RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive54

Pwned
That school that banned the prom when a girl wanted to bring her girl friend has been well and truly. They said they'd organise a private (i.e. one were they could disinvite the girl) one, but the American Humanist Association has beaten them to it. Laugh? I nearly choked. 05:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC) Contribs Talk
 * The reason Mississippi exists is so that Texas can claim to be "only 49th" on whatever sane metric one is measuring. 05:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, don't judge the good folks of Mississippi too harshly. I thought it quite progressive when in 2008 they decided to have an integrated prom. Damn these people are dumb. It's at times unfortunate that breathing is an autonomic function, since some shiny foil and squirrels would otherwise be enough of a distraction to wipe out entire towns in Mississippi.-- 10:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you know how the school board and religious groups are spinning this? 12:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully better than they did in the past. -- 13:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Kudos to the humanists for organizing a prom, but how does that stop the school from still organizing a private prom? My suspicion is that there would be two proms, one of which the more free-thinking students will attend, and one of which the conservative ones will attend (or the ones that are ordered to attend by their parents.) Hopefully, there will be some kids who just go to both.
 * Dear sweet FSM, though. I'm glad the Air Force sent my brother-in-law away from his posting in Mississippi. I shudder at the thought of my nieces ("Her Worshipfulness" and "Miss Precious Perfect" to their Uncle MDB) being educated there.) Though now that I think of it, the elder of the two was in private school (a church run school, but Presbyterian, not one of the "we put the fun in fundamentalist dogma type places), and the younger was too young to attend, so maybe there still would have been hope they'd grow up with an education. MDB (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) It's good that the humanists got in their ball first. I think that sends a clear message that the school board can run off and in a huff, taking the ball with them, but theirs isn't the only ball in town. I hope that some of the students and families support this. Mississippi has a pretty piss-poor track record, and it won't harm the to show that some of the students and families understand the principle. -- 18:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Although the AHA one could be a bit of a damp squib as I presume that in an area that would do something this regressive the majority will be of the, if not totally fundie, then at least quite a bit on the right leaning side of conservative religion. Ergo the majority wouldn't be seen dead (or at least their parents wouldn't let them be seen at) anything organised by those Devil Worshipping Atheist Scumbags. 22:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good job to the AHA folks for showing that gay rights are equal rights, no special rights. If I was able to, I'd go to the gay-friendly prom out of solidarity. LimpWrist (talk) 06:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

this is hopeless.........
with conservative far right taking over the USA and Australian Far right putting new censorship law.

i fear for the future. i live in Canada so if America fall to the loony so will Canada...... Canada is the USA little brother always copying his elder brother........

god i hate this world.Waronstupidity (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * australia just hates young actresses with a-cup breasts. Its all about protecting the children and cartoon characters. Hamster (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A-cup breasts? Ears and eyes on alert...  09:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, me senses a kindred spirit in the Human one. -- Psygremlin  12:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hehehe... 00:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, with our (UK) gov't sucking up to the US all the time and allowing cretinism in state sponsored schools We've gotta stop it ASAP. (see "Another poll, above) 02:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.pngContribs Talk
 * Always darkest before the dawn, pessimists. Though we've been waiting quite a long time for the dawn. Don't forget this time about 20 years ago we had the Falklands War, and the ten years before that we had Maggie Thatcher trying to destroy the working class, the five years before that stealing milk from kids, then the twenty/thirty years before that we had reds-under-the-bed and the disassembling of the British empire, then the fifteen years before that we had Nazi Germany to worry about, then the fifteen years before that we had to try and please everyone in Europe, then the four years before that we had World War One.
 * In short, America and the UK always find themselves in the middle of some wacky jam. But we always manage to pull ourselves up, blunder on, and kick about weaker countries! 11:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "...we had Maggie Thatcher trying to destroy the working class..." She did not need to; the workers did that for themselves by abusing strike actions. 02:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, bugger off Lx. 02:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As you wish. 02:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Josh, the Falklands war was 29 years ago, at the start of Thatcher's time as PM. This is a significant part of modern British history, and it's a little worrying that a young chap such as yourself could be so far off with it.  (hope that isn't too bitchy/daily heilish)  03:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The Australian Far right? This has been coming from our centre-left party. Each Australian Labor Prime Minister is entitled to one true stupid idea that will blow up in their face. This is reminiscent of Hawkes' Australia Card we were all going to carry around, that got so heavily debated and pushed we had a double dissolution over it. The bill was withdrawn when it was pointed out that no funding was provided to implement the scheme in the bill, rendering worse than useless. 05:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delta- We didn't learn about the Falklands in school and I thought it happened in the late 80s not the early; thanks for informing me. And Listener- Maggie abused her position as PM, threw the country into a recession, and didn't have the fucking decency to support the workers that she'd kicked out on the street. The whole reason of unions is to raise concerns when you're being treated unfairly. That's hardly abusing strike actions. Please try and learn with an open mind in the future, or there is no point in talking to you. 17:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the strike actions before Thatcher was voted in, e.g., the Winter of Discontent. And the British economy was in a mess even at that time. 17:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just going to put this out there
Could we do something for the Day of Silence next month, possible followed up by some snide comments on the day of truth?--Thanatos (talk) 01:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * sure why not, what did you have in mind ? Not very in favor of messing with the other sides day of truth, both sides entitled to have their say regardless of what it is. snide seems fine though. Hamster (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of a notice and maybe a picture of Harvey Milk--Thanatos (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

When the hell is it? Artikal not say. 03:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's April 16. MDB (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Marjoe
Been invited to watch Marjoe tonite. Should be interesting to watch a film they were too scared to show in the Bible belt. -- Psygremlin  12:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Never heard of it or him. But it certainly sounds interesting from the liberalatheistevolutionistantiamericapedia atricle.  Let us know if it's worth searching out.  03:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PS. Wasn't there (quite recently) a couple of fundie preachers/televangelists who came to their senses and realised what they were saying was bollocks, but admitted it's "too late to go back"?  03:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Daniel Dennett has mentioned a few times that he is planning to release a study of 6 atheist preachers who are still preaching for various reasons. I have not been able to find a release date but it should be an interesting read when it does come out.  --DamoHi 04:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

A thought/question
Should Rational Wiki celebrate Pi Day?

I mean, it is today (the date being 3/14), and Pi is certainly scientific, but it is, by definition, not rational.

MDB (talk) 18:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Pshaw! Pi is not 1.43! Down with your American dates of inconsistent endianness! 18:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that we have to agree with them on this one occasion unless we can persuade everyone to add an extra day to April. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * When you get an April 31 or a fourteenth month on the calendar, you can celebrate Pi day, too. MDB (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so! The 27th of July, or 22/7! (Fun fact: My father used to hold an unshakeable belief that pi was exactly equal to 22/7, until I convinced him otherwise with much argument.) 19:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't you mean the 22nd of July? Or am I being unusually dense? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I said. 19:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's often celebrated on both days. Although this is also Steak And Blow-job Day for those who wish to partake in that sort of thing. 22:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. See the top of RC/watchlist, ie, "yes". 2.  We also celebrate 22/7.  3. Sounds good to me.  Can I choose whose steak I have to blow this time though?  23:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought Steak and BJ day was the day after Valentines Day? That's how they advertise it here.   01:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I MISSED STEAK AND BLOWJOB DAY!?!? Oh, well... There's always NEXT year... The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Google maps
Google's updated the UK. Yonken ago I mentioned that the Street View mobile had ben outside. We're somewhere on this map. (I've marked the river that flooded) Happy hunting. 20:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hehe, it looks as if the Police have been called to a disturbance at this shop. Bondurant (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And he's parked on double yellows! 21:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just roaming around the map above, I think I've found #2 cat outside a neighbour's door, scrounging, no doubt. 04:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's nice. I can now drive home uninterrupted via Street View. However, this latest round of images seem to be a lot closer together so you can't get up to any "speed" - making a long distance race between car and Street View a little one more sided than the across town one you could do before. 12:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Can a US President resign?
If Barry were to say to his party "Back my health bill or I quit" what'd be the outcome? 02:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If he quits, then Biden becomes the president. 02:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * see Richard Nixon --CPAdmin1 (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean if Barry says "Screw you guys, I'm going home to Kenya"? 02:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can he just quit though? 03:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, although bowing out would probably hurt his allies than it would help them. 03:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Excactly think of what a threat that'd be to them. 03:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * yes, he can resign. I believe he is forbidden to hold any elected office though, so he is done politically Hamster (talk) 03:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt the second clause of Hamster's comment. But anyway, Susan, why do you think whining "or I'll take ball and go home" could possibly be effective politics?  03:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, when if he doesn't get it through, he's politically finished isn't he? After all it was a major point, or am I mistaken? 03:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing that would legally prohibit Obama from resigning and holding any elective office later. He could even run for President again, and, if he resigned before January of 2011, he could serve two full terms. I'd say its unlikely he'd be elected to anything of note is he resigned the Presidency, but there's nothing to prohibit it. (And one President -- Taft, I think -- served on the Supreme Cort after being President.) MDB (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Susan is thinking like someone from a country with a proper parliamentary democracy, where the leader of the ruling party can resign, become a backbench MP, the party can choose a new leader and continue to run out their mandate. If the US were a country with a proper parliament, BO could impose party discipline to get his party to pass his legislation his way, lest they get kicked out of the caucus. The weird system here is weird, where folks from the same frickin' party but in different branches on the government (executive v. legislative) often find themselves in as much of an adversarial relationship as folks from different parties. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I suppose: you can't have a "vote of no confidence" over there, can you. Fixed terms are a bit of a curse as well as an occasional blessing. 03:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "The weird system here is weird..." Yes, we were started by people who believed that legislators were individual people and not just party hacks. The reality varies somewhat, but the groundwork remains. 04:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Our government was designed by the French, most likely in a brothel. It was designed to not function.  Better ideas have since been implemented.  05:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For someone like me from a country with a British-style parliament, the idea that members of the Democratic Party are the biggest obstacle to a Democratic Party policy initiative, or the idea that a party with a majority--a substantial majority -- in both houses cannot pass the legislation it campaigned on, is weird. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It makes you wonder? I live here and it boggles my mind.  Bush got his shit in with are bare naked majority and Obama can't with supermajorities?  Can't even get a watered-down version of what he wanted passed?  Of course, this is a giant bigger country, with some huge voting blocks (bible belt) who are truly insane.  A "Democrat" from Mississipi could easily be far to the right of a "Republican" from Massachusetts.  And, yes, we also are competing with the Welsh for silly place names.  05:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Parliamentary democracy require more party cohesions because the government does not have a fixed legislating period, the government can be voted out at any time using a simple parliamentary motion. Internal party fight is usually kept quite and they try to united front in public. Although when the deputy has called the Prime Minster out publicly, you realise it is just a well organised façade. I remember the later days of the Howard government when he would sit with his back to the opposition benches so he would be able to keep his enemies in front of him. 04:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's funny, I don't care who you are, that's just funny, that is. I'll try to remember it. 05:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Just think of the (alleged) acrimony between Blair and his de facto number two (Brown). 05:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also remember that in a win/loss system like America has (IE, no proportional voting) smaller parties tend to consolidate into the larger ones. If you actually rank congress by positions they hold, they are rather scattered around the political map.  Thus, you have some very conservative legislaters in the Democratic party (ala Stupak, Nelson, etc) and some rather liberal members of the GOP (McCain (socially) Collins, Snowe).  If the candidates weren't so reliant on the major parties for funding and such, we would have about 10 different political parties in congress.  07:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One downside of the British system is that we could conceivably have two general elections in the space of a year if the first one results in a hung parliament - a definite possibility this year. Instead of just getting on with the business of making a coalition, as we see in other European countries, the Prime Minister can call an election as soon as (s)he thinks their party can win. I'd prefer to see some kind-of minimum term - say 2 years - for a coalition government to knuckle down and get on with running the country. Bondurant (talk) 12:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1974 Feb & Oct Wilson 12:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright Violations
How ironic it is that you people complain about CP's copyvios given the excessive amount of copyvios this site has! I hope MPAA rips this place to shreds! DMCA Fanatic (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Examples. Now. Please.  03:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just go ahead and delete all of your images; about one in ten of all of the images here are legal. DMCA Fanatic (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Examples! Goddamnit, give examples and links to ones you think are in violation, or else you are just, obviously, being a liar and a concern troll.  03:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is obviously a sockpuppet of epic troll Nx, Goonie, don't fuss about it. 03:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So now I'm an epic troll, nice. (for the record, no, it's not me, it's this guy) -- Nx  / talk 03:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, now you're TK!!!! 03:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So, who here watches South Park, and which character is your favorite? 03:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh shit, you killed Kenny! You bastard!  03:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I look to Cartman to make all funny--Thanatos (talk) 04:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the things that makes South Park so good is that all the characters are very strong, even the minor characters are good characters in their own right. As a result, I'd be tempted to say that Randy Marsh is my favourite (character - just in case I haven't used that word enough in this edit)   05:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a huge SP fan, but I do agree with Delta* - the characters are strong amd well-written. Randy is one of the stronger "supporting" characters.  Chef used to be. Before they CoSed him to death.  05:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Butters.  07:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * seriously........... these guy think they are so important....... what the next step ? telling the FBI to arrest us for being Liberal ?Waronstupidity (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've never got into South Park. It always seemed like a summation of what's wrong with the world today.  A couple of homos in Colorado making snarky comments about celebrities and being offensive for the sake of being offensive and everyone hails them as brilliant.  18:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Chuck, you've just articulated why I think it's so good! Some of SP is bang on the money, and they also touch subjects that no other programme would touch with a barge-pole.   19:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Chuck, you've just articulated why I think it's so good! Some of SP is bang on the money, and they also touch subjects that no other programme would touch with a barge-pole.   19:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Would even CP agree with these guys?
It is people like this who are taking over the Christian identity, and some conservatives don't see it. These guys are way more extreme, and God only knows what they truly plan to do--Thanatos (talk) 05:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't watch the vid (the fun-police have blocked YT), what group is it about?  19:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Attack all homosexual stuff, like plays about how they were killed by the Nazis and something about missiles. This is there website.BE FUCKING AFRAID!--Thanatos (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

