RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive48

Kicked out of ffox
I've been repeatedly kicked out of Firefox when loading various Science Blogs (Highly Allochthonous [can't give a link for obvious reasons]in particular). Anyone else having any trouble? 09:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem in Opera. 10:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Works well on my end, but I used to have the same trouble with a few sites. It ended up being a Greasemonkey script that was causing the grief, have you tried disabling your addons just to be sure it's not one of them causing the issue? Sorry for the generic tech-support answer, but I find addons to be the cause of 93.2416% of my internet issues. 10:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Only add-on i've got is screengrab. 10:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just tried masking and identifying as FF and didn't get a problem. 10:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)#
 * Working fine for me (FFox 3.5.7 (Portable)) 10:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Still doing it for me.[[image:Shifty.gif]] (I don't like Opera) 10:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you don't like Opera, just reinstall FF from scratch. 10:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Or you could try using Firefox Portable (no install) to see if that works. 10:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have the same problem on my pc when I follow links to FoxNews. That is why I joke my pc is more liberal than me.--Thanatos (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Attn: iPhoners
This, if it turns out to be true, is just fucking disgusting. Thank god I don't have any of their games on my phone, they're cheap, crap and each one is an exact replica of the next, except with different labels. I strongly recommend anyone who is using any of their games to delete them at once because they're shit... oh, and they steal your phone number as well. Let's hope Apple banishes these creeps from the app store. 13:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like pretty much all those Facebook games you get invites for. They're just there to mine information and spread like pyramid schemes (which is why I don't put any private data online). 18:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The Onion
[http://www.theonion.com/content/news/gay_teen_worried_he_might_be Best. Article. Ever.] 16:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's hilarious. Corry (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I didn't need to see inside a teenager's sock drawer. 17:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny as fuck, but I still prefer the "Gay Shame Parade" one; complete with the float featuring a man beating a kid with the banner "no son of mine!!" 18:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I cracked up over this Daily Mash story about the declassification of UFO files, including the gem:

One report, from 1995, describes how two children from Bovingdon, in Hertfordshire, were almost lured onto a helicopter-shaped spacecraft by an alien who 'could walk backwards but made it look like he was walking forwards'.

According to the files: "The translucent creature called to them in a melodic falsetto and was only scared off after a local farmer threatened to report him and his pet monkey to the police."


 * 21:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's just Michael Jackson ... 00:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ffs. Good jokes are ruined by the explainations of the stupid. 00:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops! I partially remedied my error.  01:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. You can ruin anything, can't you? --Llort (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I love you, Llort. 05:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wkileaks encore
Will Wikileaks restart today ? 05:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Mandatory Swedish
What's your (quick for/against) opinion on mandatory Swedish from a moral point of view? No need to read all of the boring link. EDIT: I mean mandatory Swedish the Finnish phenomenon --Swedmann (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In South Africa the have (or had) mandatory Afrikaans. I don't see a problem. Acei9 20:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * From a moral perspective and having expressly avoided reading the link you posted as you asked, it's morally neutral or perhaps morally salutory if you are a citizen of Sweden residing in Sweden. I once went to a mandatory holiday party at a former employer. This is very stimulating discussion. 20:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @Ace: Interestingly "Nelson Mandela was against mandatory Afrikaans so therefore you are racist" is a common piece of Finnish trollery. @Nutty: Oops, I lack thinking. Edited. --Swedmann (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That was when I realised it was actually the ventriloquists doll that was giving me the exam. Acei9 20:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried turning onto my back to see what was making that faint shuffling sound behind me, accompanied by a sort of quick and breathy "chuff chuff chuff," but the doll violently pushed my chin onto the cold examination table and grunted with disdain. 20:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When I felt the cold steel violently enter my rectum I started wondering just why I had been so insistent on coming on this holiday. Acei9 20:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And when the doll screamed out in Mandatory Swedish that Christmas was coming early this year, over and over and over, I knew. 20:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It irked me however that, even though I could feel my prostate giving in under the pressure of such a forceful raping, mandatory swedish was not morally correct. Acei9 21:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a sudden and rapid knock on the door. A small boy whispered, "Doctor Chuckles, the police are at the front desk. ..." 21:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I suddenly found myself alone on the examoination table and it gave me cause to think. I could have, at the moment, screamed for help but, damnit, I had paid for this holiday so i was going at least try and enjoy it. Acei9 21:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mandatory holiday parties. I generally hate mandatory fun.  Corry (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We all had to take latin for two years before being able to choose another language. I wish more people would have forced me to learn languages and instruments. It feels too late now. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you wish you had been forced to study Swedish from 13 year old until the end of your studies? Compared to other options Swedish is an useless language to many even in a country where every public servant must speak it. Since it's all done for the benefit of a 5% percent minority, it's easy to make it look like a major inequality. Eg there's no mandatory French in Canada, mandatory Russian in Estonia or mandatory Spanish in the US, where the minorities are larger. --Swedmann (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Swedish? No. What about the Japanese? Don't they have to take english? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You must study one "long" (from age 9) foreign language (Swedish isn't foreign) and there isn't enough demand for other languages so almost no school offers other options. English is mandatory in practice. --Swedmann (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The most common alternatives suggested for Swedish are Russian and Germany. They apparently make more sense from the ecomonics pov, although currently there's more trade with Sweden than with Russia as Russia isn't at its greatest atm. There's also a Nordic identity vs Western identity thing going on behind the scenes. They say forcing a Nordic identity on the whole people by teaching them Swedish is Orwellian and racist and whatnot. --Swedmann (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was so outraged by it, that I convinced my family to leave the country a few months before the start of the 4th school year (that of mandatory Swedish). I don't regret it at all. Editor at CPmały książe 21:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, some people are heros in Sweden! 22:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Kant
I just read Immanuel Kant’s "A Critique of Pure Reason", but unfortunately 90% of it went way over my head. I have a few questions about it: Kant’s main point (I think) is that there are some questions, such as the existence of God, that cannot be answered with reason and evidence because there is no evidence to be had and they are beyond the bounds of the human experience so reason is not applicable. Also, he draws a very definitive line between what he calls "rationalism" and "empiricism" – he says that rationalists use only logic (which can go beyond its bounds sometimes) and empiricists focus too much on sensory experience. But…I thought rationalism does include personal experience as a way of knowing—is Kant misrepresenting it? Also, is this actually what he is saying, or am I woefully misinterpreting his main point? 23:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, you understood 10% of the critique?! 23:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think so. At least, I'm 10% sure that I understood 90% of it. 23:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I remember Kant from philosophy class. I liked Descartes better.   23:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Joke
Heh, quite a good one on sickipedia today: "Trying to prove the existence of God with the Bible is the same thing as trying to prove the existence of Orcs using the Lord of the Rings books." 12:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A good funneh! 12:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, awesome. 17:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And yet so true. I'll have to keep that in mind. EddyP (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I posted this on my FB profile... wow... way to find out that some of your friends have very strange ideas. I've never seen a status comment turn into a flame war before. -- Psygremlin  13:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins and gene-centered evolution
I was just reading this WP article, and I realized that we don't have an article on the gene-centered view of evolution. The WP article is unclear - does anyone understand it? And is it scientifically valid? 03:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes to both. Do you want an article here on it?  I think I have time enough tomorrow...   03:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you get a chance. Or if you can direct me to a better source, then I'll do it. 12:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Beck/Palin sex fest
Despite my rising nausea I am attempting to watch the full hour of Glenn Beck interviewing Sarah Palin. Jesus, what a nightmare I am embarking on...........I'll try and watch it all. Beer in hand, cigarettes handy, I leap onwards. I'll let you know how I feel afterwards. Acei9 08:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 20 minutes in and I gag as the burning bile races from liver, through the gut and sears my esophagus. At least Beck (aside from reading his dirty conservative sex dreams from his moleskin journal during the intro) is asking questions and remaining cogent. Palin seems to not understand English. Push on, just press play. Acei9 08:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Palin states Harry Reid makes her sick to her stomach and grasps, claws, at her heaving torso. For once we feel the same. Beck waves his journal while Mrs Wicked replenishes my drink and I apologies for the loud, pained moaning. Acei9 08:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How many times has Palin replied with "It is, Glenn..." "It isn't, Glenn..." "It is important, Glenn..." ? 08:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * She started jabbering about France for some reason. Then talked about the statue of liberty and admitted before she came on the show she asked her son to google "What it all (the statue) meant". Might have to freshen my drink and irish my coffee. Acei9 08:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Jesus... And she's supposed to be the saviour of the blue collar workers in America? Jesus... 08:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Argh, now its on to "This nation was founded as a CHRISTIAN NATION!!!!!" Bah, I can't do this. Acei9 09:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to do this until I heard it was a whole hour. Jebus. Just the clip of Palin calling "all" the Founding Fathers her favorite, and the bit shown on the Daily Show, was enough for me... Beck has to be one of the most cringeworthy performances on TV today. He's like Ricky Gervais squared. Wodewick Welease Wodewick! 16:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

So, in retrospect
A really boring night. It rained, it was cold, I drank heaps, my lady watched some girly bullshit and I attempted to live blog a conservative orgy. Shit man - I am losing my touch. Acei9 09:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Saw it last night, talk about a neo-con love in. Rad McCool (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The title of this section makes me feel a little sick. And it also makes me think: if Beck and Palin did have sex, would he cry afterwards? And then I feel sick again. Bondurant (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this video available easily on line for other masochists to enjoy? 20:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Limbaugh vs. Furries
Video TAKE THAT FURRIES! Acei9 09:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

VenomangX
Anyone catch this? Backed up by a Dprjones vid also....seems legit. Video Acei9 09:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I came across that last week. It's pretty cool that this guy went to the trouble of contacting PCS's dad. Can't be easy having a demonstrably batshit crazy son, and the response is fairly consistent with the message that was posted when PCS's site was shut down. I'm hoping that DPR gets legal. PCS crossed the line when he claimed DPR to be a paedophile and tried to stir-up a lynch mob. His dad described him as being harmless, but the lynch mob thing combined with his charity fraud and false DMCA activities would suggest otherwise. I think the only way PCS will learn is if the law hits him like a ton of bricks. -- 10:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm at work and no computers have sound. Can someone translate for me? 14:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Geology related question - suggestions for study topics
I'm toying with doing some part-time study, and right now I'm looking at a geology degree. Could anyone could offer suggestions of fields of mathematics I could brush-up on prior to beginning the course? I've quite a few months, and I know I'm a bit rusty. -- 10:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's many moons since I did geology at uni but I don't recall any maths being involved except in crystallography and maybe statistics. However, if you get involved with geophysics then you will need a good grasp of maths with regards to fourier analysis. 11:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Genghis. Geophysics is an area of interest, so I'll do a bit of digging around for that. -- 15:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Shatner v Edward
Hehe, Shatner asks John Edward if he's psychotic instead of psychic, and tells him it's all woo woo. Go Shatner! 18:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

On the Origin
Can anybody recommend a good, annotated printing of On the Origin of Species? I can recognize Comfort's version, so don't worry about that. Amazon links would be appreciated. Corry (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

