RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive101

This is an archive page, last updated 6 May 2011. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Poe's Law Moment

I'm having somewhat of a reverse Poe's Law moment here: are you people really CP:liberal CP:atheists evolutionists, or are you trying to parody liberal evolutionists? Because you're doing a good parody job if you are. I need to donate to this site; this place should be enough to turn a somewhat sensible liberal conservative, or turn an atheist into a believer! This place seriously needs a disclaimer: "may loss of ass due to laughing." DMorris2 (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Funny, the opposite happened here. Тy^Talk. 23:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Obviously we need the disclaimer "people like us, destroying the world". Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 23:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"To terrorize and disappoint." Nutty Roux (talk) 23:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe the correct terminology is evilutionist. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry guys, been meaning to say for some time now but I've been stringing you all along. I'm actually a Young Earth Creationist. I believe that the world is only 6000 years old because a pastor told me, and that must be true. And I think evolution is bunk because clearly my parents aren't monkeys! You liberals are so weird!!! ADK^{...I'll freeze your peat moss!} 23:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

And all fabric and thread evolved from the Evolution Spaghetti Monster. DMorris2 (talk) 23:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Amazingly, that makes just as much sense. How queer. Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 23:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, evolution sounds silly when you say it that way too, doesn't it. Also, my science teacher said that we evolved, so it must be true. Just like how Pluto is a planet. DMorris2 (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. That's what I meant. I think your comprehension is lacking. Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 23:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh I knew exactly what you meant, bub. Ironically, I think your comprehension is lacking. Either that or you hate God so much that you can't possibly see that evolution can be parodied to look as stupid as creationism was parodied to look with the Flying Spaghetti Monster. DMorris2 (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Now I know who left the 1000$ tip! --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 23:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Shit, are we gonna have to give it back when his parents find out he used their credit card? Thunderkatz^Ho! 00:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

My "parent" (a single mother) doesn't even have a credit card (but she does have a debit card), and I'd have to be a hard-core hacker to steal my father' credit card number, who's several states away, just to give to RatWiki. Please, I'm 19 and have a job; I'd use my own money if I wanted to donate to RatWiki. Just like I use my pwn money to donate to Wikipedia. Specifically, I'd use my bank's online bill payment service, which would mail you a check. But I'm not going to donate to RatWiki, because it promotes evil. Sorry. DMorris2 (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If we promote evil, why are you so obsessed with us? ATP (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Because it's funny to read what you're writing about Conservapedia. If Conservapedia is so ridiculous, why are so many of you obsessed with us? It's about the same concept. I take anything you say with a grain of salt. DMorris2 (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"... you hate God so much ...". Wrong! There is no god to hate. "... it promotes evil." Wrong, evil, like god, is a construct of godbotherers and only exists in their minds. --Scream!! (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit Scream, bullshit. That's a matter of your opinion, and it's the wrong opinion. DMorris2 (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit DMorris2, bullshit. That's a matter of your opinion, and it's the wrong opinion. --Scream!! (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Fine, burn in hell motherfucker. You'll find out how real it is soon enough. DMorris2 (talk) 01:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So will you, apparently. Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 01:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really. Just you God haters will. I feel sorry for y'all DMorris2 (talk) 01:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This guy's so funny! --Scream!! (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This guy's functionally retarded. And I present Romans 2:1. Burn with us, burn with us. Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 01:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(E/C)So tell me, if there's no evil, no God, and no hell, is murder a bad thing? Why don't you petition the government to legalize murder? Wouldn't you just like to kill those bastards that do you wrong? Wouldn't you like to shoot the next person that runs a stop sign in front of you? After all, there's nothing evil about killing other people is there? Why do you stop at the register in stores? There's nothing evil about stealing is there? DMorris2 (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This is whats freaky, and strong evidence of the sociopathy or even psychopathy that religion breeds. That the only thing that keeps them from murdering at whim is a sky fairy looking over their shoulder the whole time. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Question: Does Barack Hussein Obama (a) beleive in the Christian sky fairy or is he (b) an Islamic carpet licker or (c) a rational athiest? nobs^{don't bother me} 22:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘EC) So, DM2, it's only gOD & the fear of retribution in some fictional happy land that keep you from murder? Sorry for you, really sorry. --Scream!! (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Vonnegut said it best:

“”I am a humanist, which means, in part, that I have tried to behave decently without any expectation of rewards or punishments after I'm dead.