On-line gaming mini-rant
So, I'm a World of Warcraft player (yeah, I'm a geek. So sue me.)

For those of you unfamiliar with the game, dungeons are large areas that have to be in teams of five. There's also a tool to find other players to work with you to do the dungeon.

I've had it demonstrated to me lately that there is no minimum age to play the game, or at least not a well-enforced one.

The first time, there was a ten year old (I asked) in the team who would not stick with the party, and actually asked us to stop for a while because he had to go do his chores. Even when he was "helping", he proved completely useless. We eventually voted to kick him out.

The second, while he was at least useful, kept asking repeatedly if we were at the location for the quest he had to complete. Basically, it started to feel like.... this:

I know there's no really effective way to verify age on-line, but geez, maybe they could establish an "adults only" server with a requirement that the account have a credit card with the owner's name on it... MDB (talk) 11:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, that's been a long-running request, particularly for role playing servers. The inherent problem though is that age isn't a guaranteed determiner of mature behaviour. It's a good one, but not perfect. The "are we there yet" thing has always been a problem with PuGs, but it's becoming more common now with cross-realm randoms. The thing I dislike the most is the need to just rush through everything at high speed, as the game is about nothing more than already over-geared people farming badges. I suggest a spinoff game in which there is a UI with a single "give badges" button. Players would receive a badge for every thousandth click of the button. The worst kid I ever grouped expected us to wait while we went off to watch a TV show. I thought he was kidding, but after he'd been gone for 15 minutes we decided to remove him and move on. It's one of the many reasons I stopped doing PuGs. I'm a pretty good healer, so I can get groups at the drop of a hat, and see no reason to deal with the hassle of aggressive and willfully ignorant people. Ultimately they're self-defeating, since that mentality drives good tanks and healers away.


 * Are you on a US or EU server? I'm on Moonglade EU. -- 13:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm on Proudmoore US. The problem is that I'm playing a Retribution Pally (a dwarf named Atreuss), which pretty much means I DPS (though I can tank in a pinch. I'm not good at it, but I keep a one handed weapon and a shield handy just in case.) I'm in a good guild, but its mostly level eighties, and even if they are willing to help a leveling character, I'd rather do the instance with people at my level, so there's a challenge to it. I mean, where's the fun in doing Zul Furrak if you've got a level eighty who can spit on the bosses and kill them instantly? So, I resort to the Dungeon Finder. I've gotten some excellent groups, but also some really awful ones. And I know tanks like to prove the size of their e-penis by doing huge pulls, but I like taking it slowly and getting a chance to breathe in between fights. And I at least try to be polite by taking "bio" and smoke breaks before even getting into the queue. I try not to step away for more than a minute. MDB (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's not as easy for the DPS monkeys. I rolled a healer because my small guild had too many nights of being unable to run dungeons or raids, and I got kind of bored finding groups when they were at the time preferring ranged DPS and those with crowd control. Fury warriors were amazing DPS if tuned and played well, but our only viable CC was to kill things very quickly.


 * Chain pulling tanks can be fun, at least in heroics. It depends entirely on whether or not that group want that and can handle it. It's been fun to do that as a challenge, although not so much fun if the group sucks and their simply doing it because they think it'll be faster. Reminds me of Shattered Halls. That was arguably the best heroic ever. Streams of mobs, and a lot of fun for fury warriors and resto druids. Misery though with a bad group. -- 15:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Proper tanking requires intelligence. Yesterday, I had an entire group wiped because our tank got a shiny new weapon he had no skill in, and decided to switch to it right before the Gahr'zilla pool in ZF. (To his credit, he admitted how stupid it was after the massacre.) MDB (talk) 16:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand nothing in this thread. I am officially my parents. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not that you directly asked, but...
 * *DPS: Damage Per Second -- the job is to kill the enemies, quickly.
 * *Tank: The job is to draw the enemies' attacks, soak up their damage, and hurt them while you're at it.
 * *Healer: The job is to heal your fellow players, especially the tank.
 * *Paladin: A holy warrior, can be either a tank, a DPS or a healer. My paladin is a retribution paladin, which means he specializes as DPS, and can kinda be a tank. He'd only heal in an emergency.
 * *Pulling: Getting the enemies to attack.
 * *Zul Farrak: A city of evil voodoo practiciing trolls. A dungeon you run at roughly mid-level (and has a really cool epic battle mid-way through it.)
 * *Gahr'zilla: a great big lizard monster in Zul Farrak. Any similarity to a famed Japanese movie monster is purely coincidental, no really.
 * MDB (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Jesus motherfucking H christ on a bike. I knew there were problems with age verification online, but I didn't realise just how serious it could be.  Kids annoying the grown-ups in whilst they're playing online dungeons and dragons?  Whatever shall we do?  Let's stop pouring money in to renewable energy and medical research, and get those boffins working on a way to allow adult nerds (who really should know better) to play in peace.  I feel your pain MDB, but you'll just have to be brave, lil'soldier.  Have you considered praying for a solution?  (PS.  ToP, I only know about WoW due to the South Park episode)   19:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That was a surprisingly assholish response, DS. Having a bad day?
 * To reply to the actual topic: I don't touch MMOs, but I do occasionally play Team Fortress 2. There's a very similar problem in FPS games, not just with kids but with adults of very low maturity. There's nothing that ruins a good round faster then having a whiny 12-year old start screeching through voice chat or some nimrod plays terrible music at ear-splitting decibels. My solution is to stick with rooms run by clans that I know and trust. That's not much help in WoW, I suppose. Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * DS, some might question the value that editing RW offers to society, not to mention time spent wanking that could otherwise be used campaigning for better science standards in schools. Oddly enough, people I've met in-game and here on RW have been pretty helpful when I went through a difficult time. The squirrel is probably right, and that all of these online things are subject to the effects of anonymity and disassociation. -- 20:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, gimme a break, DS. I'm complaining about an annoyance in my life, nothing more. I never claimed it was of earth-shattering importance or anything. If you're not interested in the topic, then just don't read it; there's no reason to get insulting. (Oh, and for what its worth, on-line age verification for WoW is pretty trivial, but it doesn't take much imagination to come up with ways on line age verification could be quite useful.) MDB (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry MDB, I didn't mean it to be so personal. However, I have just read through yours and CR's discussions and description, I can only conclude that this game is even sadder, geekier and nerdier than I had imagined.  Though there's nothing wrong with that, each to their own!  Happy gaming!   21:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Didn't mean it so... nevermind. I've found that every hobby looks sad, geeky and nerdy to outsiders. My company is filled with hockey fans, and I just don't see the appeal of it, but if they enjoy it, more power to them. MDB (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't logged in since around New Year's, since I was so busy with school. And on Saturday, I get a request to change my password. Which is odd, since I didn't do a "forgot my password" request. So I do, and for fun log in to see what's up. Well, my main character is suddenly in Northrend, all her stuff is gone and replaced by minerals, and my other three characters have all been deleted. So I alert the GMs, and they lock down my account to fix things up. In the meantime, I get another change of password request, and I change both that pass and my email's pass, plus do a system scan on my computer. Comes up clean, and I'm behind a firewall anyhow. I get my characters and their stuff back (but not the stuff on the surviving character, sadly), and I get another password request. So I alert Blizzard again, saying someone's hitting the "forgot password" button. So they lock down my account again, and give me the same form letter about how I need to secure my email and such! So two days later, it's still locked down, I've had to fill out forms three times for reinstatement, and I've received no less than SIX customer satisfaction surveys! This is insane! If nothing else, I've stopped getting password change requests, so that's a mercy at least. Frustrating for a game I probably won't play much of for another five or six weeks yet. --Kels (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Gannet
What would you call someone who ate 6 (SIX!!!) Cadbury creme[sic] eggs in the space of one hour!!!? 11:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Full. 12:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Paul Newman??? Bondurant (talk) 12:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger Schlafly's new girlfriend? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The eggterminator! Sen (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd call the "nuckin' futz", but then, I hate Cadbury Creme Eggs, even if I do find the commercials amusing. Give me a Reese's Cup or an Almond Joy any day.
 * "Sometimes you feel like a nut (yeah yeah yeah), sometimes you don't".... MDB (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Pah, six? A former workmate of mine once (stupidly) proclaimed that he could eat 30 (yes, thirty!) in half an hour.  No sooner had he uttered his words then the posters were made and the creme eggs purchased for "Woody's creme egg challenge".  A large crowd gathered the next lunchtime, we even had some motivational music on (Eye of the Tiger, that kind of shit).  He managed 21 in 25mins then spewed everywhere.  Not a bad effort, better than I'd expected (my £2 was on 15) but way short.  I don't know if he still eats creme eggs.  (I may in the future regail the RW camp with the tale of "Lamby's diet coke challenge" - 8 litres in 3 hours)   19:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Six in an hour is a strange amount. It's not up to eating contest level, like DeltaStar's example, but seems like more than somebody would choose to eat as a regular snack.  Did anything particular prompt this creme egg binge?   19:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They arrived in a pack of six. And she called me a "Fucking Gannet", just 'cause I woofed 'em down while reading ScienceBlogs. / 22:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't the more relevant question "how do you eat yours?" Nope, advertising has no effect on me. -- 20:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Poll encore
this time. 13:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * When I saw it, the poll was 23% believe in a connection, 77% don't. That's pretty horrifying seeing as the article above the poll stressed that there is no connection. 13:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They live in a giant Skinner box, and right now they're confused and trying to replicate the behaviour that'll reward their actions, or beliefs in this case. There are quite a few comments in there that mirror the utlimate conclusion of any debate between a naturalist and a believer in woo. The connection is there because it has to be! -- 15:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Now it's 20-80. I agree with CR; almost all religionists and conspiracy theorists live in a Skinner box. 18:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Hitler and evolution
Since the loonies over at CP claim that Hitler was an atheist motivated by Theory of Evolution, they should take a look at this.

http://www.cristianesimo.it/cattonazismo.htm Mr.Orange (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * For those who can't read Eye-talian... MDB (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * All these photographs are pretty much taken from this: http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm website, which btw is nicely referenced. I intended to do a "Nazi & Christianity" article or something but never got around to it. Sen (talk) 17:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, they'd just use No True Scotsman to say that Hitler really wasn't a Christian. I've seen that argument many, many times before. 18:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What I hate, regarding the illogicality of that argument, is that it doesn't matter wither Hitler was Christian or not. Germany was a christian nation. I mean, pointy buildings? Churches? Hello? The "Volk", as today most western "volk" (and today Europe is at its most secular), was a Christian majority by far. What did they do when the Nazis were in power? Were they all "charging them extra?" /sarcasm