My university IP is vandal binned
Hi,

I'm afraid I am vandal binned because I share the same university IP (Which prevents circa 15,000 students from accessing this website, by the way) with a certain well known Irish troll. Is there any way that IP can be unbinned please? EdmundBurke (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC) . 14:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, because you are MC. Stop pretending nobody knows. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Martin. I'm afraid that was a joke (I'm aware that some of you have trouble in detecting humour) Thanks for unbinning the university IP, whoever did it! EdmundBurke (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The humor was lost on me too. While I am sure everyone admires your magnanimous effort to free your fellow students from the dread vandal bin, I will note that when an individual such as yourself gets binned the associated IP block is of only a single address. One would have to range-bin to do what you suggested, which I don't see in the logs. I'm sure whatever university you're referring to has more than 1 IP address allocated to it. Please let me know if I'm wrong. 15:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I think it would be more or less impossible for a University to have only one IP. Unless it had only one device in its entire possession hooked up to the internet. 18:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 134.226.1.229 appears to be a proxy server for Trinity College Dublin. 18:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My university does that, all the computers connect to the internet through a single proxy server, so it only has the one IP address. 03:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The same applies to my office. There is a company firewall with virus and content filtering so everything goes a single (very big) pipe and as it's contracted out (to ATT I think) the IP address even appears to be in a completely different country. I remember a CP discussion (SDG I think) where TerryH claimed to be some computer expert saying that an IP address would unlikely to be shared by more than four computers because he had set up networks for some local businesses. 11:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Was it unbinned? I still appear to be having issues. EdmundBurke (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not you, see the thread below. 13:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is the wiki running slower than a sick old nun?
The pages are taking forever to load up on my machine--only RW, all the rest of the internets are fine. Is it just me? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems ok here. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ah, belay that... sick old nun here too. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Me too. 14:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are nuns particularly slow? Bob Soles (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sick old ones are.  14:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * racing nuns! Totnesmartin (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been a bit sluggish for me. Sometimes the loading seems to get stuck for extended periods of time, but it'll work fine if I then open a new window and try the same thing. The old request remains stuck. All the other Internet tubes are working fine. -- 14:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And I thought it was just me. Often I just get timeout messages. I suspect TMT's stashed his drug haul in the server and it's overheating. 12:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Quiddity and Dignity and Blasphemy
I may compose for RationalWiki an essay about dignity. (Thank you Weaseloid for your instructions.) The essay would discuss what dignity means and how people use the word. The essay may include some brief remarks about "quiddity." I have posted the remarks about quiddity here. The essay will help readers to understand what is at the heart of claims such as "Blasphemy is an offence against every man's dignity."  ESO   talk   18:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen! In regards to the issue of Quiddity and Dignity and Blasphemy, I look forward to reading the essay on Quiddity and Dignity and Blasphemy which you may or may not compose for a certain "rational" website!!! I am sure that the aforementioned essay on Quiddity and Dignity and Blasphemy will, at the completion of Operation Who-the-Fuck-is-this-Concern-Troll-and-what-is-he-on-about be very highly ranked on a certain search engine that starts with a "G", which rhymes with "E' which stands for "Eso." OLE!! OLE!!! OLE!!1!!!1TheoryOfPractice (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I still don't get it. 18:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "Blasphemy is an offence against every man's dignity" Bollocks. 18:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Blasphemy tends more to be an assault on the dignity of God... 18:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no such a thing. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To which "a thing" are you referring? 18:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "God." TheoryOfPractice (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No matter; it is not an assault on any person's dignity in any event. 18:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Blasphemy laws have to be one of the most stupid of enactments. If an all-seeing, ever-present, omnipotent gOD is so offended by what people say surely he can take the matter into his own hands rather than having to rely on fallible human narks. 20:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Eso, the opening remarks on your user page are amusing, but don't really help me understand about dignity more than I do already - they're confusing more than anything. The definition you're using doesn't seem to be the most commonly recognised one. 18:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Free Docos
Not sure i I have posted this before but this site has some very good free docos - Enron"Smartest Guys in the Room, Sicko, etc etc. Acei9 20:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * damnit! Enron is in spanish. Fuck. Acei9 20:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sicko is a good movie. So is Super Size Me. 13:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone remember...?
I remember recently hearing about a famous court case in which a woman refused medical treatment for her son, who then died, but she was not convicted because she did it for "religious reasons." Does anyone know the name of the case? 03:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's been a few involving the Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You probably mean the Twitchell case. Christian Scientists do this nuttery every so often.--Tom Moore fiat justitia 03:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Those creeps disgusted me when I saw a photo of the couple - one of them was wearing glasses. Why couldn't they just pray away the myopia?  22:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was probably a type of myopia which caused them to be CS. 84.87.218.188 (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Rationalwiki and reinventing the wheel

 * Moved to Forum:Paranormal disappearances11:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Wine

 * Moved to Forum:Wine11:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Manchester is a coward

 * Copied to Forum:Sean_Manchester 11:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Maus III
Ffs, Kitty 3 brought a live mouse into the house again (after a long break), and so I rescued it (again). On the way to the back door I showed maus to the wife, and the little fucker jumped out of my hands. So I spent a while chasing the little cunt around the living room until I realised what I was up against. This little grey fucker was some kind of ninja mouse. Every time I went for him (or her) he'd do a ninja jump off the nearest wall and nip round the corner. The fucker went behind the fire and managed to sneak himself into the air vent in the gas fire, so I don't care anymore. The twat can starve to death for all I care. I've spent far too long rescuing the little pricks to care. Fine. You kill yourself. I've set live capture traps around the fireplace, and if he doesn't fall for it then the gas fire goes on, know what I mean? If god does exist then he'd better show up pronto. 00:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Somehow your stories about mice all seem to be metaphors for life. Anyway, I wish you the best of luck with your rodent endeavors. 03:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Come winter, the little bastards start creeping around the house making skittering sounds on the floorboards and gnawing the insulation off my electric cables. I put some gravity operated live capture traps down where there was evidence of them. In the middle of the night we got one, then bloody trap starts rocking backwards and forwards on the floorboards making a noise which offended the sensibilities of Mrs K. So what does one do? If I release it outside the door it will go right back to its secret entrance and come back in. So I left it on the step hoping the sub-zero temperatures would do it in (cruel thing that I am). Next morning the little beasty was still very much alive, so I was left with the option of having to despatch it or release it far enough away that it couldn't find its way back. How does one humanely kill a live mouse? With a brick? Now it's back to the traditional spring loaded ones (which are actually pretty quick as they tend to break the neck) and bowls of blue pellets.  21:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mice are very territorial and if you "humanely" release one far from its patch, the other local mice will gang up and kill it. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When I catch live mice, I use them as bait for owl-fishing. Tasty! 22:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I heard a prog on BBC Radio 4 about a year ago describing how they used to make sugar mice with real mice in Victorian times (or earlier). That's why the are pink - the fur has been removed. But a quick Google doesn't turn up anything about this. I can't have been a spoof as it was at the wrong time of day. 00:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Dutch have something called Muisjes ("mice") which are sugar-coated aniseed, used a topping on bread or biscuits. There is also a powdered version, called Gestampte Muisjes ("crushed mice").  Tasty!   16:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Atheists are immoral accusations
Any of you ever been accused of being immoral or evil because you're atheist? I'm seriously getting tired of being accused of that. At least I do good things because I want and not because I'm afraid of God.&mdash; Unsigned, by: Mr.Orange / talk / contribs
 * Fortunately I know very few "atheists are evil" fundies. If someone accused me of that I'd just tell them to fuck off and tell them exactly how I feel - namely what you said, I do good things because I want to, not because "God" tells me to. (Also please sign ya post with four tildes) 18:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not been accused of that in real life, but I come from a fairly secular country (UK) although from a nominally Christian family. Atheist is pretty much the default here nowadays.  I've encountered those arguments a lot on American right-wing websites & blogs, which I've only really looked at because of RationalWiki etc.   18:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * well, i come from a country where most people are catholics. And seriously most of them are hypocrites because they don't follow any of the things the bible tells them. they're just catholics because their "mommy" told them to be catholic. (forgot to sign the previous post :))Mr.Orange (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As an Athiest you have NO BASIS OF OBJECTIVE MORALITY ! You can only have some self imposed relative morality and everyone knows that Moral Relatavism is purely the work of evil athiest Christ deniers like that frizzy haired Einstein. (er sorry ;) been reading too much aSK ) Hamster (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If religion gave an objective moral base, there wouldn't be so many versions & interpretations of it.  18:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never been accused of anything, but I do get some funny looks when I say I'm an atheist. 19:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Never IRL thank fuck. 20:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Been an awfully long time since I was approached by a proselyte, thank chastity. I mostly keep my beliefs to myself, mostly since they are a work in progress, and will continue that way forever. Or whichever ceases first, me or them. "When god wants to find me, they know where I live." pretty well sums it up. Maybe that makes me a label-avoiding pantheist. So be it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Working in some arabic countries you need to specifiy your religion to get a visa. Putting down none is not a smart move if you want to work in somewhere like Saudi, so I would lie and put down Church of England. However, I became increasingly uncomfortable about doing that and started writing 'Hedonist'. Amazingly it was never queried. 21:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You might like to ask why the Godbotherers are always so sad when someone dies. They're going to a better place aren't they? So it must be selfish sadness.  06:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They are sad because they think it will be a long time before they meet again; that is not particularly selfish. 06:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's some anecdotal evidence to say that those who believe in an afterlife get far more stressed around death. Whereas you'd think it's the heathen atheists who would be more shit scared of existence just ending. I'm not quite sure "selfish" is the right word, but there's definitely something up with that. 09:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, they have spent their whole life telling the world they are better than other people; wouldn't you be worried about finally meeting your Saviour who supposedly spoke a lot about humbleness? Pietrow (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Same reason people get stressed leading up to a performance review at work, or being called in to the Headmaster's Office at school.  14:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Image search
Is there a way to search for an image / file's origin, e.g. if you have a picture can you take its hash and google for all references to it on the tubes? 20:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You need TinEye. 21:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * heh, I just found it before checking back here. Thanks though. 22:17, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Google Labs have a similar thing going but it's not massively powerful at the moment. 09:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Internet Argument Techniques
From Cracked. I am sure we can name people who use these. 11:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, do they include People who accuse innocents of being a sock! ? EdmundBurke (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh! I see what you doing there. 12:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The article was rather funny, but all of the examples were of illiterate idiots. Hardly representative of the more intelligent troll. EdmundBurke (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The examples were fake. Isn't intelligent troll an oxymoron? 12:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Number 10 was the best. Mr.Orange (talk) 13:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. The First Amendment one was the best.  -- 21:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I like how Cracked went from being a crappy knockoff of Mad to being a legitimately funny webpage. They did such a great job of seizing an opportunity for self-reinvention.  Corry (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do they even physically publish any more? 04:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The Big Sort
I just read a Malcolm Gladwell-ish book called "The Big Sort". Basically it talked about how America is "migrating" into clusters of like-minded people, which is causing the current political polarization. I strongly recommend it to anyone interested in US politics. Or, if you don't feel like reading the whole thing, a good summary is here. 17:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some stuff moved to User:ListenerX/Fuss_closet
 * The Balkans are divided along ethnic/nationalistic lines, not political. I think this analogy is poor. 21:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pi. But I see what ListenerX is getting at. 21:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not mention the Balkans, only balkanization, which these days is a more general term. 21:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The balkanization goes back far further than the current political polarization, the civil war. The North/South divide has always been reflected in the way each region votes. 22:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They got over the North/South business with Roosevelt's coalition. Besides, both sides in the Civil War claimed to be fighting for the actual principles of the U.S. Constitution. 22:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Pi means culturally divided. And the fact that they both claimed to be fighting for the Constitution is irrelevant; teabaggers claim the same thing today. 22:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)@X That is still balkanisation however you want to slice it. Have a flick through these from 1888 onwards, you can still see the after effects of the war (I don't know why there is a gap from 1852 to 1888). Sure Roosevelt carried most states, but so did Reagan and he is still a fairly divisive figure. 22:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My point was more that the North-South split did not create the sort of total ideological polarization seen today.
 * "...teabaggers claim the same thing today." But the Reds do not. 22:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ...but that isn't the point. And as for the Civil War, the political split was obviously much worse than today, seeing as they went to war over it. 22:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)The North-South divide opened straight back up again with the passage of the Civil Rights Bill in the 60s, hence therefore contributing to the current divide. 22:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For example: this guy. 22:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) "...but that isn't the point." Uh, yes, it is; the idea is not that one side believes in the Constitution, but that all sides do.
 * As to the severity of the divide, the antebellum federal government was much weaker (almost a confederation) and states could much more plausibly secede. Our government is much more unitary now. 22:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)I have to do something now but I think three things contributed to the current divide:
 * The 60s New Left (and its communist roots) becoming associated with the Democrats.
 * The passage of the Civil Rights Bill reopening of the old North-South divide.
 * The Republican embracing the Dominionists in the 1970s
 * 22:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

