RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive82

Palin and the presidency.
Well, if it weren't perfectly clear before, it is now: Palin makes a big move towards running for President. Freakin' terrifying. 01:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If she won it'd be terrifying and hilarious in equal measure. Aceword up 01:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just admit that you'd be turned on. --85.76.165.76 (talk) 09:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hilarious maybe for you, some of us have to live here you know. I'd probably be speechless with horror and disgust. -- 01:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)Would be far, far more terrifying than hilarious. We'd have to change the stuff we wrote about survivalists, too. With Palin as president, building a bunker and storing canned food would be the only sane thing to do...


 * What do you think she'd actually -DO-? Would she try to pack the Supreme Court with nutjobs, because it seems there's not much one can do in the name of 'Social conservatism' these days without passing an ammendment to the constitution - gay rights, abortion, it's all coming from the Supreme Court. 01:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's more to it than that. She would completely mess up international relations and make the rest of the world hate us forever. She could veto any federal aid to the poor and makes things miserable for millions of Americans. She could cut funding to alternative energy and other technologies and de-regulate the energy industry. (She would certainly put a stop to any attempt to reduce emissions.) She could cut federal funding to states, making education worse for the poor and minorities. And she could appoint Tea Party candidates to important positions, even the courts. Worse still, if she has a Republican majority she could actually repeal important legislation. In short, things would get really, really fucked up. 01:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But it'd be a heck of a ride. Aceword up 01:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)Oh, she's not going to win. The polls are quite unequivocal. 01:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have seen the polls. About the same number of people who believe Palin is qualified to be pres also believe Obama is a muslim. Coincidence? Even within her own party she is hated. On a related note, Bristol and THE SITUATION (who the fuck is that) do the dumbest ad I have ever seen. Star Power does not equal talent.--Thanatos (talk) 01:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WHAT THE FUCK WAS THAT?? I think I am going to go bash my head against the wall now. 02:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Holy shit, an unmarried teenage mother doing an ad where she says she's gonna save "it" for marriage??? My head is spinning now. Maybe I missed something.  03:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)I've said it over at WIGO:CP Talk and I'll say it here. If you've got the chance then come the primaries vote for Palin to be Republican nomination.  Seriously, nothing is going to ensure a Democrat win than Palin on the ticket.-- 02:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, she'd probably be a gift to the Dems. But imagine if she got in. It'd be difficult to take America seriously as a country; people would just be terrified and call back in 4 years. 02:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the exact reason that you have to be registered with your party to vote in the primaries in most states - if people get the chance to vote in both primaries, a lot of them will abuse it. 02:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Palin doesn't have any actual policies, even when she was on the ticket in 2008 she simply resorted to spouting platitudes. Seriously, a Palin quote generator like the one we've got for Andy could easily recreate all of her speeches with a very high accuracy. She's made it abundantly clear that she's completely uninterested in immersing herself in all the necessary details, and she hasn't solicited any outside advice either. And even that would only work if she's actually capable of holding any thought that goes beyond "Reagan, Jesus = good; lamestream media, government = bad", which I doubt. So if she actually won, she'd be puppet much like Bush was, and the people she hired would just run things on behalf of the wealthy elites whose interests the Republicans serve. Which would still be devastating for everyone else, of course. Röstigraben (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We're safe - Palin cannot win. Look at it this way, the election is actually decided by the centre, the independents and they are never going to vote in sufficient numbers for a flake like Palin. Sure she might win a significant proportion of the Tea Party vote and even a significant proportion of the popular vote but she'll never win enough of the centre to be a realistic candidate. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, but that's just because Palin was either not interested enough or too incompetent to cast herself as a respectable politician. Independents and the so-called "center" can be easily swayed - they voted for Bush at least once, and after his spectacular incompetence and radicalism had been on display for four years, and they chose to return the Republicans to power after all the mess they'd just made. Republicans have been very succesful in glossing over the sheer lunacy of their political positions while employing a mixture of faux populism and character assassination against their opponents, and if a determined team of PR professionals had worked on Palin from day one of her VP candidacy, I think she'd now be in a position to be a serious challenger. Röstigraben (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Obama will win, or at least that's how it looks now.-- 15:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

2012
1. All that nonsense about the world going to end in 2012? 2. Sarah Palin will stand for President in 2012. 3. ........ 4. *RUSSIAN PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE* --> *MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION* 06:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * They might've had a point after all. Röstigraben (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

lawsuits challenging obamacare
I just watch a video on CNN about Virginia AG talking about challenging the constitutionality of obamacare and one of the arguments is that government can't force people to buy things... do they arrest people for walking out in the open naked? (so they are kind of forcing people to buy some sort of clothing?)  02:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Technically speaking, the State is not forcing anyone to buy clothing; you also have the options of staying in your house all the time, wrapping yourself in a tarp to go out, begging for some at a church, even making your own clothes.
 * But, in any event, only wingnuts call it "ObamaCare;" the rest of us call it "health-care reform." 03:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So the state is forcing people to buy something (as raw materials to make the finished covering or the covering) to cover their bodies with, so to speak. (Staying in house all the time in essence means they are forcing them to get housing, or covering oneself with a house/apartment)  04:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You can get clothes for free from charities. Not good ones, mind you, but you can at least avoid being arrested for indecent exposure. 05:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, government can force people to buy things: the Commerce Clause. Admittedly, an unprecedented application of it, but it is the basis for the individual mandate's constitutionality. 05:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What else have they forced people to buy under the Commerce Clause? I know it has been used to force people to sell things, but... 05:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * They haven't, which is why it's unprecedented. I worry how the Roberts Court will decide their eventual case on the mandate's constitutionality, it's highly likely they strike it down. 05:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope they do strike it down; most of the good parts of the health-care reform have nothing to do with that mandate anyway, and such a ruling would require that in the next round they make it available free, like everywhere else. 05:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure that it's safe to say that requiring somebody to buy something is certainly not the most contraversial use of the Commerce Clause. 05:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)I doubt there'll be a "next round" for at least a decade if it's struck down. I agree with you (LX) everywhere else. & Dalek: That may be, but it's the first use of the Commerce Clause to extend Congress' power in this particular area. 05:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Healthcare constitutes a sixth of the national economy, and so naturally Congress is empowered to regulate it - almost no one disputes that aspect of the use of the Commerce Clause. The reason why Congress can impose the mandate, which is specifically the problem here, is that it has widely been interpreted that any action necessary to that regulation is therefore implicitly also constitutional.  And there's serious and recent precedent, from 2004's Sabri v. US.  In this case, a guy (Sabri) convicted of bribery challenged the federal bribery laws, arguing that there was no proof or argument about the bribery's status as a specific interstate commercial activity if within state borders, which he argued would be necessarily pertinent to whether Congress could regulate it.  Sabri pointed to other precedent, such as U.S. v Lopez, as being on point in this respect (in that case gun laws were struck down because gun possession was not a commercial activity).  But SCOTUS' ruling against Sabri noted that intrastate bribery could have a very "robust effect on interstate commerce" (a point not really in dispute) and so Congress was within its rights to take all measures necessary to regulate.  To find otherwise - to find that each provision of a commerce-regulating law had to be itself justified elsewhere - would wipe out a large amount of precedent.  There does not seem to be much danger of repeal.-- 05:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The state is not forcing anyone to buy something, except collective defence that is, and police force, and fire trucks, and highways, and... and... and. Every time you pay tax, you are forced to buy the social services supposedly paid by said social contract and it is forced because if you don't pay tax, scary looking people are going to knock your door. Sen (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is, would rather have a firetruck than an insection? -85.76.165.76 (talk) 09:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to the doctor's for some FREE MEDICATION TODAY. SOCIALISM FUCK YEAH! 09:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said Sen. Are these people so stupid as to claim that government/taxpayer funded = ''forcing people to buy things?   14:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, taxation to pay for social services is a lot different than a law forcing you to consume a product. I think they're probably both constitutional, and SCOTUS certainly seems to think they are too, but the two are not very equivalent.  I may not agree with the petitioners here, but I can see their side of the argument.-- 04:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Unprecedented?
Actually the Militia Act of 1792 the government could order every white male upon arriving at 18 year to "provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder". -  π    11:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'v heard it said that there is precedent for the government to require purchase of something -- there were once laws requiring all adult males to own a gun. Now, this was in a day when all adult males were the militia, so it's an old law, but the claim that "the government has never required anyone to purchase anything' may not be true. MDB (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, more recently, and more directly related, doesn't the Federal government require the purchase of flood insurance to people living in flood-prone areas? Or is that only if your mortgage is somehow Federally guaranteed (FHA, VA, etc.) MDB (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Quantum Jumping anyone ?
Is fun, educational, and profitable. Dont worry about being trapped in an alternate universe. http://www.quantumjumping.com/lp/subconscious?sr=1&gclid=CNDHsrLBqaUCFQkDbAodT1VGXg Hamster (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fucking awesome, I am signed up! Aceword up 04:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It has all the hallmarks of a New Religious Movement - offering answers, convinces you of your own failure, quick answers. Amazing stuff. Aceword up 04:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Def a RW article in this - Quantum Woo on speed. Aceword up 04:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh that's just hysterical. Anyone with enough common sense should be able to see that if you can use it to "become more productive at work" you should also be able to use it to become some god-like entity. Hence reductio ad absurdum. 05:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasnt sure it had enough woo factor, after all, if Steve Hawking and Max Plank support the idea how wooish can it be ;) Hamster (talk) 05:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the fact it has a ton of testimonials already. Sen (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "There is a universe where you are the King of Scotland and a universe where you are a tea farmer in China" - Hmmm, a complete misrepresentation of reality if ever I heard it. Okay, lets imagine the socio-economic requirements over the last 20,000 years that would have to occur in order for me to be a tea farmer in China. I think most of the changes that would lead to me being a tea farmer would, in fact, be changes that wouldn't even make me born in the first place. "Infinity" doesn't mean that everything has to happen at some point; you don't get a universe that extends infinitely in all directions made of party balloons or where everything looks like a Washington Post political cartoon. After all, numbers are infinite, but it doesn't mean that at some point along the chain they'll turn into letters. Thing is, the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics is fascinating to think about, but all this bad pop science shite is just wrong. 10:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "'Infinity' doesn't mean that everything has to happen at some point" - exactly. That is a very common misperception, like people who think that because/if the universe is infinite, there must be another Earth just like this one somewhere, etc.  16:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Although it is "in theory" possible, you have to discuss it in terms of Poincaré recursion, which is about applying statistics and you can calculate the probability of a recursion if the universe is infinite in extent and made of repeating Hubble volumes of quantum states - or something like that. It's the same kind of thing as tossing 10 coins and noting the sequence (HTHTHTTTHT for example) and working out how many times you need to flip the coin to see that sequence again - just with trillions upon trillions of coins. But again, this is only satisfied under certain conditions and may not apply to reality - especially since you'd be talking about finding an exact copy of Earth 10^500^500 meters away (yes, that's to the power of to the power of, something that I didn't fully comprehend first time I read it through). I don't mind it as a concept, it's just that there are very interesting subtleties that get missed when talking about it in a simplified and woo-like way. When you handwave and say "ooh, but Quantum Theory says this..." you strip out a lot of the beauty and the genuinely fascinating aspects of this remarkable branch of science. 02:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

answerpot
Is apparently copying email forums (audifans.com is how I heard of it) and presenting it as essentially original content, from which they earn ad income. I see a good battle for RW to at least investigate, if not to fight. Now I'll look into the facts... 05:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Never mind, even if I could come up with more than people complaining about it, there's no mission connection there. 16:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Phallic religious imagery?
Is it just me, or does this book's cover image look overly phallic? 07:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it definitely a man holding an erect penis. -  π    07:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "An abridgment of Grasping God's Word, this reliable guide features hands-on exercises to help you..." really, they had to have noticed. -  π    07:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * FFS, now Poe's law applies to books... What's the world coming to? 07:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "To the pure, all things are pure" They've not all got filthy minds like wot we 'ave. 07:36, 18 November 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * Ahh, come on... Fundie Christians are obsessed with sex. 07:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ai woz bein' sarcamastic! 07:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * Sorry. All nighter. Running slowly. 09:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You should try looking at that page with sound effects. 09:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fundies are so obsessed with sex that they will see it when it isn't even there. 12:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe they worship the one true God and not that impotent Yahweh dude?  15:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * he simply taking his staff in hand and... OH, never mind Hamster (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's worse, I'm pretty sure that's a woman's hand holding an erect penis. -- 16:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Excessive lol
You know how some people use "lol" way too much in a single sentence? I think I've found the highest lol-density paragraph ever: the tank is a 6ft-2ft-2ft, 7oo+litres lol its ok, lol you should be fine buddie lol its not often it happens its one of the back seals in the corner at the bottom lol have no fear lmao Was he really laughing that much? 10:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * lol that makes no lol sense roflmao. 10:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The only time I laughed so much when describing a water tank, I'd taken a lot of magic mushrooms. -- Ψ Gremlin  10:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * lol rofl! The funny thing is, they're talking about how their tank cracked and leaked 700 litres of saltwater all over the floor. 10:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Roflmaololgigglesnort Sen (talk) 11:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha, ha, ha!-- 12:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My favourite part is ending the sentence (if you can call it that) with "lol have no fear lmao". It's so reassuring when somebody says something like that.   22:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Every time you say "lol", God kills a kitten". 02:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Every time you say 'lol', a god rapes a kitten, and she threatens to come back for more next week". 03:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Hitchens vs Dumbski
Has this finished already? If so is there a recording anywhere on the tubes? 11:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it hasn't - it starts 8:30 am CST = 14:30 GMT
 * You may look it here or even here.
 * I hope that someone will record it & put it in this interweb thing.
 * 11:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)Nvm, it's on at 2:30pm GMT. If anyone's interested they're streaming it live here (via Pharyngula). 11:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * They're just starting up. No picture, but some talking. 14:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem to be working. I guess all the damn atheists trying to watch has crashed the streaming server. 14:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

