RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive57

Mother of cHRIST!
She's due back - on my birthday! 14:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll make sure I have clean underwear. I think the guy behind the Mary thing is the same guy linked to that great idea to look for visions of Mary by staring at the sun. Ooh, it's Mary. Bugger, I'm blind! 21:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Bastards
Remember the school that cancelled its prom 'cause a girl wanted to go with her girlfriend? Did you see what they did? They organised two proms, one for the girl & co and the other for the rest of the school. etc. There's lots o' links & stuff on these blogs. Bastards! 22:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Go figure. What a bunch of homophobic pieces of trash. I have always wondered what homophobes could possibly have against gay people that isn't garbled in religious mumbo-jumbo.  Every gay person I have ever known kicked ass.  22:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Or at least kissed them. I'm kidding, I'm straight, and I love kissing ass... 23:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Considered writing an article for this? Seems like something we should cover, and the narrow-minded arses behind this shouldn't easily forget what they've done. -- 22:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Goonie, I'm flattered Tweety (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Homophobia's the "in-thing" in British politics this week after the shadow Home Sec Chris Grayling got caught saying private B&Bs should be able to refuse gay/lesbian couples on religious grounds. It was just discussed on question time and Ming Campbell bought up a good point about it: Don't run a fucking B&B if you're not gonna let gays in. 23:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was in Provincetown (San Francisco east) with a girlfriend many years ago, and the first night we hadn't found our friends yet and just needed a place to drop our bags. There was a lodging where all the rooms were named after famous women like Sarah Bernhardt, and we felt distinctly "unwelcome" so just went and got a normal boring motel room.  Later we managed to hook up with her sometimes co-worker in the Filene's Visual Dept., Vanilla, and took in a wonderful annual drag show (mostly fairly old men) and had some nibbles somewhere, oh yeah, where some big fat hot chick (?) was hitting on me... when we got back to our "straight people's" motel room and clicked on the TV, to a mainland channel, there was some drag show or something on.  Weird.  The next day we packed up and went to the hotel recommended by Vanilla, where by flirting with the desk clerk I got us the best room at the cheapest room's price.  It was a real freak out when Saturday came (we went down there Weds night) and the Tourists arrived.  You could spot them from 200 yards - the women were all painted up with red stuff on their faces, and the men were all wearing horrible acid washed blue jeans and poorly chosen shirts.  Vanilla gave me an awesome torso and head from a male mannequin, and a couple pieces of restaurant "anti fatigue" rubber mats that I still use.  I also got what I think is an ex-Russian army coat (very long, very heavy wool, olive drab, cheap buttons) for $12 and several fistfuls of brass buttons (literally sold by the fistful) which my gf replaced the cheap buttons with.  All in all a great mini-vacation.  What were we talking about, again?  02:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that Vanilla had a rather "silly walk" due to having been severely beaten by some assholes at some point in his life. :( 03:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

oldie but goody
who like old music here?

here mah favorite :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZujuYiweht8 (this isn't a rick'roll while rick might be a old singer he aint in my top 3) Waronstupidity (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * slick, boring and bloodless . . . Me!Sheesh! Mine! 22:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * wow thanks for the nice feedback...Waronstupidity (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That reminds me of for random reasons.  22:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was a fan at the time, but these days I prefer the older Genesis stuff. It was a bit quirky. -- 22:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh man, Genesis sans Gabriel? Tell me its an | American Psycho joke :P Alain (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Oy5J7VoKZU is my response. 02:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As is this, so I guess thanks are in order for the great idea for something to search for on gootoob, WoS. 03:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * PS, that gold Les Paul is exactly what my Hohner looks like, except for some reason my pickguard is missing. 03:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For some reason this reminded me of some other lead singer with poofed up hair and a need for some sun. 03:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Blog against theocracy
Some good uns in here. 23:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Tennessee
Tell me, is Tennessee a "creationist" state? I have my reasons for asking. (I is Brit btw) 16:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think most of the South is creationist. Birther too. And people in Tennessee think Deliverance is a documentary. -- PsyGremlin  17:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's not really such thing as a "creationist" state. It probably does have a high(er) ratio of creationists to evolutionists, as most southern states do, but I wouldn't come close to classifying everyone in the state (or even the state government) as creationist. 18:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmm. What's a "Board of Regents"? 18:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a bunch of people who are in charge. I remember that from the old BSD licences. -- 19:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the South is not creationist or birther. That's a ridiculous notion. There may well be more per capita birthers and creationists in the south but it is not some sort of requirement. The intelligent design debacle, by way of reference, took place in Pennsylvania. It is true that everyone in Michigan is in a fuck wit militia. Me!Sheesh! Mine! 19:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * New York is the best state. teh rational ghey(talk) 00:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Remember, Pennsylvania is Pittsburgh in the west, Philadelphia in the east, and Alabama in-between. 13:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As a not so proud resident of Tennessee I would argue that most people do not have an ongoing opinion about creationism. If asked though, I am certain a very high percentage (of Tennessee residents) would IDentify with creationism. This is a little tid bit I picked up on the way to work today http://www.wbir.com/news/watercooler/story.aspx?storyid=117914&catid=141&mdash; Unsigned, by: 208.65.40.97 / talk / contribs
 * The BoN brings up a good point: not every creationist is vocal about it. There are people who don't really think about it but would say that they are creationists when questioned. 18:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I grew up in the Knoxvile (spelling intentional) suburbs. It's a hell-hole of right wing politics and religious fundamentalism. MDB (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe Karajerk calls Tennessee home. 'nuff said. -- PsyGremlin  17:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Eh, we've produced worse. Heck, we had one governor who could have made Tennessee look like Illinois or Louisiana, if he just had the common sense to be flamboyantly corrupt, and not just a crook. MDB (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Three words: Scopes Monkey Trial. The Baptist force is strong with this one. Secret Squirrel (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Time Traveler with proof
This is just fucking amazing, totally convincing even. Acei9 21:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I hope I never experience something incredible like that which can't be proven. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just ensure that you decapitate your future self and bring the head back. You'll become a millionaire, and can in the future hire bodyguards to protect yourself from your psychotic past self intent on chopping off your head so they can become a millionaire and use the money to hire bodyguards to prevent their future-self from being decapitated. -- 21:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been sitting under my sink for 3 hours now but nothing happened. Do you think I have a defective sink? :'( Sen (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It has to be leaking for this to work. 02:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

related xkcd strips. 16:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * His older self's tatoo looks suspiciously 'fresh' 10:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Utilitarian morality
There's a philosophical problem I think we should all have a go at concerning utilitarian morality. Consider the following two scenarios:

1. An out-of-control train is racing down a track, and you are standing at the fork of this track, meaning that you can decide whether it goes left or right. If it goes left, it will kill one person. If it goes right, it will kill 5.
 * Most people, I think, would choose "left" in this case, since it minimizes the amount of death and suffering.

2. An out-of-control train is racing towards 5 people. You are standing by the track, and there is a very fat man in front of you. If you throw him in the path of the train, it will stop, saving the 5 people but killing him.
 * In this case, most people would let the train go, since there is something abhorrent (and illegal) about picking someone up and throwing them to their doom.

The point I want to make is this: what makes the two situations so different? Why do we consider them to be different, and, more importantly, should we? 01:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a false chidotomy. I'd tell the idiots to get off the fucking train tracks. Anyway, the difference is that the first action is a relatively "passive" action.  The second one is more "active".  It's also incredibly unlikely that one fat person would "stop" a runaway train. Need better thought experiment.  02:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I admit, it isn't too realistic, but you see the point I'm trying to get at. In any case, I'll try to think of a better example. 02:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A classic "button" example is that you have a button that will kill A. If you don't push the button and kill A, then a machine will automatically kill B,C, and D.  You cannot communicate or interfere in any other way.  If you need a reason why you can't interfere, then it's because Jesus and Buddha have you all trapped in magical silence boxes and are trying to settle a bet.
 * How you answer depends on your flavor of utilitarianism, really. It's a pretty broad approach to morals.
 * Law-based utilitarianism would argue that you should do nothing, in order to adhere to a consistent moral law that will lead to the greatest good: don't kill other people. In this instance it will result in more death, but as a broader law it is better to follow it.
 * Act-based utilitarianism suggests that each action must be judged individually and its consequences weighed, and so you should push the button.
 * Justice As Fairness (a la Rawls) would demand that we place ourselves behind the veil of ignorance and thereby push the button, because it's the fairest thing for all concerned as a whole.-- 04:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You left one out.
 * Schlaflyism: Pray that Jesus will save everyone! Only a libb-burr-ull would deny that solution. MDB (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a bit of an oldie: Google Train Fat Man. See e.g. here for a NYT article about it (among other things). 14:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The NYT article is where I saw the example originally. 11:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Another variant
You have one button. If you push it, the person you love most in the world will die. If you do not push it, you will die. (Assume, for purposes of argument, that if the person is dependent on you for survival -- your infant child, an invalid parent, whatever -- they will be properly cared for without you.)

That's obviously completely hypothetical, but there's a reasonable parallel that is more practical. I doubt I would be capable of killing someone to save my own life. However, I think I could be capable of killing someone to save the life of someone I love. MDB (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Moar info
How these related to neuroscience. 16:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Kill Me Now.
Yahoo! recently introduced public comments on all their news stories. I weep for the human race. I mean, are people really this stupid? We need to start some kind of list of dumb comments with snarky comments. Here, I'll start with this one, linked from this story about cameras fighting crime in Chicago some genius writes:

These people are allowed to vote. Please excuse me if I sob out loud. 06:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you point out that he shouldn't be speaking, being one of the people having an IQ of 15? 13:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What interest me more is how these people determine other people's IQ without administering a well-controlled IQ test. And so they claim to be partially psychic.   21:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's relatively sensible and coherent for an internet comment. Try checking ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere that looks at the BBC's Have Your Say section, they're all fucking imbeciles. 21:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone who uses "The Constitution doesn't ban X, why should we make it illegal?" instantly loses all credibility. 07:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Matsuo Basho, stand aside

 * Shambling down the street
 * "Millennium hand and shrimp.
 * "Bugrit! I told 'em!"
 * &mdash; Unsigned, by: EddyP / talk / contribs
 * Heh, I've used that as an imprecation for years now. 10:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WHAT IS RULE ONE!!!!??!?!??!? -- 01:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