time to get glasses?
heh. I read this: (diff) (hist). . m Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?‎; 23:25. . (-1) . . MaxAlex (Talk | contribs | block) (→Sermon correlation project (sticky))

as: semen correlation project (sticky). lol. :p methinks it's time for glasses. Refugee talk page 23:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * dirty, dirty. Acei9 23:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * gah. two months since the big breakup.. Refugee is getting restless. :p Refugee talk page 23:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wanna come over? Acei9 23:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Face it. You saw what you wanted to see.   23:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Pringles
I've just found myself unable to finish a whole tube at one sitting. There's hope for me yet. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I can't even imagine what it would be like eating a whole tube at once. 20:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm terrible, I just sit there eating them even after I've stopped enjoying them. I have to make myself not buy them. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I left my wallet at home so had to eat chocolate for breakfast. I fucking hate chocolate. Acei9 20:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh, I guess when you pop, you actually can stop. 20:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Awful joke, Crundy. Just plain awful. 21:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've found myself devouring an entire tube of those on more than one occasion, especially with the bacon ranch flavor...mmm.  21:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never had that flavor. I prefer plain or salt & onion. 21:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nor me. We don't get ranch flavour over here, except in (heave!) Subway. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * PRINGLES??? Totnesmartin, you might as well resign from BlightyNet immediately. 21:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have done the decent thing. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am firmly convinced that they put something in Pringles to make them addictive. It's the only food I've had this problem with too. I don't even like them, yet once you start, it's impossible to stop. Refugee talk page 22:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * somebody told me that it's the texture/crunchiness, rather than any substances, that make them addictive, which is an interesting idea at least. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * KETCHUP 198.164.74.155 (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A pregnant pause
I was talking to my sister who informs me that a friend of hers is pregnant. Now, my sister goes to public high school in a small, rural town. which has drastically went up n rankings over the last decade. As such, there are representatives from all over the world that comes to it. Now, the vice-principal told my sister's friend to please leave the school as to not hurt its reputation, but there is a younger girl more advanced in her pregnancy that the school has not even talked to. My sister believes that this is because her friend has low marks, a child of a teenage pregnancy. Any thoughts?--Thanatos (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd ask for where it says in writing with her signature below it that she has to leave if she's pregnant. Seriously. That's a bit fucked up. 02:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * some schools do require pregnant students to leave because of the disruption it cancause. Generally they arrange for the student to transfer to a special class where many pregnant students are or to a GED unit and they get their normal high school diploma if they pass. If other students have not been required to leave then she should not be expected to either. Hamster (talk) 04:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Worth contacting the ACLU or something along those lines, particularly if they seem to be pushing her out for moral reasons? -- 10:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hamster, see penultimate sentence. Thanatos, get sis's friend to call lawyer/ACLU tomorrow.  10:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * hence my comment aboutbeing applied equally to all. contact a lawyer Hamster (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ACLU is out of the question, it is a Canadian school. Anyway, the school is just asking her to leave of her own free will. I went to this school too (had the most liberal teacher I have ever had! Guy actually gave out copies of Loose Change) and don't ever recall seeing that in rules supplied in my day planner.--Thanatos (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Loose Change? That doesn't make him a liberal, it makes him a loonie. (I agree with Matt Tabbi that if Bush and company really had set up 9/11 they'd've done a better job of implicating Saddam Hussein with it.) --Gulik (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was more to promote alternative thinking. Also promoted the Japanese economic model over the American one.--Thanatos (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Today's xkcd
Is full of win. He does a damn good job of taking on conspiracy theorists. 19:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Conspiracy theories were more fun back before the US was verifiably ruled by a small cabal of evil schemers...who turned out to be complete idiots. Given a choice between the Teabaggers and the Illuminati, I'd happily welcome my Illuminated overlords. --Gulik (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The future is bleak
Moved to Forum:The_future_is_bleak.--Tom Moore fiat justitia 02:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The ultimate in audiophoolery?
I'm not sure if this outdoes the super-expensive mains leads, but check THIS shit out! Yes, that's right, it's a $500 cat5 cable! Luckily most of the 'reviewers' on Amazon realise this, and most of the reviews are most entertaining. Example "I couldn't believe a cable could make so much difference, so I connected a cable tester to it and saw that it rendered the 0s and 1s perfectly. I'm even getting some 2s and 3s!!! None of my other ethernet cables have ever done that." 23:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We have a page on Audio woo, perhaps you'd like to add to it. 00:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would the related purchase suggestion imply that someone has actually bought one of these cables? -- 00:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I remember this sort of thing going around a few years ago and now all the overpriced audio goods on Amazon have absolutely hilarious reviews. Currently, I'm reading about how it stopped global warming and how, if you use them, something comes through from the void. 09:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not on Amazon, but another audiophile product with hilarious reviews: the Wattgate 381 gold-plated electric socket.  (And as long as we're talking about hilarious customer reviews... don't forget the legendary Three-Wolf Moon t-shirt!  Even the "other customers suggested these items" list is funny.)   22:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I definitely recommend something like Gizmodo's "audiophiles" tag. You will discover things like this box which "takes advantage of the quantum nature of particle interaction" to "affect the circuitry inside your components". Only costs $959! --Sid (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you notice that there is a "refurbished" cable available for the low cost of $999.99, DeltaStar? The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Rant
So my old man works with this happy-clappy fuckface, who keeps on trying to convert him. Now, he's always willing to debate with Christians over various aspects of their faith - he's an engineer, so take it whence it comes - although he admits that the constant 'you must have faith' replies gets on his nipples. Now, this little wanker has taken to leaving little printed messages in teh pater's office, including the one below. I mean really, how sick, warped and twisted are these people. If that was me, I wouldn't be converted, I'd be pushing the creepy little fundie's face through the wall. (btw, said fundie is also an engineer with 2 degrees, so he has no excuse). Declaration: I,, accept and understand that I am going to hell(he spelt it with a small 'h' - can't be a real Xian) with the devil and his demons, because I do accept Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and Saviour. I further declare that I am fully aware of the consequences of my actions and choices. I declare that I am of sound mind and judgment(sic).&mdash; Unsigned, by: Psygremlin / talk / contribs
 * Reminds me of when the Student's Union's LGBT rep got an email from the Christian Union (who aren't an official, ratified society... I just can't figure out why ) saying "we are aware of and understand your lifestyle choices and are praying that you don't go to hell". Fuck-nuggets the lot of them. 11:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have reported him to his boss if I saw this. It almost borders on harassment. 14:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no almost about it. Nobody has to take that kind of crap at work.   15:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Murkins are funny. 14:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why hardline Christian's piss off everyone else - they force their views on everyone else, trying to stop perfectly happy people from doing what makes them happy, whether it be being gay, smoking, drinking, having sex, etc. then don't understand why they get told to fuck off by the rest of the world. 14:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And the worst thing is that you can't convince this guy that he's wrong to harass people in such a manner. In his mind, he's trying to save your dad from an eternity of God's Sweet Loving WrathTM, and any tactic he can think of is fair game.  Corry (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Re the note, wouldn't being "of sound mind and judgment" pretty much guarantee you wouldn't sign it? --Kels (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this prick God's notary or something? If he's willing to accept such a signature as being confirmation of your dad's acceptance of eternal damnation then it may actually be worth singing it if the fundie agrees to go away.-- 15:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't it read "I do not accept Jesse Christ as my personal lord and saviour"? 84.87.218.188 (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I may have very much told one of them to properly fuck off once. Although I can't quite remember if it was a dream or I was hideously drunk. Those sort of things do get confused. Someone being a dick is someone being a dick whether they're black, white, Christian, atheist, D&D player or what-the-fuck-ever and no one should be afraid to tell such people where to stick it. 17:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this guy's boss aware of what he's doing? 17:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a similar problem once . I solved it by sticking a small black candle on a fake little skull ( actually a joke ashtray) and leaving iton my desk. The helpful christian would not enter my cubical after that. I was in an area where most people saw it as a joke. I wouldn't try it in areas of the USA. Talk to your boss or company personell office. Hamster (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mr. Annoying Evangelist should get it through his head that one does not gain converts by putting a bad face on his religion. 21:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your dad should have left his own note in Mr Annoying's office: "I,, accept and understand that everyone hates me and always will because I am an irritating moron who buillies and harasses his colleagues for not sharing my narrow minded world view". 13:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Collection
I am having a lot of fun right now playing with my record collection. I've got some great stuff here that I didn't know I had (and some great stuff that I did know I have). Currently listening to a Dvorak New World recording. Fun! -- 22:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Records are fun. Most people I know don't own a record player, but I do and it is awesome. 13:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A friend of mine had a single-playing evening the other night. He made everyone stand up during Louie Louie. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did he make them sing along with it? That would have been interesting to hear.   20:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have tons of old electronica from the 1980's through to early 2000's from my old DJ days. Loads of old Detroit techno and I think I have an original pressing of Blue Monday tucked away somewhere. Acei9 20:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How can anyone sit down during Louie Louie??? 23:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Two broken legs? MDB (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * then use crutches, dammit! Totnesmartin (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Die Hard
They have been playing the Die Hard Series on TV, one every Monday night and I noticed something whilst watching Die Hard 2 this evening. Although I haven't seen Die Hard 4.0, in thefirst 3 all John McClains helpers in the movies are black. The cop and the limo driver in the first, the airport dude in the second and Samuel Jackson in the third. White guys are always the evil crims. Thought it interesting though probably isn't.....I should probably stop smoking this shit. Acei9 09:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's just awesome movie writing - pair up a white guy with a black guy and you've got a movie. I've only seen Die Hard 3 but pretty soon (probably this weekend) I believe I'm doing a Die Hard marathon. 11:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Die Hard series is my guilty pleasure. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Back to the Future is mine - "ONE POINT TWENTY-ONE GIGAWATTS?!" "WHAT THE HELL IS A GIGAWATT?!" 18:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The original Die Hard is probably my favorite action movie, but that's because Alan Rickman is just wonderful as the villain. I've long been convinced that they included the scene where he pretty casually murders a Japanese businessman to tell the audience, "hey, this guy is evil", because otherwise, you might want him to win, he's just so much fun. "You're not a terrorist. You're nothing but a common thief!" "No, madam, I am a very uncommon thief."
 * Unfortunately, the second movie in the series soured me on it and I've not seen the rest. MDB (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * the last one "live free or Die Hard " had a slightly difficult plot, but lots of shooting and blowings up, which is all you want really. Theres an evil asian ninja chick. Its worth a look. Hamster (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(un)Intelligent Design
(I thought about logging in as a sock to write this but then thought "what the hell)
 * Why do arses need wiping post-defecation? Couldn't a better "shut off" system be designed that would leave the exterior clean? As faecal matter (and lack of hand washing) is a prime vector for many infections, wouldn't an "Intelligent Designer" have arranged things differently? 10:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why hasn't evolution managed something better? Fedhaji (Talk) 10:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hehe, that's why gOD made oak leaves... or was it fig leaves?  Seriously (?), in Eden, there were warm springs expressly designed as those backwards toilets you Euro-ey types are so fond of.  Oh yeah, bidets.  10:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Toast, that's one hell of a thread starter! Are you sure I'm not your sock? 11:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good thing you didn't log in as a sock, it probably would have been reverted. 13:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, she's almost certainly got a well-established sock by now. We all have, haven't we? Totnesmartin (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a buttload of socks, but none of them well-established. Dang, I should try doing that.   20:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If only gOD had written thou shalt wash thy hands after thou've been things would be all OK. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You've got to remember the nature of the Garden of Eden. There was no death or disease. Fecal matter posed no threat whatsoever. It probably didn't even smell bad. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 15:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, foul smelling shit is how god punishes unbelievers. Come to think of it, that explains why these fundies seem to think their shit don't stink. 15:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All this need-to-wipe, smell, and disease stuff weren't present in the Garden. TheFalldidit.  15:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you have a proper diet, you should shit three times a day and never need toilet paper. Supposedly. 15:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone should get Phil's take on this important question. 15:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, spicy food didn't give you a flameout before the fall. Adam loved Thai food, and this was a little extra punishment by god.  Corry (talk) 15:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Befor THE FALL everything was vegetarian. Plenty of roughage in the diet. There was also a large expanse of grass, moss covered rocks and such. Animals dont use paper, and they manage quite well. Hamster (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No need for a dog to use paper when it can scuff its butt along the carpet.well, somebody had to say it
 * Pity the poor aquatic critters that eject waste out the same hole they took it in. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If they liked the taste going in, they can experiance it again on the way out Hamster (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Totnesmartin's point above: there is this passage (Deut 23:12-14) about sanitary disposal of crap, although it doesn't actually cover wiping & washing. Anyway, this issue could be added to the list of mistakes made by God if it's not there already. 19:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * talking about poor design - who ever thought that it was a good idea to use the same tube to breath air and eat food? Refugee talk page 23:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And why does in & out breath go through same path? No-one'd design anything that way - it'd be a through flow thing; like gills.  23:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How can you do auto-erotic asphixiation with a flow through lung? God thought of that design feature.  Hamster (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that organisms evolved a way to make urea is extremely important in the evolution from aquatic animals to land animals. Fishes, they just excrete ammonia, which poison us if we didn't convert it to urea. (Has to do with salt balance, too.) Sterile 00:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Who said arses need wiping? Bondurant (talk) 12:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wish I had been designed to be able to forget seeing stuff like that. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No! horrrrid! 18:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmwmwmsssmmmmm ah
This Sprite is delicious. --  = w =  23:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't say I've had Sprite in years. I prefer Coke, or just water. 23:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It goes on forever. MMMMMMMMMMMMsssmmmmmmuuuua --  = w =  23:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sprite? Isn't that like some kind of goblin?   23:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's a drink. I reiterate my appreciation of it. --  = w =  23:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But it's ghastly . . . 23:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's like Citizen Kane, with lemons. -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  23:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why drink something that produces no intoxicating high? What a waste of time. Where's the benefit? Acei9 23:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sugar rush > intoxicating high. My sprite is gone now ;__________________; -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  23:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No offense Mei, but I'm willing to bet that Ace's intoxicating high is much more enjoyable than a sugar rush. 23:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * i'm in from a night of literally ten beers (celebrating friend's 18th bday) and i contedn that thes are far more effective then whatever the hell you were drinking at the stat of this thread. 00:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I contend that they aren't. I have sated my thirst and I can still type. Beat that! -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  01:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * a "sating" of over 26 minutes is not bad going :) Hamster (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Kinda thirsy now actually. I think I will drink a can of Sprite. -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  02:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cherry soda>Cream Soda>Root Beer>Sprite --Thanatos (talk) 02:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fuck you. -- 03:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I kinda gave up on pop (I guess you folks might call it "soda") years ago, only drink it once in a blue moon. But root beer and Dr. Pepper are pretty much better than anything else. Science proves it! --Kels (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cream soda, root beer is fine, I prefer a cola to sprite but sprite is OK, I havent seen cherry soda except cherry coke, and that seems vile ... I do like orange too. Only supposed to have diet though and havent found a diet orange I drink mainly wal-mart diet cola and yes it took some getting used too. Hamster (talk) 04:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cherry is a bit hard to find. The only ones I know of is either in a 2L generic brand, or ones in a glass bottle I pay $.50 more for the same amount.--Thanatos (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