It's on - audio and video - and the director of worlview is speaking! 14:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it now. Problem is my connection is so slow it's breaking up. Plus, it's an unbuffered stream. Anyone recording it or knows of a lower bandwidth stream? 15:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Audio and video seem to be working now. Doppelheuer (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can someone start a forum thread and blog about any interesting bits being said? 15:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There really doesn't seem much point. Dumbski is just reiterating the same old tired points all over again, adding a generous side-salad of "But I'm being martyred, I must be right,"-- 15:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Has Hitchens not opened one of these yet? 15:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Dumbski is doing it to himself. He argued that atheism and evolution must co-exist, that evolution must be believed by atheists.  Hitchens responds by pointing out that atheism predates understanding of evolution by quite a bit.  Dumbski's reply to that?  Atheists don't believe in supernatural forces, therefore they must believe in natural forces doing everything, therefore they believe in naturalistic evolution even if no-one has actually come up with a theory or even basic inkling of natural selection at that point.-- 16:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I caught a bit of it earlier, hopefully it will appear on youtube soon.  16:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently they're going to archive the video on the site anyway. 16:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh goats. He's gone from arguing that atheism means having no morals because there is no constant moral value to ascribe to, to now arguing that naturalistic evolution means that humans don't have free will.  FFS.-- 16:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * How the hell did he come to that conclusion? 16:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "You have no responsibilities if you're an atheist" - I call poe! Top notch parody from the good doctor!  16:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's because of evolutionary psychology. Dumbski is trying to dumb down the discipline by using the sweeping generalisation that if evolution is true then all decisions made must be guided solely by genetics, ergo, no free will.-- 17:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Judging by the whoops and applause I think we can safely say Dumbski was bent over and received a damned fine thrashing.-- 17:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But, but, but Ken says atheists always lose the debate. 18:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Roflpolitics.
Watching the House of Commons live, in a debate about the Socio-Economic Equality Duty. Conservative MP stands up and says, "Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the Socio-economic equality duty is, and nor do my constituents. May I suggest that, whatever it is, it is left-wing tosh and should be abolished!"

It's difficult to parody the Tories better than they parody themselves. 11:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Whilst attempting to bash 'the left' like that is a bit foolish, he did right in pointing out the lack of plain English and overuse of buzzwords in modern politics.   16:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And not knowing her job is to understand them and explain to constituents who don't? Surely she has a staff who can distill it for her?   03:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously, ignorance is not a virtue. It's winning assbags elections here in 'Murca, and you don't want this plague to spread across the Atlantic.  Trust me.  Corry (talk) 04:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I had half-raw half-burnt broccoli for dinner tonight.
Yummy! Not as outstanding as the burnt dish towel I produced a while back, but still. (Didn't eat that one though.) --I&#39;m bored (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You know we have a forum for discussing our gustatory achievements, right? Did you write down the recipe? 03:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Holy hell... Where do I go with this?
I just got a phone call from the wife. Our childcare provider is black. Big freakin' whoop, right? Well, I guess my daughter told her (the childcare provider) two kids that they can't go to their own birthday party because they're "brown".

How do you talk to a four-year-old about race? I have noticed over the past week or two that when she draws pictures of the playground, or her class, or the bus or whatever that she draws the black people in a different color and identifies those figures as the blacks that I know she comes in contact with. This is natural, I understand that she is analyzing her environment and realizing that there are different colored people around her. What I don't understand is where the obvious racist angle is coming from. One of the girls she directed the comment at is arguably her best friend, as they have been in the same class for about two years now. We do not have a racist household and I am a pretty easygoing guy but one of the things I have my foot planted the most firmly about is that I will not stand stereotyping in my house.

I am pretty sure it comes from school. Another kid(s) made a (racist?) comment or something and Avalyn incorporated it into her worldview. At least that's my guess. I just need some advice (and time to think on my own about it too, I guess).

I am seriously in a bit of shock over the whole deal. Thanks in advance. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Ask her how it would make her feel if her "brown" friends wouldn't let them come to her party because she's not brown? Ask if her that was something fair, or something silly? MDB (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This. Also ask what her reasoning is behind "can't come because you're brown" and why she thinks it makes them different. 16:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. "they can't go to their own birthday party"? Do you mean they aren't invited to her (your daughter's) birthday party? The use of pronouns is awkward here. DickTurpis (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As an aside, "Avalyn" is a perfectly charming name for a little girl. How did you come up with it?


 * If I ever have a girl-child (yeah, right...), I want to name her "Kara Linda". Bonus points to anyone who knows where that comes from. MDB (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To completely not contribute, My twin daughters would have been named Chlamydia and Syphilis (so pretty!) and their younger brother, of course, Gonorrhea (applause, please!). 03:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If I'd had a daughter she would have been called Jasmine, with the middle name Bethan.-- 17:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the 'racism' thing - your daughter is at the age where she's run across and is working out 'Them' and 'Us', you know, working out groups, similarities and differences. Just about the only way is to talk to her about it,  MDB's approach is right, and if you run across anything on TV that's dealing with the same thing and is suitable for the kid (and Sesame Street is great for that) then watch it with her and you can use that as an example of showing how people can be different, but can still stay all together as a group.-- 17:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If it didn't come from you, I'd seriously consider tracking down where it did come from. If only for your sake, if someone hears that from a young kid they're going to immediately assume they're imitating the parents. Being reasonably immature myself, I imagine she's just said it because she's heard it somewhere and doesn't quite know what it means. (I have dibs on Aeris, by the way. Not sure what my other half thinks of that...) 17:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would try not to make it a big deal. She isn't actually a racist in any meaningful sense - kids get all kinds of funny ideas, it just so happens that this one has very unfortunate societal implications. Just gently explain her mistake, and teach her that it isn't right to treat people differently because of their colour, height, gender or anything else. -- 17:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This brings back memories
Of a public service announcement from when I was a little kid.

Young boy is talking with his grandfather.

"Grandpa, Timmy says I'm 'prejudiced'. What does that mean?"

"Well, it means that mean you judge someone by their religion or the color of their skin rather than who they are. Who is Timmy?"

"He's my Jewish friend."

"Well, then, you are prejudiced, because you think of Timmy as your Jewish friend, rather than your friend."

Yeah, it doesn't quite compare with "Iron Eyes Cody", but I still remember it. MDB (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, we talked about it over lunch
A few things about Avalyn, first. Her name is a compromise between the wife and I. I wanted Evelyn and she wanted Ava or Avery, so we smashed the two together and, VOILA we had Avalyn. She is a fiercely independent and curious kid, which is mostly a good thing, except when she is frustrated, angry, sad or just plain upset. Then she turns contrary and spiteful just for the sake of being so. You could tell her "The sky is blue." and she would respond with "NO. IT. ISN'T! IT'S RED! YOU'RE LYING!" (Ahhh, the joys of parenthood, eh?)

Anyway, we had a sit down and I wanted to know why she was frustrated. Given what was said and how it was said, I had pretty much pegged her state of mind dead on. She said that she was angry because my wife works and she's mad that I will be leaving for school and then Korea (a total of 18 months when all is said and done). She said that she has gotten angrier over the last few days because she can't figure out a way to stop me from leaving. I told her that I won't be gone the whole time, and that I'll come home on leave, and that there's always Skype and Facebook and just the plain old telephone, too. Then we talked a little bit about how it was wrong to treat people differently because of looks.

She understands what she said was wrong and, more importantly, she knows WHY what she said was wrong. I don't sugar-coat much with my kids, especially when A is so smart on her own. I don't want her to ever think that I keep information from her. When I dropped her off at family childcare, she hugged Tianna and Reese (the girls she made the comment to) and Miss Alanna (the care provider) and said she was sorry. Then she burst into tears and wouldn't let go of my leg because she was afraid that they wouldn't believe she was sincere. She actually used those words, too. So Alanna assured her that they forgave her and that they did in fact think she was sincere and, when the tears cleared, Avalyn apologized to me saying "I know what I did disrespected you too, Dad. You taught me better." Sometimes I have a hard time believing she's only four.

So anyway, thank you everyone. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A nice resolution, it seems. Although still not encouraging me to have children. It just seems far too complicated. 02:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait. Wait. WAIT! My kids are awesome and totally worth the effort BUT... We could probably start a business convincing teenagers to take an abstinence only lifestyle until 30+ years just by letting them observe our house for a week. Your personal life disappears, man. It does. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * First, that follow up is totally awesome, man. Girl sounds like she's got a good set of hemispheres there.  Second, it doesn't take abstinence!  Just really careful birth control.  03:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Now if you could just give that same talk and make it stick with the other half of the US. Good job, seriously.  Corry (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My girlfriend has two older teenage daughters who live with us. Seeing what it's like dealing with a toddler has been a fantastically effective contraceptive for them - David Gerard (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Medical Records
So, I've sent off my DLA forms and have decided to back them up with a copy of my medical records as evidence of my disabilities. So I phone my local hospital, they send me the forms that I need to fill in and right at the top is says: We want a cheque for £50 as an advance for the administration costs. A £50 advance for what amounts to photocopies of 3 sheets of A4. I can see the hospital getting a phone call tomorrow that is probably going to begin with the words: Fuck you, you're having a fucking laugh, aren't you?-- 00:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Man, that's really shitty. Hope you get it sorted. 03:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't like a massive hardship in return for free money...?  14:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh? For a start, not free money, money used to pay my carers.  No money, no carers.  No carers and I'm forced to live in a carehome at approx. 7.5 to 15 times the expense.  And £50 is the advance, not the whole cost, just so I can access my own medical records.  Oh, and that £50, that's the entire amount I get in a week to pay for both my care and mobility needs.-- 15:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * all I can suggest is call the hospital and ask for their social worker. If they have one or the administtrator. Explain your situation and see if they can waive any fees. Hamster (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thnx. Having spent all day at the damned place for treatment I couldn't find anyone to talk too, and by the time I got back and got through to the legal dept. I was told I'd have to phone back Monday.  Nice to see that British bureaucracy is keeping up its fine tradition of being utterly shite.-- 16:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Donald Trump
So Trump confirms that he might run for the presidency. I must admit, I know very, very little about him. Is he an evil Rupert Murdoch? Or is he okay? What's he like? 03:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * He's a twat with hair like an orangutan's, thereby ensuring that the monkey like characteristics of the 43rd President get carried on like a tradition. Unlike Bush, Trump seems to be intelligent, although that's not necessarily a blessing in a President.  Public political views: seems to be a fiscal conservative and an social moderate with a slight leaning towards conservatism, but kind of hard to be sure, especially if he does go for a Presidential run; expect a certain flexibility of belief and viewpoints if he does.  Personal views: certain moral flexibility when it comes down to marriage and affairs, classic conservative in other words.  But currently a declared independent.-- 04:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I happen to be very fond of his ape-like hair. Anyway, this provided some random tidbits. Basically, his Chinese business-buddies laugh at America, so he wants to fix that. No one likes being laughed at. ~Super Hamster  Talk 04:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * He has about as much chance of becoming president as I have of becoming the Pope. And I even have a regnal name picked out: Pope Polyps I.  Corry (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * He says this every four years. It gets his name out there and lets him make some outlandish policy recommendations.  For example, in this recent one he advocated "taxing China" (i.e. huge tariffs) to pay off the national debt.  He's about as useful as underwear made of cheese.-- 04:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * how about a Trump / Palin combo ? Hamster (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think (at least, I hope) that Donald Trump knows that teaming up with Sarah Palin would not be a very good idea, for both his reputation, and for his chances of winning (which are already, well, not very high at all). But maybe Palin could attract all the tea-partiers for him? Hmm... ~Super Hamster  Talk 05:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Trump would be the ultimate in "empty suit" politicians. He'd make Dubya look like Lincoln.