A reason for greater State power?
Collateral damage? ''Coal mining is an unavoidably dangerous occupation, but it seems Massey Energy, owner of the mine, was far behind where it should have been in safety compliance. The U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration cited the mine for 1,342 safety violations from 2005 through Monday for a total of $1.89 million in proposed fines, according to federal records. The company has contested 422 of those violations [Washington Post]. The citations at West Virginia’s Upper Big Branch mine included some for the improper ventilation of methane.'' Poor regulation enforcement - that's why we (don't) want small government! 14:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Bloglink 22:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Can coal mining ever be safe? Honest question. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing is ever 100% safe. However, open-cast mining is a lot safer than shafts and underground tunnels. Ultimately we all play the risk game. While I might venture down a mine for a visit I wouldn't want to spend my working life down there, but people need a job and will take the risk of possible early death or contracting miner's lung in order to put food on the table now. What's important is that pit owners take reasonable care to protect their workers as much as possible and not exploit them, and that's why you need government regulations and inspections.   08:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No matter how you look at it, coal mining is fraught with danger. Who would have thought to tell the owners not to pile the slag up in heaps uphill from the village school?  08:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What would you call this?
Ok, idea for another article, but I’m not sure what to call it, or if it should be listed as a “logical fallacy,” although it is often related to ad hominem attacks. Basically, it’s when you find out some unflattering fact about a person, and release it publically, but milk it for more disrepute than it’s worth by implying that it was somehow covered-up simply because the person never advertised it, even when it was totally irrelevant. So, it would NOT count if someone had failed to tell their prospective employer about a medical condition that affected their ability to do their job. Things that would count, however, would be Grover Cleveland’s bastard son (never denied it, paid child support, just didn’t advertise it), and Obama’s smoking. What would you call this article, and would it count as a logical fallacy?--Mustex (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strawman? Sen (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a fallacy on its own as such. It's a type of ad hom, and similar to how certain people work where you take things that people specifically haven't denied and use them (like how Glenn Beck still hasn't denied that he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, for example). 21:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Poisoning the well + red herring the fish?  21:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Poisoning the well would certainly be part of it if you were dragging this sort of thing up repeatedly prior to an argument, say in the introductory remarks, something along the lines of "well, I'm sure my oponent will give some good responses, but please remember that he never came clean about having sex with that horse back in 1983". But that would be poisoning the well and nothing new or different. I think Mustex has just identified a specific type of ad hom but I'd be interested to see specific examples that could be put into the article. The "Obama is a Muslim" thing certainly would count, although I don't think it's used in professional political circles, just with the crazy fucknuts. 12:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the "Obama is a Muslim" thing would NOT count, because its NOT TRUE. The issue of this type of ad hom attack is things that ARE TRUE, and are somewhat embarassing, and for that purpose the person being attacked never advertised them, but never denied them either, and upon being questioned about them freely admitted to it.  As for examples, Grover Cleveland's child and Obama's smoking.  Cleveland did, indeed, have a bastard child before he got married.  He never denied it, and was paying child support (in the day before such things were mandatory) to take care of it, and freely admitted it when questioned.  In the same way, Obama never denied that he used to smoke, but he didn't advertise it either.  More importantly, though, neither of these things have jack shit to do with how qualified either man was to be president.--Mustex (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Homophobia vs Religious Conviction
I've had Question Time on in the background (I'm playing with my shiny new netbook so can do such things in the living room now) and just caught some interesting stuff on human rights "colliding" in this case when the right to express religious belief comes up against the right of people to practice their sex life as they wish, and thus, which is more important. Dimbleby seems to be taking the "well, one's the law, the other isn't" and the conversation seems halfway through as I'm typing. But it seems interesting - at least better than the dry bullshit on tax that they were slinging around previously - and I suggest checking it out on iPlayer or Pootube later. 22:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I caught the second half of that after Destroying All Humans on PS2. I came in on the bit about the contradiction of human rights, which is a difficult question, especially when one has to decide if one's discriminating based on religion or plain ole homophobia. I also enjoyed the bit about that student who said, "actually David, socialists aren't great people!" as if that won the argument. 23:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the contradiction is interesting and it's certainly true that the law has decided (rightly, IMHO) to say that one is more worthy than the other. However, I think the main difference, and the reason why the law is subsequently right, could be summed up in what Janet Daley (I'll paraphrase, emphasis added) said; "it's the human right to have whatever sexual orientation you like vs the human right to act on your religious beliefs." She summed up here the main difference (and she's also wrong because of this) you do not have the right to act on your beliefs in the same way that you have the right to freely hold them. It comes back to the "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" thing. If it was a basic human right to act on religious conviction then why aren't dangerous cults actively endorsed and fully tollerated and why do we persecute rather than praise Islamic suicide bombers? So given this, while it's perfectly fine to allow people to hold beliefs that say "x is wrong" they can't be allowed to stop it if it infringes on other people's rights.
 * Also, I was facepalming a bit when that guy who basically said "I'm a practicisng and while I don't mind gays and have gay friends, my religion says it's wrong" - I mean, how much can you summerise what is wrong with religious interference in one sentence? If the guy disagrees with that thing - clearly he seemed to - then why not either A) dump the religion, even the believers know it's BS deep down or B) realise what everyone else does and just forget that aspect of it as it's both outdated and something you disagree with. 12:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Similarly, the Catholic Church forbids birth control but millions of followers quite happily ignore this yet never feel the need to question the rest of the dogma. 06:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck attakcs Obama's family, classy
http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/maybe-scummiest-glenn-beck-show-ever I can't tell if he's doing this for attention or if he really believes this. Either way, it's not cool.Ryantherebel (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * He does it for ratings. He knows their is a group of hardcore Obama haters out there that want to hear bad things about him, whether they are true or not. 00:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Slight amendment: he does it for money, which of course is tied to ratings. 00:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I read a history of Glenn Beck (linked to from awesome Tom Moore's blog) a while back, which makes this extra priceless. I'm only two minutes in, but I love it. 00:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Referenced post is here (I never get a chance to pimp my blog, awesome - I should start just making new sections and demanding comments on it like Mustex does with his videos, maybe).-- 00:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Holy shit, I just about gagged reading that. 00:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Read all three parts! It's gold! 00:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's also this. 00:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That was pretty surreal. Can we quote that as his policy on economic stimulus? "Wwwwruff-ruff-ruff-ruffruff." -- Glenn Beck. 00:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Beck himself seems pretty surreal. However, I will say this: he is a master of emotional appeals, even bizarre animalistic ones. 01:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think that's surreal, check out his thoughts on Net Neutrality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2NLXFx7KSM&playnext_from=TL&videos=VlY4-6Y_aCc&feature=subRyantherebel (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Awesome essay
I just read this, and it is a very inspiring piece. It is also written in a thought-provoking style (what I assume to be a parody of Eastern philosophical essays translated into English). I definitely recommend it (along with many of the other essays on the website). 01:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, pretty cool and something we should look into spreading around. Though I think it's a little verbose, it certainly could be condensed (I'm not sure how "perfectionism" and "precision" are that different when you want to call them something as broad as a virtue) but I assume that's because the "12" thing is mystic and it's based on something like that. 12:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok So I have an idea (Please consider it!!!)
So, I was thinking. Since RW is essentially the antithesis of CP, why not start a "In the news" column to the right, kinda like CP does. I mean, every time I read the news I can't help but think how crazy the crazies are on the right. I mean, you could make a news article simply disproving everything CP has in their "news" column. Tanx teh rational ghey (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I sometimes get around to updating Fun:Conservafake, which is kind of what you're talking about.-- 01:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We also have WIGO World. 02:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I LOVE IT!!! teh rational ghey (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"Some underachieving asshole" hahahaha teh rational ghey (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am indeed pretty goddamn funny. There's a holiday to honor me, although for legal reasons they refer to me by the unofficial epithet of "Martin Luther King Jr."-- 02:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * MLK wasn't funny. Now Ace McWicked, now he's a fun loving funny fucker thats for sure. Acei9 02:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, a fun loving bunny fucker, at least. Just correcting typos.  06:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tell yeh about that SuperJosh though - he may be a big effin' n00b, but he's done a few classic one liners. 12:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for RationalWiki theme video slogan like thing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJcrHzHmMi0&feature=related  04:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What are ye suggesting laddie? RationalWiki need a song? I love Rudie Can't Fail. 12:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

My new satellite TV.
For some reason or another I get no TV signal where I live. I am smack damn in the middle of Wellington central, a busy motorway offramp lays 3 minutes walk away however my place is surounded by native bush and against the side of hill so the signal gets lost somewhere. I am too cheap (and don't watch much TV anyway) to get cable or a satellite dish and don't wanna pay a monthly bill. So what I have finished now is the completion of 2 days work. Using only speaker cabling I have set up a sophisticated network of wiring that is sellotaped to the aerial port in the back of the television. It runs along the floor, up the side of the deck doors, through the frame and outside. From there it runs along the right side of the house, where it the connected to an ordinary set of bunny ears which are sellotaped to the high point of the roof. Its quite elaborate and I am pleased with the results. Acei9 04:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you go the whole hog and use a metal rubbish bin lid, pointing the concave inside towards the sky, and attach the bunny ears to the centre. Hey presto, satellite TV.Rad McCool (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I need to plunder the stereo for more wire first. Acei9 05:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Argh! I be doin' the plunderin' around here mateys! 05:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Still, twas a grand idea.Rad McCool (talk) 05:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Argh! We mechanical engineers frown upon grand ideas, as they take away the need for us engineers! Otherwise, we'd be useless! 05:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't get "wind" where you live, M. One Mc"Wicked". The wind has been the downfall of many of my reception schemes.  06:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hit it with a hammer. That's just about the sum total of what I was taught in engineering school.  Also, carry a slide rule and say the word "logarithms" whenever anyone asks you why.  I've subsisted a a career for nearly two decades using just that. -- 01:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and don't forget to pull out the ol' calipers now and then and take useless measurements. Then you'll really look like a mechanical engineer.  03:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Structural engineer here. Our "calipers" unit was replaced with the "carry around printed out spreadsheets while looking around disapprovingly" unit.  I know of no one that can walk around whilst staring angrily at columns of arcane figures better than I can. -- 04:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Everyday occurrence
So what? It's on Mars!  13:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no way you can prove that that's actually a picture from Mars. In fact, I'm 98% sure it's not. Will liberals ever admit the possibility of deceit? Just once? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 14:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Giusti's Mother: Fox news made my son a radical.
After this, where Fox news tries to say that the teapartyers are not conservative and stupid and Murdoch saying FOx shouldn't support the Tea Parties, we have the mother of the man who made threats against Pelosi blaming Fox News--Thanatos (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the American desire for everybody to own a home fucking this country over?
The homebuyer tax credit will expire at the end of this month. The Fed just stopped buying mortgage backed securities that were propping down interest rates for home buying. Interest rates are at an all time low. Is this country's pursuit of home ownership for its citizens going to fuck this country over economically again? ConservapediaEditor (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say probably not, since credit is still tighter than it was before the recession and the banks will probably be a bit more careful about who they give loans to. 21:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I read a book recently entitled Deer Hunting With Jesus and there is a chapter about how the housing markets cause economic collapse. Interestingly the journalist who wrote the book called it way before it actually happened. Acei9 21:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read that guy's blog - Joe Bageant. Pretty good stuff.  I take it the book is worth reading? --Gulik (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Haven't read it, but I heard it's about the culture in and around Winchester, Virginia so maybe I should... Secret Squirrel (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Births, Marriages and Deaths
Malcolm McLaren RIP. 22:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In remeberence....Acei9 22:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I owe him a lot, seeing as he essentially bought punk to Britain and created the Sex Pistols. RIP. 23:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tough couple weeks. First Alex Chilton and now this guy. At least Eden Ahbez is still alive and kicking. Me!Sheesh! Mine! 23:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's weird. Last night after WoS posted that godawful Phil Collins "Genesis" song I watched some "real" Genesis, then thought, "what's with all these 14 minute flute solos, these guys are wankers" which led me, of course, to the pistols and other punk.  Then Goonie told me of a movie he liked (forgot title, bookmarked on other computer) about the history of punk.  So I was awash in the man's work last night. RIP Malky!  00:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The title of the documentary is "Punk: Attitude," and it is both truly ironic and sad that Malcome McLaren passed away. 04:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Goonie. It's fully available on pootube in ten parts, and I highly recommend it.  I also recommend that all my viewers go write Malcom McLaren into the Bible.  02:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Goonie. It's fully available on pootube in ten parts, and I highly recommend it.  I also recommend that all my viewers go write Malcom McLaren into the Bible.  02:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Question about copyright
I posted a picture of the Cover art of a game on a wiki and i wondered if it were copyright infringement ?Waronstupidity (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Great question Wos. 22:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * so it is or not?Waronstupidity (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * anyone could amswer me? :-( i dont want to cause copyright problem Waronstupidity (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I have a hard time not being obtuse sometimes. Can't answer your question without seeing the image and knowing the context of the proposed used. 22:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * here a link http://mountandblade.wikia.com/wiki/Mount_and_Blade_Warband Waronstupidity (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * so should i be worried?Waronstupidity (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably. Oh, you mean about the image. No, it's pretty clearly fair use, wikipedia does the same, and they're anal-retentive about this kinda stuff. -- Nx  / talk 23:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Probably. Oh, you mean about the image" so i should be worried about other stuff? Waronstupidity (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, definitely. -- Nx  / talk 23:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * like what O_o ? /paranoid.Waronstupidity (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Lots of stuff. -- Nx  / talk 23:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For one thing you're not a level 80 Night Elf Restoration Druid with a 5300 gear score. 23:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WoW is too nerdy for me! go play mount and blade warband!Waronstupidity (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell, it's Ok to use a picture of a game (or whatever) to illustrate an article about it. Having it pop up in other articles is less OK, and not at all for non-article pages. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 17 USC section 107 copyright fair use provisions. HERE You should be fine if it was used to illustrate a review of the game. If its in a picture gallery of cool game covers then thats not OK. Hamster (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

how the hell i am supposed to archive my talk page? its getting pretty big
how the hell i am supposed to archive my talk page? its getting pretty big ?Waronstupidity (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See my reply on your talkpage. Cheers! 04:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If only there was some kind of page where you could find answers to questions like this. -- Nx  / talk 09:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that in the welcome template? 18:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's on the sidebar. -- Nx  / talk 18:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew that. 19:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah-choo!
I was working in downtown Washington yesterday.

