Template talk:RationalWiki MainPage/AccordingTo/Archive1

Fermat

 * Some people? Why hide?  Why not just name me, Ames, et.al?  Attacks and making fun of other users is what this place is about, no? The article I edited still says: Fermat's most famous equation is Fermat's Last Theorem, which was not proven until American mathematician Andrew Wiles published his proof in 1993. Wiles was born an Englishman, but was awarded US citzenship for solving Fermat's equation.  Is that truly tantamount to saying something different?--TK/MyTalk 23:32, 27 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Yes, I also noticed the change to "some people". What gives?  --Horace 23:34, 27 May 2007 (CDT)


 * It is clear to me now, just tonight, that there isn't any contribution I can give, no action I can take, to get a fair shake from some Liberals here, even if I agree with many of their ideas, simply because some have decided brand me an idiot, moron, YEC, conservative, etc. They don't want to be unblocked, as some did, simply because it cuts the ground out from under the ideas about me and other other places they want perpetuated.  I will never have that promised "clean slate" because many of the Bureaucrats and Sysops here will not have it.  --TK/MyTalk 23:40, 27 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Not all the items are about CP any more (cf the "fear death" item); the change is to reflect that. And TK, the fact that the article says that is the point.  I can find no evidence for that; I can't even find anyone else making the claim.  There's been a request for confirmation on the talk page since March 12th, and nobody has responded.  Ferret tried to fix it, but you reverted it.  --jtl talk 23:42, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

What claim? That he wasn't a citizen? What I removed also said he was a citizen. What remains says they same. I cannot understand the request left there. Perhaps instead of getting confrontational, you could just explain. Here or anywhere else is fine, since it doesn't actually involve this wiki. --TK/MyTalk 23:45, 27 May 2007 (CDT)


 * The claim that he got his US citizenship as an award for proving Fermat's last theorem. --jtl talk 23:47, 27 May 2007 (CDT)


 * But that wasn't my change. Nor had it anything to do with why I changed it. Is one so short of logic they deduce such things out of thin air? Or are you saying that entry was a swipe at CP not at me?  Because I have seen posts as well, blaming me, when I didn't endorse or even look at the item.  Just another rush to judgement to attack me.  I'm used to it.  But it simply isn't accurate. --TK/MyTalk 23:51, 27 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Well, first, I didn't mention you. But second, even though you didn't put it in initially, you did return it after someone else tried to fix it. But mainly, it's on CP and it's wrong (so far as I can tell), and I didn't mention you in the item.  I linked to you editing in your role as CP sysop, not as you individually. --jtl talk 23:55, 27 May 2007 (CDT)


 * It simply makes no difference. Your idea was to tar me subtly, and since I was never on the discussion page before tonight, it is hardly something logically I could be faulted for. It is simply another incident of "gotcha".  Anyone intellectually honest, and not just out to attack for sake of attacking, would have been fair about it, and merely linked to the article, rather than my edit, as other Sysops, including DanH and Andy had edited that piece before me, with that information in it.  I have removed the unverified, and quite possibly inaccurate information.  --TK/MyTalk 00:05, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Oh, what a load of nonsense TK. As Jtl said, it was wrong and it was on CP.  End of story.  The link is quite properly to a particular edit as these articles can change at any time (as you are well aware, you cheeky monkey).  --Horace 00:11, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Moreover, by linking to a particular edit by a CP sysop, I demonstrated that a CP sysop was aware it was there. I don't think it's fair to criticize CP for errors by vandals unless I can show that a 'real' CP user was aware of it, and the only way I know to do that is to show that a CP sysop (or a respected non-sysop, but so far I've done sysops only) edited the article in close proximity to the error.  And in this case, you didn't just edit close to it, you re-introduced it.  The criticism is entirely fair. --jtl talk 00:16, 28 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Yes, indeed "moreover", Jtl. One in some Ivory Tower would most certainly believe just because some Sysop touched the page, they should have been aware of advanced mathematics, and seen the mistake! LMAO.  I repeat, it was a gotcha.  Without intellectual merit, and just another attempt to smear.  There are better inaccuracies there to present, at CP,  and your dislike for me is why you did it.  But that is mere speculation, so I won't say that. You most likely didn't notice the other Sysops touching that article. Just as I didn't notice the error, nor should have, as I wasn't there to edit for that.  Oh well, in any event, thank you Jtl for calling the error to my attention. I appreciate that, most sincerely. --TK/MyTalk 00:33, 28 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Oh, for pete's sake. There was no 'advanced mathematics' involved in this edit; there was no mathematics involved at all.  And if you didn't understand understand what it was saying, why did you make the edit?  I did notice other sysops edit the article, but none edited that paragraph.  And as you keep glossing over, you put the error back.  In an edit that did nothing but.  If you weren't 'there to edit for that', then there was no reason to make that edit!  If it was a gotcha, you got yourself.  If you're aware of better inaccuracies on CP, either fix them or list them here.  As for this, I'm through talking about it.  Feel free to have the last word. --jtl talk 01:45, 28 May 2007 (CDT)