 * Although I would consider voting for him on the same grounds I considered voting for Al Sharpton -- best Presidential hair since Reagan! MDB (talk) 12:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think my life just went into an infinite recursive loop
I use Google Chrome as my browser.

I'm using it to view Facebook, and the ad was for Google Chrome.

If I was stoned right now, I'd probably very amazed by the fact. MDB (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There was a good screencap on failblog or such like, of someone logging in to googlemail on Chrome and getting the message - googlemail has not been tested on your browser, so you wish to continue?  12:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unrelated to the original observation, but still damn funny: Fear Jimbo's eyes! --ZooGuard (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Pah! That's nothing compared to Firefox's chrome://browser/content/browser.xul! 14:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The vector skin. It doth suck.
Anyone else agree the vector skin is painfully bad? I changed my personal pref back to monobook, but what do people think about keeping monobook as the site's default skin? -- 17:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh, I say leave it as vector. It's 4 measly clicks back to monobook, and I actually hope to get accustomed to vector eventually. 17:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Either way is fine with me. Robothead.svg iron, yet caring fist 17:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering that MediaWiki is devoting a ton of effort into the vector skin support for monobook is likely to be shotty. Get used to vector IMO. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The only thing that slightly annoys me in vector is moving a bunch of stuff into a drop-down menu, but otherwise I think it is superior to monobook. By all means switch back to monobook if you like that better, but the default should stay vector because a) it looks better b) wikimedia conducted usability studies during the development of vector - in other words, vector does not suck, and they have studies to prove that. -- Nx  / talk 19:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, name is cooler. Robothead.svg iron, yet caring fist 19:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It sucketh mightily. And Nx, Coke had studies saying that most people preferred New Coke. Look what happened there. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with New Coke? Robothead.svg iron, yet caring fist 20:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with it apart from finding the search box. 20:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * The search box was moved because n00bs couldn't find it as it was not in the same place it was on Facebook. -  π    00:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The main problem, as I've said somewhere else, is the font sizes. It turns out this is a bug that they know about but decided to ignore anyway despite the fact it makes the skin unusable for thousands of people ("Font size: Many users have reported that font sizes have become smaller in Vector. We're not sure why, but this is something we're looking into. Any additional info on this issue would be helpful in troubleshooting." - from here) and there's a whole section devoted to the problem here. For many people, myself included, it is totally unusable as it stands - and no, I'm not exaggerating: I simply cannot read the text on any page with the Vector skin without blowing the layout apart by making everything else far too large. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for saying something concrete rather than just "it sucks". I've checked in both Firefox and Chrome: In Chrome, the computed font size for lines in RC is 13px in both skins (although the lines are packed more tightly in vector), in Firefox 12.8px for vector and 12.7px for monobook. In other words, sorry for not being clairvoyant and guessing what problems you have with vector that I'm not even experiencing. Then again, they deployed vector on WP with an embarrassing bug that broke search for users who disabled the spiffy new search bar, so I guess I shouldn't have expected something that is free of major borkage. -- Nx  / talk 07:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I expected a bit more from RWers than an outbreak of facebookitis. Should I have? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really. All that has changed is the colours and the location of a few buttons and people are crying. New Coke is a classic example. Coke made a big deal about changing the recipes to something they had found was preferred and people stopped buying the stuff. Now Coke tampers with the recipe all the time, but no longer makes the mistake of telling people when they do it, they just see how it effects sales. -  π    22:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Bollocks. You obviously don't know whaetat you're talking about so I'll just upload two screenshots and let everybody else see you're talking bollocks. This is how the site looks in Monobook. This is how the same page looks in Vector. The former is easily readable. The latter is not. I am NOT the only person having this problem, so fuck you, Pi, for being such an arrogant little shit. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As I don't have a widescreen monitor I might be suffering some kind of distortion in the scaling of your images, but your vector skin picture looks almost exactly like my window, except the spacing seems a little narrower on yours. If anything I find the fonts in your monobook to be unusually large compared to what I am use to. -  π    23:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So you acknowledge that the screens look different and I'm not just crying about the colours and the location of a few buttons then? Shall I take that as your apology? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you are so sensitive that you were offended over a comment that was not direct at you about something as trivial as the userface of a website, than by all means, take it as an apology. -  π    23:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to pretend otherwise. I'm one of two people who have commented negatively about Vector in this thread and also the one who made the New Coke analogy. What else am I supposed to think? Stop being such a condescending prick. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What is it with you people and all the hate for New Coke. I liked New Coke, though it was nigh impossible to find, only one store carried it. Robothead.svg iron, yet caring fist 23:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Vector is fucking hideous. I say that the people who want it can keep it, but it's an annoying pain to have to deal with it when I'm trying to edit.  Monobook kept everything in a nice, easy-to-use format without butting gigantic buttons and tiny fonts.  Vector sacrificed convenience and ease of access for streamlined and a highly subjective view of aesthetics, which is never a good decision.  (Incidentally, 100 bucks says that the guy who designed Vector uses Macs.)   &mdash; Unsigned, by: 24.13.203.96 / talk / contribs 00:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I grew up with a screen resolution of 256x192. Fuck it, it's all good, and you can fit more than 32 characters a line.-- 00:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Beyond the aesthetics which I don't plan to get into cause I don't care and I it is not my strong suit, there is a simple matter practicality. The Wikimedia Foundation has put forward vector as a major project, and the fact is that mediawiki software is going to be designed and built around vector. Hopefully a few of the issues will get ironed out, such as vector overriding font size preference on pages, but in general I think people are just going to have to get used to it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Long ago I "made the font in RW bigger" by zooming in in Chrome. Not sure what the big deal is.  The only thing that bothers me is where the RSS button went, but that's easily solvable. Found that too.  sterile 01:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is the RSS feed button? [[file:Nuttysexpistols.png|60px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]][[file:Nuttytalk.png|35px|link=User_talk:Nutty_Roux|never mind]] 01:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you go to the history of a page, the RSS feed button will be in the toolbox at the left of the page. ~Super Hamster  Talk 01:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * @TMT - This isn't about aesthetics, it's about not being able to read the text. Yes, you can scale stuff up but that screws with everything else. Please can you people stop treating this as a simple complaint about not liking the way it looks? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, so you may have stumbled upon a random bug. Big deal. Report it and wait for the next update. As it stands, I'm looking at your screenshots and can read both fairly fine. Either sort out your monitor or your eyesight because if that difference, which is quite small, is such a big deal you may really have a eye problem. 10:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It's not just me. Did you even bother to read the links I posted? 2) Are you really using the "It works for me so there isn't a problem" argument? 3) The difference in text height is 17%, which is not a "quite small" difference. Fuxake people, I cannot believe the attitudes shown here. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * SR, I had the same problem as you in Firefox. I switched to Opera and the text size problem is nowhere near as bad. TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I used to think CZ looked very clunky and unprofessional, one example being section headers that were as large as article titles, and another being a bit too much white space in a lot of places, then, I, er, joined and switched to monobook as a matter of course. All the ugly went away. (I don't remember if their default was vector, though) 16:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

What could be improved
We have again gone with the default colour scheme, which makes us look like Wikipedia with a brain in the corner. We have even been mistaken for Wikipedia on more than one occasion (always with humorous results). What would be nice is if people could submit ideas, possibly even sandboxing them up in there vector.css subpage, for a unique colour scheme to help differentiate us from the WikiMedia foundation projects. -  π    02:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is a great idea, make the site look unique and interesting. -- 02:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I agree with Nx, that drop down menu for what used to be tabs SUCKS. Also, the gradient fill color scheme is so early 2010. Also, as Pi said, we now look exactly like WP except for the logo. I hate vector but I am using it here and at WP now, since it is how casual visitors see our work. 03:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do about the dropdown, when WP deployed vector I made a little hack for the people who didn't like it, but it wasn't perfect and I never figured out how to fix it. -- Nx  / talk 8:01, Today (UTC+1)
 * Should this end up, once again, at talk:main? 04:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably. I don't mind the little menu thing as it has all the buttons you should think twice about clicking anyway. I we can get our 0 out of there though that would be an improvement. -  π    04:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mind, as you say, making the hard core stuff slightly buried. But the 0 is our trademark!  It should be right next to "edit".  04:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't like it very much either, mainly since it overcomplicates things that were perfectly fine when simple. 16:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is there a top line link to "New messages" when I have none, yet I can't even see if I am watching a page without going to a drop-down menu? 21:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's part of LiquidThreads. It shows your new messages on any lqt thread you're subscribed to, not your talk page. I've replaced the watch/unwatch menu item with a star button, so you can now use it without going into the dropdown. -- Nx  / talk 21:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Please get rid of it, it is completely unintuitive and a waste of space. As far as I know, I'm not on any LTs, and wouldn't know how to be.  And please replace the star with "watch/ignore" like civilized wikis used to do?  Implementing things just because the software supports them is not necessarily a Good Thing. Thank you for your service.  03:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You can join the liquid thread discussion on liquid threads (seems unpopular). -  π    04:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are assuming that Nx can pick and mix what he likes. -  <font face=times color=black>π    11:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Is there something wrong with that?  16:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly. Although 1.17 looks like it will give more control with the vector extension. -  <font face=times color=black>π    04:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Fail&hellip;
strikes again, this time with the headline "Should Facebook carry a health warning? Teenager suffers asthma attack after seeing his ex-girlfriend's profile on site".

That headline is almost argument enough for WIGO:News Headlines page.-- 02:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * All this online hysteria really, really bugs me. Is there anything that Facebook, or Google can do that can't happen in real life? Facebook causes stress; in real life people see your face, know where you shop, know which bars you go into and your ex actually exists. Google Street View is an invasion of privacy; I can go out into the street and see the exact same things and no one would bat an eyelid. IT'S THE INTERNET. FEAR IT! FEAR IT! It's just pure fucking technophobia and it's getting beyond a joke now. 02:48, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The UK's reactionary papers have been like this ever since "The Facebook Killer". I don't mean to sound cruel or insensitive; the girl involved met a strange man of the internet and got killed - that's not Facebook, that's not the Internet - that's stupid use of the internet. Blaming Facebook for this is disingenuous and is not helping the problem. People should be encouraged, after something like that happens, to teach their children how to be safe.