If you really want some refreshment (that's also calorie-free), get a Fresca. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Fuck Microsoft Works/Office. I'm going 100% Open Office!!!!
So, I recently got a new computer, and like most Windows-based systems, it came with a trial version of Microsoft Office and a free version of Microsoft Works. Of course, I immediately erased the free trial of Office off my system, as I usually use Open Office. Then, a few days ago, someone requested I re-send them a file in Works format (as their computer can't read the Open Office conversion), so I registered my Works. Sure enough, Microsoft Works is no longer free, it's "free." By that, I mean it's free if you don't mind bullshit pop-up ads for bullshit useless junk (and not just Microsoft ads, either). Needless to say, there's a cute button on the side that says "Get rid of ads" which I click on, and it takes you to Microsoft's webshite to purchase a version of Works "without ads" for $40.00, when Works used to be 100% free. As a result, I erased WOrks and C-cleaned it off. And if anyone wants a text file, I'll either send it via an Open Office coversion, or via raw-text e-mail. I'm done with Microsoft products if I can avoid them (and yes, I run a Linux partition). 05:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You do know that OpenOffice lets you just save things as .doc, and noboby need ever know you're not running MS-Word, right? No need to send as raw-text. And that the latest version will even open doc.x. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor (talk) 05:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if it's a toss up between Works and Open Office, I'd probably go with Open Office. Works isn't that good, Open Office is terrible, but it's better than Works and, as you said, the ad-free kind of free. Office, however, is a serious piece of kit. I mean, people just use it for doing crap and about 95% of the userbase probably only ever use 5% of the features. But there's no way that the latest versions of Open Office even compared to Office 2007 in terms of ability, features and performance. 17:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's part of the reason I'm going with Open Office. I have no reason to use anything but the word processor on my home computer, so buying Microsoft Office for only the word processor makes no economical sense in my case. 21:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been exclusively on Open Office for a couple of months now. Excel is definitely superior to Calc and MS Word is a little easier to use, but they are close enough. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I was too busy enjoying myself on a game I was playing (all of them, as a matter of fact), or utilizing any one of the hundreds of Windows-only programs and applications to listen to your linux-based rant.  Oh, and did I mention the superiority of the multitude of Microsoft programs to their Linux counterparts, such as Excel?  Young people these days.  -- 21:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I still retain an XP partition, but I have the linux partition for, should I say, "fun." And by fun, I mean surfing porn sites and not getting viruses. 21:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If I still played computer games, I'd still have a Windows partition. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Gay teen worried
I'd like to share this, which I found very funny. Should be in line with you gentlemen's sense of humour. <font weight="normal" color="red">Etc 06:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Already mentioned a few days ago.  08:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

"The Devil" Responds
Sorry if this was posted before, but "The Devil" has responded to Pat Robertson's comments on Haiti. MDB (talk) 13:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Aging is librul deceit!
http://www.hs.fi/fingerpori/1135252223255

"Here is Charles Darwin." "Who is this then?"

"Same man, older." "But he looks completely different! Bald and with a long beard."

"His features have changed over time."

"I'd sure like to see even one transitional form."

Vulpius (talk) 19:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wild VULPIUS appeared!
 * MEI used PoKeBALL
 * It appeared to be caught!
 * Wild VULPIUS fled!
 * -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  19:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It appeared to be caught!
 * Wild VULPIUS fled!
 * -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  19:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

School dress code
More important than knowledge? For a four year old? (courtesy Alternet) 09:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Gee, they would have loved me in that school. When I started grade seven, my hair was already well past my shoulders and I had a beard - not teenage facial fluff, a beard. And piercings. And steel-toed boots. Sure, we had a dress code, but the only part they ever had a problem with was the boots. My dear old mum called them when they sent me home with a letter about my boots, she told them to get stuffed as the dress code only said "black leather footwear". They actually changed the code because of me to say "Black leather lace-up shoes", but I never stopped wearing my boots - and I never got suspended for it, maybe they were too scared to discipline the 12-year old with a full grown crazy-man beard? 10:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They can wear shorts. It beats my high school's dress code, circa 1980-1984, where shorts were prohibited. In a school with air conditioning, in the American South. And the school year started in mid-August. We sweltered.
 * Oddly, shorts were banned, but mini-skirts were allowed. A year or so after I graduated, three or four male students wore mini-skirts to school, to demonstrate the hypocrisy. They were sent home to change clothes. MDB (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Worringly the Boys: Additional Guidelines at elementary level has the condition that "Mustaches, beards and other facial hair are prohibited."  09:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Facebook rant
Haven't posted here in a while... Does anyone else get pissed off with all these frickin' Facebook Pages and groups everyone seems to be joining? I'm in the student age group so I'm right in the thick of all my idiothead friends around the same general age as me joining stupid "Pages" which are just arbitrary statements, and it's starting to get incredibly annoying to look on the recent news list and see "A million of your friends joined the Page I love him/her so bad, but I can't have her! or I can't find my phone charger - oh wait, here it is!" The most annoying ones are the fucking soppy ones about love and other shit, along with the ones which try and be all "I'm-not-afraid-to-speak-my-mind, I'm-an-individual-and-different-from-others." I have thoughts and feelings as well, we all fucking do, but do you need a fucking page to join to try and prove to the world that you're somehow deep and brooding, and by logical extension that you're an attention seeking twat? OK... that's better. Thanks for listening. 16:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Being beyond that age group, I don't see a lot of those, but my sister's nephew is a Facebook friend of mine, and he joins those groups constantly. I just don't see the point.
 * Of course, by complaining I don't understand something kids today are doing, I'm one step closer to yelling "get off my lawn!" MDB (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't stand social networking sites. They just seem to be big dick competitions. "Ooh, I have 7,000 friends!". I do use Twatter, but only because you can read without having to talk to people or do anything. 17:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * some sites are fine, particularly for people like me (very small town , unable to travel much due to stroke), it allows finding people with similar interests to talk to. I tend to go with chat rooms or forums rather than facebook. Young people seem not to think of consequenses though, posting pictures of your last table dancing escapade during spring break is going to bite your ass when the guy at your job interview has seen it and asks about the ass tattoo :) Hamster (talk) 17:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm on it primarily as it's an easy way to share photos, and secondly to talk to people, keep track of things, etc. I can't stand all the worthless groups like that. 17:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I know one person who joins what seems like at least 30 a day. You can just hide it from the feeds if it annoys you. I've joined plenty of groups, but they're almost all "evolution v creationism" ones. [[image:Blush.gif]] I like the pwnage, sue me. 17:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I take the extreme minimalism approach to Facebook: I have 6 friends, two of whom are the same person and I have joined exactly one group and become a fan of exactly one page. Unfortunately, no-one else does. 18:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Use Facebook Lite. No apps or anything.  I like it much better.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 18:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * On Facebook I never join groups, have no albums (just a big whack of unsorted photos), play no games, install no apps and routinely cull my friends to keep around 100. To be perfectly honest, if I wouldn't say hello to you in the street, why the fuck would I add you on facebook? No offence. *actual quote Acei9 19:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a load of Facebook friends who randomly added me years ago and I have no idea who they are. In fact, I'm gonna purge it all now... 21:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there was one random ad that was good for me, it turned out she was a street promoter for a band I really like (yes, I verified it through other sources) and that turned out to be quite useful as I now get some nice insider info from that record label. So, not all bad. I sometimes enjoy temporarily adding them so I can read their info. There was one that had the most emo info on the planet, shame I lost the copied down version of it. And there was the one that had like 1000 friends and wrote really bad poetry (mostly stolen from Nightwish lyrics) and dozens of people going "OMG that's soooooo beautiful!!!11". Yeah, that's pretty entertaining. 13:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what is this Facebook that you speak of? Bob Soles (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See here. 13:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm with Bob on this one. I don't touch the stuff. 18:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The Classics
For a bit of retro fun I am dowloading GTA 1. Classic fun. Perhaps I'll add the Quest For Glory series and Crusader - No Regret to my download list. Perhaps even Alley Cat (though it'd get old in about 4 minutes). Acei9 03:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't forget GTA:London. Fucking hilarious. "No muckin' abaaaht, or you'll get a slap". 09:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It'd be awesome if they did a modern sandbox version of GTA:London. I'd buy a PS3/Xbox/whatever just to play that. 12:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as they kept the horrific over the top stereotype cockney accents. 12:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be GTA:London without that. They should be able to go to the more lower-middle class parts of town where you have a weird blend of posh/common, as I do. 13:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Chemistry question
I'm sure several of you have already seen this before, but I just found it (while I should be doing some last-minute cramming for the final exam of my semester in an hour and a half) but this is pretty hilarious. 12:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a classic. Good luck on your test!  Corry (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, forgot about that. Good luck on the exam. Much beer tonight. 13:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers guys. Indeed it's a two hour exam concerning physics, so it should be chock full of "lulz." I'm sure I'll be on at 2-3AM posting some kind of drunken rambling nonsense after a night of drinking with my coursemates about how awesome RW is. unless of course I get laid Not bloody likely. 13:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That is probably one of the all time classics along with dihydrogen monoxide. Also, try this one if you want to brush up on some (mis)applications of physics. 13:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice find! That's a good one. 14:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I say Captain, I canna take any more of Phillip !
Hopefully Phillip will ban me from ask after my last post (a little lecture on lying and ones duty to witness for God) The two faced sophistry, the untruths, it burns Hamster (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am bowing out myself. Acei9 01:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, don't we have a place for this? 01:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * aWWWWK... 02:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you need to say, "Philip, you are a fucking liar." Then you will be banned.  Your post is too circuitous right now.  Sterile 03:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just tell him that any Creationist has lied, anywhere, for any reason. Even if you back it up, that won't be sufficient and Philip will ban you.  --Kels (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just mention that you think Jonathan Sarfati is getting a little heavy these days. Acei9 03:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * APOLOGIZE IMMEDIATELY! --Kels (talk) 03:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ken Ham should probably be reacquainted with a device I like to call "a razor"....Acei9 03:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And through it all, he actually seems to believe that he's reasonable and thoughtful, with the truth on his side. --Kels (talk) 04:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fuck him. Leave him in the sandpit by himself. 13:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think everyone is done. It's just too much. Watching someone lie to themselves is only interesting for so long, then it gets annoying. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That sucks. I watch aSK mostly for the smart people tearing his delusions to pieces, something I can't see on CP.  Dunno where else to really look for that interaction in, well, action. --Kels (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's kinda boring at the moment. I just am unmotivated to write back any more than a sentence or two.  (Although I will note Bradley is peddling the alien book again.  Sterile 15:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with aSK is that PJR thinks that if he writes unfeasably long replies to questions then he wins. When pushed to answer specific questions he misuses logical fallacies to try and win the argument which invariably goes round and round in circles. It just gets boring very quickly. 16:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