 * "It is clear to me now, just tonight, that there isn't any contribution I can give, no action I can take, to get a fair shake from some Liberals here, even if I agree with many of their ideas, simply because some have decided brand me an idiot, moron, YEC, conservative, etc" quoted from TK above. Seems like the exact same thing that almost everyone on this site has said to themselves about CP.  No matter what we say, what kind of facts, arguments, or reasoning we bring to an article, according to some "Lib'ruls are deceitful, so you can't trust what they say" Or "Lib'ruls like to lie".  Don't whine and piss because the medicine you guys have been handing to us is too bitter for your own throat.Prof0705 08:05, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Just a place to say hi to TK
TK, I'm glad to see you back. I realize a lot of us have been unfair to you, and I hope I have not. Again, I appreciate your earlier apology and I hope you are back to stay: we need you to bring balance to the Force.-AmesG 00:41, 28 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Balance in The Force is achieved by responding to emails, and if only in private, communicating ones candid thoughts. I think you would have to agree, not trying to put words in your mouth, I am a pretty up-front kind of guy.  I am not known in reality for joining movements, participating in plots, of running people down in secret.  I can do a fairly good job of that balls-out face to face, lol.  I haven't changed, but many of you, forced to really examine, now realize many things about me you didn't before.  I don't know if I am "back".  I am still waiting for the end of the weekend, and Colin's response.  If there isn't unanimity among your Bureaucrats, there cannot be anything that approaches fairness for users.  Which is why Bohdan didn't stay, among others.  I am quite willing to help.  Just is depending on what your definition of the word "is" is. ;-)  --TK/MyTalk 01:32, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Heliocentrism/Brownback
Honestly. Someone please admit to writing this. It's too ridiculous (and funny) to even appear in cp (though, no doubt someone has snuck it in). As for the name "brownback", well, it wouldn't do to say what I'm thinking. αιρδισΗταλκ 05:46, 28 May 2007 (CDT)


 * And you expected somehow more from that lunatic? Lie down, Airdish, and apply a cold towel to your head, lol. I am sure from his airplane, he can also see where the keel of the Ark scraped the earth near the Grand Canyon.  --TK/MyTalk 07:44, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Gay Disease
It's subtle enough but this is insane. αιρδισΗταλκ 08:46, 28 May 2007 (CDT)


 * I've tried a modification. Don't know if it will last. --TK/MyTalk 23:21, 28 May 2007 (CDT)

Over 3,000 Blocks Sold
Oh, the sockanity! --Kels 12:52, 4 June 2007 (CDT)


 * I see a few more brewing ... and can't wait for them to get pwn3d by some people who are blantant parodists (or very scary individuals) that seem to fit in. Jrssr5 13:00, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

Paula Jones
That Paula Jones one is so stupid and non-controversial, I can't believe they haven't fixed it yet. It's not a matter of opinion, ideology or worldview; it's just wrong. They just really don't give a shit about accuracy, I guess. --jtl talk 23:41, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

Baseball
If you like baseball, or you're from Detroit, you might want to check out the new baseball article on CP. It's actually well-written and informative.DocSock 13:11, 5 June 2007 (CDT)

Imaginary Numbers
With all due respect, the person who added that comment, skeptic, is on our side. He just suddenly bursts into spontaneous parody, but also does this. --ויִכִּ נתֶּר ֶפּ רֶ תֵּ ר  שְׁלֹום!


 * What about that Sisyphus fellah who says that they're pure evil? Of course, I think that that blog is some sort of parody, just like the Colbert Report, but assuming for a second that it's not... --Sid 12:20, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
 * OK Sid, you win. He is a parody, or deluded, or maybe he knows something we don't ...