On a scale of 0-12, the pollen count was 11.3.

Not a good day to be a hay fever sufferer. MDB (talk) 11:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Norfolk, Virginia here. I can confirm sighting of drifts of pollen and pollen dust devils . . . er . . . bedeviling local residents. Supposedly, the cool wet winter and sudden hot spring have made this the worst pollen season in 25 years. It rained last night so we had some relief. Me!Sheesh! Mine! 14:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Washington is awful during allergy season. 18:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * When the pines flower around here everything gets a coat of yellow (I'm pretty sure it's the pines). Also, each spring the bullrush heads break up and blow around, which is pretty trippy.  03:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wearing fakes turns you into a faker
Apparently if you think you're wearing fake sunglasses, you're more likely to lie and assume others are. 15:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I had to look at the article before I could figure out what "fake sunglasses" are. DickTurpis (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Set aside 90 minutes of your life for this awesomeness
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfBhi6qqFLA

Plus 70 minutes if you didn't see the first one -- Nx  / talk 16:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

z
zzzzzzzzz &mdash; Unsigned, by: Mei II / talk / contribs 19:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

after reading my RWW article
i can tell that im not very popular or liked around these part... and seeing how most people respond to my question. so tell me, do you want me to leave? im dead serious. i wont stay on a wiki filed with people that don't want me here i aint a masochist.Waronstupidity (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to leave dude, have a look some other peoples RWW pages. Acei9 21:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * i guess, i admit that im a jerk sometime... but im not THAT bad comparing me to CUR...Waronstupidity (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For my own part, I just dislike Phil Collins and post-Peter Gabriel Genesis. You just have to realize that many of us are over twenty and therefore in need of Geritol and therefore what is known as "crotchety." You give off a distinct under twenty vibe. this gives us the "get off my lawn urge," an unfortunate side effect of Geritol. It's not you. It's us. Me!Sheesh! Mine! 22:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Wouldn't it be cool if Phil Collins and Peter Gabriel were in a band together?" --Kels (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * im 19 year old. Waronstupidity (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Read this and the comparison to Cur might not sound so bad. -- Nx  / talk 22:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * also CUR blocked me on RWW so i cant edit anymore...Waronstupidity (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, that wasn't CUR and, anyways, you aren't blocked over there anymore. 22:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * actually im still blocked.Waronstupidity (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no, a critical RWW article. I would kill to have a RWW article. I have 897 edits, some of which contained Real Humour(TM) as endorsed by Jesus. EddyP (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * there you go http://rationalwikiwiki.org/wiki/EddyP Waronstupidity (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait, forget this whole Waronstupidity thing. All I have to do is go away and I'll get enshrined? Me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! <font color="#6ff6633">Mine! 01:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Flouncing while you do it helps. --Kels (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

biologicinstitute.org ? serious research into intelligent design
The site Biological Institute seems to have been started in 2005 which means 4 years of research to date. Its funded by the Discovery Institute and run by Douglas Axe. They have a list of published papers but none seem to mention design in the titles. Anyone heard of it ? Hamster (talk) 03:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Their roster of "people" looks at a first glance like it includes everyone who was expelled. And a few who haven't been, yet.  03:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe the expression is, "holy crap"
Well, I just did my final presentation for Scriptwriting class today, a quick one-term intro to the subject, which was a group project to produce a one-episode (or first 20 minutes of a feature) script for a story of our choosing. So out of the three in my group, we chose my idea and I did up a quick draft in about a day. I passed it on to the other two members for editing and additions, and I made a few alterations here and there at the end of the week. Pretty simple, pretty straightforward. Well, after we did a reading of the script, the instructor tells me that what I've come up with is actually a marketable idea, and worth pitching to studios at the Animation Festival this October. Apparently this isn't something that he comes across very often in his first-year classes, so it's kind of a big deal. So I'm going to be working on developing the story and script over the summer, and if all goes well, I'm gonna try going for it. Who knows, maybe I'll actually get a film made of my own work. Wouldn't that be rad? --Kels (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Congrats, Kels! I expect you to be running Pixar's art department in a decade.  Get to it!-- 02:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We'll see about that, but if I could be a part of producing something on a level with, say, Last Airbender, then that would be time well spent. --Kels (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If that's your taste. I'd rather work on something akin to the great mindfuck that is the End of Evangelion. That aside, good for you!--Thanatos (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but at the moment I'm working with a somewhat more straightforward adventure story. I think I'd need a bit more experience before I get into complex territory like that.  Although first thing I need to do is pass my Animation and Design finals. I've only got a little over two weeks for one and a little over a week for the other. --Kels (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just promise me you will not create a Naruto-clone, 'k.--Thanatos (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I will drown myself in a bathtub before I create a whiny little bitch character like Sasuke. I like anime, but I'm not interested in writing it. I'd rather pattern myself after the French BD artists. --Kels (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Congrats, Kels, glad you had us to share it with ;) 06:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * WOOOT! Triffic, Kels. I knew you were talented! 10:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there had to be talent somewhere in the RW userbase, I suppose it's all concentrated in Kels. 11:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Congrats, Kels, keep us updated! 12:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ditto! :-) <font color="#000066">Refugee <font color = "#00F0A20">talk page 13:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, guys! Won't be any updates to speak of for a while, since I wouldn't even be pitching until September or October, but it's exciting since it's my first time 'round.  Who knows, maybe I'll have a few other ideas on the way and can pitch multiple projects. --Kels (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not this is it? :) 13:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am glad for Kels. 19:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Damn Crundy, I wish it was! Right now it's barely the beginning of a draft script, but we'll see where it is in another six months, k? --Kels (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be late to this party, but congrats. Always nice to hear about a fellow RWan doing well. 10:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Fuck yeah
Cops is on. 18:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Bad boys bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Secret Squirrel (talk) 11:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

sup /rw/
Hello again, this is Mei. 19:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Again? 19:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was here, then I went out. 19:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no "out" there is only more "in" <font color="#ff0000">Me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! <font color="#6ff6633">Mine! 20:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Out is the new in. --Kels (talk) 21:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is hip to be square. 09:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

THANK GOD for Heavy Metal!
Seriously! it KICK ASS!

any metalhead/punk/rocker here beside me and goonie?Waronstupidity (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Heavy metal != Punk rock <font color="#ff0000">Me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! <font color="#6ff6633">Mine! 02:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey! Ho! Let's Go! Judy is a punk. CS Miller (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Judy in the Sky With Crystal....s 10:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Gabba gabba wee! <font color="#ff0000">Me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! <font color="#6ff6633">Mine! 17:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank the other guy for heavy metal, blame God for Stryper. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Lucy hits the sky and all kinds of apple pie... 18:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Vids or it didn't happen.  18:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well. One of the many great Clash songs. 18:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought we were doing heavy metal. Now I am confused. 19:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * C'mon Mei, you should have realised by now - every other thread round here ends up being about punk. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Main page revamp
Come to think of it, does anyone think the front page may need a little bit of a revamp? The random cover articles and WIGO list are great, but does anyone look at the portals and featured conent lists? I'm wondering if we're packing too much stuff onto it whereas a more streamlined page that consists of just the featured article, news and highlights would be better. Anyway, that's just rambling vaguely on the topic, feel free to ignore. 11:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, AOTW is dead. -- Nx  / talk 11:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the idea a lot. I feel like it's too busy.-- 12:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We used to try and have a sample WIGO on the front page but it broke. Nx, with the new WIGO storage system would it be possible to say have the last 3 to 5 WIGO Worlds stories appear on the frontpage without the voting arrows? 12:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Based on the vote id, yes (i.e. list wigos with vote id >= max(vote id) - x, so you'll have to take extra care not to screw up vote ids). Note that the date option in Bestof actually uses the timestamps of individual votes, so it's broken (for a certain value of broken). When you select a date, it lists wigos that have received votes in that (month and) year, and only counts votes from that (month and) year. -- Nx  / talk 12:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, can you make it happen or should we check with Human first? Also what about commented out ones, we don't want them appearing on the main page. 13:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * They will. Problem is, once something has been added to the bestof database, it's there to stay. -- Nx  / talk 13:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, another pet peeve of mine is the way cover stories are transcluded into the main page. I'd much prefer if we transcluded, for example, a subpage that is specifically crafted for the main page, instead of hacking the article with noincludes and crap like that. -- Nx  / talk 13:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, wait... I'm channeling Human from the Other Realm of the "offline" he says... I can just about make it out... he says "Why are you trying to break my wiki?!?!?" 15:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But on a serious note about your pet peeve there, it was suggested I think, but was probably shot down on grounds of "too much work". I'd favour that idea, on account of being able to get around some of the odd introductory remarks made on articles and the fact that images (which I personally like being transcluded) need to be rescaled - it'd certainly be easier than the noinclude and includeonly hacks. 15:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Too much work? For most of the articles you just need to take the lead section (perhaps just part of it, but then you could cut it sensibly instead of in the middle of a sentence), add some formatting and that's it. It's easier and less error-prone and more maintainable than the fugly noinclude hacks. -- Nx  / talk 16:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, exactly. 21:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Suit yourself. -- Nx  / talk 01:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, am I coming across as I think that it'd be too much work? On the contrary, I agree with everything you've said. I might give it a shot when I have some free time later but I'm about to bump up my Real Life Intrusion-o-meter. 12:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, I thought you were playing devil's advocate and I probably misunderstood your last comment. Anyway, I don't want to ruin the wiki. -- Nx  / talk 12:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Affirmative. I didn't want to butt in in a everyone-is-a-critic kind of way, but I never liked it. I either go straight for the search option when I might want to check something, or the recent changes button. I am sure that discussing/talking about everyone's idea of a front page in his head is going to take forever, so what about a page where people can post WIPs of alternative layouts so someone can comment on something specific/feasibility? Sen (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've tried that before, it usually doesn't work. The way to get things done here is to do it then win in the resulting HCM. -- Nx  / talk 22:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

LArron has Dembski on the ropes
This is too interesting to let it slip by, check out her for the conversation, also his article Conservation of Information in Search - Measuring the Cost of Success is worth anyone working through, also check out the talk page. tmtoulouse 23:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "...direct your analytic skills to other concerns where your talents are needed more desperately (such as fraud in climate data). Unlike climate scientists, we are committed to truth and transparency. Also, unlike them, we do this work on our own time, without government funding." - Dembski. Wow, is he using the Schlafly quote generator now?  Are they writing material for each other?  01:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Awesome work, LArron! 01:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I tip my hat to you sir. Only wish I had the smartz to make my own contribution. 08:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I too wish I had even half your patience and brainpower LArron. 13:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for taking an interest. The whole discussion is about a couple of minuscule errors in a peer-reviewed paper of Dembski et al. (Conservation of Information in Search - Measuring the Cost of Success). The very existence of these errors after peer-review - and their handling by Dembski and Marks somewhat shows the agenda of the IDers. (Tom English has some interesting entries in his blog). More interesting is the upcoming paper The Search for a Search - Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search. I described here on RW a major blunder in the draft of this paper, and I'm now eagerly awaiting the publication of a revised paper. (Dembski implied that only small changes were made - I doubt it)

Uncommon Descent and Conservapedia are two faces of the same medal: W. Dembski himself praised at UD CP's article on cp:Global Warming.