 * That picture from the children's book "Der Giftpilz" saying "Remember what the Jews did to Jesus" says everything about Nazi era Christianity that needs to be said. Sen (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I have read a quote somewhere in Kenneth Miller's book Only a Theory something like "There is nothing worse than having a beautiful theory slaughtered by a bunch of ugly facts" (Please correct if I am wrong). The scientist changes the theory, and the creationists changes the facts. 22:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Cartoon about Phyllis Schlafly / Texas board of education
Here. CS Miller (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Very funny, but I'm busy trying to guess which gnome will tell you that this section doesn't technically belong here. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 18:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * saloon bar may have been better, since its not specifically CP related, but it is Schlafly so that close enough .. I Hamster RW SYSOP extrordinairre has spoke Hamster (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh oh oh.... I'll do it. I never get to be annoying and wiki-lawyerish:  CS, that is very funny, but this page is for CP related discussion.  You should move that to the saloon bar.  19:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

moved from CP talk:WIGO CS Miller (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh jeez, I was just joking.... 19:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll just move it back then...[[image:Angry_stare.gif]] CS Miller (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * you has abrogated Hamsters unilateral decision and super sysoppy powers. I shall blok youz laters SirChuckB when I figure out how It does fit here better though Hamster (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this deserves it's own article, in Category:Cartoons about Phyllis Schlafly and the Texas board of education   20:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Texas School Board & stuff
How is the TSB made up, is it elected, appointed or what? How come homeschool fanatics are allowed to dictate the curriculum for public schools: "The group of Republicans on the board includes David Bradley, a Republican from Beaumont and an insurance and real estate executive whose children were home-schooled. (Two other board members have also chosen to either home-school or send their children to private schools.)'". / 00:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's insane. For example, last I knew, Boston has a requirement that city employees (cops, fireladies, teachers, etc) actually live in the city, in order for their interests to coincide or whatever.  Homeschooling parents on the school board is just fucking insane.  Private school parents bad enough, too.  I wish Barry's kids were in some "test to get in" public school in DC, but we all know how that goes....  03:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Private schools should be barred from enrolling kids in their school district! 03:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole democracy thing is a bit out of hand over there, if you ask me. Elections for jobs that ought to be decided by qualifications (sheriff?) is mad! 03:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ...damn--Thanatos (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * they talking the State school board. Theres a school board at the local level as well. I think all positions are elected. An elected sheriff has to meet some qualifications Hamster (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's over. They've won.
In less than ten years, people who were educated this way will be running the world. Between this and vajazzling, I'm convinced that the end of Western civilization is nigh. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fuck. That makes me more pissed off at social conservatives than I've ever been before. We can only hope that American educators are smart enough to counter this bias. 16:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * it will be interesting to see what the universities do in response. Disqualifying a states curiculum from entry to courses may need to happen Hamster (talk) 16:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To present Republican philosophies in a more "positive light." Far right American Republicans tend to pride themselves on freedom of speech, hating Communists, and all that, but how is this anything short of propaganda? Fucking hypocritical cunts. 17:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perfect example of the inmates taking over the asylum. Can't disagree with ToP. The end of the world as we know it. All the more reason to fight the idiots. 17:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC) TerrySmall.pngContribs Talk
 * The horrifying thing is that Texas sells textbooks to thousands of schools in almost all 50 states, so this will affect education all over the country. As Susan says, "All the more reason to fight the idiots."  17:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Won't there be a legal battle? Or is it that late in the game?  Šţěŗĭļė 17:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this WAS the outcome of the legal battle. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that every empire has to end sometime. Insanity like this will just hasten the end of the American one.--BobIt's windy! 19:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Texas doesn't really sell textbooks to other states. Texas is such a huge market that they largely set the standards for textbooks, though. MDB (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when does America mean "Western civilization" or even the "world"?--Earthland (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It won't, for long, but the US has a lot of bombs, guns, and huge economic influence. In other words, our stupidity get magnified by our wealth and projected far beyond our borders. Say, ie, emboldening IDiots in the UK or elsewhere.  03:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad I live in my far out corner of the world. Acei9 20:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A good way to counter this is to make Texas the national laughingstock for that, like what happened to Kansas when they took evolution out of schools. But then again, we may or may not have bold enough comedians to beat that for sufficiently long to have a significant influence.   07:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

And of course, Listener has reduced it to the Reds. 07:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (cut from fuss closet) So in study of economics, in addition to learning about Karl Marx, one now has to learn about people who were actually educated in economics, like Milton Friedman. And in political history, developments that do not fit the Marxist model of social progression will not now be ignored. Yes, obviously the end of civilization is on its way. 22:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're fucking nuts. Ever study a guy named Keynes?  Oh, I thunk not.  Because you disagree with his conclusions?  Maybe.  09:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fuck Listener can you even read? Read the summary of the changes made. If the current Texas books are full of marxist social progression, then apparently the Texans have completely missed the target, because instead they've kicked out Jefferson and the hispanics. Then again, maybe I overlooked the part where they decided to end the current compulsory reading and memorization of the Communist Manifesto.


 * I think Listener saw the part about how they're going to claim that McCarthy was right and got all hot under the collar. Then when he found out that they even mention Marx and his philosophy he just couldn't help himself. Bil08 (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. I hope that one day Listner can get over his McCartyism. 11:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Human, Keynes is still on the list of economists to study, and he belongs there, since he was actually an economist.
 * Bil08, face it, McCarthy was right. His only problem was that he got so reckless and heavy-handed that he managed to disgrace anti-communists to the point where actual communists could get under the radar; this is why I oppose McCarthyism. The specific events I was referring to were the "conservative resurgence" of the 1980s and '90s and the concurrent collapse of communism the world over; while the Red would just see it as a mere speed-bump on the glorious road to socialism, and the wingnut would see it as akin to Christ's Second Coming, the neutral observer would see that it happened and that it has exerted much influence on our political history.
 * I much disagree with the removal of Jefferson (although John Locke would probably be a better writer to cite there) and the refusal to add more Latino historical figures (provided that the addition was to correct previous unwarranted exclusion of Latinos, rather than exaggerate their influence for political purposes, but it does not look like that was being attempted). 17:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A hypocrite too? My, my, Listener, you are indeed a man of many faces. 18:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ??? 18:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't support disallowing racist neofascists from being teachers, but you do support witch-hunts for commies? 18:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the removal of foreign spies from the government when their presence becomes known, but would not go so far as to support witch hunts (as I have said, several times, I very much disagree with McCarthy's methods). The CPUSA was at that time effectively a Soviet auxiliary, as several "anti-war" organizations were effectively Nazi puppets during World War II. 18:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So ListenerX, a quick question: How many "foreign spies" did McCarthy discover? --DamoHi 18:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He was so reckless and self-aggrandizing that he did not actually get very many, as I understand. As Edward R. Murrow said, he was just exploiting an existing situation for political gain; that he happened to be right about the infiltration threat was no excuse for his tactics. 19:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He was right about the infiltration threat (there has always been the threat that a government can be infiltrated by foreign spies) but was he right when he asserted that the State Department had already been infiltrated? He never proved it, was my understanding. Bondurant (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant the threat posed by the infiltration campaign that was going on. Alger Hiss, for example, was caught as a spy, as were several CIA people; if the evidence from the Venona project had been able to be used, the accusations might not have seemed so reckless. 20:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have read a lot about McCarthy as I find the whole subject very interesting.  From what I understand he didn't actually find any foreign spies at all.  --DamoHi 04:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * McCarthy did not, perhaps, but HUAC did. 05:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Which foreign spies did the HUAC find? One, if you count Alger Hiss. And how many false positives? And, bonus question: Who said the HUAC was "most un-American thing in the country today?" Bondurant (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Besides Hiss, there was Whittaker Chambers, who cooperated and also named Harry Dexter White as a spy, although the investigation was cut short by White's death. There were several other spies named as part of that group as well. 18:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I make that about 6 people then. And the false positives - the 300+ artists who were blacklisted - were these acceptable collateral damage? That and the trampling of freedom of expression? The answer to who said the HUAC was the "most un-American thing in the country today." was Harry Truman, by the way. Bondurant (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not defending HUAC's tactics, only noting that it took a less reckless approach than McCarthy, which brought it more success. As to the Hollywood blacklist, the Hollywood Ten were all Reds and were jailed for contempt of Congress when they refused either to admit it or to plead the Fifth Amendment. I do not think the screenwriters should have been blacklisted, but there was no law compelling the studios to blacklist them. 22:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "the Hollywood Ten were all Reds and were jailed for contempt of Congress when they refused either to admit it..." Silly me. And here I was thinking that there was freedom of thought in this country. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Membership in the CPUSA was not illegal at that time. The Hollywood Ten would not have gone to jail if they had admitted their membership, and they would not have gone to jail if they had pled the Fifth. 22:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They wouldn't have gone to jail if they hadn't been dragged in front of a kangaroo court in the first place. Bondurant (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And as for the 300, let's see who gave evidence to the committee... Walt Disney and Screen Actors Guild president, Ronald Reagan. It was a witch-hunt; once accused publicly, nobody cared if they drowned in the dunking chair or were burned at the stake. Bondurant (talk) 11:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall making any pronouncements about whether or not what McCarthy did was right. What I did suggest was that you look for the reds and the anti-reds in every news story and then judge what's happened on that basis, because not only are you rapidly turning into some kind of cartoon cut-out paranoid from the 50's, but you've outright lost the ability to evaluate anything in any other way than how it fits into the west's ongoing war against communism. The only thing that the SBOE's changes to the curriculum have to do with communism is the fact that they are attempting to revise history to fit their ideological viewpoint (and of course, you back them) Bil08 (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardon me. I do not "back them" in the slightest. Most of them are ignorant fools and probably would have introduced creationism to the curriculum if they could have gotten away with it. I support the changes only insofar as they remove historical revisionism, which in this case would be that of Marxists and various derivative groups, whose influence in the field of history — even mainstream history — is a fact (which even you seem to acknowledge, going by your admission that historical revisionism has something to do with communism). As you point out, the board also seem to be inserting some revisionism of their own, and I oppose that.
 * "You've outright lost the ability to evaluate anything..." Replace "you've" with "communists have," and "the west's ongoing war against communism" with "class struggle," and you will have a true statement. 23:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You are evidently the Odinist version of Andy Schlafly. 16:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Mr. Schlafly has fallen hook, line and sinker for certain Red modes of thought (all issues being political, dissenters being somehow mentally incapacitated, a cultural elite keeping the masses oppressed, certain authorities' pronouncements being a priori incorrect, etc.), even as he rejects explicitly communist politics. 18:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * [[image:Ohmy.gif]] Schlafly is a communist, though he doesn't realise it. Were you always this insane? 18:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One of my examples was an allusion to the time that Mr. Schlafly, in one of his "WTF" moments, classed George Orwell as a "conservative." This was done to cover his rear as he is consistently quoting Orwell's statement that "all issues are political." 18:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Free Will: An Illusion?
http://pda.physorg.com/_news186830615.html Interesting. What do you think?Ryantherebel (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You made me type this. 01:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What I think is, "Who is seriously disputing Prof. Cashmore on this?" 02:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Reds. -- 03:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely you mean "the creationists"? 03:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting discussion. In order for there to be free will, there has to be somthing more to a person than simply the physical body.  I don't think it is possible for there to be free will if there is no God.  I'd be interested to hear what some of you atheists believe on this issue.  --CPAdmin1 (talk) 04:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If we feel as if we have free will ... (If it talks like a duck and walks like a duck ...) 04:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (Disclaimer: I am a determinist.)
 * CPAdmin1, for there to be free-will, not only does there have to be "something more to a person" than the body, but that "something more" has to affect the body in a manner that violates natural law. There is no evidence of such violations.
 * On the other hand, I agree with SusanG; although all our decisions may have been set before the beginning of the universe, they are still our decisions to make. 05:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Quantum uncertainty? Many universes? Stuff of science fiction. 05:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To me such debates all seem so fuzzy without definitions. I understand that even the definitions are themselves debatable... but we can barely have a good discussion without defining what is "free will", a "decision" and a "choice". I've tried and the definitions quickly end up circular and entirely unsatisfying. ONE / TALK 10:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1 brings up a good point. What exactly is "free will"? If you define it as a sort of consciousness that cannot be predestined, it falls flat pretty quickly. 12:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would define free will as the idea that our choices are not determined by physical reactions. This requires a consciousness that is outside the body.
 * @SusanG: if we have free will, how are the choices made?
 * @ListenerX: If decisions are set before the beginning of the universe, how are they still ours?
 * -- aSK Tim 14:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's basically dualism, which is unfalsifiable. 14:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * free will is the ability to select (chose) the grape jelly bean from the jar. You prove this is free will by NOT having the last grape bean but rather lemon or orange. Sometimes close your eyes when selecting to let pure randomness :) enter the arena Hamster (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You think you are choosing, but isn't it just the neurons in your brain firing based on chemical reactions? You think you are choosing by not taking the grape one, but in reality you were going to take that lemon or orange one all along.  You had no choice.  What is making the decision?
 * Dualism, yes exactly. If some form of dualism isn't true, then it is very hard to argue for free will.  -- aSK Tim 17:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC2) Tim, it is a bit sticky. To state that choices are not "ours" because we must act according to natural law, seems to imply that a person is defined solely by some existence beyond the natural universe (i.e., a person is properly their soul, not their body). However, if one includes a person's body as a part, or even the totality of their existence, this includes the portion of the universe where the decisions are made, so the decisions belong to the person in question even if they are pre-determined. 17:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @Hamster: that isn't "pure randomness," sort of like rolling a die isn't really random. 18:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "If some form of dualism isn't true, then it is very hard to argue for free will." How so? 18:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You already answered this question yourself: "In order for there to be free will, there has to be something more to a person than simply the physical body." Physical body + something non-physical = dualism.   18:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought he meant moral dualism; confusion of terms. 19:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the universe determined? That is to say, if we had complete knowledge of the entire universe down to the sub-atomic level would we be able to predict everything that the universe would do from now on out. My understanding is that this is not possible even in principle because quantum processes are probabilistic rather than deterministic.  We can predict that 50% of the atoms of a radioactive substance will undergo fission - but we cannot predict which 50%.  So some things which happen in the universe are random in the sense that they are not individually predictable. I was going to brilliantly link this into free will at some point but the thought has escaped me.  So much for my Nobel prize.--BobIt's windy! 22:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is irrelevant to this question whether or not we can know how exactly natural law operates (we will probably never know), but just because we do not know which 50% of atoms will split, does not mean that it was not predetermined, before the universe began, which atoms would split and which would not. 22:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Equally we do not know if it was predetermined.--BobIt's windy! 21:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Fox News is really Helpful
You know, I have come to realize that I love Fox News and conservative wingnuts. Whenever I start a discussion with someone about politics, I know exactly what key words to listen to. Whenever I hear someone use the word Obamacare, I know that there is no real possibility for an intelligent discussion and I move on. Fox News: Helping liberals recognize insanity. 19:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the "ram it down your throat" meme. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Daily Show did a great sketch on that and the underlying homoerotic content behind the whole thing..... Very funny. 20:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Colbert Report had a bit (I saw it on the Sunday Funnies on ABC's This Week with David Brinkley George Stephanapolous Host To Be Named Later.) It featured a graphic of Uncle Sam's head, with the Democrats trying to ram health care down his throat. At which point a Republican Congressman whose name I forget comes up Uncle Sam's throat to block health care reform.... prompting Uncle Sam to begin choking. MDB (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Thanks You!
Hello, everyone, this is Jesus Christ, just stopping by to thank you all for buying my two thousand year-old best-seller, the Bible. It was a work in progress, and a hell of a challenge, especially the old testament, but god damn-it, I did it. Some of the Jewish poets that I collaborated with were real assholes, trying to change the plot-line, switch words around, and interject some of they're own philosophy, but they were a mostly helpful lot of guys. We'd come home on Fridays down to my basement and sit around a large semi-circular table, have a couple of martinis, and I'd tell the guys the basic theme of the story, then they'd dress it up, make it look pretty. Of Course, some of 'em didn't like the story. They said, "Why does God have to flood the earth?" and, "You mean Mary's a-virgin?" Some of 'em would even go as far as to change the actual scheme of some of the parts, and that's why certain parts are contradicting to the rest of the work. But, after trial and toil, and three years of hard work and concentration, we got the book finished. Of course, it would be another five-hundred years or so till printing would be invented, but we told it to many other writers of the day, and they wrote it down and translated it. So, thanks, for keeping this historically-inaccurate and racially-suggestive thousand-page piece of propaganda alive and well. And thanks, too, for the money! P.S.  My real name is Jerry. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Jesus / talk / contribs