(UI) Example "argument":

User: Philip, can you explain why <x> ?

Philip: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed congue cursus faucibus. Ut posuere scelerisque velit, at imperdiet ante adipiscing in. Phasellus pharetra magna a nulla ultrices sollicitudin. Vivamus laoreet gravida lacus, et sollicitudin metus accumsan a. Vestibulum blandit lacinia egestas. Suspendisse id gravida nisl. Aliquam quis nisi a arcu pellentesque ullamcorper ultrices id nulla. Phasellus varius massa eu felis dictum euismod. Maecenas dapibus, sapien id mollis viverra, dolor diam aliquet lectus, vitae lobortis augue ipsum non ante. Ut vehicula malesuada semper. Pellentesque convallis augue at elit lobortis facilisis. Praesent at diam massa.

Donec bibendum tristique quam in viverra. Phasellus fermentum, velit sed varius malesuada, quam turpis placerat sem, ac volutpat libero arcu quis sapien. Cras pharetra elit a ipsum aliquet eleifend. Phasellus vel metus est. Sed tincidunt tortor sit amet arcu ullamcorper luctus congue quam adipiscing. Morbi in urna at nunc suscipit blandit. Suspendisse non diam lectus, vitae mollis massa. Donec dictum odio ut ipsum pellentesque ac adipiscing augue scelerisque. Pellentesque convallis bibendum elementum. Proin luctus quam ac risus blandit at dictum sapien posuere. Pellentesque pharetra diam sit amet est laoreet varius. Aenean vitae adipiscing sapien. Donec vitae nulla nec felis facilisis elementum ut aliquet tortor. Nulla tempus pretium tellus, quis feugiat diam dictum eu.

Nulla ante lorem, auctor nec pharetra in, eleifend at turpis. Duis a dui et sapien viverra placerat sit amet sed leo. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Vivamus vel dui nibh. Integer quam ipsum, pellentesque nec tempor ac, mattis sit amet lacus. Phasellus justo dolor, scelerisque id bibendum sit amet, convallis a odio. Ut in nibh id turpis feugiat semper id et sapien. Aliquam sollicitudin, augue ac porta luctus, arcu nulla feugiat purus, eget ornare metus velit eu felis. Ut non turpis eu ante aliquet fermentum. Etiam ac sem in purus imperdiet aliquam ut a eros. Mauris tincidunt dapibus augue, eget hendrerit lacus eleifend nec. Vivamus risus urna, congue nec porta in, fermentum ut erat. In consectetur eleifend felis quis feugiat. Fusce id pretium velit. Quisque feugiat fermentum velit, sed aliquet mi vestibulum vitae. Ut ac mattis tellus. Pellentesque habitant morbi tristique senectus et netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas. Donec ac sapien vitae dolor aliquam aliquam. Fusce sed lacus erat, eu rutrum lacus.

User: You're still not answering the question. Why can't you just answer a simple question?

Philip: Why can't you just answer a simple question? Why are you resorting to ad homonium attacks? You're still not answering the question You're still posting non sequiturs. Try asking a proper question

etc etc ad nauseum. 16:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree fully. Acei9 18:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

ASK.info seems not to be working for me. Did Phil finally throw in the towel? --Gulik (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Been off all day. (seeRationalWiki_talk:What_is_going_on_at_ASK%3F) 18:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Kinder Surprise
In the supermarket today I was talking to mahkolleg about how kinder eggs used to be awesome, because you'd get something like a little revving car which was in pieces that you'd have to put together and supplied us with great joy, but nowadays all you get is a shit figurine of something random which no-ones cares about. I then said that I was curious about whether they'd gone back to the good old days, and bought one (for 63p no less). Upon arriving back at the office I opened it to find... a shit figurine of something random which no-ones cares about. Therefore, as I'm not surprised whatsoever, can I sue them for false advertising? 13:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I figure this Bill Bailey quote will resonate well, then.
 * I'm English, and as such I crave disappointment. That's why I buy Kinder Surprise. Horrible chocolate; nasty little toy: a double-whammy of disillusionment! Sometimes I eat the toy out of sheer despair. I call them the Eggs Of Numbing Inevitability. And when I buy them, I always ask for them in the third person: "Bill Bailey would like the Eggs Of Numbing Inevitability.
 * 13:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Same thing happened to the prizes in Cracker Jacks. It used to be a cute little gift to give my GFs (after I'd consumed the cracker jacks of course) now it is some crappy fold up thingy--not even a tattoo. My wife just throws 'em away. 204.248.28.194 (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh wait, It's a stamp! With ink! I didn't even realise I could pop it open and stamp stuff with it. Alright, that's a bit more interesting, but still not as cool as the older stuff. 16:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

One year on...
...and as far as I can tell there's no mandatory wearing of bhurkas, or public executions on the Mall, but how do you think Obama's done so far? -- Psygremlin  17:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is sort of a bad day to ask. Are you trolling204.248.28.194 (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's actually been great, nothing's been done, which is a huge step forward from the last 8 years. 17:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It has gone pretty much how I expected: another year older and deeper in debt, and the economy still a mess. 18:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Obama hasn't gotten enough accomplished, for a variety of reasons. 18:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is already a discussion on this going on: Forum:How's_it_going,_Barry%3F. I am one of Obama's few defenders.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 18:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the "he's great because he's not Bush" has worn off a bit - here's the current Economist cover: Totnesmartin (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a great issue. They make some points I hadn't thought about, like how Obama's reformation of America's public image has increased the value of the American brand by $1.3 trillion when calculated by the same way they calculate brand value for such things as Coca-Cola.  That's an increase of about a tenth in the way American products and values are perceived.  A set of great articles.  Of course, it's almost always a great magazine, which is why I subscribe.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 19:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! Brand value! Can we use that to pay off the $1.3 trillion-plus debt we just took on? 19:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. But if you want, you can go back in time and stop the Iraq War and the passage of Gramm-Leach-Biley.  That will take care of the debt.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 19:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What the repeal of a banking "anti-trust" law ten years ago has to do with debt we just took on, I am unsure. What debt we took on to fund the Iraq War has to do with debt we just took on, I am also unsure. 19:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The necessity to take on that debt sprang from both. If it hadn't been for the banking crisis and the monetary sinkhole of Iraq, we would never have come to this point.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 19:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How did permitting mergers of different sorts of banks cause the banking crisis? What effect did the past Iraq war debt have on the amount of debt we took on this year? (Not to mention that taking on the debt was unnecessary in any event; we could have just made the beleaguered companies eat their own words about the free market and let them die, as many people wanted.) 19:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * GLB also deregulated a large sector of banking. The SEC was no longer permitted to regulate swaps.  This meant that while a bank had to cover their own securities, they could swap that the risk to another bank without doing so.  This was the very essence of the subprime crisis, since a lot of subprimes were those swapped securities - and with no incentive to cover the risk (since it was swapped out at a gain) and no SEC regulation, a huge subprime bubble built up.  That caused the failure of the megafinanciers who were swapping them, which crushed smaller lending and spiraled out into the whole banking crisis.
 * The Iraq War thing is simpler (although if you think GLB just "permitted mergers of different sorts of banks" maybe it won't seem simple): we had to take on debt to pay for it.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 20:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Gramm himself, nothing was deregulated by that act. As to the Iraq War question, I will repeat my question from above: What effect did the past Iraq war debt have on the amount of debt we took on this year?  20:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Um. Well, you could take Gramm's word for it - maybe not a good idea, since he's been trying to lay off this blame for a while now? - or you could read the amended bill where you can see how GLB deregulated swaps.  That link goes right to Cornell's copy of the bill; check 3A, about swaps.
 * About Iraq, I'm not sure what was unclear. $130 b was appropriated beyond the normal expenditures for war this past year, and that money pretty much all had to be borrowed.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 20:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was the word of the fact checkers at the Wall Street Journal I was taking, and Gramm appeared to be saying that the act switched regulatory authority to new quarters rather than abolished it. Even so I would tend to blame careless banks more than the lack of regulation. One is not prior-restrained from turning on one's oven, even if it can start a fire.
 * As to the Iraq War, I was asking if you thought the pre-2009 war debt had anything to do with the debt taken on in 2009, which you seemed to be implying. 21:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess now you know better than to take the word of Journal checkers on the op-eds, don't you? That page isn't worth the pulp it's printed on - the Journal is a mess these days.  Their financial reporting is still pretty okay, but even that has seen a significant decline.  It's very in vogue to blame Murdoch, although I don't know the real cause.  The moral is: read the bills yourself.
 * I am not sure about your other point. Yeah, I guess you could blame those who were deregulated.  Personally, I am not sure you can hold an entire industry accountable for making decisions that make financial sense when viewed individually, but cause a problem when aggregated.  To me, that just means regulation is needed.  And when that regulation is removed after some decades, I tend to blame the person who removed it.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 21:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Section 3(a) of the bill removes the power of the SEC to regulate the swaps, which seems consistent with the claim that regulation was moved rather than abolished.
 * I am not an expert on these swaps, but does at least one of the two banks involved in a transaction not lose something individually if they buy/sell them carelessly? 21:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * <- Except that no one else regulated them. The power of the SEC to regulate them was removed - so who was going to do it?  No one else did, and GLB didn't give the authority to anyone else.
 * Individually, nothing was really lost between the two banks. That's why the bubble built up so high.  Essentially, each bank sold the risk of their bad loans to the next bank in a "bundle," which then put subprimes in with AAAs and ended up hiding the risk overall.  It appeared to have no downside for either party in the short term.  And really, it doesn't have any downside as an individual transaction.  It's only a problem when (a) there're such large volumes of these swaps, and (b) the SEC can't regulate them and force them to cover some of the risk.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 21:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, the whole short term problem. 21:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we move this to a new section at Forum:How's_it_going,_Barry? please? 22:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