ויִכִּ נתֶּר ֶפּ רֶ תֵּ ר  שְׁלֹום!


 * Wasn't there some weirdness at CP about imaginary numbers, back in mid/late February? I'm not finding it now, though. --<font face="Monaco,Consolas,Courier New,Courier,Fixed">jtl talk 14:05, 8 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Yes, I recall the same thing, in the April/May timeframe. But I can't find it either.  Something about how imaginary numbers aren't real (duh) and have nothing to contribute to mathematics, or whatever. SJIHAS 12:27, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Mocking Jesus
Say, since we have a Jesus Christ article already, you think someone with a bit of biblical knowledge could add something about how the conservatives of the day were only too happy to abandon him to his fate? Then we could add that link to the line about liberals mocking Jesus. --Kels 13:58, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
 * It's Jesus if you want facts. Will do --<font color="#000088">ויִ<font color="#220066">כִּ<font color="#550044"> נ<font color="#770022">תֶּ<font color="#aa0000">ר ֶפּ רֶ תֵּ ר  שְׁלֹום!
 * Whups! Okay, there then. --Kels 14:07, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I've put it in, and it's fairly blunt, but then again, the Pharisees, were conservative, at least in the true sense of the word. --<font color="#000088">ויִ<font color="#220066">כִּ<font color="#550044"> נ<font color="#770022">תֶּ<font color="#aa0000">ר ֶפּ רֶ תֵּ ר  שְׁלֹום!

ShinyShiny.tv
It's kinda sad that shinyshiny.tv is more popular than CP on average. Just noting since it seems to be relatively agreed on that that blog is a fairly obscure site. --Sid 14:24, 8 June 2007 (CDT) I was shocked too. It sorta undermined my argument, so I didn't mention it. --<font color="#000088">ויִ<font color="#220066">כִּ<font color="#550044"> נ<font color="#770022">תֶּ<font color="#aa0000">ר ֶפּ רֶ תֵּ ר  שְׁלֹום!

Sysop Abuse
Apparently there is no such thing, TK wiped the page. What's the deal? --67.70.18.43 20:50, 9 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Oh, wait. It's the discussion page he nuked, not the main page.  --Kels 20:59, 9 June 2007 (CDT)

pasted in from old correctly spelled talk page
Template talk:RationalWiki MainPage/AccordingTo From RationalWiki Jump to: navigation, search

Sorry guys, but I'm retarded when it comes to wiki format. can someone put this up? Apparently there is no evidence that animals can think. Forget the chimps that can learn and use sign language and solve complex problems.

Deletion log); 13:43 . . Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) (deleted "Intelligence": confuses animals and people - note that there is no evidence animals can "think")

http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Recentchanges

Prof0705 12:51, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

That comes back to the "pride" argument I keep coming back to. There's some sort of psychological block in these people that balks at anything that suggests they may be a type of animal, as if animals are somehow "lesser". I call that pride, and a desperate clinging to an ideology based on humans being at the top of any hierarchy of life. I see it in the evolution discussions where they keep trying to say that evolution "improves" a creature, rather than adapts it. That said, I see no evidence that Conservapedians, as a rule, think all that well either. --Kels 12:58, 26 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Added. If you don't like the wording I used, feel free to modify it or, if you're not comfortable doing that, let me know and I can change it. --jtltalk 14:05, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Should new items be added to the top or the bottom of the list? I've been doing top, on the theory that people are more likely to see them there.

Also, links that might be useful if CP ever bothers to fix any of these other items:

* Andy saying getting credit would be fair * Andy insisting on credit

--jtltalk 22:12, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Do we have a central spot where we can drop potential items, to decide if they're worth putting on the front page? I found this gem, but I'm not sure it's really front page material. Pretty thin argument, but worth a couple of lulz at the "logic". --Kels 22:26, 26 May 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't think we're that well-organized! So far, I've just been putting things as the mood's hit me, and so far nobody's complained. If you really want comments first, this seems like a reasonable place. FWIW, I like that link. --jtltalk 22:47, 26 May 2007 (CDT)


 * It's a weird little site. I found it linked off of DanH's user page, where he warns that it contains Old Earth stuff. Couldn't help but take a look, anything these guys link to has got to be pretty rich. --Kels 23:01, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