 * Living in 2010 AD sucks. I miss you Jesus. --Swedmann (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Work in progress? Your disciple says otherwise:
 * 
 * Although Your coworker/subordinate also have been witnessed to confirm that, ~600 years later. Please, make up your mind.   21:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This can't really be Jesus. Jesus would write "G-D". -- 22:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yo Hey-sus, arent you late for your second coming ? Hamster (talk) 23:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He just cummed/came (I don't know which word it should be) I think.  23:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The TriFuck of Shit
In order to take my mind off of all the bullshit from Beck, O'Keefe, The GOP, Armies of God, etc. I decided to play the original Zelda titles on my emulator (Before you condemn me, I used to have copies of both games, but my NES bit the bullet when I was 12). I can finally say I beat the original game. YAY ME! The second game though, ARGH!!! Enemies should not take away exp. points. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW OR SOMETHING! Instead of calming me down, this game is driving me insane--Thanatos (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I used to quite like you, Thanatos but ... /00:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Susan does not like games. This saddens me. -- 00:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is because I said I use an emulator--Thanatos (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I now dislike you as a person. -- 00:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I used an emulator for a while once, & it ruined my laptop. Just say no.   00:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To quote Gendo Ikari "I’m not used to being liked. Being hated, on the other hand, is quite familiar."--Thanatos (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The original Zelda was my favorite game in the history of gaminghood, but I downloaded it for the Wii, and it was sad and boring. 'Twas kinda nice to play, for nostalgia's sake.   00:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you've got a problem with enemies draining levels, try playing Rogue or Nethack or Angband. You'll get you ass kicked.  Come to think of it, S've been playing rogue for probably two decades and still inevitably get my ass kicked.  It's sad, in a way.  -- 01:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I use emulators, but only to fiddle with operating systems. 19:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize there was anti-emulator sentiment left among educated members of the internet. Megaten (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah...what the fuck is with that? If you don't have an NES emulator on your cellphone, you're not as cool as me. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably nothing, but....
Take a look at this. Any thoughts? Keegscee (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh! it's DMorris playing his silly games. / 00:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed both his odd criticisms just because it seemed like a good idea. Everyone can now be thankful we are no longer a Wikipedia mirror. -- 00:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * " ==Personal vendetta==
 * Is this the place for continuing what is apparently a personal vendetta? The user was repeatedly asked to identify breaches of copyright and refused to do so on RationalWiki (see contribs linked to above), it appears to be rather a grudge match caused by his membership of Conservapedia. I recommend that he be told to take his battles elsewhere."  00:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't realize DMorris created an account here. Hopefully TK doesn't find out. Keegscee (talk) 01:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is he still on this shit? Doesn't he have a bible to translate or something.... PS, I love how he still thinks we're hosted by an outside company even though we have pitcures of the server uploaded to the site.  What a fucktard.  01:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The trouble is... he's not wrong. Using CC-BY-SA images without crediting the source does violate the license. I know that this has been discussed ad nauseam elsewhere, but it's a problem that won't just go away. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, he's right, but his "solution" is wrong. And Trent's ISP is not the "contact".  I added a section to the main project talk page.  01:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * EC) Yes, but all he (or anyone) need do is tell us and we'll sort it. He's just shit stirring. / 01:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, thanks for finding it Keegscee. 01:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not deny that I have a personal distaste for RW; it is a very childish slander site which serves no legitimate purpose in my opinion. It slanders more than just CP, and anyone not involved in the anti-Conservapedia cabal should be shocked at their "article" about Wikipedia. They list WP's homepage as http://www.nationalenquirer.com/! Granted it appears they're trying to make fun of CP's take on WP, but it's still disgraceful. Fact of the matter is, I was checking out what the site is all about, and when I found one copyvio, I looked for more. I refused to give examples because I feel as if the copyright holders should see it for themselves, and if I gave examples, they would delete the images (some of which other users had pointed out only to be ignored) before the CR owners ever saw it. When Wikipedia benefits from personal goals, is it so bad to persue those personal goals?
 * One last thing: I see some RationalWiki editors carry out their personal vendettas here as well, only Wikipedia does not benefit from their actions. Unlike some of the RW trolls I've seen editing the Conservapedia article, I do not, and would not, carry out "personal vendettas" here that I did not think Wikipedia would benefit from; I am not trying POV push or be disruptive, therefore, I don't see what the big deal is. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 01:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC) 02:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Pot, meet kettle. If you're concerned about 2 examples of copyvio here and making vindicating some strangers' rights part of your holy mission, you might find RJJ and JM's persistent (and I mean shockingly flagrant) thievery of non-free-licensed material of particular concern. Cuddles. 02:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd have said something on wp, but I'm not taking our quarrel with them over to there. Don't wanna give RW a bad name. 02:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Based on that response, I'd say he's obviously more interested in harming RW than about any sort of copyright violation. Keegscee (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He's wimped out and had the cheek to put a "let's be friends' thing on my talk page! (I've deleted it) 03:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

OMGD we stole a stop sign from WP!!! How can WP honestly claim that a design made by the US government is CC by SA anyway? 03:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's so much irony in that post that a lesser man would have to resort to cheap jokes involving some sort of irony detection device, possibly including a visual readout of some kind, having a mechanical malfunction.... But being a better man than that, I'll just point out to our friend that Denile ain't just a river in egypt. He points out our article on Wikipedia, but ignores the fact that CP says the same shit but means it.  Hey DMorris... Have you seen the ungodly examples of bias on Wikipedia article?  I vote DMorris for our new Jinx.  08:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

British Libel laws (bump bump)
Email (Dated 12th - I don't check my mail often enuff): (edited) Want to see for yourself how English libel law stops you accessing websites? Go to the National Enquirer website (http://www.nationalenquirer.com/). They’ve blocked access to anyone in the UK because they fear a libel action in London. You can access this site anywhere else in the world. Tell your friends and ask them to sign our petition: www.libelreform.org/sign Professor Francisco Lacerda is a Swedish academic who has been threatened with a libel suit, here in London, by an Israeli lie detector manufacturer. He visited London this week to tell MPs in a seminar in Parliament that England’s libel laws are preventing him from publishing research about technology being used by the Department of Work and Pensions in England. Millions of pounds of public money has been spent on this technology. Times and the Daily Telegraph. Also this week, we ran an event on documentary film makers. Simon Singh wrote his last column in the Guardian today, read how his libel case has taken over his life: Guardian

Read Fiona Godlee’s excellent British Medical Journal editorial on the need for libel reform.