More important than deregulation
The act also allowed commercial and investment banking operations to merge. This creates a GIGANTIC hazard, basically economic hostage taking. Any sufficiently large failure of the "investment banking" arm would endanger the commercial arm. See where this is going? "Bail us out or people's savings will blow up." It's blackmail.

The correct (and probably completely unConstitutional) response to the meltdown would have been to undo GLB by force: cut loose the commercial banking operations of each of the major banks, reaffirm their FDIC backing, and let each bank's investment-banking operation either stay afloat on its own merits or burn in Hell for its own mistakes.

Haha, like that would ever have happened. Oh well, I can daydream.

Of course people say "You can't do that! That would have killed the economy!" Like the economy is saved now? Like it's on a sound footing now? The financial "regulation" bill before Congress will exempt the vast majority of derivatives from any regulatory oversight. So instead of being in an ambiguous legal black hole, now derivatives trading gets a statutory carte blanche straight from Congress. Do yall think the bubble won't just reinflate? There are structural reasons why derivatives trading is bound to create a bubble every time it ramps up. <font style="font-family: Papyrus"><font color="#FF0000">Wodewick <font color="#800080">Welease Wodewick! 03:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll certainly agree that permitting the mergers was also important, but I stand by what I said about the deregulation being the most important cause of the crash. Those megafinanciers wouldn't have been in trouble and their "too big to fail" status might have been remedied later, by forced subsidization (a la Ma Bell) if the subprime crisis caused by the dirty swaps (i.e. the deregulation) hadn't gutted them.  But you are absolutely right: we never should have let them get so big.
 * You're right that your proposition wouldn't have been constitutional. It might have solved the problem more ably, but the long-term damage of ignoring law so flagrantly would have been worse.
 * It was a terrible, disgusting mess.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 04:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The solution to the whole thing seems to simple I must be missing something. As far as I can see, the problem was mainly caused by (1) excessively complex derivatives, (2) banks to large to fail, (3) too much interleaving, so that the failure of one bank implies the failure of the whole system and (4) mark-to-market instead of book value, making banks vulnerable to the stock market. That suggests the solution, I would think.
 * (1) Limit the complexity of derivatives, probably enforcing a few standard forms, just like you can sell 0.5 L and 1 L bottles of water, but not 0.97 L. That should improve visibility and model reliability.
 * (2) Do not allow banks to grow beyond a reasonable size. If some costs are too high (software development springs to mind), allow them to cooperate, but not merge.
 * (3) Do not allow banks to become completely dependent on each other. The whole swapping thing has got out of hand. Obviously, lending out excess cash to other banks for short terms to optimize profit should be allowed, but not to the level that banks fail if this source of money dries up. Profit should fall, not the whole bank.
 * (4) It is insane to couple the stock market, driven by emotions and speculation, to a banking world which should be boring and reliable. Stock prices should never drive banking health, short term (1-2 years) speaking. In my country, the three main banks had to be bailed out not because of their lack of fundamental health. Instead, the bank stock price fell, which led to lack of lending to the bank, which led to loss of confidence, which led to falling stock prices.
 * Well, so much for my rant. Pietrow (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What you're "missing" is that such regulation is counter to the free market philosophy and verges on communism. As such the powers that be will never allow such socialist policies to pollute the USA. Ask ListenerX or Rob. Bob Soles (talk) 11:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

my head hurts
uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuragggh -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  19:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Gulp some ibuprofen!--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 19:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * yes sir. i think my eyes are boiling -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  19:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaauauuuuuuuuuuuuuaaaauauaaaaaaa i feel cold -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  19:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * MEI?!? DRINK FLUIDS!!! May I suggest Sprite? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 19:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Aww, did Mei try to experiment with other, ah, liquids? 20:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cut your head off! 21:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @Neveruse - Thank you but I don't think that would have worked. -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  18:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @Tetronian - Pervert :p -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  18:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * @Phantom - No I think I will not do that but thank you for your advice. -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  18:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * either strike your big toe with a hammer (a good sharp blow ) and you will forget your head pain, OR read Kent Hovinds dissertation. (your brain goes on vacation to Bermuda in protest) ,

otherwise DRINK SPRITE (I expect ad revenue for this ) Hamster (talk) 19:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

New Creationist Youtube Idiot!
Not big enough for the youtube page yet, but still amusingly stupid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plX7uClv6WE&feature=channel
 * "Why evoltuion from water based organisms to land based is imposible" The title alone impresses me with the 'tuber's care for details. 04:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

My response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz5h-NvO85Q &mdash; Unsigned, by: Mustex / talk / contribs
 * Your video was lame and unwatchable, but at least you spelled the title correctly! 04:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it got a 5-star rating. Clearly someone liked it.--Mustex (talk) 14:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Huw, can you at least try to make your constant criticism constructive, you crotchety old fuck? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How am I not being constructive? I'm explaining why his argument is wrong.--Mustex (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nev was swearing at Human, not you. 15:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd HATE to meet H in the early morning hours. 17:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe I have to adjust my expectations regarding youtube videos? Perhaps I don't watch enough (of this sort) to have a feel for what production values are typical?  01:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sure category "comedy" gave the game away... 18:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And tags:

evolution charles  darwin  fish  human  ape  transitional  form  fairy  tale  science  dawkins  delusion  id  creation  parody  funny  animation  blooper  improv  pranks  video  blog  stand-up  spoof  sketch  short  film  series...
 * [[image:Digdeeper.gif]] 18:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think he meant that he's parodying "evolutionism." You should note that this is under NephilimFree's favorites list, although he may have been fooled.  More tellingly, my video response was blocked, as was my text response giving a link to my video response.  I don't think a parodist would be ashamed he lived up to Poe's Law.--Mustex (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The actual user, if you check out his other vids and activity, looks like he just uploads other people's stuff - so really, whether it's a pro-creationist vid is kind of irrelevant. He's probably blocked your video response because he's an average YouTube user; i.e., a dickhead. 23:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe we have stumbled across the next level of Poe's Law: A creationist can not do a parody of evolution without it being mistaken for a parody of creationist parody. Or does this just reduce back to the original? I am so confused. 01:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that creationists do not take the time to actually learn the science they are so against. I bet an entire year's salary that most creationists barely (if at all) understand Evolution nor could they even explain it in a satisfactory way. &mdash; Unsigned, by: HeretikSaint / talk / contribs

Poker (again)
Quick reminder, if anyone fancies playing tonight at 20:30 GMT then See here. 'Tis all free and nothing to install (except flash). If we have more than 10 players then there is a ring table as well for the latecomers to play on. 15:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Strike
Weren't the teabaggers supposed to be having their strike today? Anything come of it? -- Psygremlin  17:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought it was yesterday, and that it flopped. MDB (talk) 18:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you total up all the groups on their webpage, there seem to be a grand total of nine of them. I'm sure with that sort of mass support, they'll easily bring the Liberal Juggernaught to its knees. --Gulik (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree these people are over-reacting, but I don't think their stance is completely without merit (although few of them actually seem to understand the issue).--Mustex (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just in passing, I just (a little late) noticed this example of TK doing a Ken: "Today the Tea Party Movement is poised to deliver a body blow that liberals will have a hard time recovering from. " 23:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Internet Explorer is a steaming pile of dog shit
I'm trying to design a simple html page. It's not rocket science. Nothing complicated.


 * Firefox - looks great.
 * Chrome - looks great.
 * Opera - looks great.
 * Safari - looks good.
 * Konqueror - looks ok.
 * IE 8 - !^%(*&^%#(*&

What the fuck is wrong with these people? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately given the number of people using IE, you probably should reverse your list of priorities. 21:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I figured out what was wrong. I guess IE8 handles width or padding- styles with catastrophic results. The ~30% using IE should go fuck themselves, but alas, I'll work around... &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It effs up margins & padding. Unfortunately FFX just lost all my bookmarks so I can't give you anywhere to look. 21:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See here for a start. 21:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I guess this is just the tip of the iceberg with IE8. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do people blame the browser for the fact that the website looks shit. It's just down to poor web-authoring, if you stick by the w3c standards, it will look fine on everything. 22:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

No news is Faux news.
Apparently, FoxNews is so committed to attacking the dems to mention Haiti--Thanatos (talk) 04:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Still having problems
Hi, I'm still have vandal bin issues. A screen comes up and says 'you are editing from an IP used by MarcusCicero' and then the block reason 'no'. Is there no way around this? This is interrupting a potential 15,000 members, I hasten to add. EdmundBurke (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is weak stuff, MC. Wouldn't you prefer to get out of the bin by some feat of intellectual cunning rather than an easily outed falsehood? 14:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there, it has already been stated that I wasn't lying about 15,000 students for one IP address. Why are you so untrusting exactly? Can someone just unvandal bin the 134. IP please? As far as my understanding of these things go, MarcusCicero will still be unable to edit under his own account if that IP is unblocked. And I would thank you to stop referring to me as MarcusCicero, I have already said i was joking. If I must, however, I will explain the joke to you. My response to Nx's post on my talk page is known as 'double bluffing' - I knew that if he had used checkuser then he would have seen that I wasn't a sock of MC. Therefore, i decided to pretent to be MC. Do you see? If I knew he was bluffing, then the joke is perfectly hilarious. Honestly, this is elementary stuff. EdmundBurke (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it to the few people with better knowledge of who is who here, though it was interesting to get an email from MC 5 minutes after the above EB post. 15:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello, I still appear to be having problems. I don't know why this is. Can someone with technical knowledge please look into this? EdmundBurke (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi there, good sir. To respond to your question:
 * No
 * Sincerely, -- 17:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * How ironic it is that the most blatant MC sock refuses to help out, even though MC is getting around his vandal binning by using a proxy server with the above user. In short; I am vandal binned for some reason. I don't know why. Why do you refuse to a) take what I say seriously, b) mock me for asking a genuine question? EdmundBurke (talk) 18:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have removed autoblocks and paroled from the vandal bin all IPs used by MarcusCicero, which presumably includes the university's proxy server. 19:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. Supposedly these two individuals edit from the same IP, but if Nx had really used checkuser he would have somehow known that they're two different people . . .   19:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Pour no oil on such troubled waters. 19:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummm... everyone here should know my IP by now. Just saying.  -- 20:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought the same thing as the weaseloid. EB, why not email MC and get him to teach you how to use proxies?  21:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, just let me check. If I don't edit again the next few minutes you'll know I'm stil vandal binned. &mdash; Unsigned, by: EdmundBurke / talk / contribs