And both blogs have similar moderation/blocking strategies: I'm contributing to UD for over a year, and I'm still seen as potential trouble. So, my comments doesn't appear immediately, but are hold in moderation - for a random time: this can be a couple of minutes, usually an hour or two - or perhaps half a day or a day (a deviously constructed vandal bin :-) Sometimes - though very seldom, they don't appear at all, without any further explanation.

And - as with Andy - you can't call a spade a spade. First, you have to say that it's a beautiful spade, and that it was clever to think of it. Only then, you can explain why it is rubbish. 22:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's hilarious. He publishes a paper, and you (politely) point out some valid errors. A proper scientist would take your comments on board, thank you for helping them, and correct their article accordingly. This whole situation shows Depshit for what he is. 22:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * LArron, you just gave me an idea for our vandal brake... make the editing delay random, between say, 15 minutes and 2 hours, to make the pigeons start pulling out their own feathers. You edit there as DiEb (?), right?  02:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The randomization is quite effective: You can't really participate in a discussion, and you can't plan your comments. Furthermore, the comments appear (if at all) in the thread at a place according to their time of creation - so, in a lively thread, where may be dozens of comments done after it, no one who isn't especially looking for it will find it...
 * (le larron (fr.) = der Dieb (ge.))
 * 06:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they take longer to review your evil words depending on your post with the result that the delays are different. Cock up rather than conspiracy.--Bill E Goat (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's also the difference in time zones. 10:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Kudos to LArron! Šţěŗĭļė 23:50, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Cognitive biases
This is the single most interesting paper I have ever read. 01:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Ironically, Taber and Lodge's experiments confirmed all six of the authors' prior hypotheses." (p. 9) I lolled!  This looks to be a very good book when it comes out. !!!! oops   02:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Very interesting indeed. Should be linked from eleventy RW articles. 03:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Very interesting stuff. 12:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey Tetronian, I've seen you at Less Wrong recently. I'm glad you've found some of the fun stuff. (I'm Will_Newsome on Less Wrong, but I don't comment much and have yet to write a post. I'm an intern at the Singularity Institute.) It'd be nice to integrate more RWers into LW. RW has been mentioned on LW already. One problem with the rat wiki is that it's a little too intent on reversed stupidity. For those interested in really learning about what it takes to be rational (or at least, less wrong), I highly recommend taking a look at lesswrong.com. (Trent, I remember your essay introduced me to Bayesianism. You'll find some awesome applications/justifications of Bayesianism on Less Wrong in various places.)(It'd be cool to see Human, Toast, Genghis Khant, etc. over on LW, if only because I'd get a kick out of it.)


 * Tetronian, I hope you continue to comment. The crowd there can get pretty tough, especially if you haven't read all 1000 or so previous posts and every comment thread thereof and aren't highly trained in theoretical computer science, Bayesian probability theory, artificial intelligence, decision theory, utilitarian ethics, philosophy of science, philosophy generally, quantum physics, evolutionary psychology, cognitive psychology, evolutionary biology, et cetera, et cetera...  15:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been hanging around there a bit. Though their conversations are much drier than those here at RW, we RWians can learn a lot from what goes on over there. For various reasons, their conversations almost never degenerate into fundie-bashing; they do lots of math and are very, very rational thinkers.
 * You're an intern at the Singularity Institute? Sounds very interesting. May I ask what you do? 15:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, I can tell you I spent all Sunday morning working on Bayesian inference models that determine how much computing power whole brain emulation would need and when we're likely to get that amount of computing power. This is part of a larger project to determine probability distributions for the occurrence of various catastrophic or existential risks. Sunday/Monday-till-now was spent on in-house strategy talks, reading, and talking with a potential Visiting Fellow. I'm also gearing up for the Summer when we're going to be getting a lot of Visiting Fellow applicants in from colleges around the globe. Pretty standard stuff at the moment. - Clepper who is too lazy to sign in at the moment&mdash; Unsigned, by: Clepper / talk / contribs

Atheist Barbie
20:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I shall call her "Susan". &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strange name! 21:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, "Toast" doesn't really work as a girl's name. Too crunchy. 00:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I dunno, "Toast (with honey) Spice" has a certain ring to it... 03:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mixed meme trip: "Where is the Atheist Ken doll?" made me wonder why they didn't use the template. 03:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoa. No one told me about the surprise orgies. Damn. 13:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

copyright question(second one)
since NX wasn't able to give me a mature amswer can anyone tell me if this is fair use? http://mountandblade.wikia.com/wiki/File:Desktop2.jpg Waronstupidity (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pick one from:
 * Yes it is
 * No it isn't
 * 21:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ............ Waronstupidity (talk) 21:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

17 USC section 107 copyright fair use provisions.HERE You should be fine if it was used to illustrate a review of the game. If its in a picture gallery of cool game covers then thats not OK. Fair use depends on use and intent Hamster (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll also have a better case if you make them smaller. IE, lo-rez is far less of a copyvio issue than hi-rez.  For instance, this is pushing it, but consider how bad a nice 1200 DPI scan of the original 12" I own would be.  You could probably see her nose hairs.  03:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Consider a couple of things. Are you trying to make money out of this use? Does your use of this image potentially reduce the income that the original author might make? If the answer to either of these questions is "yes" then you will certainly be in violation.--Bill E Goat (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You probably didn't get a straight answer (besides Nx's extremely sarcastic attitude to copyrights) because there rarely is an answer to "is this fair use". It's a complicated thing. Firstly it only applies in US law, which is almost de facto on the internet but be aware of that, e.g., there is "fair dealing" in UK law that's far more restrictive. Fair use isn't so much something about it is or it isn't, it's more of a rationale for you to violate copyright should you ever be asked to take it down. So you have to think along various lines: 1) is it neccessary? 2) is it relevant? 3) does it actually violate copyrights? and so on. It's not as straightforward as yes or no, you just claim it and the only way to see if your rationale is good enough when it goes to court - it sucks, but it's better than nothing. Also, for Wikis, the fair use rationale should be re-done for each article that the image is used on (although RW is lax on this). 13:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

TK is the smartest user i ever saw
While a complete heartless asshole, he is VERY smart, i made some research and i can say he is a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machiavellianism. what is funny is andy doesn't know that he have a evil guy in his wiki, the Machiavellian are those who hold string behind power.(Captain obvious is here!)but there something we must be happy about... that he chose to use his evil trick on thy internet instead of real life.

TK is the kind of guy that could get power in real life, this is scary, i respect him for his High level of inteligence but hate him for his lack of heart and his Dirty trick .Waronstupidity (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What makes you think he isn't/hasn't acted this way in real life as well? He was Tricky Dick's right-hand man, after all. 03:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wasn't he best buddies with Ed Meese too? To say nothing of snuggle-bunnies with Nancy Reagan. --Kels (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm snuggle-bunnies with One McWacked. 08:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, Waron fails at judging intelligence? I must write this down because it surprises me. 08:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Put it on a list somewhere. Yes, TK is smart, but that smart?  Sorry, no.  I could easily name 5 or eleventy people on this site who are smarter.  They're just not assholes.  09:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's smart as in devious or cunning, not as intelligent or erudite. Also, you don't need to be very clever to fool Andy Schlafly. 10:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's all about focus. I used to work with this utter wretch who was certainly less capable and intelligent than almost any of her/my co-workers. But she got her way and she made life miserable for anyone she targeted because she had the focus and energy continually strive to do mean, shitty and devious things all day, every day, week-in-week out for the three years I knew her. That's TK. He's not a moron or a genius. He just has the energy and focus to be a douche bag over the long term. That gives him a capability most people lack. <font color="#ff0000">Me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! <font color="#6ff6633">Mine! 17:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't that just being a sociopath, though? Not really a great capability when it comes down to it. --Kels (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not a great capability, I phrased it that way because early on I realized that I could stop her from screwing with me professionally simply by make a point to bring up her professional short-comings in the appropriate circumstances. I never put the plan into play because the thought of it sort of turned my stomach and I knew that I'd lose interest in the whole enterprise in short order. She had a capability that I lacked. <font color="#ff0000">Me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! <font color="#6ff6633">Mine! 18:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * TK is a Sociopath, well more precisely he suffer from the dark triad http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_triad .Waronstupidity (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank god you tell us all these true & verifiable things. 20:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * could you stop being an ass? keep your sarcasm and bad attitude to yourself .Waronstupidity (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone has to remind you that you are not a psychiatrist, Waron. 20:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * and all that give you the right to be an ass? but anyway its pretty obvious that TK suffer from it.Waronstupidity (talk) 20:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * PROTIP: Armchair psychology = not a good idea. Diagnosing someone with a mental illness over the interwebs = not cool. -- Nx  / talk 20:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * your right on that one, but it doesn't mean you were useful today! Waronstupidity (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not useful, Mei is. -- Nx  / talk 20:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to say something after 'its pretty obvious TK something', but Nx said it better so I did not say anything after all. In fact I am not even saying this. 20:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether TK can be diagnosed as a sociopath (well, Antisocial Personality Disorder is what they call it these days) or not is unverifiable. But from personal experience with a couple of clear cases, I'd say he pretends to be one very well. --Kels (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * - David Gerard (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Predictive text lulz, pt 94
I was attempting to write "Rupert Murdoch" in a text message, but the phone wanted "Murdoch" to say "Nuremberg." I find this exceedingly appropriate. And hilarious. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * On a similar note, one of our largest banks is ABSA. However, MS Word keeps telling me the closest spelling it can find is "abuse" or "abase". Gotta lurve MS sometimes. -- PsyGremlin  09:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

WOOOOOOT!!!
It's [http://www.worldhomeopathy.org/ World Homeopathy Awareness Week. ] Keep taking the tablets folks. 21:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not commenting on this one way or the other but posting to get the text to wrap around the image so as to NOT have it hang off of the bottom of the page. 21:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC) CЯacke ®
 * Strictly speaking the water is full of shit idea shows a lack of understanding about homeopathy. It would need to be banged about umpteen times in a glass jar to retain it's memory. Just like when I was a kid at school the nuns would beat the living daylights out of you to make you remember things. 06:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And the Principle of Similars would mean that it would... I don't know what the opposite of a giant turd is that would cause it. Although because people often flush medicine down the toilet, it'd also have a lot of pacetamol and asprin in it, so would it cause headaches? 11:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The birth of RW
I pulled this up due to the on going dispute over at WP, but though some people might find it of interest in a nostalgic sort of way. This diff was the "birth" of the idea for this website. The first public manifestation, though you can see I had no idea what we would wind up creating. Or I could just be waxing nostalgic for no reason. Just passing it along. tmtoulouse 23:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, RationalWiki:History claims it was in Feb 2007. Is that wrong?  00:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently. I have got a lot of interesting archived material as well, like my generic "invitation e-mail" that was sent out to people after it was started. The back and forth about what to create (listserve, irc channel, wiki, etc.) If this is of historical interest I can spend some time playing with the early history of RW in the article. tmtoulouse 00:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be great, yeah. Just don't muck up the awesome TOC!  01:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's quite cool. Although I'm surprised that this WP dispute is still ongoing. It seems like pretty much the silliest bit of bureaucratic shite ever. They're of course entitled not to trust "primary" sources, as people often lie about themselves or companies try to put out false infomation etc. etc., but this isn't even close to that sort of situation. 10:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course Colin was involved... Šţěŗĭļė 11:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC) PS: JFC, I didn't realized how far the wp dispute had come.