 * What the fuck is this and why does someone keep moving it to the bottom of the article? 04:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an email received by me. And it's not been moved - it's a new one. It ought to concern everyone as the British libel laws have been used to silence people from all over the world. The matter that brought this up was the complaint by a load of chiropractors against journalist Simon Sing. 04:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't you just link to their website or something and mark it "sticky"? I know it's an interesting topic but the emails aren't.   04:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think they are interesting but I've trimmed it down just for you. 04:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Susan's correct, Huw. This is serious shit and British libel laws have a major impact on science & journalism around the world.  Read a few of the examples and you will see how wealthy people use the London libel courts to censor anything they don't like.   04:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: It's true about the National Enquirer. 04:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I said I know it's important, but this is a lousy way to spam it. Maybe we kan haz artikle pleez?  05:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll look at it Tuesday. Off to bed now: dawn chorus has started. That: 05:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC) is the time here
 * Thanks! 05:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the thing, though. I think the libel law is both just and necessary. The problem is not the law, but the cost of fighting a lawsuit. This is a generalised problem for all industries, it's the same problem exploited by patent trolls to extort money from legitimate businesses. It's also a problem that's very hard to fix. While one might argue that libel law has a chilling effect on some legitimate journalism, I have to wonder what else it has a chilling effect on. Is the reason we have no horrific attack journalism like fox news in the UK that there are legal consequences to flat out lying in a defamatory fashion about politicians? There's certainly a discussion to be had. To be honest, I find it very hard to support Simon Singh. He made a lazy sweeping generalisation about a major organisation in print. What exactly did he think was going to happen? If he'd stuck to specifics, and his criticisms were well founded he wouldn't have this problem. -- 05:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that's entirely fair. I agree that his wording was rather lazy, but he certainly was specific - he cite the research that backed up his statement.  And his criticisms have indeed turned out to be well-founded, as the 'evidence' produced by the BCA is a laughable collection of irrelevant, inconclusive and/or unscientific 'studies'.  If they based their promotion of treatment on that evidence then they are either incompetent or dangerous.  The problem is that Singh's words read in one way seem to call them dangerous (they know the evidence isn't there - but they don't care).  The real irony is that their whole defence now amounts to 'we are not dangerous, we are incompetent' (they didn't know the evidence wasn't there).  What is most worrying really is that their first response was not to accept the offer of a rebuttal, but to sue.  10:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Jeeves, you're wrong and seem to have it a bit backwards. We do have some attack journalism, in fact the UK has plenty - they just cover it up because newspapers can A) afford fancy and expensive lawyers and B) you get away with murder with the word "allegedly". All Singh did was cite the evidence and the claims of the BCA - and then called them on it publicly. The injustice is that the BCA didn't have to lift a finger to get the libel action sought - Singh had to prove that he wasn't slanderous when pretty much every other legal process in the world does it the other way around, where someone suing for libel should have to show that it was actually slanderous first. That's the issue. If someone says that "So and so fucks goats for a living" they should have to prove that the person actually did, otherwise it's lies and slander and yes, they can be done for it. Singh's case is the other way around completely, he challenged them on the evidence and they sued to shut him up - if anything the BCA assert things without evidence so it's they who are guilty of slander, in a way. The result of the case existing is marginally positive, however, in that people now know a lot more about chiropractic medicine than before; the public conciousness may have just dismissed it as just some people working on back pains, but this case has brought to light the outlandish claims that aren't backed up with evidence. 12:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What you just said is so fractally wrong, I'm not sure where to start in explaining why you're wrong. From what you wrote, I'm reasonably sure you've never actually read the article in question. Singh didn't present evidence, he presented an anecdote. He used the anecdote to imply that all chiropractic treatments were both dangerous and inefficacious. I'm sceptical about whether chiropractic treatments have any value myself, but if you do this for a living and you really believe there is evidence that what you do works, then this is certainly a libellous contention.


 * Secondly, in no instance is any plaintiff in a lawsuit ever required to prove their case before it is brought to trial. Your suggestion that they should is insanity.


 * Thirdly, go back and reread what you said. Notice the gaping internal inconsistency? I hope so. Do try and at least make what you say make sense in and of itself, even if it conflicts so heavily with reality. -- 20:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

At some point in our mutual sobriety, Goonie and I decided to take over your wiki
We think the criteria for sysops and 'crats should be "slightly" better vetted. 07:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * we have never had 'crat problems. Acei9 07:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My concern was mostly, if I remember correctly, that we have a standard of "mostly harmless" for sysops, when I think the bar should be raised to "mostly useful" or the like. 07:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not. Perhaps bring it before the LJ? Acei9 07:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Mostly harmless" was the invention of RA who simply hated the red exclamations points, and sysopped everyone in sight. 'Twas never the best idea. I don't like to argue with Ace, however, because he might come here and kill me. 07:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing to argue about. Acei9 07:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been in favour of this for quite a while, it's only been fear of "being just like CP, OMG!!" that's kept us from making sysops actually useful. Give block powers, page move and some other similar stuff to sysops, raise the bar to "proven useful or at least we know you well" rather than "had an account for more than 30 seconds", leave stuff like article creation and other day to day stuff to any member and set BoN's to editing only every 5 minutes or so, but no goodies beyond straight editing of existing articles.  Simple.  Done. Don't much care about 'crats, we haven't had a lot of problem from that direction so don't mess with it. --Kels (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What Kels said...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have created a debate (or vote) about this topic here: . I hope that is okay. -- 18:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Omigod
07:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Calling the LJ.
How do we call the lazy bastards to a meeting? 08:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps intecom? Acei9 08:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't have our fucking badges, let alone an intercom channel! Qnd Qhy Os Tour Skypey So WEirF? 08:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe there are instructions on the wiki for adding an intercom channel. -- Nx  / talk 10:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason to call them that falls within their purview? The LJ do not run RW, they arbitrate specific disputes.  If you want to change policy on sysopping or cratting, that's a matter for the whole community.-- 09:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * AD has a good point. But I think Huw was asking a hypothetical question anyway. 11:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Tet's right, my mistake was in the header level, making it look like this was part of the sysopery discussion. 22:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * TOO LATE YOUR TYRANNY IS EXPOSED - THE SKEPTICS WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG LET'S CLOSE RW.-- 00:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said. --94.197.22.135 (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't a Leatherjacket matter. Throw it to the mob. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I recommend projecting a massive "brain in brackets" sign into the air. 17:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't think that changing policy was part of the Loya Jirga's role --92.41.65.248 (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not. See AD's comment above. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't mean to offend. --94.197.22.135 (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

On snark
I'm on the fence about the whole idea of SPOV and snark. There's nothing wrong with making an intelligent discussion humorous, but I don't think that snark is always justified. After all, isn't it the same as a creationist snidely adding "I'll pray for you" after making their point? As rationalists, shouldn't we patiently and calmly refute false arguments without spiteful add-ons? Granted, I realize that a lot of snark is rooted in frustration, since the YEC crowd simply won't listen to reason. But even so...does that justify obnoxiousness? I'm not sure. 13:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm in favour of a bit of snark, but not as a substitute for reason. It does at least stop us turning into dullsville wikipedia. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely. The reason that "snark" exists is because Wikipedia is as dry as those arid regions of Antarctica. But it shouldn't be at the expense of well researched, well written and well sourced arguments - it should be added to enhance the readability of those arguments. 16:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, there has to be a decent fact to snark ratio. We have fun space anyway for stuff that's intended to be more funny than factual. -- 21:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Crazies on TV
So I decided to turn on the TV while cleaning up the apartment and the first thing I see is Kirk Cameron on NBC. Switching over to ABC I'm greeted with Jesse Ventura. Waiting to see who CBS will throw at me. Maybe Ken Demyer? DickTurpis (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you try Fox News? I'm sure they'll take the cake. 14:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't have cable, so I can't. Though, now that I think about it, it seems Kirk was sitting in for Kathy Lee, so it doesn't increase the craziness by much. DickTurpis (talk) 14:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Sizing Up Sperm game @ National Geographic
Did you play the sperm game at NG website? it's fun to play. the prequel to this video game is a lot better though. Mr.Orange (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It was much more difficult than I expected. 19:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Default search options
Since we're looking at updating a few things, I think the default search options could do with reviewing. Currently, for new users & anyone who hasn't set their own preferences, searches show results for: *Main *Essay  *Essay Talk  *Conservapedia  *Conservapedia Talk. This seems rather out of date. I would suggest adding at least Forum & RationalWiki, & maybe removing CP (depending how others feel about this). If it's going to include Essay, it could have Debate as well, but I don't think they're essential, & I don't think talk pages (i.e. Essay Talk, CP Talk) should be in default searches at all. It could include Funspace too, as it contains a lot of things that were moved from Main, although it is mixed bag of mostly crap, so maybe not. What does anyone/everyone else think? 21:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Did you check search recently? I've enabled the new UI which has become default in MW 1.16. The categories aren't set up correctly, I have to figure out which settings control them. These are the default categories:


 * Content pages
 * Multimedia
 * Help and Project pages
 * Everything
 * Advanced (this shows the old box with a thousand checkboxes - the default search options still apply here)


 * You can debate what should go into which category. E.g. should Debate go into content? Also the old search UI is unavailable in MW1.16, so if you don't like the new one, tough luck. -- Nx  / talk 21:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice, that's way better than the old help return. I like the hyperlinks to broaden a search, can we add a few more?  Like all the namespaces and all their talkspaces?  22:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a simple way to add new profiles (that's what the software calls them), but it's only available in MW 1.16. -- Nx  / talk 23:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 21:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so which namespaces are in the "content" bit? It seems pretty similar to the old defaults (i.e. main, CP, essay).  & Does the forum come under content, project pages or neither?   21:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Content uses the same setting as the old default. I just changed it to Main, CP, Fun, Essay, Recipe. The tooltip shows you which namespaces are searched btw. Project files currently contains User and Category, but in MW1.16 "Help and Project" is by default Help and Project. -- Nx  / talk 21:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the settings in preferences only applies to the Advanced option. -- Nx  / talk 21:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And finally, in MW1.16 there's a new preferences system, which allows me to specify the defaults for any setting that will apply to any user who hasn't customized the setting. I can use that to specify the search defaults. Currently I'd have to edit the setting which determines what goes into the Content category, and it wouldn't update existing users' settings. -- Nx  / talk 21:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk pages should DEFINITELY be searchable/included in seach so that when I want to reference something stupid I said weeks or months ago, I can find it...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I second that. We do a lot of stuff on talk pages, and there are some real gems in there. -- 22:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * They are searchable, but you have to either use the Everything option or select specific namespaces in Advanced. -- Nx  / talk 22:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. The everything search is a nice time saver. -- 22:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

In regards to a certain super secret discussion group starting with a 'z'
I was wondering if it would be allright to create a page in which we indicate which pages contain interesting material (e.g. "see pg 884 for the discussion on TK copying the UCLA article from WP, and see how Geo bends over backwards and how Andy ignores the issue"), as this would allow people to get their laughs without having to trawl through a large volume of uninteresting material (e.g. "Gentlemen, expect to see a certain page starting with an E rise up the rankings of a certain search engine starting with a G!"). There's some really enlightening stuff there. Also, feel free to memory hole this if it shouldn't have been said. EddyP (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's on the internet, co memory-holing would be silly. The link is here for those who haven't figured it out yet...RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah go ahead, but this discussion should probably be at talk wigo cp I suspect. Call it CP:Guide to the Blues?  19:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy Patrick's Day
To all Irish, and people who once a year claim to be Irish on account of owning Riverdance and being an admirer of all things quaint -- 14:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There was an SNL sketch, years ago, which featured a reporter in what she thought was an Irish themed pub, with the line "today be Saint Patrick's day, the day when everrrrrrybody's Irish!" And she mentioned some famous Americans of Irish descent, like "Donald O'Connor. Tip O'Neill. Wendy O. Williams."


 * As it turned out, though, she was in a Jewish bar, and that year, Purim and St. Patrick's day were the same day, so it became, "today be Purim, the the day when everrrrrrybody's Jewish!"