 * Fine, I've had it with you guys. If I were MarcusCicero, i'd be able to get around the block with ease. But I'm not! Please stop this McCarthyite witch hunt. MCs socks are clearly getting around it and bragging about it right here on this forum but you seem determined to mock me. I don't know why the screen comes up to say 'this ip was recently used by MarcusCicero', and frankly I don't care. i do know that my university shares one IP between 15,000 people, as do you. yet you insist on continuing this bullying charade. I don't know why I can't post more than once every half hour, but I'd appreciate it if you would please stop bullying me for something I am unable to control. EdmundBurke (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Having worked in a University I find it hard to believe you only have one externally facing IP. Are you on JANET? 15:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess you are just one of those unlucky people who is unable, due to a technical problem we either can't explain or just can't fix, to contribute rapidly to Rationalwiki. Sorry, mate. But - hey - once every half an hour isn't so bad when you consider there are entire countries that are blocked from CP, without use of a vandal break. Poor dears.
 * All I can suggest is that when you want to make a positive contribution to Rationalwiki, you make good use of the preview function and don't waste your once-every-half-hour edit whinging on a talk page. I'm sure we all look forward to your contributions. Bondurant (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Post your IP address and I'll verify that your uni only has one IP, and if so then we'll unblock you. How about that? 15:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As I recall, he did that last time he complained about this (a few days ago) and supposedly someone did verify it. 22:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look to the saloon bar you will see the IP, which listnerx verified. Please stop being so untrusting. And stop telling me to stop whinging. If someone here got the same treatment I did, you'd be saying the same thing. This is far too much like deja vú and far too much like some crude unintentional parody of conservapedia. EdmundBurke (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting, seems to be carried over from an old block that ToP gave you back in December. I suspect your university has more than one IP and it has binned all the ones you have used, but when the binning was lifted it didn't remove all the binnings. Problem is the vandal bin is custom extension, please submit all details to User talk:Nx and he will look into it when he gets back. 10:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is the relevant section of the log:
 * 07:30, 14 December 2009, TheoryOfPractice (Talk | contribs) moved #494 to vandal bin (account creation disabled) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "MarcusCicero". The reason given for MarcusCicero's block is: "No." ) (parole)
 * 08:24, 13 December 2009, TheoryOfPractice (Talk | contribs) moved #493 to vandal bin (account creation disabled) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "MarcusCicero". The reason given for MarcusCicero's block is: "No." ) (parole)
 * 08:14, 12 December 2009, TheoryOfPractice (Talk | contribs) moved #492 to vandal bin (account creation disabled) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "MarcusCicero". The reason given for MarcusCicero's block is: "No." ) (parole)
 * 06:17, 11 December 2009, Moriarty (Talk | contribs) moved #490 to vandal bin (account creation disabled) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Lunacy". The reason given for Lunacy's block is: "If he's pretending to be MC, he can take it and like it." ) (parole)
 * 06:10, 11 December 2009, TheoryOfPractice (Talk | contribs) moved #488 to vandal bin (account creation disabled) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "MarcusCicero". The reason given for MarcusCicero's block is: "No." ) (parole)
 * 06:08, 11 December 2009, TheoryOfPractice (Talk | contribs) moved #487 to vandal bin (account creation disabled) (Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "MarcusCicero". The reason given for MarcusCicero's block is: "No." ) (parole)

All these bins are still active. 10:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it appears that despite the fact your Uni has an entire class B at its disposal (134.226.0.0 - 134.226.255.255) they insist on sending all traffic through a single proxy server. I'm afraid that's just bad luck. Have you tried disabling your proxy settings by adding "*" to your bypass address list or by removing the autoconfig script, or by changing the URL to localhost serving only: Otherwise I guess you'll just have to hunt down the person at your uni calling themselves MarcusCicero and kill them. 11:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand. One person offends and 15,000 people suffer. I marvel at your logic. EdmundBurke (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really, we are just indifferent to your plight. We can't fix it and we don't care. 13:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry. I feel for you, but equally I'm not going to lose sleep over the fact you can only make one edit per half hour. 14:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

What
do you call a person who is addicted to cats? --84.221.198.189 (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean like this? Corry (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ailurophile? 20:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * CATHOLIC -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  20:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * One to Mei. [[image:Bow.gif]] 20:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  20:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Mei, don't open UTub vids. 21:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yello - Oh Yeah. -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  21:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * a very fine person indeed. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "The wife" 09:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "CUR" 13:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of tehmizzus being obsessed with cats, regard photo of new kitteh we will be picking up in a couple of weeks. 13:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You seem to have a high turnover cats. How many do you have now?   18:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3 at the moment, one more in a couple of weeks. 21:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do they go nom? 11:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? 12:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You know... nom? 12:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OIC, no, neither do they num num num num 13:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Fantastic. One of my mum's cats is a fat surly brute, & sometimes she'll growl while eating, if something riles her.  Like this, but angrier.   01:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

my left kidney hurts
ffffffffffff -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  21:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're falling apart, bit by bit. 21:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Try to use the other one. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All good advice. I believe I will curl up on a bed and groan instead. -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  21:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite seriously, if it's really painful: see doc ASAP: could be stones - it's better to have them removed (they turn them to dust with ultrasound now I believe) than to pass them which can be VERY painful. If just nagging see doc if it keeps it up for a couple of days. 21:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably be gone in a couple of minutes. My teeth hurt now. -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  21:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there anything I can do for you from the confines of the internets? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wish happy thoughts on my kidneys/teeth. x____X -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  21:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish happy thoughts for your teeth and kidneys. -- 21:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will focus on being more healthy. -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  22:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Quickly! Cut your kidney out and replace it with a baked bean! 22:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Charley says I shouldn't. -- <font color="#000000"> = w =   22:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, if I remember correctly, you are Fe/15ish, and if so, its' probably not your kidney, but your ovary. Pre-period time? This pain is common. Take 2 midol, a hot bath and rest for a while. Kidney infections usually affect both sides, on the other hand, and all will hurt. If I'm way off base on this, and you are really a 50-year old male, extreme apologies. Apologies also to the overwhelmingly male membership if TMI! :p <font color="#000066">Refugee <font color = "#00F0A20">talk page 23:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And another reason I think it's PMS-type pain - when I get like that, I also get a toothache (don't know why) hope you feel better real soon! <font color="#000066">Refugee <font color = "#00F0A20">talk page 23:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Refugee. But what about my headache and burning eyes? (see above ) ;______; Am I dying? -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  23:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't be a bad idea to get yourself to a doctor. Mei must be kept in tip-top shape for the battle to come. -- 23:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ohhh...didn't read that far above. Well I still know what's wrong... you are sick. Agree with ConcernedResident. To the doctor for you. <font color="#000066">Refugee <font color = "#00F0A20">talk page 02:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * kidney stones can occur on either side and its fairly painful. Drink lots of water. If its NOT stones then do something else. Hamster (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ohhh..didn't know that about kidney stones either. <font color="#000066">Refugee <font color = "#00F0A20">talk page 02:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't remember the last time I wasn't in some sort of pain. Acei9 02:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As hard as it may seem, I have a reputation of something as a bumbling fool in the real world. I know this must come as a shock to you all. It's highly unusual for me to go more than about three hours without making some kind of clutzy mistake which results in physical pain for myself. Just sitting down I managed to stub my toe on my fridge. SuperJosh wishes you well, Mei. 02:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you everyone. -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  01:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

SCOTUS decision regarding "free speech" for corporations
I was surprised there wasn't already a hotbed of discussion about today's decision here. So what does everyone think? (crappy link to a bunch of comments) 21:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole American electrol process seems like an extravagant waste, open to interference by people with the money and influence. 21:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am probably against it, corporations should worry about low prices and high profits and stay out of politics. (Nestle if your listening bring back Grapefruit flavored chocolate) Hamster (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a law requiring politicians and political parties to register donations over a certain amount? -- 22:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think so, yes, but this is about Corp.s being allowed to run their own ads etc. It overturns part of McCain Feingold that banned them from doing it 30 days before primariesand 60 days before general elections.  00:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks Human. That is a bit of a loophole they've opened. -- 00:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Corporate personhood is prolly the #1 thing wrong with America today. <font style="font-family: Papyrus"><font color="#FF0000">Wodewick <font color="#800080">Welease Wodewick! 00:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I remember a documentary. I think it was called Corporation, it discussed the histories about how they cam into being. They basically used to be government trusts, they would exist for a limited time, they made a profit, it was divide up by the shareholders and assets reverted back to the government (rail-roads are a good example). However they managed to convince the judges that the thirteenth amendment applied to them too and so the government was no longer allowed to liquidate them and collect the assets. From that point onwards they were given rights as though they were people, but with out the responsibilities. "No body to imprison, no soul to condemn" someone once muttered. I'm trying to track that quote now. 00:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Corporations have neither bodies to be punished, nor souls to be condemned; they therefore do as they like.
 * I think that the ruling was based solidly in previous legal principles. People like Feingold are right to say they didn't engage in restraint, but it's hard to conscientiously argue for restraint when they are aware of a serious contradiction in law.  If money is speech, as has been well-established by SCOTUS, then a corporation should not have its speech unreasonably restricted in the political arena.  There's just no way around it, unfortunately.
 * That last word there is important, though. This is unfortunate.  The biggest corporations tend to increase tenfold or a hundredfold more than unions or advocacy groups.  Coca-Cola had a net of almost six billion last year, whereas Greenpeace's total budget (of which only a fraction is available for use) is about sixtieth of that.  And because of their nature, those corporations are almost always going to be far more efficient at allocating money to advance their interests politically.  Even if the Sierra Club or a NIMBY group matches donations to a Congressperson dollar-for-dollar against a megacorp, who is that Congressperson going to be more afraid of and have a more vested interest in keeping happy?  Only in a few cases will the advocacy group ever win.
 * So it's hard to know how to feel. Legal principles were upheld, but seemingly at the expense of giving monied interests (which tend to be socially conservative and hugely pro-business) a leather-lunged voice in our democracy.
 * I'm oversimplifying, of course. There are a lot of technical aspects here that will need to be muddled out.  For example, some soft money restrictions still exist.  But advertising restrictions are almost entirely gone.  Corporations don't usually advertise to get their way, since it's more efficient to make a payoff in the form of a campaign contribution.  But advocacy groups do tend to advertise, so that will help them somewhat.  But even there we can see a downside: advertisements are generally a lot less threatening to a politician than a contribution is persuasive.  Money in the pocket, after all.
 * There are also far more serious issues that are getting no press. The Court swept away a lot of anti-corruption aspects of Congress, and it will significantly restrict Congress' ability to pass future laws to govern corruption.  In light of the much greater risk of corruption caused by this ruling, I think this is going to be the more important (if less flashy) part of Roberts' work today.--<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore fiat justitia 01:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Kornbluth and Pohl saw it coming a quarter century ago. I now yield the remainder of my time to the senator from Exxon-Halliburton. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

As a result of this ruling, I'm tempted to go back to my anti-corporate, radical movement anarchism roots from when I was 16-21. Arise! Bookstore and Michael Parenti, here I come, again. I think that this ruling has put the final nail in what was American democracy, replacing it with token politicians representing the worst corporations on Earth. 02:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go that far myself, but I am once again considering joining the Green Party. If I'm going to have no voice, I might as well join a party that doesn't have one, either... MDB (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"Best of the Public" hits the UK
The collective wisdom of the British people is much greater than that of a bunch of politicians or so-called experts While I certainly agree on the "bunch of politicians" bit, I'm pretty sure this is - like arsing well everything these parties say these days - just a political gambit to win favour with the voters. I.e., repulsively cynical exploitation of crowds, which we all know have IQs inversely proportional to their size (it's not fun to pick on disabled people, even if they're only disabled by emergent means). Found via The Wisdom of Cameron, which also makes some amusing reading. 19:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a competition to come up with policies so the Tories don't have to think for themselves. With cash prizes!!  £££££££!!!     21:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * the British people are welcome to take Andy as your next Prime Minister. Hamster (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not the best week...
... if you're a progressive. I'd even call it a "shitty" week. In fact, I might even steal an analogy from Harlan Ellison (and badly misquote him) and say "if every grain of sand in the Sahara Desert was shit, and that was magnified ten thousand times, that would not be one ten thousandth as shitty as things are today."