From CP: Here's a fun one for anyone who's got a grasp on economics. Or logic. --Kels 23:16, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

So add it to the "right side" template? And then maybe write a rebuttal article? We are all free to edit the whole damn site here. Nice link, btw, I have to go read... humanbe in 23:20, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Wait, did they really spell it "minninum wage"?????????????????? They did! lulz! humanbe in 23:35, 26 May 2007 (CDT)

Edwards Contributions
I started to write up something about this, but I think it's bigger than I can fit into a single line. The story altogether attributes about $50,000 to the cited industries, across two presidential runs and at least one Senate run. In the first quarter of this year, Edwards raised $14million. It's hard to see how that can honestly be described as "the big money donors". But more importantly, it doesn't seem reasonable to look at one candidate's funding sources without looking at others'. --<font face="Monaco,Consolas,Courier New,Courier,Fixed">jtl talk 02:51, 15 June 2007 (CDT)


 * Well of course not, blackmailer. You have dirt on Edwards, or those contributors? Here, in the United States, we have limits on contribs. That is considered a big donation, by anyone's standards. Especially when the candidate has talked out of both sides of his mouth, claiming to be going after such people, and taking money from them at the very same time.  --TK/MyTalk|undefined 03:17, 15 June 2007 (CDT)


 * What's risible about the entry on CP has nothing to do with Edwards but RobS's descriptions of the these bastions of free-market capitalism. He sounds like a liberal. Could it be irony? Possibly, but in RobS's case I very much doubt it. God's peed Babel fish<font color="#008888">ÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй† Now look here! 06:25, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

relativity - write a book!
following the link embedded here: "Ashlafly's educational advice to a student - "don't read a book to learn, but write a book to learn". Note: A shortened version of this advice recently became a CP motto."

leads not only to the "motto" being formed, but Ashfly is telling a person who claims to have "never passed high-school physics" to "Start with our entry here on the Theory of Relativity and improve it"!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This should go in Best of CP. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 15:11, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Chuck Norris
Ok, the man's officially on my list of people who i find disturbing.--PalMD-yada yada 22:37, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

adulteress parable
just brilliant. cp demand a biblical literalism unless it suits. wonder what karajou thinks of it. <font color="#fefefe">δαιισρΗ <font color="#fefefe">ταλκ 08:19, 25 June 2007 (CDT)

Jesus's death was a model of capitalist efficiency
I really don't think that item should be here. The cited article, stupid though it may be, doesn't say anything about capitalism or efficiency. OK, it talks about efficacy, but in a totally different context, and it isn't the same. Someone in authority: please remove this. SJIHAS 12:31, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Anyone has "authority" here... if in doubt about an edit, move it to the talk page and give your reasons. Which I suppose is what you did here, but you could have removed it, as well. That way we look stoopid for less time ;) <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 12:39, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
 * OK, advice taken. Thanks. SJIHAS 12:49, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Let me check it out...thanks.--DoxXox-DawkT0wk 12:34, 27 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Jesus's death was a model of capitalist efficiency.
 * Here is the cite...doesn't seem supported.--DoxXox-DawkT0wk 12:36, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Parthian Shot
Oh look, the article now gives examples. lies<font color="#808080">smoke mirrors 12:42, 27 June 2007 (CDT)

Best CP quote ever?
I blew it on the Jesus thing, I admit. Maybe someone else can decide if this is worthy of going up somewhere...From the discussion page of the front page at CP. "...For example, most liberals do support creating chimerae." --Aschlafly 19:12, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Terrorism
This one is really disgusting. Joking about the car bomb, and assfly defending it. I think i just threw up in my mouth.69.216.103.213 23:35, 30 June 2007 (CDT)

Sin is Addictive
I love the logic in this one. Can someone put this up in the According to...? --Kamuy8 09:14, 3 July 2007 (CDT)


 * That is a great article ... I'm gonna take the first step now and accept that I am addicted to fornication in all of it's illicitness. Jr  ss  r5  14:46, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

Non-CP quotes
Time to start digging up non-cp quotes for this column. I"ve started hunting, but it's bed time.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 22:31, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

really bad choice
"No continents are underwater today for the simple reason that continental crust is composed of lighter minerals than oceanic crust."[1] All this time, I thought continents were not underwater because then they would be called "ocean floor"."