Nostalgia
Somewhere here somebody said 'You can find anything on Youtube' (except dwarf lesbian nun porn, it seems). However, now that I've found this - one of the best and most under-rated 80s songs evah, I'm inclined to agree. -- PsyGremlin  11:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Some days ago I took a small roadtrip with some friends. The car had a 3.5mm jack audio in. At first people were just playing music from someone's ipod but then I noticed that even while moving, my phone had no problem streaming youtube (I have "unlimited" 3G internet) even on the move. Thus what we did from one point and after was searching songs on youtube and playing them on demant. At that point I realized that my, deck of cards sized device was essentially, an unlimited music database of almost every song in existance... Sen (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * * ahem* 17:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You can also find this great song from the 80's on YouTube!. Meaghan!!!!!!!!!!!! (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not click on the rickroll link. Save your souls. 22:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

curious
So who here would fuck a member of the same sex just to try it? Tweety (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that a question or a proposition? Vulpius (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Question, lol Tweety (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No desire what so ever. Acei9 23:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * tweety! i want your **** in my *** Waronstupidity (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No need to be coy, just say you want him to your, we'll accept that. --Kels (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I find the notion icky* but not immoral, though I do find it "interesting" that you titled this thread "curious."

Wouldn't a better question be "who hasn't yet?" 03:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Full disclosure: I find the notion of sex with many people (sequentially, not all at once) on the planet "icky" I don't single out "the gays" in this regard<font color="#ff0000">Me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! <font color="#6ff6633">Mine! 02:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are being very speciesist.--Bill E Goat (talk) 07:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Species was not specified (?!) 08:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, good point. I do feel that it is implicit though.  So my complaint is about hidden speciesism in that case.--Bill E Goat (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to examine your own implicit assumptions for complicity in the speciesist agenda then. 22:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd classify myself as trisexual, because I'll try anything sexually. 08:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yo, Fuck y'all, someone ought to get this all up in Andy's shit
[Copied from CP:Talk to here because it'll do more business in here]

One of the all-time very worst bands in the world, the Insane Clown Posse, have a new song out called 'Miracles'. You just have to hear this shit, yo. These two dipshits "have a theory" that scientists got all this shit wrong, bitch. There's miracles in the Universe, shit. Giraffes, magnets (Prepare nose for coffee when you hear "Fucking magnets, how do they work?" at 1:53) - it's all to be wondered at, and fuck all y'all scientists. Meanwhile, over here, someone has written an ICP-curriculum science textbook. Anyway, point being, these intellectual giants are clearly promoting an agenda of Godidit, and so therefore they are Andy-friendly, and therefore I encourage readers to urge Andy to promote the video at Conservapedia. After all, Violent J, Shaggy 2 Dope and Andy Schlafly have at least one thing in common - they all have clown faces. <font color="#00F0A20">DogP <font color="#993300">Marmite Patrol 18:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd put it up in Andy's shit Tweety (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it possible they are being sarcastic, or tongue-in-cheek? How smart are they in general?  23:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One way to judge this Human might be to meet their fans, The Juggalos.  <font color="#00F0A20">DogP <font color="#993300">Marmite Patrol 16:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fun fact: The first guy in the video (the one rapping) is from my hometown and used to look up to me. He was a little awkward back then, but I'd never suspect he was a juggalo. When I first saw that video, I had to contact my sister. "Oh my god, is this so-and-so?" I'm actually still good friends with his mom, who's a very religious Christian but still goes to midnight showings of Rocky Horror Picture Show. -- 16:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, it doesn't have the feel of poe to me..........nor is there humor along these lines from what little I know of them. Its just classic surreal idiocy. And it is classic. I had many a good laugh at it, it is better on subsequent viewings when the shock wears off and you can appreciate the subtle points like, talking about shit that will shock ya eye lids off while showing a CGI of his wife giving birth to a mini-me ICP. tmtoulouse 23:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It does make you speculate about the state of their marriages when they think it is a miracle that their kids look like them. 05:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well they only claim one set of kids match, the other looks just like daddy, we are left to speculate who daddy is. tmtoulouse 09:22, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh man! Dembksi's blog is calling it a modern manifestation of Francis Bacon! tmtoulouse 23:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ICP aren't smart enough to understand the concept of Poe.  These are white blokes who wear clown face and play 'horrorcore' hiphop, have an audience of fourteen year old boys, and squirt soda pop at their audience by the gallon.   Rocket scientists, they are not.   Draw a line of ludicrous rock theatrics from Alice Cooper, Ozzy Ozbourne, Kiss, Billy Idol, Eminem, and add children's TV into the mix and you have ICP - they are cartoon characters.   To suddenly find them prognosticating on the nature of magnetism is, well, surprising.    <font color="#00F0A20">DogP <font color="#993300">Marmite Patrol 07:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't you be dissing Alice Cooper, he is a demigawd! 07:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OH, puhleaze!  Name one song of his that's of any use other than 'School's Out'?   Mind you, thats a great song, and he seems like a good bloke.   And I think Eminem's a remarkable musician, he's the real deal and has oodles of talent.   It's just all the "Oh I'm so FRIGHTENED of the SCARY ROCK MAN, he's CRAYZEE!" nonsense that they've all gotten up to that's bollocks.   <font color="#00F0A20">DogP <font color="#993300">Marmite Patrol 07:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A customer gave me some dvds of concerts. The Alice Cooper one was simply amazing.  Three hours of energy and performance, a fake beheading, eight costume changes, etc.  Half the songs I now like on it I didn't even know before.  Billion.  Dollar.  Babies.  T Shirt read on the front "Paris Hilton wants me".  On the back... "dead".  08:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @DogP: "No More Mr. Nice Guy." 09:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually ICP are Native American so the wigger label is invalid. Waronstupidity (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I lasted fifteen seconds. In my twenty-eight years as a record collector and rocknerd, that goes well beyond mere stultifying mediocrity to actively one of the worst things ever. I hate you and will be killing you in your sleep soon. Nothing personal - David Gerard (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you found it suitably hideous.  It is, I reckon, an all-time classic.   Plus, the music track is incredibly lame and looped to bejasus, it's got to be the whitest hiphop I've ever heard in my life.   Vanilla Ice is one badass mothafucka compared to these tailgaters.   <font color="#00F0A20">DogP <font color="#993300">Marmite Patrol 20:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * again... they are not white but NATIVE American. Waronstupidity (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that it's that important, because the point is that they are appalingly terrible and I don't really give two shits about whether they're white, orange, pink, or blue.  However, since you raise the point, what is your source for this?   I see no mention of it in their fabulously encyclopedic Wikipedia article, which was clearly written by Juggalos.   I love Juggalos, they're cool.   <font color="#00F0A20">DogP <font color="#993300">Marmite Patrol 06:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I found the WP article on these guys fabulous as well as the video on the juggulo gathering. I was sort of aware of them peripherally, but had never heard their music and had no idea that they had the sort of following they do. I absolutely love the detail about them distributing two liters of diet soda at their concerts. Has anyone ever been? The article made it seem like they just toss them into the crowds. What is up with that? Also, in the godawful video, the line after the gravity line, something like "don't ask a scientist cause they are liars" smacks of climate change denial. At any rate, thanks for bringing this up. Finally, some clowns who are really funny. <font color="#ff0000">Me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! <font color="#6ff6633">Mine! 13:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I only knew of these idiots before due to a mocking station ID at WUNH 91.3 FM college radio. Now I get the joke they were making.  13:29, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

40 Years of Blaming Yoko
Having a Beetles weekend on the classic rock station to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the breakup. I've started to like Lennon's solo work. Any thoughts my fellow degenerates?--Thanatos (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I blame Paul. 01:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The walrus was Paul. --[[Image:Flag of Soviet Canuckistan.svg|30px|IN SOVIET CANUCKISTAN, BEAVER DAMS YOU!!!]] <font face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">Yossarian <font face="Arial Black" color="#CC0000">The Man from the USSR 07:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am the Walrus. And the !  07:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfect opportunity for me to premier my Lennon-style sunglasses to the RationalWiki community! 12:06, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I buried Paul. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, paul married Ms. Kodak, John married an artist... you decide... Alain (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong wealthy Eastman family. And Linda was cool, unless allowed near a microphone.  Was watching some 80s interview with J & Y, 'twas funny as she tried to explain to the host that she didn't know what the Beatles was when she met John.  00:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember that even Linda admitted she had no sense of rhythm, she just had fun being with Paul. In fact, there are recordings where she pointed out where she's unable to keep the beat with a tambourine, but it totally didn't matter. Because that's the kinda band Wings was. --Kels (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My partner is a huge Beatles fan. He also likes Yoko Ono's "music" (and Barry Manilow's, but that's besides the point, unless I'm trying to prove his taste in music is as bad as his taste in boyfriends...) We were music shopping once, and I bought a Led Zeppelin collection. He made a snarky remark, and I replied with, "okay, let's compare. I like Led Zeppelin. Key influence on music? Seminal influence on rock and roll for many years. You like Yoko Ono. Key influence on music? Broke up the Beatles." To which he responded, "She did not! Even Paul says it wasn't her fault!" Which is true, but it was still a fun conversation. MDB (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I used to have an old single (yeah, 45rpm vinyl, bitches) that had Yoko singing the old standard Those Were The Days on the B-side. And you know what, that woman could definitely sing.  Nothing wrong with her voice, and she could carry a tune when she chose.  The fact is, she chose instead to experiment, and see where the limits of this whole "music" thing were.  Because while she can/could sing, she's not a singer.  She's always been an artist.  Which is why I shake my head at people who get on the "Yoko's music sucks" bandwagon.  As to the Beatles, from what I gather they would have broken up pretty soon even if she wasn't there at that point, so it's pointless to blame. --Kels (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

(unDent)I think it is fair to say, regarding the Beatles break up, she may have accelerated a result that was inevitable. And yeah, he's played a few of her less experimental pieces for me, and, yeah, they're not bad. But she's just such an easy target if I feel like teasing him a little. MDB (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This is England
Dunno if any of you have seen this but there's a Facebook campaign to get This is England by the Clash to Number One on St George's Day (23rd April). 15:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Couldn't they have chosen a good song? Totnesmartin (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How... dare... you................ This......... England................. awesome.................................. 18:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But there are better songs out there, and by a large order of magnitude. They probably just chose it because it "sounded patriotic". Now, I'm no collectivist so the concept of patriotism always confuses me, but there are songs that better suit the UK's national identity surely. Bunging London Calling up for the Olympics would be pretty ace I think. 19:31, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Anarchy In The U K"? Though I suppose that would be British rather then English.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a good song... Meaghan!!!!!!!!!!!! (talk) 21:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not click on the rickroll link. Save your souls. 22:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mei is useful. 'Cource I clicked at the rickroll link anyway because I am a sceptic. (It was a rickrcoll link indeed. OR WAS IT?) Sen (talk) 04:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It just has to be "England Swings" by Roger Miller. For those that missed this gem
 * ''England swings like a pendulum do
 * Bobbies on bicycles, two by two
 * Westminster Abbey, the tower of Big Ben
 * The rosy red cheeks of the little children


 * Now, if you huff and puff and you fin'lly save enough
 * Money up to take your family on a trip across the sea
 * Take a tip before you take your trip
 * Let me tell you where to go
 * Go to England, oh''
 * Now, with lyrics like that.... Jack Hughes (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I vote for Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields Forever. Fish and finger pies in summer.... 12:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