 * The Massachusetts Senate election
 * The Citizens United vs. FEC Supreme Court ruling
 * Air America is shutting down

I can't recall such a glum outlook for American progressives since the Republicans swept Congress in 1994. Even after the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision, we could mutter that the election from us, or at least argue it was damn close.

And yeah, I know, Air America pretty much sucked after a while. It was a nice try, though. MDB (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it is safe to (mis)quote Harlan Ellison? He might sue for plagiarism. Bondurant (talk) 14:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not plagiarism if I say I'm quoting him. If he tries to sue, Harlan can bite me. He's probably tall enough to reach my elbows. (I love his writing, but everything I've read indicates he's an ass of the highest order.) MDB (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd go so far as to say this has been about the shittiest week ever, but more for personal reasons than political ones. But since we're talking about politics fivethirtyeight has a depressing analysis of the midterms here. DickTurpis (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What amazes this Brit is that a 60/40 majority can be completely stymied by the filibuster rule. With a majority that big, or even 59/41, the Dems should be able to put through practically any law they want. Bob Soles (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * American Democrats have spines made of wet spaghetti. On a good day.
 * The Senate is supposed to be the calmer, more rational of the two houses of Congress. In theory, the filibuster rule promotes that, since it requires a super-majority to approve legislation. At this point, its just creating more partisanship. MDB (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. My fellow Americans will correct me if I'm wrong or whatever, but there is a certain paralysis that comes with the unwillingness to be seen as being dicks. That is: another way to view the authoritarian/consensus-builder dichotomy is as dickheads/pussies. Such has been the branding of the Omairikan two-party system for the recent while. Like most dichotomies of course that is an oversimplification, besides being utter bollocks. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a theory. For years, the Democrats had to work to pull together various interest groups -- racial minorities, unions, environmentalists, anti-war groups, women's rights groups, sexual minorities (now that the Democrats are willing to work with them), etc. The Democrats are, thus, used to being compromisers and coalition builders. The Republicans, by contrast, really only have two big factions -- the small government/libertarian/economic conservatives, and the social conservative/Christian Right types. And with the exception of animosity between libertarians and Christian conservatives, they've been remarkably successful at creating a big tent of conservatism. Thus, the Republicans just don't have as much of a spirit of compromise.
 * I also think the Democrats still aren't used to being the majority in Congress. It's been said that one of the reasons Newt Gingrich ultimately failed was that he still acted like the Minority Whip even when he became the Majority Leader. I wonder if Reid, Pelosi, et al have gotten their minds around the fact "hey, we run this place now." MDB (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Dems are a relatively diverse group. The Republicans relatively homogeneous. 60 dems doesn't equal 60 votes, but 40 Republicans does equal 40 votes. It's sad but not all that surprising. <font color="#ff0000">Me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! <font color="#6ff6633">Mine! 16:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that also gets at the reason Air America never went very far. It was a lot easier to get a large audience of conservatives than to get a large audience of liberals. MDB (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont think you should assume Liberals are the target audience anymore than conservatives are the audience of Fox, say. I think a lot of Liberals probably watch Fox's opinion programs because they like to disagree. Do more conservatives read conservapedia, or Liberals? Perhaps it is easier to find a Liberal audience for conservative media than vice-versa because the conservatives tend to be more out-there crazy and entertaining?

"the filibuster rule promotes that, since it requires a super-majority to approve legislation" - slight correction, it requires a supermajority to end discussion before voting. 51 votes will pass a bill. A filibuster is endless talk, talk, talk, intended to prevent a vote and eventually kill a bill. It used to require actually talking 24/7, and took, I think, 67 votes to end it, but then the "soft filibuster" was invented, I think in the 60's (LBJ was involved) lowering the number of votes to bring about "cloture", or end of discussion, but making it so any one Senator could merely threaten a filibuster, and as long as they theoretically had 41 votes behind them (their party), the bill would never be voted on. Personally I think it's time for the Dems to actually force the GOP to do a real filibuster, because it prevents any other business from being done, and often shows the filibusterers up to be the jerks they are (or might be).

AirAmerica was a bad idea from day one - the business model was a poor plan. They should have become syndicators, working to get a growing stable of independent talkers onto more radio stations (and taking a cut of the money of course). Without a Murdoch or Soros bankrolling the operation, trying to start a network from scratch is insane. They did have some/many good shows at first, but were poorly/curruptly managed, and in the end what do we have? Most of the talent they signed up are still on the radio and TV, working independently, but AAR salted the field in terms of poisoning the whole idea of successful leftie talk radio. I haven't listened directly to AAR for years, basically since they fired Malloy - now I listen to radio stations that carry him and other people I like.

But the OP is right, twas a gloomy week for us pinkos. 01:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Your point about the filibuster is technically true, but the effect is to require a super-majority, unless you have members of the minority who are willing to say "I'm voting against this, but I'm still going to allow a floor vote."
 * You're spot on about AAR. They tried to start way too big. They would have been better off starting off syndicating one or two big names -- Al Franken being the obvious choice from their original line-up, plus Janeane (sp?) Garofalo. If you look at right wing talk, it took years for it to become a major national force, and they had Limbaugh's talent to support them. (I find Limbaugh's views to be vile, and I increasingly wonder if he's gome over the edge, but he is very good at what he does.)
 * Though I also eventually decided that I find AAR to have the same problems I found with right wing talk -- "proving" that you're right by shouting, the constant repetition of one point to drum it into the audience's head, rumors repeated as fact, etc. I prefer a more intellectual political discussion, like you'd find on NPR or the Sunday morning talking heads programs. (Which is why I couldn't stand Mike Malloy.)
 * Just to give one example of "rumors reported as fact" -- one Air America host was repeatedly claiming that the Bush White House was not going to allow Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles to attend some official function at the WH, because they were divorced and re-married. Said host pointed out that the same standard would have banned the Reagans. I e-mailed the ombudsman at the Washington Post about that, and he got in touch with their Reliable Source columnist (basically, gossip around DC). They contacted both the White House and the British Embassy, and got a "no, of course not." That was a simple thing to fact check. MDB (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Re:filibuster, indeed. Re: leftie talkers, yup they can be as bad as anyone on the right.  May I recommend Mr. Hartmann as a good person?  I used to like Randi Rhodes, but but she got too stupid for me to follow.  Malloy is an acquired taste, methinks.  10:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins "Stumped"
This again. Can someone remind me of the actual story? Was this when he suddenly realised they were creationists interviewing him? The comments are quite amusing, like "Dawkins doesn't believe in evolution deep down in his﻿ heart, BUT, he realises that he can become well known and earn a lot of money writing dumb books, because human beings are so vulnerable !!". 19:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically, an Austrailian film crew came to him wanting to do a piece on the intersection of science and religion (or something like that, I know that's the excuse that they used to get him on Expelled). The interview went fine until they said that question. Now, the reason for the pause is unclear. Most creatards say "Dawkins can't answer it therefore evolution is false" (although not with words of that many syllables) but Dawkins claims that he suddenly clicked that they were a pro-creationist organization out to get some free footage and was thus pondering throwing them out of his house. Indeed, only a creationist would ask that question in such a manner. Anyone who knows anything about genetic mutations knows that the question is inherently meaningless and, at best, is complicated to answer. Dawkins has released a long (but very interesting) blog post that answers the question, it may be on the Australian Skeptic's website. 19:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A long answer is in one of his books as well, although I don't remember which one. The creationists are obsessed with this one, with detailed timelines and stuff.  It's sorta bizarre really.  Sterile

As I recall he also claimed that they edited the clip to put one of his answers with a totally different question.--Mustex (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You know it's a good night when.....
You get brought home by the transit cops after passing out drunk on the light rail. Thankfully, I'm not facing any charges. But I'm still pretty drunk. God I love downtown Minneapolis! 07:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, I would have expected the cops to just pickpocket you while you were passed out and leave you on the train. 07:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not transit cops, they're usually okay. Regular Minneapolis cops, however, are assholes. Transit cops are just happy that you gave them something to do.  07:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So you wake up with less money than you had and a sore head... hang on, I'm sure I did that Frankie Boyle joke already. But yeah, sounds like a good one. I bet your parents are proud. 18:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I occasionally see drunks on the train. Sometimes I wonder why they do not do the rest of us the decency of getting plastered in their own neighborhoods so they are not reeling all over the public transit, but then I remember about Louis Menage. 00:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Out of risk of being made fun of, who the hell is Louis Menage? 04:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A shady businessman/land developer who once owned the whole of Southwest Minneapolis. He put restrictive covenants on the land when he sold it to forbid the sale of alcohol there; the state legislature finally invalidated the covenants, but there are still very few bars in that part of town. 04:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So that's why my neighborhood is devoid of anything.... Thanks for the perspective, ListenerX.  04:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Pointless polls
There is so much truth in this, especially number 2. 07:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I love in when Cham gets onto this sort of thing. His science in the media comics are really quite good. 18:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I liked #4, "don't care" or its equivalent wins most polls on RW, after all. 22:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Kent Hovind's Bees
Apparently Kent Hovind claimed that honey bee brains can do "a trillion calculations per second." Can anyone give me a source or counter source for this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3K6gk55P00M  --Mustex (talk) 19:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that an animal brain doesn't work like a CPU, so talking about it having "n calculations per second" is pretty meaningless. I may be wrong, though. 21:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I think it has some very large (probably trillionsish) of neurons that all make very simple calculations at the same time, so it probably does make trillions of calculations per second, but that doesn't need the design needed for a CPU. You can read more here. 21:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a pointless comparison. It's like taking the maximum speed of a car and comparing it with that of a bullet. Yes the bullet may be far smaller, cheaper and faster, but it's pretty difficult to drive to work on a bullet. I'm sure the poster of the video will have checked their sources. I doubt the average YouTube Christian would just blindly post something in support of the most important aspect of their life without checking the sources of the convicted felon. 21:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you want to make a video on this? 22:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I wanted to avoid cutting the video down, and I didn't want to leave a single point that I couldn't answer.
 * OK. Do you have sufficient information to answer it now? 22:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(unDent)Phantom Hoover is correct. If we tried to put a brain into computing terms, its a massively parallel architecture -- in other words, a lot of very simple processors running at once. MDB (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It is done: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPVVC-xI2Zk  --Mustex (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Bees. My god. --Kels (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You look too productive
There, that should fix it. --Kels (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish you hadn't done that Bondurant (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Kels is not useful. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Be grateful I didn't link you to The Devil's Tuning Fork. Oops... --Kels (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dammit, Kels, as if RW wasn't enough of a distraction anyway. 20:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)