 * Me, my ancestry is Scots, Dutch and English, so, despite my company bringing in the very traditional Irish breakfast of doughnuts and bagels, I'm lobbying that we should celebrate Pi Day next year. There's more geeks than Irish Catholics here anyway.... MDB (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Slap a bit of black pudding on that bagel and you'll be halfway there. Yup, pi day is my favourite new tradition. -- 16:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm mixed, African American and Irish. I celebrate St. Patty's Day, but I do it by drinking malt liquor.  17:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm mixed English/Irish heritage. I'm celebrating by drinking Guinness, which tonight is £1 a pint in the students' union. 17:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Half-Irish and quarter-German. Rest is muddied up (some small fraction is Native American). Bring on the shamrock shakes!--Thanatos (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am of the same nationality as St Patrick and shall celebrate in the traditional way (puts kettle on). Totnesmartin (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am technically all Irish but have lived in Scotland all my life, so I am Confused. 20:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Chuck, but no Irishman (or woman) would refer to it as St. Patty's Day, it's St Paddy's Day! I'm Engligh, so happy "Take advantage of all the Guinness promotions and get leathered on the black stuff Day"!   23:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember, I'm Irish AND Black. In our community it is "St. Patty's day."  Mostly because we spend most of the getting patted down by cops and security.  23:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you play the bass, have a large afro and a 'tache? Or am I stereotyping black Irishmen? (Does that even count as stereotyping, as I can't think of any other famous black Irish fellas - although Phil Lynott is right up there in my list rock stars so it's quality rather than quantity)  23:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a minute
I claim an extra point for not being interrupted for 100 edits without hesitation, deviation or repetition. (here) (10 days & >100 edits) 15:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Pffft. In high school forensics (debate/speech), I remember being able to speak for SIX minutes on a freshly given random topic with no preparation, deviation, or repetition.  Amateurs!  -- 23:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I think your project has value, doesn't your brag also imply "no one else gives a shit"? (enough to edit it, that is.  How are you ranked on a search page beginning with G?  03:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Human: Fuck off! 04:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Toast with stinky cheese: Fuck on! 04:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Log In Difficulties
I am trying to log in, but always get a "not a valid user name" message. What gives? (RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor). AlsoRWWUR (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, NX--what was the problem? RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your name was longer than 32 characters. I limited usernames to 32 characters because someone was spamming us with extremely long usernames. I did not know it would also prevent existing users with long names from logging in. I apologize for that. I've increased the limit to 64 characters now, I hope that is reasonable. -- Nx  / talk 18:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Some assistance requested
This paper, which is also mentioned somewhere on TWIGO:CP, seems to be somewhat on-mission. I have two requests: Thanks, 21:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Does anyone know how to upload it and put it in the proper format to do a side-by-side?
 * 2) What is your opinion of it? The abstract seems to indicate that it is some kind of postmodernist diatribe, but I'm not sure.
 * The first step will be converting it in to text. I haven't used these myself, but there are some online OCR tools available. The side-by-side bit is fairly straightforward once you have the scanned images converted in to text. -- 21:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * At 40 pages long, my advice would be not to even attempt side-by-siding the whole thing. Look around RW & you'll find loads of cases where people started overambitious side-by-sides (like the entire Bible) & lost interest, leaving pages of text in a left-hand column, with just a few stray comments on the other side.  With something like this, it's better to just quote the parts you want to comment on & comment on them, as a selective side-by-side, + link to the document so readers can read the whole thing if they want.   22:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea, thanks Weaseloid! I'll do it that way instead. 22:20, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I made a long SBS awhile back, and it doesn't work. There seems to be a sweet spot in terms of length.  Šţěŗĭļė 03:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, what works best is when the source can be broken into coherent segments. I think Sterile brought us one of our best ever (some crap by some IDiot).  It working depends on the style of the original.  If it's 20 simple paragraphs, it works great.  Especially if it is really on mission, because then everybody cares and contributes.  03:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: RationalWiki:Side-by-Side Template FYI  Šţěŗĭļė 03:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

how the hell do i become a bureaucrat around here?
just curious what i have to do to get demoted/promoted to bureaucrat.

im pretty ACTIVE here and made a bunch of article and plan to make more this week and expend those i made.

so what are the requirement for bureaucrat?Waronstupidity (talk) 02:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Requirement Number One: Not asking about how to become a bureaucrat. Sorry. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * really? wow that suck.......... i ask one question and get banned from the list..........really sad, really sad indeed!Waronstupidity (talk) 02:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It just happens--Thanatos (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * well that reason is stupid i hope you guy are joking......... i just asked a question for Stephen Hawking sake.Waronstupidity (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * k, I vote you guys make Stephan Hawking an honorary crat ... Hamster (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * When you learn to speill and how to capitalize. And meibe not even then, you silly person.  03:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * dont make me declare an atheistic jyhad on yo ass!Waronstupidity (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In all seriousness, becoming a crat is a bit more involved than becoming a sysop. The current criteria for sysopship is "mostly harmless" (I know it is under discussion), but becoming a crat takes a couple of months. RationalWiki doesn't give cratship to everyone. The general statement is, stick around for a few months, generally be nice, people will like you, and someone will start a Saloon Bar post saying "Waron for Crat", and people will vote there. 04:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * kk well thank you buddy :-)Waronstupidity (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Be around long enough & useful enough that most people know who you are & appreciate what you do. If you're doing a good job, eventually will somebody may nominate you.   07:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't believe what Weaseloid says, Waron. Sigh. Editor at CPmały książe 09:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also you have to wait until enough bureaucrats leave and never come back, to pass the arbitrary "we have enough bureaucrats" requirement. -- Nx  / talk 09:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

How the HEll do I become the ruler of the wolrd? Oh wait I'm alredy THE RUELER OF THE WORLD!!!! Bwahahahahahahahahhahahaahha!!!!--Radioactive PIzza (talk) 07:34, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Alex Chilton is dead...
That sucks. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * sure it suck!Waronstupidity (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * FUCK, you're kidding, right? That was my favorite Replacements song... another bit of red left my atlas today....  03:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In memoriam 04:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC) I'll find a better placemats video.
 * Westerberg maybe at his best? Who knows.  Studio link to follow.  04:15, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * More Paul live Saving you the trouble of typing "Alex Chilton Replacements" into the utube box... I am being barely useful :) 04:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * At least he "died in Memphis"... wouldn't that be cool? Comment from the studio link above:


 * "I like how most of the RIP's I've seen have been on comments to this video,﻿ not on actual Chilton stuff.


 * RIP Alex Chilton" 04:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fuck, I hate the "dead rock stars" thing. (In that it breaks my heart) Kan we haz snartikle?  09:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 27 club perhaps? Totnesmartin (talk) 13:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably needs to be funspace... what is this "27" thing of which you speak? How about fun:the day the music died? 04:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party attacks Parkinson's victim
This makes me sick. These people actually think they are good Christians!? Good People!? I hope they burn in hell and are beaten with salt covered baseball bats!!!--Thanatos (talk) 05:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sad to say that these are the people who get the coverage. 07:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Vile individuals. 11:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Heartless behavior, and not very good PR for the teabaggers I would think. On a side-note the male presenter is an obvious parodist. He started out with the nick Bunger. Can't believe everybody accepted that his real name was "Brian Unger". Internetmoniker (talk) 12:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how one is supposed to debate with these people. EddyP (talk) 13:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Brian Unger was the best guy on the Daily Show back in the Kilbourn days. DickTurpis (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, just wow. Ryantherebel (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Brian Ugler was better TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello
I happened upon this youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHqVDMr9ivo and notice that there is a long comment debate regarding wither mercury causes/is a cause of autism or not. I also realized that I actually had no idea. The video is from a university, a search seems to come up with a 2003 BBC article saying "mercury linked to autism" but then other results from 2010 say "no it's not", and some sites sound suspiciously like anti-vaccination-ers (apparently a vaccine had mercury particles or something), and so on. So errr, what's going on there? Opinionated Opinions appreciated. Sen (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Search this site for "vaccine" and/or "mercury" I think you'll find your answers, or at least some new questions. 04:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell, mercury - and especially organometallic compounds of it - has a tendency to be quite toxic. Thimerosal is a preservative used in vaccines (our article explains why) which happens to contain mercury. So considering the "mercury is bad" meme combined with the ability of the anti-vaccination crowd to shoehorn anything to fit their ideas, the hypothesis emerged that autism was caused by mercury. There is, of course, very little evidence to back this up; the causes of autism are varied and complex - one of the few identified causes is the measles virus itself. One study on whether mercury compounds (namely thimerosal) were bioaccumulative in humans turned up negative, with mercury levels reaching undetectable levels within a day of injection with a vaccine and mercury-containing preservative. Although to my knowledge it does accumulate in aquatic life but that's a danger mostly unrelated to vaccinations. Most of the mercury based arguments are moot, however, as A) thimerosal is only used in a few vaccines B) it's being completely phased out so shouldn't really be in any vaccines of the last decade or so.
 * Your 2003 BBC article would have been from the height (or at least just after the peak) of the great MMR scare/hoax following the media getting hold of and widely reporting Andrew Wakefield's 1998 case study report. The media attention sparked off a lot of research and many people were eager to see results as quick as possible - therefore any study would have been reported and you see a "oh yes it is, oh no it isn't" effect in the popular press for a good few years. By the time the systematic reviews or more thorough studies had been done (the ones that pretty much conclusively disproved the autism link - not that there was any proof to disprove in the first place) in the last few years the media hype had died down and the general public were left with a feeling of confusion as the more conclusive reports weren't widely circulated. 11:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But having read through the comments, I can safely say that the most coherent and accurate one is the guy who says "Bullshit this﻿ is the cause of autism. That is inconclusive." The arguments along the lines of "rising cases of autism" don't hold: there's a greater willingness to diagnose "autism" these days whereas in the past they'd have just said "retarded", this was shown by assessing a large group of adults using the same methodology as used today to diagnose children - autism rates in reality have remained unchanged. The one claiming that mercury "never leaves the body" is untrue, it accumulates primarily in the environment and in fish, humans tend to get rid of it quite quick. And finally, the video itself is an in vitro study - quite clearly too. This is pretty much along the same lines as the famous Daily Mail headline proclaiming that turmeric cures cancer - this was done by tipping large quantities of the material onto a petri dish of cells. This may not necessarily extrapolate to an in vivo situation (indeed, with the turmeric example, it physically can't as you'd have to eat 20 curries a day to get it to work) and it's similar with mercury, if you ingest a massive amount of it at once you'll notice, but otherwise you just don't experience any side effects of exposure.  11:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Avatar vs Hurt Locker

 * Moved to Forum:Avatar vs Hurt Locker

This was branching off a lot and getting confuddled so I've moved it and split it up into the areas that seemed to be appearing. 16:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

US got left behind...
On the 2-Day high speed train from London to China. FML. 20:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * China does seem to have got the idea off the US that a hegemony can be more effective than an empire. 22:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And picking up the tab... I am really, really scared of China now. 11:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup. It's amazing how much of an economic powerhouse China is now. 15:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

PCHS/DMCA/Cheerleaders...
Can somebody please explain to a slightly slow, slightly out-of-touch middle-aged white guy what the hell is going on with this bit of trollery? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Some very concerned high school students have found us.  04:18, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone wanna help a brother out and explain? 05:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheerleaders. They are stupid.  Really.  Check the links at CP.  They came here because we have a "url" that any illiterate teenager can click on.  They are really angry that wikipedia hates them.  If none of that made sense, that's because I've followed the whole story and none of it makes sense. Go to utube and search for, um, cheerleaders.  Plus I forget the town, but "bloomers" ought to do it.  Just not in front of Mrs./Ms./Mr. B.   10:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So "cheerleaders" are what exactly? When I try to find out more about them I'm taken to pron sites. Could someone explain to this Brit what they do? After a bit more investigation I seem to find that they are dancers in some foreign country, but what is their political affiliation? What are their social objectives?--BobIt's windy! 15:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * [[image:Coffee spray.gif]] 16:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A Cheerleader Willem de Zwijger (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Does Cheerleader refers vaccine hysteria? I have no idea what PCHS refers to, and DMCA is someone trolling about copyright violations of some of our images without specific examples.  01:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Sean Hannity is running a huge scam
The Freedom Alliance charity, that raises money for wounded soldiers and survivors of fallen ones -- only three percent of its proceeds actually go to the stated purpose.

Hannity apparently insist on being flown around in a private jet, and a fleet of luxury vehicles for him and his family on the ground.

And this isn't a liberal making this charge -- its hard core right wing Ann Coulter wanna-be Debbie Schlussel.

MDB (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A lot of charities give out an embarrassing 10-20%, but this is a new low. Is he being investigated for this? 01:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not kidding about the Ann Coulter wannabee. 01:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mike Malloy said he will shortly be posting Freedom Alliance's tax form, whatever that might mean. Oh, yeah, what they spent their money on.  01:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We have an article on Sean Hannity, right? We should add...  04:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I copied over most of MDB's edit above to the SH article. 05:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to check this first. --TK/MyTalk|undefinedRW User #45 05:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The truth will out in the end. Let's see what the liberal MSM has to say over the next few days.  05:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for editing an archive, but I'm adding TK's link to Frum's piece to the SH article section, at least until we get the "truth". 03:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Religious respect
There was a good opinion piece in today's Independent by Johann Hari entitled "The Pope, the Prophet, and the religious support for evil". 19:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing, but links are appreciated.  20:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry Weasley, my bad. I copied the link and then forgot to paste it in. Too many Bacardis after a rough day at work. 22:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the guy behind one of my favourite quotes ever. "All people deserve respect, but not all ideas do.... When you demand "respect", you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade." He's kind of a more restrained and better thought-out version of me when I wrote this. It is a great point to be made that religion is the only idea that asks to be held above any and all inquiry. Like someone on the Atheist Bus Campaign Facebook group said recently something along the lines of "I'm an atheist but... isn't this a bit like forcing it down people's throats disrespectfully?" Nice sentiment, but I doubt it'd be repeated for any other minority movement. Can you imagine a memeplex that allowed people to say "I'm a vegetarian, but, should we really be telling people about the conditions stock animals are kept in?" or "I'm an environmentalist but isn't it a bit much to raise awareness of the environment, we should respect people who continue to cause excessive pollution" or even "I'm gay, but this idea of gay dating, or gay clubs or even any targeted welfare is wrong" (well, the third one I have seen and it's a little more complex). Hari is perfectly right though, in any other sane society the Pope would be pulled up for aiding and abetting criminals - because that's what it damn well is. 20:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Iraq War Anniversary
4,703 allied troops dead. http://icasualties.org/

95,680 - 104,382 Iraqi civilians dead. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

$747.3 billion spent, and no end in sight.

