy to add to the nice new loud orange panel.   Suggestions welcome.  <font color="#00F0A20">DogP <font color="#993300">Marmite Patrol 00:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not a flashing orange banner across the top of every page, with randomly selected entreaties to pony up? 01:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, if it means Trent isn't licking dogfood out of cans. Whatever it takes.  <font color="#00F0A20">DogP <font color="#993300">Marmite Patrol 01:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're exaggerating a bit... have you even read what he said about the state of the RW finances up above? While I agree fully that RW shouldn't cost him any money, going into a sudden panic over the wording of the donation link is just silly.  If you think it can be better, let's come up with something better at the sidebar talk page and install it.  8:37 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Exaggerating? Trent did say he may not able to pay his rent after all? Whatever. Anyway, I'm not "going into a panic", but I certainly see only benefit from rewording the currently lame call to action that is our Donations box. "Join the supporters"? If we had supporters, we wouldn't be needing to make a call out - the problem is we DON'T have supporters. The box clearly wasn't doing any work for us, as per MDB's comment above - even a long term user like him didn't even know how to donate. That's hardly a functioning system. Why not a 'Donate' bar permanently mounted above Recent Changes too? Maybe we can have some vote widget fun and vote for slogans? Can someone do that? <font color="#00F0A20">DogP <font color="#993300">Marmite Patrol 16:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You fail at reading comprehension. "Since I will barely be able to even make rent next month" followed by his solution to no food money - go home for the hols.  And the reason for the month's poverty is not RW it's the strike he was dragged into (and encouraged in by some of us).  But I'm all for vote widgets and slogans.  Chances are you'll have to figure them out yourself (hint, find one you like and copy the code) though.  04:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't forget folks that you can take out a RationalWiki subscription and pledge Π dollars (or multiples thereof) per month. This may not solve Trent's immediate predicament but pledging $6.28 (about the price of two pints) a month adds up to $75 a year. Half a dozen new pledgers could make a significant difference. 14:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is a PayPal account needed for the subscription, or is there another way of doing it? I've chucked in a donation, but would find it a lot easier if I could just set something like $10 per month.-- 15:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * IT would be easy to set up a standing order. Now, all I require from you is your bank account details and sort code. 21:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Slogans
As per Doggedpersistence's suggestion above, here's my humble suggestions for a "Give to RW" slogan: MDB 13:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't donate to RationalWiki until you hurt. Donate to RationalWiki until Conservapedia hurts.
 * Donate to RationalWiki. The mind you save may belong to a homeschooler who will grow up to cure the disease that's going to kill you.
 * Donate to RationalWiki, because Andrew Schlafly's mind already is a waste.


 * Aren't those all a bit CP-centric? Well, maybe not the second one...  00:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Donate to RationalWiki! We won't go down on you, unless you pay us extra! 21:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)