 * If a kid runs out in front of a car, people don't try to ban cars, they just make sure their own kids know better. Should be the same with Facebook. 03:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)Yes, Armond, it is different. In the old days, you could avoid the common haunts, not talk to mutual friends for a bit unless they are real cool, etc.  Now with blogs and FB etc., one can get hit with communications one wasn't looking for.  I suppose the advice, of course, is "de-friend if you break up!"  I once asked an ex to limit the viewership of certain posts (joyful ones about her new BF) if she really wanted me to keep up with her blog.  03:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I was recently "blacklisted" from a small but tight internet community, as far as I can tell, over a late-night conversation with an adult stranger that "freaked her out". The conversation lasted hours, and at any time she could easily have hung up/said she had to go.  The part that bothers me, though, is that apparently "everyone" took her freak-out as an indication that I was a problem, without any request for comment on my part.  Yeah, I know real life can sometimes be like that - in Junior High.   03:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Just read the actual Daily Mail article. The guy had been blocked by his ex-girlfriend so she couldn't even see him. He was suffering from depression. He signed up for a second facebook account and could see her account again, and had an asthma attack. Should facebook carry a health warning? No. 03:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Is that "read" pronounced "reed" or "red"?  03:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was "red." Probably no point reading anything that shitty paper says... 03:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If Facebook carried a health warning, the Daily Mail would be the fucking first to cry "elf and safety gone mad". ONE / TALK 13:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. This really is making a story out of nothing, & the "health warning" bit in the headline looks like it was added by an editor for extra effect, since the suggestion isn't even mentioned in the text.  19:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that the difference is that massive. Facebook merely just semi-automates a few things and allows it to be done at a distance - I don't think what happens in the real world is vastly removed from it (remembering that Facebook is primarily aimed at and designed for people who know each other in the real world, it's not like the traditional internet community of 2002 where it's all avatars and signatures and phpBB!). In short, there's nothing that happens via Facebook that couldn't be done before, from inviting people to parties to having bust ups and from chatting in sizable groups to stalking. It may facilitate it in some way, but I don't see a fundamental difference between what it can expose you to compared to pre-Facebook. You still have the same control of who you see and speak to - by use of blocking, lists, hiding and plain willpower - as in the real world. I think the problem may be that we're getting to the stage where young adults (never mind teenagers and younger kids) aren't aware of the pre-internet days. The guy in the above story is 18. Facebook has been open to the public at large for 4-5 years now; so this guy would have been 14 when it started. Relationships and interactions over the internet have been mainstream for the best part of a decade before that. So if you view and grow up with the internet and think of it as a steady stream of information that you must expose yourself to, then you have problems. If you mostly grew up prior to the internet then you're more likely to treat it as an extension of how you act in real life, and therefore would control your interactions responsibly.  14:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We should also ban the telephone. And the evil pony express/penny postage.  And writing in general.  And language.  There, I just solved all of humanity's problems, except for predatory animals that growl in the night.  Come sit by my fire. Oh shit, ban fire too!  04:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Recommended Tweeters to follow?
So I just joined Twitter... for the third time... I've followed all of the Liberal Democrat MPs on there, and maybe 10 interesting Labour ones, I'll pick out a few Tories later. Anybody else you'd recommend following? Any of you worth following? Amazing how many MPs are online, more than 200... 08:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Or their staff, at least. 04:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Harry Potter 7.
You guys should all go and see the new Harry Potter film. It's amazing. The graphics have come such a long way since 2001, you'd think it was 2005 already from how good they are. I love how they skipped loads of important stuff from the book, but then did some stuff from the book without explaining why the characters did it. It made the characters' actions inconsistent throughout, and that made the film edgy because you didn't know what would happen next. Oh, and the pace! They'd keep you waiting for 20 minutes with really poor dialogue, so when they crammed an action scene into three minutes or so, it was overwhelming! You could barely tell what was happening. Also, the way they had scene-after-scene-after-scene of Ron, Harry & Hermione bickering away and moaning, but missed out loads of other stuff. It was REALLY special how they barely had any of the main characters do more than 10 minutes. By barely showing Snape, there was loads of extra time for teenage bickering. They should be complimented, too, for how when the scenes got fast-going and exciting, they threw in the occasional slapstick-human moment. It totally flew off the flow, making it difficult to get back into the action... it made it feel like you had to try, and when you did try, it was really rewarding. Awesome film. Go see it. 19:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Somehow the Potter thing passed me by. Too old I guess. 20:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I vowed never to see a movie without an "R" rating in a theater. I'm too old to put up with kids dicking around. But I can't wait until this comes out on DVD. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Photoshopped. --I&#39;m bored (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have watched all the harry potter films. Not a great fan, but they are diverting. I just really dislike the character of harry potter who seems to get all the credit for everything but it is usually his chums who do all the work. And (I know it shouldn't, its just a kids story) it really annoys how they all go on about how amazing their magic is, and how powerful some of the wizards and all, but its seems the extent of this amazing magic is invisible gob stoppers or some such shite. No attempts to do anything useful like cure cancer or something. I'll say nothing about people earning billions writing derivative pap. I'll get rip on torrentz when one is available.AMassiveGay (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Curing cancer would fall under the skills oh clerics, not mages. Jesus Christ, you think you guys have never read the fucking Player's Handbook. DickTurpis (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What about generating some clean renewable energy? Oh, I forgot - electricity is for those vermin mugglesAMassiveGay (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm holding out for the "Hermoine Does Hogwarts" double DVDA. I mean DVD. -- Ψ Gremlin  12:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

New scanners
I got in Facebook argument with 2 libertarians about the new airport scanners. Mostly I was arguing that their hero, Ron Paul, was introducing a stupid bill over the issue. I'm a bit ambivalent about it, but realize that there certain things we have to subject ourselves to for he sake of being able to travel across the country in a few hours. I'd like to hear what rational people think of these. I'll open up the floor. DickTurpis (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't especially care about them, although if the woman checking the screen was hot then I would have to give myself a semi first. 16:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I favour writing obscene messages under my clothes in silver loaded paint. If only it weren't so damned expensive. -- 16:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * They're a stupid idea - it takes long enough with belts and shoes; how long are the queues going to be now that everyone has to take all their clothes off?  17:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm, the point of the scanner is that you don't take off your clothes... 17:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Although as a serious response, a few friends of mine (also via Arsebook, incidentally) were against them because they'd cause embarrassment for trans people. So you have an outward appearance of being one particular gender and then HOLY SHIT the operator can see whether they're, you know, pre or post. While I understand this completely, I can't see how that is a concrete issue as it's just making people particularly uncomfortable, which all invasive security will do - what about people with deformities, who are obese or have image and confidence issues with their bodies. That's certainly what I view as the wider issue. 17:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I wonder how long it will take for some entrepreneur to start making scanner-opaque metalized underwear. :D --ZooGuard (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so that I understand the debate - is the only objection that somebody might get a vague view of one's dangly bits or is there another argument as well?BobSpring is sprung! 17:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Let's go discuss this further on chatroulette. --85.77.131.69 (talk) 17:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I really understand this either. a) People are generally happy for other people to look at their cock in e.g. the showers at the swimming pool. b) The operators have doubtless seen so many cocks that yours isn't going to be either shocking or memorable to them. Unless you're a celebrity with a particularly mirthsome member, then honestly it seems a bit of a non-issue. -- 18:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been scanned several times in Moscow and Amsterdam. You still have to take off belts and jackets to avoid confusing scanner. I once left a credit card in a shirt pocket and this was flagged as a red rectangle on a low-res silhouette on an small screen. The scanner operator doesn't see the face of the person they are scanning, they are secreted in a small cubicle to one side. In Moscow it was all done by women. I can't see it being particularly erotic for the operator after they have seen thousands of puffy bodies crammed into tight clothing. And it's all pretty anonymous and less personal than getting checked by a doctor or nurse. 19:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The whole thing is a complete waste of time and an invasion of privacy by the federal government. I'm going to opt for the pat-down, and warn them that if they touch my junk, I'm going to get rock hard. I know it's not the TSA agents' fault, but really, they are unthinking, bureaucratic douches too. PS: talk about a pedophile/pervert's dream job/opportunity. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am against stuffing our civilization with crap. Frankly, I'd rather have "low security" and "high security" airlines. In the low security, real men will be able to board airplanes with zero checks, will be free to carry their woodaxes in the cabin and have nothing but their glistering muscles to defend against terrorists. In the high security ones persons will be subjected to three scanners, one drug test, one MRI test whereas people will be asked questions regarding terrorism and noticing wither the truth or lieing centrers of their brain activate (I remember something in new scientist to that effect. I always thought that no political debate should be without one), take a multiple choice bible test, will be restricted only to nice white people who have at least 3 kids, one of which will be a daughter named "Dorothy" and have a proper civilized ration of air marshals to passengers of 3 to 1. The second carrying the cost of all these things in their ticket price of course. Sen (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Along those lines, unsecured Americans domestic flights would be in negligible danger of being successfully hijacked. Passengers would assume what the hijackers are up to, and presumably would overwhelm the hijackers. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)This. We will never again see another 9/11 style takeover of an American plane for two reasons.
 * First, as mentioned above, American passengers will resist hijackers now -- if anything, they'd rather die a hero than a victim.
 * Second, and I may be wrong, but the airline and government philosophy on dealing with hijackers has changed. Before when it was assumed hijackers wanted to "steal" a plane, or make a political statement, it was assumed the best tactic was to give them what they want. Now, the idea is to land the plane as soon as possible.


 * And the terrorists understand this. They're not going to try another 9/11 style attack. (Well, al Qaeda won't Some group of idiots might. Unfortunately for us, al Qaeda is smart.) In fact, I'd imagine bin Laden knew before 9/11 that the attacks would only work once.


 * However, the concern about someone sneaking a bomb on board is still a realistic concern. You can argue about whether the new security measures could really stop that, but it is not an unfounded concern. MDB (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * MDB, on point one, absolutely. 9/11 was the last time that stunt could be pulled.  I've been saying that since about 9/18. And simply blowing planes up in the air is so 80s.  03:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I"m pretty sure the whole raison d'etre of these scanners is to find explosives, like the shoe and underwear bombers. Metal detectors have worked pretty well at finding guns. It's bombing planes, not hijacking them, that's the concern. DickTurpis (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes no fucking sense. Why is bombing a plane so concerning? There are so many other easier things to bomb with higher casualty rates. Shit, you could kill more people bombing the ticketing terminal where there is no tangible security measure in place to stop you. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it's been tried a few times already. MDB (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There's also the fact that planes are simply vulnerable. If you can make one crash (which it might not take all that much to do; I'm not sure exactly) you can be pretty certain of killing around 500 people on a fully loaded 747. It's hard to get those sort of statistics with anything short of a truck bomb if you're doing it on the ground. It's also the mentality of the thing. It is certainly true that the bigger danger is the plane-as-a-missile 9/11 scenario. But, as pointed out already, we won't be seeing that again on a passenger plane. DickTurpis (talk) 03:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are so many other, easier ways to mass murder. All are just as unlikely as plane hijacking. Do you want to take extreme measures to prevent them? Why not? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Internet is the opportunity. I can't tell if Sen is being silly, but wikipedia says security isn't there for nothing. ---85.77.131.69 (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose that implies all of those flights were completely void of security? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's quite an interesting stat that between 2000-9/11 the list has 5 hijackings, and between 9/11-now 7. You can't hijack a plane with an axe anymore. --85.77.131.69 (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd bet dollars to donuts that LArron could show that that statistic isn't very interesting. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll stand bare ass in the terminal if it means that we don't have another 911. With issues like this I can understand the civil libertarian position of steadfastness against these gov't intrusions but.... I really think we need to prioritize these things. Freedom of speech, sacrosanct; not having security seeing my hoo hoo, negotiable. Habeas Corpus, sacrosanct; not having an NSA computer mass screening email/phone for suspicious words, negotiable. Mark my words, if something does happen again this will be nothing. Just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean we should let our guard down and unfortunately I think we have in some respect gone back to a pre-911 mentality.
 * And to those who are going to go the Glenn Beck route of "giving gov't power is a step closer to totalitarianism", you might have a point if this was a fresh democracy or an unstable one but we have safeguards in place and the people itself wouldn't allow it. Sure the masses have been cowled into letting stuff like that happen but in America as of now, I don't see it happening. NetharianCubicles are prisons! 22:39, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that 9/11 is one of the most overrated events in human history, would you let the government violate your privacy to soothe other irrational fears? Or does the boogy man only ride planes? Occasionaluse (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Enter the knee-jerk reactionary that thinks just because I'm not the arch-libertarian that means I'll just let the gov't assrape me. NetharianCubicles are prisons! 22:57, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Enter captain hindsight who is willing to any measure to prevent something that already happened. Does the boogy man only ride planes? Or are you not concerned about buses, trains, ships, concerts, sporting events, schools or any public event? Your position is half-baked and entirely inconsistent. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Having recently flown in the US, the security was not as bad as I had been lead to believe. They did have the new body scanner at SFO, but they weren't scanning everyone. From what I could gather from the TSA guy, the metal detector randomly selected people for scanning. My brother got scanned, but I didn't even though I was the one bringing shit loads of stuff on board the plane and he literally was carrying just his passport and ticket. The biggest problem I seemed to have were the idiots in front of me that thought they could beat the system. The person who thought that the x-ray machine wouldn't find a tub of honey at the bottom of a bag full of tightly packed towels. The oldish guy that wouldn't remove his belt, and then his money, and then his mobile phone, and then what ever else had had and went through the metal detector a half dozen times. Along with at airports I had to pass through security checks at Hoover Dam and at the Stratosphere Tower in Las Vegas, it amazes me that people either don't know the procedure or make a point of not co-operating. Although as my brother pointed out if you wanted to do serious damage the best thing to do would be to attack the security check point, all those people standing around in a small area, and you can take anything you like into the queue. -  <font face=times color=black>π    23:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * People not cooperating with airport security can sometimes be pretty funny, like when it's a whole family taking a stand over a tub of cottage cheese, which is what I witnessed in Beijing. They (a family of US tourists) seemed completely bewildered that anybody could regard their cottage cheese as a liquid & want to confiscate it.   00:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That was mentioned in an earlier discussion about security theatre. I basically shows that such things are fundamentally pointless because there will always be a way to cheat the system. In full Nassim Taleb mode: we just don't know how they're going to do it - indeed, by definition we don't know how they'll do it because we haven't thought of it and would have otherwise prevented it! Security like this is nothing more than a placebo for the public that guards only against threats that don't cause us the greatest damage. 02:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I mean, seriously. Take the above comment "I'll stand bare ass in the terminal if it means that we don't have another 911." To say something like that is to NOT learn why 9/11 happened or what it actually meant in a grander scheme about how major events like this occur. 02:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I flew back from NC to NH a couple years ago with a fossil in my carry-on. A fossil about 1" thick, 5" or so wide at one end, tapering to a narrow, thin shape at the other end.  Funny that. It was a perfect murder weapon.  03:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Follow the money:

If you've seen one of these scanners at an airport, there's a good chance it was made by L-3 Communications, a major contractor with the Department of Homeland Security. L-3 employs three different lobbying firms including Park Strategies, where former Sen. Al D'Amato, R-N.Y., plumps on the company's behalf. Back in 1989, President George H.W. Bush appointed D'Amato to the President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism following the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Also on Park's L-3 account is former Appropriations staffer Kraig Siracuse. The scanner contract, issued four days after the Christmas Day bomb attempt last year, is worth $165 million to L-3. 08:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't 165 millions less than a dollar per taxpayer? Now maybe US defense industry isn't the fairest market, but it's that way because the security clearance system isn't there to encourage competition over government contracts. It's not because of corruption. It's not very convincing to refer to an instance of somebody saying that they are not sure, and then concluding that everybody knows how to build and detonate a deadly ass-bomb anyway. --85.76.165.76 (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Isn't 165 millions less than a dollar per taxpayer?" - yes, that't the point. It's the proverbial "drop in the bucket".  If I could get everyone in the US to send me just one cent each, I'd have $3 million, and be set for life.  Trouble is figuring out how to get them to do it.  This company has figured out how to get each taxpayer to send them $1 each.  Nice trick if you can pull it off (ok, they have to deliver product, but surely they have a guaranteed 10% or so profit margin - "cost plus" is usually how these gov't contracts work).  18:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ADK, it was just a stupid joke to show that I personally don't care about security seeing my junk. Of course I believe that security will only possibly take care of incidents not the greater reason why people want to do them in the first place. I've always said that you cannot win this thing with violence because it is a belief/worldview we are fighting not a traditional army. NetharianCubicles are prisons! 15:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to be so useful in a few months when I have actual training on DoD contracting regulations and procedures. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There are a great deal of people who are willing to sacrifice personal privacy to avoid unnecessary deaths, no matter how unlikely. There is no logical line to stop. A life is a life, and a death is a death. For instance, how much privacy would you be willing to sacrifice to the government to avoid unnecessary deaths from car crashes? Considering you are exponentially more likely to die in a car crash, why does the fear of dying in a car crash not terrorize you? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm all for mandatory GPS trackers and alcolocks on cars. I hope that in time we will get them. That's because I find violent death terrifying. --85.76.220.156 (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's certainly not your consistency that bothers me. I can respect that. Occasionaluse (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a better analogy than car crashes in diseases and epidemiology. Take the example explained in the relative risk article. If intensive use of these pills adds 2-3 new heart attacks a year to the 10 that would happen anyway, which 2-3 of those dozen people had their heart attacks caused by the pills? It's not easy to answer, indeed, because we're talking statistics it's actually impossible to answer and a meaningless question anyway. It's the same thing with security; how can you say that security measure A actually prevented incident B and how can you say that the lack of security measure C let incident D happen? Therefore it's quite fallacious to presume we need more security to prevent terrorist attacks - you can't really prove that it's going to prevent (or not) a specific incident. 19:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The issue is about where it is appropriate for the State to begin and end. Any sane person would agree that it is both necessary and right that there be some security checks at airports. Any sane person would also agree that allowing complete strangers to a) grope you b) View naked pictures of you or c) generally cause you embarassment is a definite no no. Even if it had reasonable security benefits it would still be too extreme and an unwarranted intrusion of my personal space. I don't see why we are waffling on so much about this, most of these security checks are at best redundant and at worst a stupid justification by security agencies to charge the outrageous fee's that they do. A lot of liberty is trampled in the name of security, but it does help if that perceived security has some tangible positive results. MarcusCicero (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:Userspace pictures
Does anybody object to the creation of a userspace pictures category, for silly pictures, icons, animations, etc... the things not intended for articles? If i put this in, I could then categorize almost all of the uncatted files, as they would almost all fall into this category. 02:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You can create as many categories for pictures as you like. Although potentially any picture could be a userspace picture if we are not claiming fair use for it. -  <font face=times color=black>π    02:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was thinking more... anything which stands out as not being uploaded for articles, but for fun/silliness/pictures of users etc. 02:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the mutant means pictures only used that way, not any picture someone uses on their user page? Just try to come up with a really succinct, memorable name for the cat, Kaled.  03:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the distinction. Quite a lot of our articles use frivolous pictures for comic/satiric effect, plus there are other places they get used (like talk pages) which are neither userspace nor article.   11:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Deconservapedificationism
Just wanted to draw people's attention to a discussion I've begun at Template talk:Cp, hoping to achieve a consensus on the use of this template as part of ongoing deconservapedification. 11:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Kill it with goat poop in the mainspace. 04:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing left now but to wipe off a few bits of turtle poop. Somebody else can have a go at the remains if they like. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Darwinian art and beauty
I just finished watching this video by Dennis Dutton that's being discussed on an art board I'm involved with. The folks over there seem to be eating it up, and it seems to produce a nice, tidy little hypothesis. But that's my trouble, it seems entirely too nice, too pat. I'm not sure whether I completely trust this to reflect science. So I'm presenting it to you smart folks to get your take on it. What do you think? Is he on the right track, or is there a lot of wishful thinking involved? Have any of the science bloggers like PZ Myers written about this at all, so I can find their take? I'd like some opinions on the whole mess. --Kels (talk) 14:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * First, that is a really great link and ought to be preserved somewhere here outside the ephemera of the pibotted SB. Second, well, I went in with a "skeptical" attitude, as requested, and though he almost lost me at the flint knapping, in the end, I think he did a good job.  This is based on my own observations of, to be crass, "what attracts lovers".  What have I found attracts people?  it helps to be at least a little bit pretty - ie, not horribly misshapen - but that isn't even that important.  What works best?  To quote an old friend, "Make me think, make me laugh, make me come".  That may seem crude, but even in the modern day, mate selection is based on evidences of ability to produce strong, healthy, competitive progeny.  I think it was a good and interesting video, and certainly thought-provoking.  That you brought it here makes me want to mate with you makes me happy :).  04:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked around for a bit of criticism of the idea, and happened across a couple of things. Aside from the fact that Dutton is a philosopher and literary critic, as opposed to someone who works with evolutionary concepts, he seems to skip mentioning Maslow's pyramid as well as the fact that humans are not only attracted to beauty, but to innovation as well, which helps explain things like Modernist art having a following.  Also, I'm not sure that being impressed by Mt. Fuji is processed in the same way as being attracted to, say, the Mona Lisa. It's a pretty story, and makes logical sense, but that's not enough to make science, is it? --Kels (talk) 05:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's not science at all. It's not even a peer-reviewed paper.  But it is a well-presented concept that could certainly deserve further scrutiny by professionals in several fields, I think.  Notice, the Mona Lisa features much of what he talks about - in the background.  Surely it's not a coinkydink?  It must be aliens, it's obvious!  Come wreck RW2 with us, darling!  05:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds about right to me. And although beauty is on the eye of the beholder etc, there must certainly be plenty of objective one around. For example I am rather sure that more than a statistically significant 50% of the population would find a deformed face ugly, and the reasons for that are very evolutionary obvious. Now, the interesting thing about that, is how does the brain check about "deformity" in the first place? And an answer (out of the many) is that it checks for symmetry. You can go on about then, that symmetry is a pretty important aesthetical feature that has incorporated itself into a fuckton of other things, ie, architecture. Be it the Acropolis or the temples in Thailand or the Eiffel tower its clear that we like that. I note for example that a lot of people might call a cube, or a sphere "simple" or "boring", but you almost never hear anyone refer to them as "ugly". Similarly, there are some studies like this one that show that some things trigger brains the same way regardless of civilization and culture you can throw into the mix. Regardless of rock, jazz etc, "rythmic" music is almost the same everywhere (or people instantly get it), and "meditative / relaxing" music is very similar everywhere, and so on. Sen (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Beauty is highly subjective and a product of cultural conditioning. Imagine that you have been abandoned on a desert island as a baby and never seen another human being. Years later when you are sexually mature a woman swims ashore, is she beautiful? You have no terms of reference, you may not even be aware of you own visage. Many primitive societies have different ideas of beauty and actively deform the human body to make it more "alluring" - think of extended necks, plates in the lip, bound feet, cranial deformation. 17:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree there is a major temporal cultural component, but I think the argument that there are underlying evolution-driven factors too is strong. As far as the deformed face example, the only reason for it to be "ugly" as it were is if it indicates underlying genetic problems, leading to poor reproductive/survival success, promoting genes that lead people to try to mate with the non-deformed.  Another point he is trying to make, which the peacock example is the basis for, is that regardless of what productions ("art" etc.) are considered temporally "beautiful", it is having the excess energy and "wealth" to produce items that are not necessarily practical (the perfectly wrought giant hand axe?) that "shows off" to a potential mate one's breeding and survival strengths.  17:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wreck RW day
The old database (RW2) is at this IP address, and Trent is going to "unlock" it from midnight tonight (EST) for about 24 hours so we can celebrate Conservapedia Day and our successful move to a new server (thanks Trent and Nx!!!) by doing as much damage to it as we feel like. So for those so inclined, hie thee on over there later tonight/tomorrow and have some fun. Just make sure anything you are doing still shows the IP in the location bar of your browser! I don't think there is a way to accidentally end up back here, but please be aware of the possibility. The goal is to get the server hot enough that Trent can cook his Hot Pockets directly on its case. See you there! 18:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There are a couple basic rules, you bring down my network connection game over, no malicious scripts, in fact stay away from java script completely. Just basic common sense should cover most issues. Have fun! Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Are MediaWiki/css pages fair game or off-limits? 19:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * oh fine. Trash the place while I'm in la-la land. Pictures or it didn't happen. -- Ψ Gremlin  18:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Does "don't upload illegal pornography" count as covered under basic common sense? 19:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What about legal pornography? 23:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What about illegal non-pornography? Totnesmartin (talk) 23:08, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this going to affect RationalWikiWiki? We're still on that server. --Admin (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't. You will have a new home soon enough. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

PS, everyone who is raping the old server sign in at my soon-to-be-blanked user talk page so we know who to rip on, ok? 04:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

THE GAME IS AFOOT! 04:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Eh, cripes, I may have ignored my own advice. Someone please watch that I didn't anything weirder than usual here, ok?  04:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, the template edit links come back here. So sorry.  04:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is awesome! It would be even better if it weren't so bloody late! -- 05:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It runs for at least 24 hours. Knock yourself out.  Now, only one "portal" template I hit brought me back here.  Which one was the culprit?   05:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but is wrecking something you have been allowed to wreck, true to the essence of wrecking? *scratches chin* Sen (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. Doing it without permission would be wandalism, like that template edit button that brought me back here (I since fixed it, hopefully it was the only one).  17:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

So I assume I'm not getting my sysop and crats right back on that server... 22:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I would but apparently can't. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nx must have only put them back on Tyrannis, then... 22:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I only gave them back to Human and Onion. Robothead.svg iron, yet caring fist 23:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And Lily just gave you back all rights while removing mine. That works I guess. Robothead.svg iron, yet caring fist 23:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But the power was nice while it lasted... 23:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * KNEEL BEFORE ZOD! Robothead.svg iron, yet caring fist 00:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I blocked whoever is running "TK" there until the heat death of the universe, but I had to call it "infinite". 03:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be Onion. Robothead.svg iron, yet caring fist 03:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

BlightyNet
BlightyNet has now passed its first anniversary, and we still haven't got any real visibility. Suggest Redditting it soon. 22:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Aw, I like that little wiki. It has, how do you say en Anglais, "soul"?  It's the little narrow gauge engine that the TUC and Thatcher didn't kill! Happy birthday, BlightyNet, and many happy returns!  03:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Last chance to say goodbye
The old server will be re-factored for a new use in a few hours time, last change to say goodbye. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We'll need a new photo - David Gerard (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems offline now. Goodbye RW2. 03:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are probably 706 blocked or something, for being a dim bulb. I just said my goodbyes. 03:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Its official now, all the old equipment is offline and has various different fates in store for it. It served us well when we needed it but on to bigger and better! Here is to hoping I won't have rationalwiki crash dreams during the holiday vacation this year! Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for allowing us our little bit of fun, Trent, and I hope your wiki-crash dreams evaporate as fast as I want my "living with people I don't know" dreams to. 03:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm on to you Britain
I figured it out. In my pre-morning haze I figured the ultimate goal of the Tea Party. Those bastards want to weaken America and return to Great Britain. Think about it. Tea Party, TEA TIME. Or the fact they attack Obama as anti-colonial. Hmmm, what was a British colony? Answer: AMERICA, which rebelled and stopped being a colony. Also, Australia, where Rupert Murdock is from! That was a British colony. Or how about Sarah Palin? Her family is described as being America's royalty. Royalty, like the Queen? Returning America to God? How about the Divine Right of Kings? British Loyalists, you have been exposed--Thanatos (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done, we'll immediately wrap up the Royal family and post them to you. You're fucking welcome to the jug-eared parasites&hellip;-- 23:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What have you been drinking/smoking. I want some. Robothead.svg iron, yet caring fist 00:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This. Banned in New Zealand BTW. But that has nothing to do with my theory--Thanatos (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Dear America, please feel free to keep your Tea Party; you Sarah Palin and that Murdoch fellow. Love, mummy Britain. 01:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we give them to someone else? We don't want them. Also, when I discussed this with someone, they said they'd love to see Scotland secede from Britan and the EU and allow the tea party to assist in their constitutional convention. I need to meet saner people. Robothead.svg iron, yet caring fist 14:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You know damn well that if this was 1776, I wouldn't be typing this on the Internet, but the American Christian Right would all be Tories, every last one of them. "How dare liberals like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin question the Divine Right of George III?"