Heck of a job, huh?Ryantherebel (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And the Iraqi soldiers count too. Most of them were conscripts. — Pietrow   ☏  11:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * So much for "Mission Accomplished"... -- Psygremlin  11:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Potential group of articles
Inspired by WIGO:Clogs, should we take a look at this and attempt to debunk each of them? I am currently unemployed so I got the time to look at it, but not the money to get the whole set ($100). Or if all of us are cheap bastards perhaps some of us can ask their local priest to spent money for a copy in church and take some OCR's once they are in? 18:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly worth checking. We got several articles that side-by-side lists of proofs like this. I like doing them because I believe we shouldn't let it go unchallenged. Some things you can't debunk (the Not Even Wrong camp, for example) but challenging is certainly worth doing as many of these things just state "facts" and then draw conclusions in an ad hoc manner that should be brought to attention. So yeah, worth doing if we can find a format for it. 23:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think most or all of the text, or at least the "ideas" might be on the site. The $99 is for the ten CD set of some pimp from Detroit reading them.  23:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Nigger!!! Faggot!!! Mr. Congressman!
Tea Partiers greet their members of Congress..... Fantastic. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Un. Be. Fucking. Lievable. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose the general nuttiness being cultivated by the right should burn itself out at some point, and hopefully cause a loss of support, but it seems that America has an amazing tolerance for batshit crazy. -- 02:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been burning bright (not really!) for thirty years now. When will the pendulum finally swing back?  02:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I reckon it'll coincide with someone finding the remains of the Statue of Liberty on a beach. -- 02:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oooh, Pierre Boulle! 02:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) Depends: if one of these populist loons gets elected, then the left will swing into conspiracy theory mode. Overall, though, I think nowadays paranoia is nothing more than a sideshow that only distracts from the real issues, unlike in previous eras in which it was a major factor. (Examples: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, McCarthyism, etc.) 02:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One of them??? We had eight years of Reagan and eight of Bush the lightest. Of course, oddly, they both jacked up the federal budget in record-breaking ways.  But they both hated taxes. Oh, yeah, and faggots and niggers.  02:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't around for Reagan, but Bush Jr. did create some humorous conspiracy theories on the left, namely that 9/11 truther stuff ("Bush knew about 9/11 beforehand"). But, again, that was merely a sideshow. My point is that if someone like Palin gets elected, then the left will employ the paranoid style, too. 02:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you care to elaborate? Considering how fractured the "left" is in the US?  03:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember how fractured the right was in November? Look at them now, mobilized and fortified with conspiracy theories. My point is simply that having a persecution complex is non-partisan. If in 2012 we elect a far-right President (which is not too unrealistic), then it will be the left's turn to spread bullshit. It seems to me that whichever party or demographic feels the most down-and-out, the more they listen to their fringe. 03:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * But the left is fractured still. Well, probably because they aren't in power, the corporate centrists are.  03:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't really about conspiracy theories or "spreading bullshit," or about a political movement being unified or disjointed. It's about people feeling justified to use violent and hateful language because they are unhappy with a political process. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the two often go hand in hand. Case in point: the incident in question. 03:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 9ec)It's about hate, yes. I'm not even sure it's because of some process - it's because they hate "niggers and faggots".  Which really makes me want to puke.  03:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I love it personally. The pure hatred that the teabaggers have tried to cover with fancy linguistic gymnastics has been showing through the cracks for years (See the Obama Witchdoctor and the "Zoo has an African Lion..." signs) but now that these people have been carefully stoked and led into thinking that they speak for the Americans who hate this bill but are too afraid to speak out, they're showing their true colors.  It's one thing to hold a protest and even to enter your Senators and Representative's office to speak to them, but to advertise the event as "storming the palace," aside from giving me an excuse to use my Billy Crystal impression to annoy right wingers, really shows exactly how you think.  04:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Freakout
So I'm watching my local PBS station hoping for the vicker of dibbley or some such, and I see this scrawny freak doing some wooish crap like an infomercial. I'm on the verge of calling in and asking wtf, when guess what? They're using this moron to run a fundraiser! So I called the 800 number and said my piece.

Daniel Amen wp: Daniel G. Amen 04:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"Dr. Daniel Amen has completed his new book, Change Your Brain, Change Your Body, as well as the associated PBS Special" Fuck 04:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Books
I feel a bit guilty posting this trivial thread under the above topic, but here goes: what book are you currently reading? I'm interested in everyone's tastes in literature, and I figure maybe I can get some good recommendations. So, just post the name of whatever book you are currently reading. Here, I'll do mine: right now I'm in the middle of Chuck Palahnuik's "Haunted," after which I'm going to read Tim O'Brien's "Going After Cacciato." 02:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reading right now/finished in the last week or so: Terry Teachout's new Louis Armstrong biog; *The French Imperial Nation-State* (Gary Wilder's book on French colonialism in West Africa); *A Mission to Civilize (Alice Conklin's book on the same); Greg Dening's *Islands and Beaches* (Colonialism in the Pacific Islands); Lewis Porter's Coltrane biog; *Les Porteurs de Valises* (French resistance/activism during the Algerian war); *Houseboy* by Oyono; *The Book of Negroes* by Lawrence Hill (sooooo awesome); Claude McKay's *Banjo*. Going to crack open some N'gugi tomorrow...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I usually go on a book binge where I start five or six books, get halfway through in a day or so, and then slowly finish them over the course of a month or so. Curently reading Origin of Species, A Tour of the Calculus, Richard Wagner's autobiography (He's probably the greatest historical asshole/genius ever), and rereading Asimov's Empire series (specifically Stars, Like Dust) for only the third time.  -- 03:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Recently finished:
 * Can Christianity be good for the world? A Debate Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson (I found it in book form in the Library, strangely)
 * The Greatest Show on Earth Richard Dawkins
 * Only A Theory Kenneth Miller
 * The Religious case Against Belief James P. Carse
 * Currently looking for a good book on epistemology.  04:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for the sort of thing I use as an intro text, Crumley's "An Introduction to Epistemology" is pretty good. If you're looking for something a bit harder, Bonjour and Sosa's "Epistemic Justification" is my most recent favorite. Unemployed philosopher (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For some unknown reason my calipers are on the kitchen table. 05:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OH, I remeember, Goonie and I were comparing microscopic, um, measurements. Nevermind.  08:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wolf and Spice. Weird cover and Amazon links aside, it's a pretty good story. Later became manga and anime, if you're into that.
 * Also, I compulsively recommend this. Technically not even a book, but it's basically the same and highly recommended. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 06:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm rereading the Count of Monte Cristo. Simultaneously I'm reading a biography on Roger Casement by Brian Inglis. I tend to read a novel and a biography at the same time. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 86.45.217.225 / talk / contribs 10:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Into the Heart of darkness" - about the apartheid death squads; "The Perfect Store' - story of ebaY, couple of Stephen Leather's books for light reading. Listening to "Super Freakonomics", "Greatest Show on Earth" and "Coraline". -- Psygremlin  11:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * >Tetronian - hope you like "Going After Cacciato" - I really enjoyed it. Like many others, I'm rarely reading 'a' book, usually 3 or 4 at a time.  Currently on my list:
 * "The Penguin History of the United States of America" by Hugh Brogan
 * "The Command of the Ocean: A Naval History of Britain 1649-1815" by N.A.M. Rodger
 * "The Pyjama Game: A Journey Into Judo" by Mark Law
 * "South Africa 1948-1994: the Rise and Fall of Apartheid" by Josh Brooman and Martin Roberts
 * No fiction for some reason, but sometimes that's the way it works. :) 11:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Now reading: The Greatest Show On Earth - Richard Dawkins
 * Last book: Who Ate All The Pies? - Micky Quinn (autobiography)  11:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Who Ate All the Pies?" Lex Luthor, that's who! --Kels (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As you ask, I'm presently reading:
 * Dogs - A new understanding of canine origin, behaviour and evolution. ISBN 0-226-11563-1
 * --BobIt's windy! 15:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Currently working on Creating Characters With Personality by Tom Bancroft, and referring a bit to Action Cartooning by Ben Caldwell. --Kels (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "The Hidden People of North Korea" EddyP (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Two books right now: Bertrand Russell's Why I am not a Christian, and Knack's Warcraft novel trilogy (I'm a lore geek, and nelfs rock!). -- 16:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Shakespeare's Wife. I just saw Germaine Greer give a talk about her (plugging her new book) and it was quite fascinating. However, when she signed the copy of the book which I asked to be dedicated to my sister and said "Is that alright?" I replied "Do you think you could rephrase it a bit?" I don't think she really got the joke. For Saloon Bar regulars you might like to know that rather than drinking the bottled water which was on the table she kept her throat moist with a glass of red wine.  20:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was reading The Sandman, but I finished it. 20:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Rapid Interpretation of EKG's" by Dale Dubin. It's a good book, but the plot is pretty derivative.  Corry (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fast Guide to Propellerhead Reason by Debbie Poyser, Derek Johnson and Hollin Jones - the film was better. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Smithsonian Human Origins page
For you evolutionists, here's some info on human origins. Šţěŗĭļė 20:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And for IDers, Top 10 ID stories of the year!!! Šţěŗĭļė 12:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Health Care Vote
Can I just say that for those of us who already have dirty, liberal, inefficient, socialised medicine and love every minute of it, the US vote on the bill is better theatre than anything I've seen in a long time. The Huffington Post and New York Times have some good coverage. May the memory of Stalin and Mao prevail! –SuspectedReplicant retire me 23:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I made a post on my facebook page about health care and I now have 45 comments (at last count) most of them my right wing friends completely ignoring everything I say and shouting Government takeover, higher taxes and any other right wing buzz words they care to throw out. Maybe schools should do a better job of teaching rational discussion and debate.  23:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Chuck, you are a far bigger man than I. I have a hard enough time being friends with liberals/Democrats because their politics are too conservative for me and piss me off. I couldn't imagine being friends with anyone who was American-right-wing in orientation. Good on you. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 00:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * TheoryOfPractice (what a ridiculous name!), that is typical of Liberals and friendship!
 * I try to keep in contact with friends both to the left and right of me (the former comes mainly in the form of one ex-flying picket from the Miners' Strike who believes the EU is evil). It helps me keep my own views sharp and, on occasion, changes them. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't lie TOP, it can be very difficult at times. I'll transcribe the comments later and post them so you can see what kind of shit I'm dealing with here..... I guess I really am a political science major at heart.  I really think that civil discussion and differing ideas are the key to political success, but it's hard to discuss something when they just scream whatever Fox News has said about the issue.  Plus they then all deny that they ever watch Fox News.  00:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a lot of my friends are politically outspoken, though the ones that are tend to be quite firm in left/right wing ideas. As a moderate it's nice to watch people tear each other apart over politics. One thing that does piss me off is how a lot of my peers when I was in high school responded to criminals. I studied psychology for a couple of years, and when we covered topics such as rehabilitation/murderers etc, it was quite unnerving how many of them were basically just saying give 'em rope. However, generally the people saying this tended to be the really fucking stupid people who couldn't hold a pencil the right way round, which was comforting heh, heh . 12:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 48 now, but I can't read them :P 14:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone who wants to friend me, just send a request. Do me a favor though, add your RW username to the message so I know who you are.  21:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's Move On?
Someone said earlier this week something like There is more action (may i add, and smart asses!) on RW than CP. Shouldn't RW spread it's merry spirit around?

Had fun today hunting trolls on the Glenn Beck and White House facebooks... Glenn's FB is Reallllly packed to the top with great could-be Conservapedia users. I even got a thumbs up by a sysop posting something like Great show thursday Glenn, your best ever. then linking to Stewart's parody... A bit of cognitive dissonance can`t hurt those poor endoctrinated souls.