This is actually true, folks. Silicate rich minerals are lighter than iron rich ones... our continents are scum that has floated to the top. I'm going to move it out of view before we look too stoopid. That's not to say they don;t all move around, get crumpled, drowned, resurfaced, due to tectonics. But maybe there is a better boo boo in the source? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 22:41, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Thanks for saving face. I think i was trying to point out the somewhat circular thing whereby they say that stuff that is above water isn't underwater because its a continent...kind of like saying, all the oceans are filled with water because they are oceans.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 22:44, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
 * No prob. I see your point, too. The article is, of course, mostly full of shit, and doesn't go into why the continents are lighter (and they ride on heavier material...).  I liked the argument from ignorance - "who could imagine walking hundreds of miles into the ocean and only being waist deep...".  Well, call me imaginative, but I can.  I couldn't read much more or my brain would start to shrink. And then explode.  <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 22:47, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Wish I could find a better way to present that one. I noted the "imagination" thing too...funny.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 22:55, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
 * This one is cute, too.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 22:48, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
 * This one is just so poorly written that i don't get it.--PalMD-Goatspeed! 22:55, 5 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Please never let our site ever be that illiterate... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 01:20, 6 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Further lulz, I scrolled up to see what the article was. Basically, "Galaxy" by Wikipedia ported over, with that section tacked onto the end to refute the whole idea of an "old universe".  Awestupiditysome! <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 01:22, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Objective Ministries
Isnt that a parody? Do we care? Tmtoulouse 12:45, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

I think it's fair game. While Wikipedia says it is a parody, pointing out that it refers to some organizations that don't exist, it's an extraordinarily good parody. And Bill O'Reilly has cited the nonexistent Paris Business Review. It comes down to what the person was thinking while they wrote what they wrote, and we can't know that. Any straightforwardly presented material that is outrageously fundamentalist and anti-science should be fair game. SJIHAS 17:04, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

"format"
People aren't deleting old ones, making the section a little long - it pushes "featured content" off the "first screen", which I think isn't so good. I added "more" to the "edit" link, btw, so people know they can check out the whole archive any time. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 13:50, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm guilty of having done that just today, with the "women carrying laundry baskets" thing. I initially wanted to put it "below the line", but it seems the policy is that such things are brought above the line only sporadically, to keep the page fresh, and hence something initially placed below the line has no guarantee of ever seeing the light of day. I should probably have pushed something else down, but didn't want to step on anyone's toes.

Could we have a more detailed statement of the policy? Something like:
 * The above-the-line part should contain 8 (or whatever) items.
 * New items should go above the line, at the bottom of that section, while taking the topmost item away and moving it to the very bottom.
 * People may periodically recycle below-the-line items up, in order to keep the page fresh and interesting. To do so, put it at the bottom of the above-the-line section, and demote the topmost item to the bottom of the lower section.  When recycling items, give preference to items near the top of the below-the-line section.

Or does this kind of overly regimented thinking belong in Schlafly-land? SJIHAS 18:16, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
 * That sounds sane, and more or less what I've been trying to do when I update it, with one big difference -- I've been putting new things at the top and moving things at the bottom below the line. The theory there is that people are more likely to stop reading when they see something they've already seen. --<font face="Monaco,Consolas,Courier New,Courier,Fixed">jtl talk 18:43, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Of course. But, as a newbie, I didn't feel right putting my thing at the TOP of the RW FRONT PAGE!!!.  You know, dipping one's toe in the water.  In the future, splash. SJIHAS 19:13, 9 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Hahaha, where it of course should have gone! Move it up!  Also, I added "More" to the "edit" link, so people will hopefully realize there is a whole file full of them, and they all are visible there. Also, at the top of the page you might have seen, it says to try to keep the number to five or six (I forget which) <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 19:59, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

According to...
How about replacing "According to ahem... (etc)" with simply: "According to..." it might look cleaner and implies/allows using sources from all over the idiotnet? <font color="#0000cc">ДιЯɖі$ɧ  <font color="#cccc00"> ɥοםЄʟ <font color="#cccccc">βЯƏакĐΩωΝ  01:58, 10 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Well, the "some people" could be anybody, of course. I always meant it that way.  Does it wrap too wide?  If it would be better, sure, shorten it.  The "ahem" is sort of a conversational tone, kind of like laughing with the reader.  See if anyone esle chimes in... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human <font color="#00AA00">be in 17:26, 10 July 2007 (CDT)