'sup
WIGO at RationalWiki these days? Meaghan!!!!!!!!!!!! (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Usual stuff. Acei9 20:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Boo, this place is boreing and nobody responds to threads. /b/ is a lot funner. Meaghan!!!!!!!!!!!! (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Go hang out with the /b/tards instead then. 08:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Image uploader
whatever happened to da image uploader? too many newfags abuse it? Meaghan!!!!!!!!!!!! (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep. -- Nx  / talk 22:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "newfags"...nice... 05:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In reply to your edit summary, it is channer speak, usually from 4Chan's /b/ forum, to indicate a new user. Our trolling friend seems to find the use of "interntspeak" and/or "meme" amusing - they are of course wrong. 05:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's cool... I assumed (being a newfag n00b myself) that there was some inside joke involved...no worries :)  05:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't use "fag" as an insult on this wiki. Or I will start blocking your lame asses. For seconds at a time. Oh wait, I will rename you forever. 07:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be less offended by the idea of using "fag" as an insult and more offended by needlessly importing 4Chan memes into the site. A bunch of channers are literally the very last thing we need. Of course, having said that, and if they see it, you know what will happen. And having remarked on it like that, the probability has probably gone up so I'll stop speaking and just go triforce something. 18:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

my friend an IDIOT.
He bought a bottle of alcohol with 94% and he indend to try it tonight...( i aint a Straight Edge so im going to party like hell)and im trying to tell him that its deadly...(he want to try it without anything else,he dont plan on drinking the whole bottle but still) im going to have to be a fucking nanny to prevent him from drinking it but i will be too damn drunk...im thinking of putting water in the bottle...should i do that ? (hes 22 im 19 we live in Canada so we both have the legal drinking age)Waronstupidity (talk) 21:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Go sambuca style and flame that drink !!! ( be carefull, kids! ask your parents for supervision... Alain (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * dude im adult...its been a year since i no longer live with parent/relative, im free! i live in a apartment.Waronstupidity (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not more poisonous than regular liquor, except that it's possible to get enough into your system before passing out to kill you. It's gonna taste awful unless mixed with something, though.  Keep it away from open flames.  00:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tell your friend to grow the fuck up and drink a proper drink. If he wants to try his luck with a bit of that French-Canadian crumpet you have there, then drinking a 94% drink will make him look like a prat - if you wanna get merry, start the night with a couple of beers, then around 12 go and do shots like men. Anything above 60% is for fucking idiots. 01:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, drinking a 94% drink will physically scar the guy's throat. That crap has to be mixed with something. --Kels (talk) 01:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's probably something like wp:Everclear (alcohol). I used to drink that.  When I was goddamn sixteen.  You're nineteen, dude.  You and your 22-year-old friend shouldn't drink grain alcohol alone at home.  Go to a bar and get a couple of decent beers, or a gin and tonic, or a dirty martini.  Something a little better than that rotgut.-- 03:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I find it difficult to believe that anybody could swallow 94%. I had a bottle of Polish Pure Spirit (80%) once that that was almost undrinkable.--BobSpring is sprung! 06:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I had a Latvian girlfriend a coupla decades ago. Her grandmother knew the family's secret plum vodka recipe. We estimated the stuff at 80%. It crawled up the side of the goddamn glass (or looked like it did). One sip and your speech was drunk before your brain noticed. I was 21 and survived. Great stuff - ~@David Gerard (talk)
 * Nice to see you around, Dave. As inebriated as we/I might be.  08:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The big problem with higher ABV drinks is that people don't seem to understand first pass metabolism. 200ml of 10% alcohol != 50ml 40% alcohol. More alcohol slips past your liver enzymes as they get saturated. It's the same as the twats I heard about who injected vodka and died. 08:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Drunk history
Don't know if you guys saw this. Nothing to do with RW and maybe oldmeme... BUT! I still laugh even if i saw it three times today

Drunken history: Nicola Tesla Alain (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty funny. 10:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Book
Hehe, the title says it all really 1. 12:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I like one of the reviews:

This book promised to explain the principles of intelligent design, and since I have a backlog of thirty websites that go live next week, I bought it. Now that I've read it, I've decided to abandon all of the principles that most web designers are using today and design my sites using faith. My clients aren't happy with this, but that's because they're intolerant of my views and are closed minded to the truth.
 * 12:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I totally enjoyed the two one star featured reviews. And, yes, the title says it all.  13:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I find you get more information about a book from its one star reviews rather than five star ones. But it appears that the "complete idiot's guide" really is for the completely idiotic arguments only. From the comments section in the best one star review: "Especially annoying is the fact that you've more than once (in an apparent cut-and-paste job) stated that the book doesn't claim that evolution runs contrary to the second law of thermodynamics, but it makes the Entropy Argument. As a pointed out before, THAT IS THE ENTROPY ARGUMENT." It seems that many IDiots do need it spelling out for them. 21:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Bumblebees
on the cherry tree. And what the hell am I doing still up? 13:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to say why are you up so early :)  13:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Early? It's less than two hours to noon. 14:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thunderf00t vs Ray Comfort
Yeah, I know if came out last year, but I only just got round to watching it. Interesting stuff to say the least, and a few good lulz in there indeed. Top notch bits: Entertaining stuff anyway. An hour and a half well spent. 21:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * TF explaining a change in the genome to Ray, to which Ray says, "that's microevolution, isn't it? Well I don't believe in that!"
 * Ray saying, "one just needs an overreactive imagination to believe in evolution."
 * Ray refusing to answer / basically ignoring the idea that God could say paedophilia is good and by that logic Ray would also find it good.
 * Ray's entire argument being "Goddidit." I don't know much about Ray Comfort except for the banana fallacy, but I assumed he would at least try his hand at some creation science.
 * Yeah, Ray doesn't come across particularly smart in that one. TF could have taken him to the cleaners and just brought up repeated fallacies within Ray's arguments but that would have been out of place in a "discussion" rather than debate, and I prefer TF's style of doing things this way (the Dawkins one is pretty much along the same lines, where it's a discussion rather than "interview", as such). And of course, you can't argue with idiots, they just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. 22:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, that's a good discussion. TF was criticised for not being aggressive enough or going after Comfort's loonyness, but I think his tactic of playing it cool and reserved and just letting Comfort make an arse of himself was a good one.  My personal favourite bit was when TF wonderfully explained speciation, only to be 'rebutted' with "you're going to hell".    22:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No need for being aggressive in a situation which doesn't require it. They seemed to genuinely wanna talk to each other about their respective views and try to understand one another, rather than just argue pointlessly, as obviously neither party were gonna change their mind. It seemed that TF talked more, but that's simply because he had more stuff to say than Ray, all he could really do was say "Look at the world around you! Look at the trees! Goddidit!" 22:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2FskTKrx40 23:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * For people who have not seen it. 23:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

From our friends at Less Wrong...
...comes something truly mind-blowing. Yes, it takes hours to read all of the essays, but it's worth it. I think. 22:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

bestiality
Is it immoral if it's pleasurable to the animal? And why do people consider the killing and consumption of them ok, but sex as abhorrent? Tweety (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is impossible for an animal to give informed, clear consent. Having sex with any living thing, including humans, that cannot or does not give consent, is rape and therefore immoral.  Next question. --Kels (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * EC
 * Yes.
 * They're stupid. 19:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * So, if animals can't give clear, informed consent to being eaten, then... Totnesmartin (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You just hit the nail on the head Tweety (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Analogy breaks down. You're not allowed to eat humans either, even if they do provide informed, clear consent.  You can still discuss the morality, but one situation is not equal to the other. --Kels (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But it's ok to eat deities. 22:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all, the analogy isn't pertaining to human eating, it's about the moral double standard extended to animals Tweety (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It can only be a double standard if the situations are equivalent. They aren't. --Kels (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly, I'm exploring whether the degree to which sex with animals is immoral is in proportion to their slaughter. It's an odd quirk of humanity. Tweety (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not immoral to fuck an animal, its just fucking awful. Acei9 21:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's room for a line here about New Zealanders and sheep, but that wouldn't be classy. --Kels (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do eat a lot of lamb chops but thats not the point....Acei9 21:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And I bet you've had rack of lamb as well, you pervert. --Kels (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The "analogy" is pretty good, and I have two things to offer. One is that there seems to be a sort of NOMA involved here - discussions of sexual ethics and dietary ethics are "separate" discussions. The other is one of necessity. Ignoring for a moment the slight possibility of being able to live entirely without killing anything, we have to eat to live. What we eat and how we "prepare" it is then a different kind of discussion than what we have sex with. Bread, wine, and hamburger were all once alive, and we killed something to make these into food. 23:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you gotta know I'm getting in on this discussion.
 * We have to eat something to live. But the decision of what to eat is almost as open-ended as what to have sex with.  You can have sex with people, animals, fruit, and probably a variety of rocks (if you are unusually kinky).  You can also eat many of those things.  You don't need to do either.  Cows don't consent to being eaten, just as they don't consent to being molested.-- 02:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the biggest difference between the two is the necessity of the action. Even though an animal can't consent to being killed, it is accepted as something unavoidable.  At the same time, most people who eat meat would still be against torturing an animal to death or killing it in "inhumane" ways (please don't give me any of that PETA shit about how horrible slaughterhouses are).  However, sexually abusing an animal is not necessary.  It would done only for the pleasure of the person and there's no way to fuck a sheep in a humane way.  09:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fucking an animal, yes, but what aboutbeing fucked by which, according to those in the bestiality community, is a different thing (it's in an old issue of Bizarre magazine) which you assume that the animal does give consent (in so much that an animal can) to do the act, because it's the animal that initiates it. No abuse, no inhumane treatment and, one presumes, there is pleasure for the animal. So where does that lie? Because I'm pretty sure I agree with the people who say that fucking and being fucked are two different areas in this case. 11:11, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Eating meat is only done for the pleasure of the person, too, Chuck. You don't have to eat meat, so the killing of the animals and harvesting of their flesh is only done because you like the taste of meat.  This is easy to prove: just imagine if you didn't like the taste of meat.  You would not starve, and would probably be only mildly inconvenienced.  But you like it.
 * In the same way, fucking an animal is only done for pleasure. I'm not sure why you think there's no way to fuck a sheep humanely but still think you can kill an animal humanely.  What does "humanely" mean to you?  A minimum of pain?  So use the sheep when it's in estrus, prepare it with lube, and so on.  I'm sure it can be done to many kinds of animals without damage or significant pain, although admittedly that's just speculation.-- 11:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, whether it's necessary or not is often debated, but very young children who grow up on purely vegan/veggie diets often end up malnourished which can cause some severe health complications or even death. So it is necessary, particularly in early, rapid growing phase of your life to shove something meaty down your neck occaisionally. Less so as you grow older and perhaps stuff like fois gras is more indulgent than necessary, but it's clearly not a black and white issue. However, that's sidestepping needlessly into a vegetarian debate that really isn't needed too much. And "humanely" probably means different things to different people with different standards, which is the trouble, because people will usually change those standards for the sake of their own comvenience. So if someone is desperate to fuck a goat when the goat isn't too up for it that night, they'll more likely turn around and say "you know what, some extra lube will make it fine" and change their standards rather than think "oh, it'd be inhumane to do it now, after all, I do have principles". Well, in general, I think, you might find a few idealists who'd stick to their guns at their inconvenience but there's probably far more examples of the other case. 19:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not really debated about necessity, actually. I believe pretty much every competent nutritionist agrees that it's possible to eat a balanced diet as a vegetarian.  And while yes, some children raised vegan (seldom veggie) experience nutritional problems, that's generally because their parents feed them a terrible diet.  There are far more examples of omnivorous bad parenting, it just doesn't ever make the news.  Witness the skyrocketing childhood diabetes trend (only starting to level off recently).
 * I agree that "humanely" is a subjective term. I just find it difficult to conceive of any definition that includes cutting the animal's throat that doesn't include painless use for sex.-- 22:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * AD, there is overwhelming evolutionary proof that humans were designed to eat meat. Teeth, digestive system, etc.  Vegetarians constantly have to rely on extra supplements to get the required nutrition.  If we didn't have the medical technology to create such supplements, they would be in some serious trouble.  I had a friend who wanted to be vegan and refused the supplements, she found that she had to eat ridiculous amounts of calories to stay healthy.  Humanely is not some abstract concept.  People could easily (and have) come to a consensus on what is humane and inhumane.  Just look at the current laws worldwide regulating the slaughterhouse industry and butchers.  I also think you're going off the deep end a little toward the end of your comment.  No rational person can think that "Oh, I'll just use some lube and the sheep won't feel a thing."  Is a realistic assessment.  19:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Humans weren't designed for any purpose. That's the soul of the wp:Naturalistic fallacy.  We evolved and can now make moral choices.  For example, recent research suggests the large coronal head of the penis may have evolved to scoop out rivals' semen, and that further the unusual length of the human penis is suggestive of a need to supplant rival semen implantation efforts.  Does that mean you can't be happy with one person, just because there's "overwhelming evolutionary proof that humans were designed" to have sex with many different people.  Or even if you don't buy the science, imagine if you did.  Do your moral choices really depend on the latest biology journals' findings?
 * And as a vegetarian, I assure you that I do no more than take a single multivitamin a day (and could probably do without that if I cared to). There's this notion that there's all sorts of things you can't get as a vegetarian, but that's just usually ignorance (or wishful thinking).  The American Dietetic Association and the Dietitians of Canada agree that it's a perfectly healthy lifestyle, with several important benefits.
 * "Humanely is not some abstract concept."
 * Seriously? Because it seems like an abstract concept to me.
 * " No rational person can think that "Oh, I'll just use some lube and the sheep won't feel a thing." Is a realistic assessment."
 * I think the sheep may feel something, and feel discomfort and whatever. I don't know, I'm not a veterinarian or shepherd.  But I find it hard to believe that you can think it's humane to kill cows, but not to have sex with them.  If a cow was in estrus (or whatever you call it for cows) and medical assistance was rendered, I don't see how you're going to hurt the cow.  If you've ever seen the organ on a bull, then you'll know that she probably wouldn't even notice.
 * I'm not advocating this, of course. I'm advocating the opposite.  I think it's wrong to fuck animals for the same reasons I think it's wrong to eat them.  But I can't think of any consistent morality that would let me raise a veal calf in a cage too small for it to move and then kill it, but would frown on me having painless sex with an adult cow.
 * Can you explain it to me?-- 22:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a combine harvester is a fairly inhumane device. You still kill to eat, you just don't eat animals.  00:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that I have no alternative that I can take. I eat hand-harvested vegetables and fruits for the most part, with some grains that are also mostly hand-harvested, because I actually have that alternative here and can afford it.  My killing is certainly less purposeful and more essential.  And I would encourage less of it.
 * But you forget that this isn't an attack on my personal ethics, which would be be better placed on the essays for that. This is a discussion of the ethics of bestiality.  Do you have an opinion, Huw, on the matter?-- 01:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that it's only an issue of social acceptability. Humans are strange like that.  Here in Spain you can go to watch a bull being killed and it's culture.  Most people are quite happy to eat animals that have probably died relatively unpleasant deaths - though those same people probably wouldn't want to visit a slaughterhouse. Yet there is no social shame in these activities.  On the other hand having sex with animals is not only socially unacceptable but probably subject to criminal sanction.  I guess it's just the particular set of social taboos which exist at the moment. Or it's what the bible says.  One or the other.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Aussies safer in a strip club than a church, figures show
14:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Naturally, no one would want to desecrate such a sacred place. 14:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Most strip clubs don't push blood sacrifice, cannibalism and communication with invisible supernatural beings. That could account for their patrons being safer to be around. Also, security is normally pretty good. Strip clubs are also cheaper than some churches, and you may get complimentary nachos.-- 14:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * How many people have Christians killed and how many people have Strippers killed? I thought that much was obvious. Sen (talk) 17:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you have the muslim fags who proudly kill people in the name of "allah." Seems the more clothes people wear, the more violent they are. Meaghan!!!!!!!!!!!! (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So strippers are holy people? Sounds like the idea of pastafarianism is making more and more sense. 08:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually there is some potential danger Man sues for alleged breast beating. You have been warned.--BobSpring is sprung! 10:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * are there any good statistics for deaths while watching strippers ? do these include Mr X found dead in alley behind strip club ? 67.72.98.45 (talk) 03:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