I'll make you Brits an offer -- you all take the Red States back, and we get Canada in trade. MDB (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Erm, we don't have Canada anymore I'm afraid.  14:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, they probably would. Actually one creepy thing I remember for my conservative days was there is a small Tory-Tea Party Alliance in some parts of the blogosphere. Mostly, it was them sharing pictures of scantily clad "totties" and discussing how the Torys need to learn from the tea party and loosen gun laws in England.
 * Er no. We'll have our original 13 back, thank you. The other slightly retarded, very embarrassing off-spring you can keep. -- Ψ Gremlin  14:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You can have South Carolina, Georgia (except Atlanta), and Virginia (except the DC suburbs) back. The rest of the original 13 we keep. MDB (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Basically, you're welcome the Gentlemanly South. We'll keep the prurient industrial north (and Atlanta), thank you.  04:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think if Scotland did secede, they'd be consistently more left-wing than the remains of the UK. Perhaps I'd move up there. 19:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the Scots have a stereotype of financial prudence and it was also a Scotsman who laid out the principles of capitalism but John Law was the architect of the first modern financial bubble. So who knows whether they would tend to socialism if they had complete control and responsibility for their own finances and national security? 13:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Quantum Jumping - Redux
So I signed up for a free Quantum Jumping course (See section above somewhere) and got an email from the Customer Happiness Manager.


 * Hi Ace,


 * First, let me introduce myself. My name is Alexandra and I'm
 * Burt's assistant and Customer Happiness Manager.


 * Thanks for signing up to receive your free Quantum Jumping
 * introduction course. Over the next few weeks Burt and I will
 * be sending you emails with access to each part of the course.
 * So make sure to keep checking your inbox! I hope you're
 * ready for this!


 * Here is part 1.


 * After years of keeping it hush-hush, Burt is finally revealing his
 * most effective, yet most controversial, technique that he has
 * spent his entire life perfecting.


 * There is nothing else that can explain how, now at the age of
 * 81, Burt has become a spiritual guru, praised teacher, famed
 * painter, awarded photographer, published author, ordained
 * minister and an online entrepreneur - and most within the last
 * 10 years!


 * Now it's time to hear how he did it.


 * Over the next few weeks you will receive tons of cool stuff from
 * Burt including a 6-part program where he reveals the secrets
 * behind some of his greatest life accomplishments.


 * Grab hold of Part 1 here.


 * jump on in,


 * Alexandra Williams


 * PS - WARNING: This if for the open-minded rationalist only.


 * PPS - 99% of people will never realize their true potential.
 * Don't be one of them.

How exciting. Aceword up 00:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I postulate that the next 6 weeks will be chock full of emails about how you're going to learn this over the next 6 weeks. 02:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus frequent demands for money. Aceword up 02:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "This if for the open-minded rationalist only." *snort* 05:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the perfect course for somebody. -- Ψ Gremlin  14:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

My cats quantum jump all the time, I don't know what you need some silly email correspondence course for Ozznova (talk) 16:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one who gets annoyed by the use of "quantum leap" to mean very large when it is the smallest possible? 13:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

American Loons
. Is this by a RatWikian? We get a mention. 18:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think you need to be a member of RW to know Vox Day is a moron. But it's nice to see RW getting quoted - that said, Cruise was reasonably sane and coherent when he appeared on Top Gear a few months back. 19:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It links to RW a lot. Own up, who writes it? --ZooGuard (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I write it. Or do I? Mwahahahahaha! Conficker (talk) 21:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It also links to Scienceblogs Pharyngula and Denialism a lot. In any case, there's 99 articles right there for people to get into order. Writing for LessWrong (working on something about cults and cranks and very smart people with very bad ideas) is way too hard work, this is lots more fun - David Gerard (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just make sure you don't reference a post that references only RationalWiki. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've started this: User:ZooGuard/Encyclopedia of American Loons. Everyone can edit, just make sure no effort is duplicated. I'll start from the 10-s, bulleted wiki-links only. --ZooGuard (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The list is here now: RationalWiki:Encyclopedia of American Loons, complete with external links to the blog for the lazy. (I'm bored and it shows.) --ZooGuard (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That looks like just A to D so far... 18:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, America is a big place. I'd expect more than 100 when it's A to Z. 18:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I demand this in top trumps form. -- 21:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Or Tragic the Saddening form... not that I actually know the rules to that. 22:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's like MTG but with more crying and less violence. Robothead.svg iron, yet caring fist 13:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Got ya nose
AMassiveGay (talk) 11:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's been around for a week or so before it got picked up by the BBC. When I first saw it, it immediately reminded me of Kipling's Just So story - although it is not something that I've read since my childhood getting on for fifty years ago. 13:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Raise ya -- Ψ Gremlin  14:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Which was the most viewed video on U-Tube in 2007 if I remember correctly. 15:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My snark receptor is off-line, so I'll be safe and say 'It's still an amazing video.' -- Ψ Gremlin  15:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Symphony of Science Returns
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PT90dAA49Q&feature=subRyantherebel (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Libel UK
New guide downloadable 21:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Liquid Threads
NO!   That is all. 21:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, discussion is ongoing, but the opposition is pretty overwhelming. 21:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Using Liquid Threads to argue agin Liquid Threads is rather silly: before the forum we argued here, where it's all visible instead of being chopped up into fragments. Recent changes looks a fuckin' mess. It's   crap    . 21:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * Even Nx isn't suggesting we use it in the forums. That was only Pi. 22:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nx (Talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Totnesmartin (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 0×π seconds (account creation disabled) (not this HCM again please, or I'll just disable Liquidthreads and be done with it.) GOOD! 22:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * Seriously, wtf? I've been doing my best to avoid the usual HCM this time around, and now you're goading me into doing what I usually do when people complain that whatever I did was crap? -- Nx  / talk 22:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Prod. Prod. Goad. Goad. 22:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]

NO!   IT's AWESOME  22:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's okay, Nx, confusing indentation, edit conflicts, and impossible maintenance must be popular. 22:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth I think the existing interface is a bit clunk and visually isn't appealing, but it seems like its under going some significant work in that department, good idea no quiet ready for prime time? I see no problem with having it installed for people that want to play with it on their talk pages, but don't see us rolling it out widely at this time. Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And get it off Rc? And let me set "0" in my prefs?22:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * (If this were lqt, I wouldn't be getting an EC) It actually used to be prettier, but for some weird reason they made it all fugly grey. Also, it's currently undergoing another redesign -- Nx  / talk 22:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I'm not actually against the concept, I just think that it could be done much better (and that it would be much better if implemented as a layer atop the current talkpage syntax). 22:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like it has potential, but the way that forum page has degenerated into an unreadable morass shows that it's definitely not ready for prime time at the moment. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (from below)...shove my comment up here to indicate I'm replying to it, breaking the chronological order of the posts and the flow if someone wants to read it (you can return to my post below now).
 * Hang on, someone actively changed the look of it to what it is now?  22:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you just seem to have low standards. Personally I don't care for it.  It's ugly, clunky, hides parts of conversation so it requires extra clicks just to read an existing thread, new replies to messages get sent to the bottom frequently, which sometimes requires several screens of scrolling just to see.  None of which is a problem with this very talk page, which happens to be standard with all the other talk pages on the wiki, and uses the same markup as all the mainspace pages.  I can't see any compelling reason to change, given all that. --Kels (talk) 23:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. I can see some merits in some of what liquid threads is trying to do, but (at least in its current form) it's doing them really badly.   23:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The uglyness is a non-issue as that's superficial and can be changed. I imagine it fact that the current version of liquid threads is hideous is amplifying peoples negative opinions about it (this is just human nature, I imagine the people who are used to developing stuff won't be phased by this as they'll be used to working with far from pretty placeholders). Anyway, the current system produces edit conflicts and looks horrendous to follow when you want to start branching conversations away from each other. Assume I want to reply to SuspectedReplicant above after all these posts have been added, the comment starting "it has potential". Do I put it here with an @SuspectedReplicant, do I..
 * Here, where the indent matches SR's post and all the posts remain in chronological order... or do I (look up)
 * Anyway, the point is that this entire indenting thing is a workaround because the first version of MediaWiki didn't come with a proper forum system to discuss things. Once you're used to it, it's fine and if you're making quick notes discussing and article content, it's fine... but add anything longer to it and you get an edit conflict and have to basically piss about reinserting your comment. For forum pages and debates or even the faster flowing discussions where everyone pounces on them at once the threaded conversations will be massively useful. 23:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No, silly, you like I am doing. You edit right under their comment, using one more indent than the next reply.  Has worked great for almost four years. Let's wait until LT is out of beta to experiment with it.  03:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And it'll only take 20 mouseclicks and 35 pages of scrolling to read the whole thing! Concise! --Kels (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Liquid Threads are  goddamn fucking hideous   . There, I said it. Aceword up 00:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Which we all agree on. 00:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are probably better ways to run talk pages. And there are problems with talk pages. Unfortunately I find the Liquid Threads thing more confusing than wiki-talk.  So it's not the solution yet.  At least not for me.--BobSpring is sprung! 14:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If it bother's you that LiquidThreads is messing up your recent changes, then use http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?namespace=90&invert=1&tagfilter=&title=Special:RecentChanges -- Nx  / talk 09:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Cracked's 17 Images You Won't Believe Aren't Photoshopped (Part 7)
http://www.cracked.com/article_18878_17-images-you-wont-believe-arent-photoshopped-part-7.html 6 might but the highlight for most of you guy's.Ryantherebel (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The goats one has popped up here before. For me it's that one of the guy with half his frikkin' head missing. WTF? -- Ψ Gremlin  14:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that his skull is caved in, could well have happened when he was very young. Many pre-Columbian cultures in the Americas used to do something similar by tying planks to kids' heads. 15:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * CHANGE! GETTER ONE! (Works better than the Voltron reference)--Thanatos (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * They look like the Simpsons family. Marge on the left, Grandpa in the middle, and Homer on the right. FreeThought (talk) 08:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen Indiana Jones. I know they're aliens! 13:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly they are people, they were just inspired to do this by aliens. -  <font face=times color=black>π    13:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Pumpkins
Goddamnit! I love the Smashing Pumpkins, and today I find out that Billy Corgan is an anti-vax, chemtrail believer and global warming denialist. Who the fuck is next? 16:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Reg Presley of The Troggs, cereologist. 16:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean. Neal Adams is one of my favorite comics artists, and he believes in a bizarre theory about an expanding earth. MDB (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I still love the smashing pumpkins, no one can be perfect, and I'd just assume my entertainers STFU about their personal beliefs. No one gives a shit.  Oh, and that goes double for Bono.   17:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And Sting. If that arsehole could just shut up about his politics for five minutes, his band might actually be good. 17:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Moe Tucker of the Velvet Underground. They used to say "never meet your heroes." now with the internet, it's "never google your heroes." Real first name and last initial (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Susan Boyle, apparently she's a staunch Catholic. Silly twit (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And? 13:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank goodness Billy Bragg remains a solid constant. --Kels (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Jethro Tull, consistently mad Robothead.svg iron, yet caring fist 15:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Who? 16:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean Jethro Tull is Thick as a Brick? MDB (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the Flute is a heavy metal instrument. Robothead.svg iron, yet caring fist 17:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Jethro Tull is not heavy metal. I like Jethro Tull. I do not like heavy metal. Therefore, Jethro Tull is not heavy metal. QED. MDB (talk) 17:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm messing with Human. Robothead.svg iron, yet caring fist 17:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Scientology is the worst for this sort of effect, can't believe they nabbed Beck and Nancy 'Bart Simpson' Cartwright. Grumblejaws (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The drummer (I think its the drummer) from Iron Maiden is a born again conservative christian. Aceword up 20:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Harry Webb sorry! 21:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.png [[Image:Toast s.png|alt=Toast|text-bottom|20px|link=User talk:SusanG]]
 * The plutonium flute, it sounds great, but you get lip cancer. 05:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sic transit ...
Just had a phone call from my nephew - my estranged brother died on Sunday. Seen him once in twenty years. No feelings - strange. 07:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sad. And sorry. It might hit later.  Surely there was "something" before the estrangement?  07:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The death of anyone is a sad event but a fact of life. Just because there is a blood relationship doesn't mean that you should somehow automatically feel grief. Grief is an emotional response to loss, so if you haven't had much of a relationship for the past 20 years then you've probably not lost much by his death other than some statistical relationship. Your current good friends and pets give you more fulfilment and their deaths will be felt. Many people adopt children and if the death of one party of that relationship is not lessened by there being no blood tie then rationally the fact that there is a blood tie should not oblige you to feel something. 10:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I echo Genghis' comment, as I feel the same about my family, most of whom I'm estranged from. I sometimes think about how I would feel should I find out about one of them dying. Would I go to a funeral of someone who is a stranger to me? I have friends who are more family to me than my own blood. Do you think you'll go to the funeral, Susan? Bondurant (talk) 11:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear about your brother. And yeah, no feelings is perfectly normal.  I was exactly the same when I heard that my stepson had died and felt like that for weeks, even months afterwards.  It takes time for something that large to sink in.-- 14:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was like that with my paternal grandmother. But I generally don't go through a heavy grief thing after people die as a general rule, and the times I do (as in my g'ma's case) it's usually delayed by some time. --Kels (talk) 14:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Condolences, as the others have said, sometimes it takes time to sink in. -- Ψ Gremlin  15:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My condolences to you, and I understand how you feel. I have a half/step brother (Dad's adopted son from his first marriage.) I haven't seen him in well over two decades and the only feelings I have towards him are "you know, Dad did help raise you. You could call him more than once every five years." If he died today, my only concern would be how Dad would handle it. He's just another person in the sea of humanity to me. MDB (talk) 16:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving Day
For all who celebrate the day, have a good one Hamster (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For literally decades, it was just a long, quiet weekend for me. Then I started getting off on cooking the food for friends, and then I got drafted into T-day with my neighbors.  Good people.  Thanks, Hamster, and well wishes to all who are struggling to put aside differences in order to enjoy shared remembrances on this day.  06:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Where were you when...
I see today marks the anniversary of JFK getting popped by Oswald/CIA/Mafia/Jimmy Hoffa/Martians (and Maggie getting the boot as PM). I was thinking that that was very much our folks' "where were you when..." question. Which got me thinking - what are our "Where were you when..." questions. So where were you when...
 * 9/11 happened
 * The Berlin Wall came down
 * Challenger exploded
 * First shuttle was launched
 * Mandela walked free
 * Yeltsin climbed on a tank to save Russia
 * Sarajevo was under siege
 * Diana dies in Paris