Lazily shooting arrows from my bed, sipping coffee. Posting Eco's definition of fascism on Glenn's frontpage, asking if football on shabbath is ok; supporting people asking Beck to run for president ( I added 'as an independant ) ... Greatest brunch ever! :) Alain (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, tell all the right wing crazies to go to CP! 02:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going through the FB pages now... [[image:Wall.gif]] 14:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Need a link? http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1526646670#!/GlennBeck?v=wall Is it trolling when you are right? Alain (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Fighting Creationism on FB
After I got invited to this for the n-th time I decided to introduce them to the FSM and evolution. If you're on facebook, join the group and post something.

The title says: "Throw evolution out of schools". Mr.Orange (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A worthy cause, but I doubt it will do anything. As Mustex (or practically anyone else, but especially him) can tell you, arguing with creationists doesn't really get you anywhere. 14:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * i know, i just want their group to be filled with FSM propaganda. maybe some of the people in the group will get the point. Mr.Orange (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's been tried before. You can't reductio your way in with creationists either. There's this odd mental block there. 14:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Armond's right, they just block out anything that they don't want to hear. However, perhaps a non-creationist will get it and have a laugh. 14:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I. Am. Awestruck.
The Who's Baba O'Riley.

As played exclusively on items available at ThinkGeek.


 * Timestamping for pibot. 02:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I count on your vote at the election?
This bloke came up to me, he's standing at the election as a...well, god knows. There's 9/11 truth, vaccine denial, globalisation, all sorts - his catchphrase: "the truth shall set you free." I shit you not. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. I don't know how I would react if I saw something like that. 19:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just glanced down one page (on ethics) & there's something for everyone: spirituality, alt medicine, quantum woo, prayer, 2012, the End Times, extraterrestrials.  19:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * it was hard keeping a straight face as I looked at his material - he was handing out dvd-rs from a shopping bag, which is never a good sign. When I get a chance (monday probably) I might post some stuff here. I might even go to one of his meetings. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * From the things I've heard about Totnes, I must say this doesn't surprise me very much. 19:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Try living here mate. They're very nice people but they'll believe anything. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I just had to double check that Totnes was in the UK. We're so fucked. 23:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * An IP address added him to the Totnes election page in the see also section Willem de Zwijger (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Be glad that your crank candidates in the UK, at least, can put up a coherent, literate web site. This is what we have to deal with. Secret Squirrel (talk) 11:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (unindent) Fortunately London isn't actually too bad. I can't think of any prolific wannabe American Truthers trying to make people believe our water supply is tainted by the government. Martin, if this guy actually said to you "Can I count on your vote at the election?" did you just reply, "no," and walk off? I would've. 12:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He didn't (my vote, incidentally will go the same way it has all my life - to the candidate best place to beat the tories). He did, though, ask me what I thought of his stuff, and I said it was very interesting, which seemed to please him. I didn't tell him about RW. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Natural Law Party used to put up candidates in the 90s running on this kind of nonsense, mostly just as an excuse to get on TV & talk about yogic flying.  17:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I live in Canada and I am wishing the election to come up soon enough.  23:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Healthcare reform
Someone explain to this Brit what's going on. Has it been passed? EddyP (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Despite being American, I really can't tell either. Doesn't look like anything definitive has happened so far, though. ~ Kupochama[1][2] 19:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was watching live on Huffington Post, and saw a vote which Dems seem to have won. Got no idea what it means. EddyP (talk) 19:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * hope they won, so i can tell the right wing *IN YOUR FACE BITCH!*Waronstupidity (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a political nerd who is currently watching the C-Span Coverage, as of 4:00pm Eastern Time, The House is voting on procedural issues. There has been no major update on the overall status.  20:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The House just passed a vote that says they'll move forward with the bill. The real votes won't be until roughly 11pm from what I hear. Then there's the Senate. It's going to be a long process. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a hot, hot mess. Corry (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) Actually, the most interesting scenario would be the bill and the fixes get passed, but then the fixes fail in the Senate. That would put Obama in the situation where he could sign the bill and enact reform, but he would lose the House for the rest of his term.  He would never get them to pass anything he wanted again.  Interesting possibility really. and Corry, that's representative Democracy with a two-house Congress.  Everything is a hot mess.  20:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Live coverage from CNN here. Works across the Pond too. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * im angnositic but screw it! i pray for healthcare reform to pass Waronstupidity (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

(<=) This is a fascinating article from David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter. He describes Healthcare as a Waterloo - but for the Republicans, not Obama. Who'll tell 🇰🇪? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of what we've been seeing was a debate about the limits of the debate: how long to discuss the bill, etc. The "revise and extend" stuff is something about putting language into the Congressional Record.  Now that the limits have been determined, the motion can actually be discussed.  Then the final vote will come.  OR something like that.  Šţěŗĭļė 22:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

(unidnet) Speaker Pelosi is giving the final speech on the floor of the house. The vote will come any moment. Watch it online at www.C-Span.org 02:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm watching it too, very impatiently. They've been debating all day. 02:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Stupak's been de-"Defender of the faith"ed. That'll have him worried, or not. Willem de Zwijger (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * IT PASSED!!!!!!! 02:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah(!). Now for Medicare Part E(veryone).  04:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * damn conservative are crying fool on youtube and ask for a civil revolt...... damn these guy are stupid.Waronstupidity (talk) 06:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Right on Human, I'm hoping this will be the first step to single payer. As for the conservs... They call for a revolt every five minutes.  I love how they just don't seem to understand the concept of Democracy.  Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.  When you lose, you have to try harder next time.  I guess holding the seat of power for approx. 20 of the past 30 years has thrown them off.  07:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * High five SirChuckB, we're on the same page, I think. 07:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Freerepublic is a joy to read today... Sen (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * High fives all around, everyone. 11:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Cracked gets (slightly) serious
I just stumbled this Cracked list, and well, it's less funny than they usually manage (i.e. very) but it's quite thought-provoking. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The real scary bit is "the only reason we're not on the cusp of a factory that can turn out parentless kids is that nobody has figured out how to make money off such an operation." While I'm not 100% sure if it is totally possible right now, it's certainly true that it hasn't been looked at because it's profitless. 22:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I liked how rather than trying to be too funny all the time, it was nice and serious - but with a few howlers randomly inserted. It was also very well-informed. 00:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I love how Cracked used to be a shitty Mad knockoff that nobody read and now they are intelligent, hilarious, and popular. They are a case study for reinvention for the internet age.  Corry (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Totally agree. When I jump in my time machine and visit myself back when I was semi-adolescent and I ask whether I would rather write for Cracked than Mad when I grow up, my younger self spits in my face. But crap, when you can write articles with unlimiteed dirty words and boob references and still be funny (and insightful), my younger self might rethink his lifelong dream.Brendiggg (talk) 08:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Teapartiers are idiots
Ate it hook, line and sinker. On a related note, is the Coffee party prObama or just sane right wingers?--Thanatos (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Have any of them actually read the bill? I like that protestor, who when asked to describe specific problems with the bill, said something along the lines of "That's not a bill, that's socialised". It's all soundbites and shite and I'm 95% certain that these people support classroom prayer. -- 22:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. Just wow. The only bill the US needs to pass is the one that says you must have an IQ o fat least 45 to vote... 23:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, I ate it up. 08:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I "enjoyed" that vid. Apparently, you're all living in the Harry Potter world now that the bill has passed (???). Bondurant (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Coffee Party seems to be largely leftie, however, officially their goal is a return to civil discussion in American politics, no matter what your political stripe. MDB (talk) 09:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

They should totally lay off the caffeine then. I'm starting a new party called the water party. for a small membership fee you guys can gey in on the ground floor. Me!Sheesh! Mine! 15:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Small Favor
Hey, I posted a while back about how I tried an experiment where I sent a video of mine to various creationists in a PM to see how many of those who responded would even attempt to address the issues I presented in the video (basically: I you go by baraminology, it’s impossible to define “baramins” in a way that puts apes and humans in a different category). I had extended conversations with three of them. The first of whom actually seemed interested in learning (we’re currently taking a break from our dialogue while he does some research, following my revelation to him that the Earth is not a closed system), another who just made up random arguments off the top of his head as far as I could tell, but at least TRIED to engage me, and a final one who really got my goat. His initial argument was literally just the “everything came from nothing” bullshit (remember: the topic was defining baramins in a way that put humans and apes in different groups *facepalm*). I responded to him by telling him that I wasn’t an atheist, but a Red Letter Christian (I decided not to define this for him, but to see if he showed any signs of knowing what that meant, or taking the time to do even a cursory Wikipedia search to see what it meant…he showed no signs, although he did occasionally say something like “you can still go to hell believing in Jesus, Red Letter or not”), he immediately stopped referencing any branch of science in any way, and the rest of his posts were nothing but scripture quotations he claimed refuted evolution, accusations that I was a false Christian, and threats of eternal damnation. This went on for a number of days, back and forth. In every response I’d try to address what he was saying, but would also remind him that the topic (which he NEVER ONCE acknowledged in any way) was defining primate baramins in a way that didn’t include humans. Finally, I just demanded that he address the issue, and he simply said “I don’t really care.” I sent him another message, asking why he had responded in the first place if he didn’t care to address the topic of conversation, and he didn’t respond. Yesterday I sent him another message, asking him to either give me a reason for his responding to the message, or an apology for wasting so much of my time. I’m not blocked from his account.

To get to the point: I’m curious, if some of you sent him messages asking why he responded (but being distinct enough to make it clear you’re not sock puppets of me), he might respond in attempts to “save your souls,” and I’d honestly like to know how he’d respond to variations of “why did you answer Mustex4’s original message if you weren’t going to address the topic.”  So, if you’d message him (just once each, not spamming), and let me know if he responds and what he says, I’d appreciate it. This is him: http://www.youtube.com/user/BereanBeacon  --Mustex (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think what you're trying to do is akin to emptying the Atlanic ocean by walking up to the Hudson river with a small bucket and attempting to drain it bit by bit. You've clearly just found either A) one hell of a deep cover parodist or B) someone who's entrenched in the religious aspects of the evolution/ID/creatardism thing - therefore fighting it with science or direct questioning will get you nowhere. It was a clearly losing battle from the beginning. 23:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know. At this point its as much for amusement as anything else, but I would like to see how he'd try to justify responding to the message at all if questioned by a third party (or if he'd just fly into more strawmen and scripture readings).--Mustex (talk) 00:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) Just let it go, for fuck's sake. If he doesn't want to debate you on this issue, I can't see what's to be gained from a bunch of other people trying to enter the dialogue.  & Anyone else nagging him about your interactions with him could look a lot like harassment.  Think about it: if, after a few emails from him, you suddenly got a deluge of emails from other people you'd never contacted before, asking not about anything you'd said online but about things you'd said or hadn't said in emails with other guy, wouldn't you find that a little creepy?   00:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A bit, yes, but as long as no one's spamming, but instead just sending a single e-mail a piece, I'd shrug it off. No one's coming to his house or anything.--Mustex (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)It's probably wrong to even do it "for amusement". That's basically trolling - being a dick for the sake of being a dick. If you want to seriously make a change, then you can't do it by swiping at where ignorance and sheer bloody-mindedness is firmly entrenched. All you can do is take the points raised by creationists and circulate the rebuttals widely and effectively - taking it straight to the individuals does nothing but annoy people who are probably well meaning, in their own way. Do you expect them to convert? Address the issues, not the individuals and make it public, not private. 00:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not doing it to be a dick, so much as I actually want the question answered, I want to know how he'd answer it, and I would like it if creationists were occasionally called to task on their tendency to constantly gish gallop (although that's secondary to the first two).--Mustex (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you tried A Storehouse of Knowledge? Phil Rayment loves to debate & will be delighted to answer any questions about creationism, though I can't guarantee he would always stay on topic.  A few RWians are relatively active there, & if you want a debate that's open to other parties, somewhere like that is the way to go.  There's a big difference between stepping into a wiki/forum debate to ask why somebody didn't respond properly to a question, and emailing a stranger to ask why they didn't respond properly to an email from somebody else.   00:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with the website, I've considered going there. I think I'm probably just annoyed with the guy, although I would appreciate anyone who actually PMs him (as I said, once, even I'll admit that more than that would be trolling, and I posted this not expected more than two or three people to do it anyway).--Mustex (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Musty, it's called p(rivate e)mail for a reason. What you are asking for is really poor form. Just because you may be right doesn't mean you might not also be wrong on another level.  04:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh, maybe. Still, if anyone wants to gather ignorant creationist quotes, that guy's a gold mine.--76.18.115.64 (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)