CPEDIA
Oh mother of all lols... You guys know about Cuil, the worst search engine since yahoo? 

They made an automated encyclopedia: It's name? CPedia !!!!!!!! maaaaaan, almost as reliable than conservapedia!!!

For example: Here's Mr. Schlafly's entry : &mdash; Unsigned, by: Alain / talk / contribs 22:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's a clusterfuck! Schlafly Doo made the cut, though!  00:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is Reddit'S take on this trainwreck: Alain (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's 2:30am. I was going to go to bed by 1am. Damn you - David Gerard (talk) 01:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Pray for me instead, I'm already damned Alain (talk) 03:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be flattered that Schlafly Doo made it to another website, but that "article" is so incoherent no one in their right mind would go to it for information. 12:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting idea, hopeless implementation. <font color="#00F0A20">DogP <font color="#993300">Marmite Patrol 20:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * it's got us too - bizarrely, the section called Totnesmartin is a quote from Phantom Hoovers Wikindex talk page, which I never wrote a thing on. Still, it's the internet so it must be true. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That "article" is surreal. The closest I get to a mention is "human sacrifice".  09:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Shintolin
Has anyone else heard of or played it? It is a surprisingly good game. You take the role of a stone-age person, and do what you want in an open-ended world. For those of you with addictive personalities, it has an AP system that prevents you from playing all day long. Drop in on me, I am John Ibans in the village of Oro Percorso. Just letting you all know, I am with another group, the "Philosophe Knights", nice people, just don't rob our storage area. Here is a linkey -. If you want to get to Oro Percorso, start in the Hillside Tavern, head south to the river, then follow the river east. 00:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the forums, it appears as though the creator has abandoned it even though it needs a lot more work. Actually, it seems like the creator (Isaac) is a pretty huge jerk, taking donations from people and then ditching the game entirely and hosting his new projects on the server people had donated for.  Too bad, it does look cool; a lot like Urban Dead.-- 10:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You also play UD? Cool. Are you in any groups, what do you do? (And where in the forums is Issac a jerk? I haven't found anything suggesting that). I have a PKer character, a "normal" human and a zombie. 12:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yuri's Night
Today (12 April) is Cosmonautics' Day (for those born on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain) and Yuri's Night (for the people who like to party). Happy 49 years of human spaceflight! --ZooGuard (talk) 08:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yay. But what about poor Laika?  Does she get a day?--BobSpring is sprung! 09:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Beep beep. Has it been that long?  Wow.  09:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I realised the other day that the sixties are 50. but 50 is the new 30, so actually it was the eighties. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still stuck ten years behind too. I still think "20 years ago" was 1980, it wasn't, it was 1990... But seriously, we went from manned spaceflight to the moon in a decade, and in the three decades following it we've gone almost nowhere. It's quite sad really, although at least computer technology has caught up to the space age so that when we do go back it'll be proper sci-fi style rather than the equivalent of strapping three blokes inside a tin can and crossing your fingers. 11:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You've got to admit the Mars rover things were pretty fucking amazing. So is the ISS, for what it's worth. 11:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Every night is Yuri Night in this club. It is a ladies only thing. 17:26, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm yet to be called for Yuri service... 17:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you say so? Here you go. --Kels (talk) 04:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

conservapedia and porn
I just received an email addressed to one of, if not the, first character I created over at CP (~June 2007). It was blocked after the third or forth edit for appending more straightforward text to racist euphemisms found in a couple of articles on the site. Yeah, I feel a bit slimy about it now, but at the time I thought the point was worth making. I still do, but just not on that site and not without some even more straightforward editorial on the topic. Anyway, the email I received was an advertisement for porn. The only time I've ever used that character name was on CP, so there is no other source it could come from. FYI <font color="#ff0000">Me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! <font color="#6ff6633">Mine! 13:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Was it good pron? 13:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't look, sorry. I just thought it was interesting the porn content providers were able to put together my user name and email that I only ever used (or even mentioned AFAIK) on CP and even that was perhaps a dozen references. I'm not very sophisticated in these matters. <font color="#ff0000">Me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! <font color="#6ff6633">Mine! 15:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Depending on the address, its possible the spammer just generated it randomly. They didn't necessarily get it via some kind of harvest at CP. MDB (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I remember a single-purpose Hotmail account I created ages ago for something or other. Within a couple of hours (and before it had been used anywhere) I was already receiving offers of Russian brides. So as with MDB, I wouldn't read very much into it.. alt (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a single purpose account, it was created years ago (perhaps five?) and the chance of the user name being randomly generated seems slim indeed. It can't be derived from the name associated with the email address or from the email address itself. It would be as if the email was "sheesh!@gmail.com" and the user name was "Fernirator7" or some set equally unrelated. I wouldn't have twigged at all were the connections obvious or the name common.<font color="#ff0000">Me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! <font color="#6ff6633">Mine! 16:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If its anything other than purely random characters (i.e. agqwegew@gmail.com) it could be randomly generated. Trust me, spammers are very ingenious at coming up with working e-mail addresses. MDB (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * sure it could be randomly generated, based on the million monkeys meet a million typewriters model, but the email address, the name associated with the email address and the CP user name are each completely unrelated. The kindly porn spammer somehow connect the email address with the CP user name. Occam's razor tells me it is no random coincidence. <font color="#ff0000">Me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! <font color="#6ff6633">Mine! 22:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Damn, i have to defend CP... I Started a new job yesterday morning, they created my email adress at 10 am, 10h15: spam was already pouring in from casinos and porn in my spam folder... In fact, the first email I received was spam... The adress was not diffused anywhere... Random Spambot are on fire these days i guess... Alain (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sean Hannity's New Book
So, I see Sean Hannity 's ghostwriting staff has a new book out.