Wow, we have lived in interesting times. Any others? -- Ψ Gremlin  14:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ...Columbia burned up? (Also, if we stay alive a little bit more, we'll see the last Shuttle being launched.)
 * ...Chernobyl "blew up"? (*furtive look over shoulder to see if User:Tweenk is nearby*) --ZooGuard (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Coming bang up to date I guess the rescue of the Chilean miners would be a global TV event. 15:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good one. Sort of unrelated, but just realised it's been 23 years since I was involved in this cluster fuck. -- Ψ Gremlin  15:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * John Lennon died? Kurt Cobain? 85.234.65.51 (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Say something positive, people... --ZooGuard (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the problem - it's bad news that makes news. That said, I'm counting 4 good news stories there. Five if you think Di was a Sloane trollop. -- Ψ Gremlin  15:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * "One small step for a man, a giant leap for mankind."
 * Thousands of innocent civilians were fatally gassed in their sleep by a multi-national corporation near the capital city of Madhya Pradesh in early December 1984.
 * Some made-up number rolled over in a lot of CPU registers. Proclamations that the sky was in danger of falling notwithstanding, hardly any computers imploded, with one notable exception. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I feel young..
 * Challenger Exploded -- I actually remember this one reasonably well.  My mom worked as a photographer at Olan Mills at the time, and I was there.  It came on the radio and every one gathered around it in a tiny office in the back.  I was only 5.
 * 9/11 -- I was asleep. My sister woke me and said that a plane had hit the WTC, I thought that was weird, but shit happens.  I remember years ago a small bi-plane hit the Empire State Building, I assumed it was the same thing.  Back to sleep.  My sister came and told me a 2nd plane had hit the WTC, I told her to go away and went back to sleep.  Then when she came and told me the WTC collapsed, I was all, "Wait..  What?" and finally got my ass out of bed.
 * Berlin Wall fell -- I honestly don't remember. I remember discussing the importance in school the next day.  But again, I was only 9.
 * Princess Di -- I actually remember this really well, but didn't much care of this part of the story at the time. My dad died of Pancreatic Cancer about 4 hours after she died.  So, a long night knowing he'd be dying soon (my mom and him got divorced when I was a baby, he died in a nursing home) with all the news about Di all over the news.  So I spent the next few weeks actually mourning.
 * Union-Carbide thing -- Not a clue, too american and too young. I only know what you're talking about because I grew up near Midland, MI, and when Dow bought out U-C, there was the big issue of wether Dow should be on the hook for it, with local feeling largely being "Fuck them Indians", since this was their pay-checks that was being discussed.
 * The rest, either I'm too American or too young to remember.  17:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would definitely add the first Moon landing, Three Mile Island, and Lennon's murder. 17:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * @Quaru -- the weekend Diana died was traumatic for me, too, though no where near as bad as you. A friend passed away that weekend, at far too young an age, and the first man I ever had more than one date with told me he wasn't interested in seeing me anymore. (He had been seeing several other guys, which was fine, but one wanted an exclusive relationship, and he accepted.) MDB (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

MDB's Answers

 * 9/11 happened -- At work. Someone came into the office after the first place hit and said something at happened at the WTC. We all found a TV and watched events unfold. Being a Federal facility, we were ordered to evacuate about an hour later.
 * The Berlin Wall came down -- I just got home from work, turned on the TV, wasn't paying much attention until I realized something really major had happened.
 * Challenger exploded -- At work, eating lunch.
 * First shuttle was launched -- in middle or high school. I can't rememver and I'm too lazy to look it up.
 * Mandela walked free -- I was about to go grocery shopping when the local alt rock station I had playing in my car announced it, and immediately started play "Free Nelson Mandela".
 * Yeltsin climbed on a tank to save Russia -- can't remember
 * Sarajevo was under siege -- can't remember.
 * Diana dies in Paris -- I heard she had been in an accident while I was coming back from somewhere. I went to bed and learned she was dead the next morning.
 * "One small step for a man, a giant leap for mankind." -- Too young to notice.
 * Thousands of innocent civilians were fatally gassed in their sleep by a multi-national corporation near the capital city of Madhya Pradesh in early December 1984. -- All I remember of that was noting it was Union Carbide, and that they, at the time, also ran Oak Ridge National Labs, which I lived within half an hour of.
 * Some made-up number rolled over in a lot of CPU registers. -- Celebrating with friends. MDB (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and as far as the moon landing goes... a friend was around two-three years old. Her family had a wedding that day. All the adults stayed up watching the news, and not paying much attention to her... who walked around finishing the cups filled with booze. So, at three years old, my friend was drunk for the moon landing. MDB (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Other answers

 * News of JFK's death first heard in French class. Kid in the seat ahead of mine said, "Ffurkk. This means Goldwater."
 * Moon landing seen "live" on a small B&W TV in a barracks cadre room I shared with two other GI's.
 * I didn't go to Woodstock. Wrong location, unsympathetic employer: California, U.S. Army.
 * Challenger launch seen live on a bigger NTSC (Never Twice the Same Colour) screen brought into an Ethernet (10BASE5) lab where one of the techs was an aerospace buff. Sad day. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have very little memory most of the above events (the ones I was alive for). It's all a hideous blur of biege tedium. Life has been passing me by since the day I was sproggedAMassiveGay (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Stunteddwarf's Answers

 * 9/11 happened: Had just come home after work at the library.  Literally got back at 2pm, threw on the news and there it was.
 * The Berlin Wall came down: Can't remember exactly what I was doing, but I do remember the news feed of the wall coming down.  We're talking, what, end of '89 so I would have been 14, ah, just starting my GCSEs.  Seem to remember that those were busy political years.
 * Challenger exploded: We'd just moved, so I remember seeing the news on the TV that had been perched somewhere, whilst at the same time being surrounded by boxes.
 * First shuttle was launched =  Yeah, right.
 * Mandela walked free: Only a few months after the wall came down.  Remember feeling, and the general feeling of my friends at the time, that the world was really shifting around us, especially when a few months after that that bitch Thatcher was tossed out on her arse.
 * Yeltsin climbed on a tank to save Russia: Yeah, sort of vague memories of rumblings in Russia, but that was exam year, so pretty much January-July was given up to the exams, and then August was lost waiting for the results.
 * Sarajevo was under siege: Phew, '92-'96. Bad years for me.  Actually '89 onwards was fairly shitty, but I developed full blown bi-polar disorder about '91, so '91 on is pretty much a dark murky blur that I can't really remember until about '97.  I do remember stuff about the disintegration of what was Yugoslavia but just about the only strong memory I have of Sarajevo is finding out that Ribic and Juric had written a Spectrum 48K emulator for the PC called 'Warajevo' while they were holed up in Sarajevo during the seige.  I still use that emulator as well.
 * Diana dies in Paris: That one is easy.  Had moved into my flat 4 months earlier, it was a Sunday and I hadn't had the TV on all day.  In fact, I'd been playing a solo game of 'Star Warriors', bonus nerd points to anyone who knows that game.  Finished up at about 5:30pm so knocked on the TV to see if anything decent was on and the news that something had happened to Diana was all over the channels.  Problem was the news readers seemed very shy in actually stating what had happened.  It took about 15mins to work out that Diana was dead, and even then nobody had said directly, it was a case of piece it together, and I do remember thinking to myself, quite clearly, that the daft bint had topped herself.  It took another hour before the news readers got around to talking about the car crash.
 * Also: Chernobyl going up.  Freddie Mercury dying.  Ethiopia in the early eighties.  OJ, of course.  The first series of Murder One.  Nerve gas attack on the Tokyo Metro.  The bitterly cold winter of '82.  News that they were bringing back Star Trek in a new series.  News that Star Wars was being re-CGI'd (meh) and re-released in the cinemas (yeah!).  Lord of the Rings being filmed.  Knightmare appearing on TV.  The first time any kind of NFL appeared on TV (good ol' Channel 4, how Imlach made a show out of what he was given was incredible).  Satellite TV appearing in the UK.  Tomorrow's World.  The first time seeing The Simpsons.  The Dragonlance Chronicles being published.  The first time reading the Thomas Covenant Chronicles.  The first time I read the Wheel of Time books.  The first Terry Pratchett book I read (Wyrd Sisters, second-hand, brought for 49p).  The first time using a computer (oh, fuck yeah, it might only have been a BBC Micro, but it blew me away), that would have been about '83, the really horrifying thing is that the school I was in was still using BBC Micros at the beginning of my A-level course, 7 years later.-- 01:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * A fellow Thomas Covenant fan! Huzzah!


 * Or perhaps that should be, "A fellow Thomas Covenant fan! Bloody hell! Hell and blood! I'm a leper!" followed by a few words known only to people who have eaten a thesaurus for breakfast. MDB (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Donaldson does seem to have a habit of picking a word of the month and then flogging it to death. Most of them I could understand and follow but I did have to look up oriflamme.  Still, I did manage to read the Gormenghast Trilogy, and Peake had a habit of picking words and then using them in the wrong context, notably, characters falling into an incontinent sleep, so Donaldson was easy compared to that.-- 17:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ace sez
I hope this has been enlightening. Aceword up 03:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 9/11 - Was sitting at home drinking, smoking medicinal herbs and watching BBC all night and into the day (with frequent beer runs)
 * The Berlin Wall came down - don't remember that far back
 * Challenger exploded - Same answer as 9/11 (was that challenger? I remember the re-entry explosion, was that something else? Fuck.)
 * First shuttle was launched - don't remember that far back
 * Mandela - don't remember that far back
 * Yeltsin climbed on a tank to save Russia - don't remember that far back
 * Sarajevo was under siege - don't remember that far back
 * Diana dies in Paris - Was on a train, drinking whisky and reading Cosmos by Sagan.
 * Challenger exploded at take-off, Columbia during re-entry. --62.142.167.134 (talk) 10:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Bad hoomin
In rough order...
 * JFK. I have black and white memories.  I may have been watching the debut of Doctor Who, though.
 * Woodstock. I was 9 I think.  But I do remember my dad buying Sgt Pepper in 1967.  Wow, way to blow a young mind.
 * Apollo 11. First week in USA, watched on color TV in a house lent to us on our way from NYC to NH.
 * End of the Vietnam War. Rang bell at local church.  Very cool war was over.
 * Finding my first Clash! record. Priceless.
 * Lennon died late at night on my birthday, sort of. Friend called next day with bad news.
 * Mandela, Iron Curtain, Germanies unite... I saved a Boston Globe front page, and inside page with tentative new map of Europe, had it mounted on foamcore and shrinkwrapped. Great Toles cartoon taped to it, showing Europe before and after - before, the East was one big "country", after, the West was.
 * The nineties sucked.
 * 2000.00.00.00, saw a good band in a shitty venue with awful sound. Left car keys in door handle, wondered where they were all night.  Only in Portland ME.  Got free Windows copy of my accounting program due to class action suit.
 * 9/11. Called by girlfriend around 9:30 AM.  Spent all day with TV on, lit candle around 3PM as dead were being reported.  Local family lost someone, they sold their house and moved to W DC to be peace activists.  Left flowers from my garden at their driveway for several years after, until the move.
 * Diana who?
 * I first heard of CP from a close friend. Life has never been the same, you assholes!


 * Further note on the Challenger explosion - it was especially sad, of course, because Christa McAuliffe was the first civilian to go to space. And she was a teacher, so a good many young uns were watching the launch on TVs in school.  So many, many people would have seen it live.  I guess we don't have one of them here? (yet?)  16:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * First words out of Dave's mouth, the tech who had organized the TV in the lab, were, "Damn, there was that teacher on board..."
 * That disaster is directly on RW's mission, as a flagrantly horrible example of what happens when bureaucratic timelines confront common sense. Richard Feynman had a few choice words to say in the aftermath, something like "that ain't going to seal shit" after chilling a piece of O-ring material and snapping it in front of the assembled multitude. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also a prime example of a black swan event and the O-ring is often used as an example of hindsight bias (and certainly one of the most vivid that I can think of). 12:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Black swan may apply, but hindsight bias is a stretch here. Distinct impression that the engineers' prior advice to NOT launch in cold weather is well-documented, as is program management's response along the lines of, "What, you're telling us we have to wait until April?" Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I remember seeing the Seconds from Disaster segement on Challenger (FWIW) - one of the engineers was on and said they were basically beaten into submission by management to let the flight go ahead, over their initial protests. -- Ψ Gremlin  16:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

SuspectedReplicant's Answers

 * On 9/11 I was working from home. Two colleagues IMed me to say "Turn on the TV, NOW!" and I did. It took at least two minutes for me to accept I wasn't watching a huge practical joke.
 * When Challenger exploded I was watching TV at home. We were just about to sit down for dinner and I announced to the family that the Space Shuttle had exploded. My dad told me not to be stupid... then he came in to watch the TV too.
 * I don't remember the first Shuttle launch, but I remember the first landing. My dad and I were staying in Oxford with an aunt, and it was well past my bedtime but there was an air vent in my bedroom and another in the living room, and I could just see the TV through the two of them. Before going to bed I made sure the one in the living room was open then I watched the landing through several vertical slats.
 * Diana dying. My clock radio came on and I remember hearing the Virgin News reporter going on about it briefly before I smacked the Off button. I had a weird dream about Diana and woke up wondering what the hell was going on.

For the others, I don't have any special recollections. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 05:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Dick's replies

 * 9/11 - I woke up sometime after 9 and turned on the TV, which was odd because that's almost never how I start the day. Saw smoke coming out of both towers. Took a little while to sink in that this was really damn big, and not some small plane accidents.
 * Berlin Wall - Don't remember specifically.
 * Challenger exploded - 5th grade classroom. Had just come back from lunch (or something) and someone said "Christa McAuliffe's dead". "No she's not" I replied. The TV later wheeled into the classroom proved me wrong.
 * First shuttle - No idea. I suppose I was pretty young.
 * Mandela walked free - Somehow I missed this one. I remember sometime after the fact coming across a "Free Nelson Mandela" something or other, which my friend chuckled at. I asked shy, only to be informed he's been free for a while.
 * Yeltsin saves Russia - I basically missed the entire coup thing as I was smack in the middle of the only hurricane I've ever been in. Knocked out all power for days and pushed all other news stories on the back burner.
 * Sarajaveo - Not exactly a "moment" occurrence like most of the others. I remember the situation but there wasn't any moment that left an impact on me.
 * Di dies - Home from college for the summer, I remember by sister telling me Diana had been in a big crash. Didn't make much of an impression on me. Went out for a little while, came back later, and the first thing she said was "she's dead!" "Who?" I thought "....Mom???".

Don't remember most of the others people mentioned. Moon landing was before my time. I was 5 when Lennon died, and I'm sure I had no idea who he was. Don't remember Union Carbide either, though I was old enough I could have. Think that's it. DickTurpis (talk) 14:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh you babies! For anyone as antiquated as me you have to add the Cuban Missile Crisis. We'd just got our first TV and, even as a child, I was glued to it. I understood enough to know just how close we were to the end of the world. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * New one for the list. Where were you when&hellip;&hellip;the second Korean war broke out.-- 15:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Or the Second Punic War. DickTurpis (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Free Thought's replies

 * 9/11 happened - Was working on a university powerpoint presentation at home. Didn't even know it happened until arriving at university hours later ready for my seminar, and seeing crowds of people gathered around the university cafe's television screens. A lot of the female students were crying, so knew something bad happened. I remember the tv channel kept constantly replaying the aircraft crashing into the building and thinking how morbid television was becoming.
 * The Berlin Wall came down - At home in the loungeroom watching it on the special evening news telecast.
 * Challenger exploded - In a library. Didn't even know it happened until arriving home and turning on the television.
 * First shuttle was launched - In my bedroom at parents house listening to the radio with news updates. I remember the shuttle was delayed numerous times while on the launchpad and it seemed like forever before it would take off.
 * Mandela walked free - At a friends pool party. Didn't see it until later on television.
 * Yeltsin climbed on a tank to save Russia - At home watching television when the news flashes came on about the failed attempt to overthrow Yeltsin.
 * Sarajevo was under siege - Sarajevo was under siege for a long time! I remember seeing the pictures on television of buildings with bullet holes through them. That's about it.
 * Diana dies in Paris - I remember it being on a sunny weekend. I was on the computer at home using IRC when someone sent a message saying "Lady Di is now Lady Die". I thought they were joking so turned on the radio and heard the news about the car crash in the tunnel. FreeThought (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

AJKGordon's little completely irrelevant thing about the Space Shuttle
I don't remember the first time the shuttle launched but I do remember this. I had been invited to a friend's house in Marlow (near London) for lunch with his whole family including his rather elderly granny. As we were sitting outside, granny quietly piped up, "Ooh look, there's the Space Shuttle." "Oh don't be so silly, Gra....." Sure enough, there it was sitting on the back of a 747 coming into land at Heathrow. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just Googled it. Apparently it landed at Stansted, which is north-east of London. It must have done a low fly over London which is when we would have seen it in Marlow, probably on its way to or from Stansted. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Sen's possible lies
Well, you are making me feel young...


 * 9/11 happened: Was talking on mIRC (how nerdy!) and people started talking about towers on fire. I had no idea what they were on about until at least half an hour later when I turned on the TV and proceeded to inform my parents that significant amount of excrament has just intersected rotating blades.
 * The Berlin Wall came down: Too young to remember.
 * Challenger exploded: Not even born.
 * First shuttle was launched: Not even born.
 * Mandela walked free: Too young to remember
 * Yeltsin climbed on a tank to save Russia: Too young to remember
 * Sarajevo was under siege: Too busy playing with lego.
 * Diana dies in Paris: Probably at home. Never really cared about that one very much because so many people die daily yet they don't get that much attention?
 * Columbia burned up: Ok, I sure do remember that one. Me and my parents were going to meet at a specific place in the town in order to eat out. (I remember the exact spot we met up) and they told me about Columbia. I [Embarrasing detail] cried/teared up a bit. That's right a teen Europan crying because the American shuttle blew up. Why? Because I am that much of a space exploration fan. Because I think that the Shuttle is a symbol of some of the better qualities of mankind (curiosity, adventure, willpower to explore the universe). Because I think of it (and lots of other machines) as masterwork sculptures of human ingenuity. Because, even if I know that in reality the only reason it came into existance, was because some Pentagon guys got tricked into thinking that they would capture soviety satellites with it, I also know that a lot of NASA guys, don't think of it that way and had a lot of fun with it and felt sad for all of them.

I further remember that, because of the disgust and extremely bad impression it made to me, when the A380 got unveiled and in American rightist boards (Free Republic etc) they were wishing for it to blow up / crash, making fun of it because it was "French" etc. Lets just say that memories like this have contributed to me hating nationalists (as well as the idea of nationstate patriotism in any form) with such a passion, that if I were to explain it, it would make Ayn Rand complain that I use the term "collectivists" and "useless parasites" way too often.
 * Chernobyl "blew up: Got born later on that year. A disappointing lack of superpowers.
 * Some made-up number rolled over in a lot of CPU registers: Celebrating with family, in our village. I actually wanted to go in a "cool" place (Like London or Paris) so much, but we were there, exactly in case everything went to pot, and people in big cities started eating each other etc. Amusingly, the electronic sign at the event did get afflicted by Y2K and displayed "happy 1860" or something.
 * First Terry Pratchett book from the discworld series was "The colour of Magic", although I later realized that the first Terry Pratchett books I have ever read was "The Carpet People" / "Diggers" / "Wings" trilogy, at least 3 years before discworld.
 * First time seeing The Simpsons: Hell if I know. My parents liked it but as a kid, I thought the show looked ugly and only as a bored university student I appreciated it (and after having come in contact with South Park and Futurama). I did know however that the "dad" was a worker in a nuclear power plant, which I found amusing because my father is a nuclear physicist and I once gave him as a present this ^^
 * First time using a computer. An Amstrad hand-me-down from my dad. I still remember the "CAT" command. Instead of a "black & white" it had a "green & dark green" screen.
 * First PC game: Flight Unlimited and my second PC game was either Flight simulator 95 or 98. The funny thing is that not only I have been an aviation and flight simulator fan ever since, but within the next year I will begin training for an ultralight aircraft license... Sen (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I vote for best post in response to this query. Despite all the "I wasn't born yet" lies.  05:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Bob M's replies
Where was I, what was I doing, how did I find out?
 * 9/11 happened - watching TV at work.
 * The Berlin Wall came down - Watching TV in some Pub.
 * Challenger exploded - Watching the news.
 * First shuttle was launched - Watching the news.
 * Mandela walked free - listening to the radio.
 * Yeltsin climbed on a tank to save Russia - Watching TV at home.
 * Sarajevo was under siege - Watching TV.
 * Diana dies in Paris - Reading a newspaper (strange that one).--BobSpring is sprung! 19:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to watch an awful lot of TV... 19:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

SusanG

 * Sputnik: "'kinell!" - the talk of the school; that sound: beep... beep...beep...
 * Apollo 11: watched all there was on BBC, remember Nixon taking credit. Also the splashdown.
 * Berlin wall: Cried(!)
 * Hiatus: memory gone!


 * 9/11: watched on net @ work: at first didn't believe it - thought it was advanced CGI
 * Di- dyin': at a party: general air of "meh!"

Psy

 * 9/11 happened - came home early from work, turned on the telly minutes before the 2nd plane went in. Was a surreal moment.
 * The Berlin Wall came down - I remember visials, but not the who/what/where
 * Challenger exploded - read it in the morning paper
 * First shuttle was launched - watched the launch in school. Still remember I gt into trouble, cos I told a senior I was too busy to do his bidding, then he caught me watching it.
 * Mandela walked free - watched on TV at home. In tears and half expecting some right wing nutter to shoot him.
 * Yeltsin climbed on a tank to save Russia - remember images only
 * Sarajevo was under siege - remember images only
 * Diana dies in Paris - got up early to play golf and it was all over the TV.
 * Columbia burns up - had been DJing at a party in Cape Town. Came home to 'Death in Space' headline in paper. Had a weird moment, thinking they were referring to Challenger. -- Ψ Gremlin  10:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Armondikov
My memory sucks. 12:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 9/11 - At school. Didn't hear about it until I got home.
 * Berlin Wall - No idea.
 * Challenger - Not born.
 * First shuttle - Not born.
 * Mandela - No idea.
 * Yeltsin - No idea.
 * Sarajevo - No idea. The Balkans has always been generic urban warfare, hasn't it?
 * Diana - Sleeping. I didn't care much then and I still don't care much now.
 * Columbia - At home. News report flashed up.