I wonder... how many conservatives who are vehemently opposed to socialism is any form whatsoever will borrow a copy from the public library? MDB (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Which reminds me: I'm surprised I've never heard an ultra-conservative rail against the library system. 19:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hehe. But if the library charges, then that's business, which is capitalism, which is okay even if it is technically socialism of some form. 21:26, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have actually heard of a few conservatives saying "I buy my books; why shouldn't other people?", mostly stories from my partner who works for a library system whose budget has been repeatedly slashed the past few years. But for the most part, this is an example of it being socialism only if people other that aren't you take advantage of it. MDB (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * only if people other that aren't you take advantage of it - I had to read that a few times, but if I'm understanding you correctly I think that is an extremely profound and bang-on-the-money statement.  18:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There was a typo, so it was unclear. Let me try again with a somewhat different phrasing: it's only socialism if you don't need it, but someone else takes advantage of it. Therefore, if I took that philosophy, the fire and police departments are not socialist, because I do not want my house to be burn down or be robbed. However, I do not have children, so the public schools are socialist. MDB (talk) 21:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Dentist
So I have just come back from the dentist. Turns out my "flu" was actually a severe infection that was caused by my wisdom tooth growing slowly into my molar. It made a hole over the last 5 years causing me to need both teeth pulled. After the first one I punched the dentist in the leg and called him a bastard. Then when the second one came out the dental assistant collapsed on the floor, cracking her head. I couldn't stop lauging. Now I hurt. Acei9 23:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wait, wait, wait. How does "dental assistant collapsed on the floor, cracking her head" = "tooth coming out"? (It does sound funny though!) 23:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know, when the second tooth got pulled she fainted. Went down like a ton of bricks. Acei9 23:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha!! I feel bad for her, but then again, you would think a dental assistant wouldn't be freaked out by that sort of thing. 23:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope you got lots of hefty painkillers.  I recommend 750mg of Vicodin followed by a stiff G&T.   <font color="#00F0A20">DogP <font color="#993300">Marmite Patrol 08:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * While I know (hope?) it's tongue-in-cheek, the readiness with which people suggest taking alcohol together with drugs on RationalWiki is always disturbing me. Anyway, I wish you a speedy recovery. — Pietrow   ☏  09:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Painkillers + alcohol = big&clever. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Medicinal marijuana man. Only way to go. 13:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you actually get pot in the UK? Not just hashish? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 13:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's illegal here, but it's very easy to get it. 14:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's places it's hard to avoid it. 14:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My campus for one. 17:07, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Secret forums no longer secret?
What you can do with the right gear and the right knowledge. 14:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, I'm not too sure what to thin of that... 15:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So does that mean if you do a search on "high school honeys" you'd get all of Ed's Zebulon posts? --Kels (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

They are amonght us!
Really! and if you dont watch "The fourth Kind" movie they will come and steal your beer! Waronstupidity (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * is that like close encounters of the 4th kind, sex with aliens , specially buttsexxx ? Hamster (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * you want to have buttsex with a Zeta reticuli? Waronstupidity (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I herd they're really good at it, so, yeah, why not? 04:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Pain
Even though I am past the age where wisdom teeth give you trouble I am suddenly thrust into a world of unbelievable pain. I have never had wisdom tooth problems before and never thought I would. Can't get to a dentist today so I am surviving on a diet of codeine and whisky. Christ, it fucking hurts. Acei9 02:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, my fuckin' sympathies. When I had mine out, the dentist put me under with a shot of demerol followed by a cocktail of valium, seconal and some other painkiller/narcotic--maybe strong codeine pills? anyway, I was as high as a fucking kite, it was awesome. P-Foster (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm amazed that you can type. Also: try aspirin. A lot of it. That usually helps me. 02:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fuck aspirin - I have opiates. I am tying to finish an essay but keep getting distracted. Acei9 02:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Best of luck, Ace. Tooth problems suck.
 * P.S. - have you at least used ice to numb it? I know that doesn't compete with opiates but it's worth a shot. 02:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am hosting a goddamn dinner party in 2 hours but I can barely use my jaw to eat anything and I'll wind up with my head lolling around on my neck like its hanging from a fucking hinge while I mutter away in a drunken, drugged up fog. Ahhhh the pain! Shitballsfuckknuckle. Acei9 03:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Rub small amounts of cocaine on your gums? Calling Dr. Robert...  03:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Having evolved to only have a complement of 28 teeth I've been spared wisdom teeth problems. However, trigeminal neuralgia brought on by cold wind has occasionally reduced me to tears of agony. Warm compresses and NSAIDs have been the only thing to offer relief. 07:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, that sucks. As does the talk page for the WP article. I would recommend cocaine for you, too.  08:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's happened to me twice and for those who have a chronic conditionI can understand why it's called the suicide disease. 09:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "I'll wind up with my head lolling around my neck like it's hanging from a fucking hinge while I mutter away in a drunken, drugged up fog." Not to be a smart arse, but is that not the state your associates know you best in? I'd recommend a bit of the green. It's secondary purpose is to numb physical pain. (First is for recreational use.) 11:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had impacted wisdom tooths but I've also had herpes zoster ophthalmicus (shingles) the wisdom tooth thing was horrendous and nothing would numb it but two visits to the dental hospital cleared it up although they cocked up the anaesthetic first time & I had to overnight, the shingles was absofuckinglute agony & lasted for weeks and still, thirty plus years later, gives me repeat nadgers at random (see also trigeminal neuralgia above). 12:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to cheer you up: a friend of mine had a rib cracked under anaesthetic as the butcher dentist pressed his knee on her chest while removing wisdom tooth. 12:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I had to go to hospital to have mine out, complete with general anaesthetic. All four at the same time, although to be fair the bastards were growing in sideways.-- 20:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Having had a severe toothache a few years ago, I highly recommend BC powder or Goody's powder, which consists of a specific ratio of aspirin 650mg, caffeine 33.3mg, and salicylamide 195mg. It was the only thing that worked for me. Of course, if you are allergic to aspirin, there is a version that contains acetaminophen. Best of luck. User:Truckinpapa 19:08, 13 April 2010
 * I remember when my Wisdom Tooth was screwing with me, how at some times I couldn't even sleep because of the pain. I tried everything from direct Oragel use [On and around the tooth. Drooling like an idiot, but no help] to 2 Ranger Candy [800 mg ibuprofin tabs]. Then again, they gave me Oxycodone tabs AFTER they removed the bastard. Probably real funny to the guys in the surgical ward. -- CodyH (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually side with the creationists
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I've found a controversy in a school where I side with the creationists: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHm5xIQ_Mok --Mustex (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Creationism should be to science like RationalWiki is to CONservapedia, i.e: not even mentioned in a science classroom. 05:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Somewhat rambling, but my understanding is that the point being made is that we shouldn't call creationism a myth because this could offend creationists? Or did I miss the point?--BobSpring is sprung! 08:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you've got it, Bob. 08:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If this is really the point, a look at the "definition" of myth would be useful... (Hi to all, by the way.) --ZooGuard (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's pretty obvious that it is a myth. Which leaves me wondering if I care if I offend people who believe that the moon is made of cheese or whatever. --BobSpring is sprung! 09:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * hey wow a mustex video i am surprised-- 10:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm with Tom Moore on this one. 17:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with Bob on this one. Creationism is an ancient story used as a way to explain the nature of the universe--by definition, it's a myth. That's not a judgment, it's calling something what it is. The "feelings" of people who believe this myth reflects reality are of no import to the question of using the right terminology to describe something. Mustex is wrong. P-Foster (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I searched for Roxy Music 19 seconds into this one. A dizzy new sensation! Dae Thae Strand!  13:42, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with all of you if there was no other appropriate terminology, but they could very well call it a "belief" and there wouldn't be a problem. Offending the creationists is our job.--Mustex (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * MMMmmm. But you could call evolution a "belief" as well - albeit a belief about something which happens to be true.  So now creationism and evolution are both beliefs, and so far so NOMA.  And no doubt some well-meaning individual would then suggest that the "truth" lies somewhere between the two "beliefs" and we end up with theistic evolution or some other offensive hybrid.
 * But the truth is that one of them is a myth and the other is a fact. I think that using a non-offensive weasel word like "belief" concedes too much.--BobSpring is sprung! 12:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course it's a fucking myth, what else could it possibly be (politely) called? Or should schools teach Greek mythology as science too?   17:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Bob, yes, evolution is a "belief." It's also a "belief" that the holocaust really did happen, and that the holocaust did not happen.  No one is disputing that one belief can (and is) clearly right.  My question is:  What is the REASON for saying "myth?"  As much as I love offending creationists, the government should try to avoid doing so as long as it is REASONABLY PRACTICAL.  And taking a single word that isn't essentially to learning anything out of a textbook is not impractical in my view.--Mustex (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason for saying "myth"? Errr..cause it's a myth?
 * But ...the government? Actually I must have missed that bit. The US government says creationism is a myth? Hay! Fantastic!--BobSpring is sprung! 19:54, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it sounds great, but for the most part I think the government should try to be as unoffensive as possible while still doing its job. Teaching evolution is, clearly, part of its job as a provider of public education, insulting creationists is not.  If you or I call it a "myth," fine, but that's not part of government, which is funded by all our tax dollars.  Now, clearly the government can't always side with everyone who pays taxes (ie, criminals help to pay for prisons before they go there), but at the very least they should try to be fairly inoffensive in an official capacity.  Maybe I'm just a starry-eyed idealist, but still.--Mustex (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmmm. How should they describe the idea that the Earth is flat?--BobSpring is sprung! 20:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at the talk page and archives thereof of Talk:Creation_myth. It's been done to death over and over and over and over and over .... again. 20:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, assuming there were a large number of flat earthers, then I wouldn't see any reason for official text books to refer to it as a "belief," as long as its made perfectly clear that it is not based in science, nor will it score you any points on the test.--Mustex (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Mustex, explain to me in very small words why calling the Abrahamic religions; creation myth a myth is especially offensive, while calling Greek myths myths, Roman myths myths, Native myths myths , and a dozen other myths myths is not. P-Foster (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've always subscribed to the view that offense is mostly taken not given. People choose to be offended (or not). If you are really convinced of the rightness of your beliefs then what someone else says is immaterial. There is no right not to be offended. 03:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * isnt this covered by the same part of the constitution that forbids state establishment of a religion. It is unlawful for the state or a representative of it to denigrate a religious belief. I may be wrong about that, I know several teachers have been sued and lost over saying religion was daft. 67.72.98.45 (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question, BON--WHERE is the "denigration" in calling the Judeo-Christian-Muslim creation myth a myth? That's what it is, right? P-Foster (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In our culture, the term typically has denigrating connotations. As for why its ok to call, for example, Zeus a myth...well, find me a group of American tax-payers who worship Zeus, and I'll agree its offensive.  Also, I have a counter-question: if they either didn't mention creationism, or simply called it a "belief, not supported by science," what would the harm be?--Mustex (talk) 05:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't have such a connotation. It accurately describes what the creation myth is. And how about the way we describe the myths of the people upon whose land we built this country--you know, the REAL Americans. Seems to me we have no problem calling their myths myths. And creationism should, in schools, only be mentioned in the context of some sort of survey course of religions, where all the competing mythologies get equal time. The harm is that by teaching children that creationism is something other than what it is--a piece of mythology, nothing more or less--the door is opened to give it some sort of valorised/protected status that it does not deserve. Look, just because somebody chooses to attach a value judgment to a word that is decidedly not inherent to the word, doesn't mean we should sugar-coat the truth to accommodate them. P-Foster (talk) 05:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that I've said all I have to say on this so I'll try to make this my last edit. A "belief" can be either correct or incorrect. A "myth" is (presumably) incorrect and not a useful basis for making factual decisions. Referring to all ideas as "beliefs" takes us into social relativism where every belief system as seen as valid as any other. This may be a fine stance for anthropologists but it's not that good if you want to build aeroplanes, cure cancer or find the Higgs boson. So if it's a myth please let people say so.  Bye.--BobSpring is sprung! 06:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * @P-Foster: No, as long as we teach good science, student (if they can be convinced at all) will eventually realizes that creationism is just not true. Any student dumb enough to think otherwise is probably already a creationist anyway.  There's a difference between refuting creationism, and mocking it.  For the most part, I agree that creationism shouldn't be mentioned in science class.  However, if creationists keep pushing it, it may be necessary to mention it just to refute it (as was apparently done in these texts books).  If that is the case, why not call it a "belief not supported by any science"?--Mustex (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Because it's more than a simple belief not supported by science--it's an ancient story that a community of people have used historically as a means by which to explain the world and their place in it. In other words, a myth. That's pretty much the textbook definition of the term, so call it what it is. Truth. P-Foster (talk) 13:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the truth here isn't in dispute. The issue is: when the government (that we all pay taxes to) has to accomplish something (in this case, educating kids in REAL SCIENCE), and has two ways of doing it (one that involves using a word that will offend idiots, and another using a word that will offend idiots at least somewhat less), what should it do?  As long as kids learn about evolution, I don't see what's wrong with the government trying to be nice and walking on egg shells a little.  No one is seriously suggesting putting the two beliefs on the same level (or, at least, I'm not).  It should be made very clear that ONLY ONE IS SCIENCE.--130.160.99.1 (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)