ATP (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)You think it's crazy when someone proposes such idea about humans, but you wouldn't think twice about killing a mosquito I'll bet. Believe me, I wouldn't kill someone, I COULDN'T kill someone. I'd probably pass out. I'm just thinking rationally. If it's okay to be homosexual or have sex out of wedlock, then it should be okay to murder, right? If an ant dares enter your home you kill it simply because it annoyed you, right? A living, breathing being that feels pain dies because it annoyed you. So then when an eleven year old crosses the road without looking, why do you slam the brakes? It annoyed you didn't it? Does (s)he deserve to live more than an ant or a roach? I'm just trying to think like I would expect you to think here. DMorris2 (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Humanism is bullshit; I work in the service industry and witness human hate every day. I'm not nice just because of God, but I feel that God is the driving power for everyone to be good whether they realize it or not. Yes, even in atheists. People have God and the devil in them. Because otherwise, I think it only logical that humans would be just as vicious as any other animal. And if you think about it, even animals are organized and religious. DMorris2 (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong again. I don't kill anything knowingly - I even occasionally feel guilty about walking 'cause I'm likely to be stepping on unseen insects. Marriage and sexual mores are purely human constructs. --Scream!! (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Think about it scientifically. Does it even make sense for anyone or anything to give a shit about anything but itself for no reason at all? DMorris2 (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC) . @DM(heh) Yes, actually, it does. Тy^Talk. 01:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What you are guilty of murdering, DMorris2, are many, many strawmen. You're burning down a huge field of them. Who says that science or reason compels anybody to murder those who annoy you? And as far as animals being religious, how the hell would you know that? By their iconography? ATP (talk) 01:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Listen up, DMorris, because I'll only say this once. I have an incentive to act "morally" in the absence of religion, because moral behavior enables the continued functioning of society, which in turn enables humans to enjoy a better standard of living than we would all by ourselves. This goal is clearly in the best interests of humans, so even without the reward/punishment system of religion, I have an incentive to behave in a moral fashion. However, certain moral behaviors have no impact on my ability to function within a society, such as who I am or am not having sex with, and thus I am free to do what I desire without fear of harming my ability to tribute. This is a fairly basic notion known as the "social contract"- we surrender certain rights and privileges, like the ability to kill anyone I want, in exchange for the benefits of society as a whole. Look it up. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 01:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So fucking what. Fuck you and fuck your morality. Your sure as fuck can't impose it on the rest of us. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I will tell you though, atheists are typically a lot ruder than Christians. ADK^{...I'll deceive your deity of personal preference!} 19:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I want not approve on it, Rob. I think polite post. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 01:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and the comment, "the reward/punishment system of religion" betrays an absolute ignorance, if not blind prejudice of, Christianity. Don't think you so fucking smart, knowledgeable, and/or intellectual, my friend. nobs^{don't bother me} 03:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)And exactly how is that? Humans don't give two fucks about each other, I see it every day. They're cordial with each other, but they don't genuinely care. Especially old, bitter atheists don't care. Atheists are rude usually, but not always. I see it daily. DMorris2 (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC^9) Look these things up, DM. Thanks. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 01:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)Emperor, I know what humanism is, and I already said it's, in my opinion, bullshit. Humans don't care about each other. They THINK they do, but deep inside they don't. Natural instinct to sin comes first. We're all raised to love and care, that's why we don't kill each other. I will tell you though, atheists are typically a lot ruder than Christians, and I'm sorry if that's politically incorrect, but it's the truth. I see it every day. DMorris2 (talk) 01:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

x9000. Blue (is useful) 01:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey now, I thought that was for people like MarcusCicero and LBHS Cheerleader. DMorris2 (talk) 01:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC) P.S. Real girls at Lemon Bay High School are too hot to be involved in crap like trolling, and MarcusCicero died years ago.

"Humans don't give two fucks about each other, I see it every day". Time to change the world you live in then DMorris. I live in a big, atheistic, coastal city and am surrounded by nothing other than a great bunch of friends and amazing neighbors, each and every one of whom would go to the ends of the Earth for each other, and do so, on an almost daily basis. If I wasn't simply uncomfortable with hippydippyism, I'd probably say they all really loved each other and cared for each other. You, however, clearly live in a world of assholes. You can choose not to do that, you know? --DogP (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

 !!!! Blue (is useful) 03:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You're rather cynical, Mr. Morris. Ironically, it's the religious right and libertarians that I see not giving a shit about other humans the most. Senator Harrison (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm rubber, you're glue; whatever you say bounces off me & sticks to you! nobs^{don't bother me} 03:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

DMorris, I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you're a Christian (In reality, you're likely a troll, but let's shelf that suspicion for now). You've expressed the view that the average viewpoint expressed on this website is somehow conducive to senselessly murdering people. Before I address this, would you mind reading Exodus 32:27 to us real quick? And Numbers 31:1-18 if it's not too much trouble as well. And Deuteronomy 28:23 if you're feeling generous. And 1 Samuel 15:2 and 3. There's more, but I'll stop for now. Saladin 05:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

DMorris, if you couldn't possibly kill anyone, what exactly did you think the long term purpose of JROTC was? Having run into you on WP I'm familiar with your obsession with your high school's program and that entire story, and I'm just curious. άλφα^Talk 07:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've always kind of assumed that atheism would make you more respectful of life. Death becomes more final with no prospect with of an ever lasting after life. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

And lets not forget the "icing" people on Mafia Wars. ADK^{...I'll castrate your bluejay!} 10:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Playing video games and Facebook games is not par with being a psycopath, and being in JROTC, I had planned on joining the service as an IT specialist. I've seen many bitter people that were atheists, and every single atheist at RW is an example. Bye. DMorris2 (talk) 13:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You'll not be missed. ADK^{...I'll stride your Angel!} 13:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that the Poe's Law moment refers to DMorris and not RW. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 13:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

DMorris2 said: "Natural instinct to sin comes first." Well, that's some pretty shitty Intelligent Designing, especially from a designer who, above all else, hates sin. Carlaugust (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

This is disppointing

I've been searching and have found very little about the Arab spring. Historically these are the most prolific events of our lives and almost no one is talking about it. My word, there isn't even an article about Bahrain...or Syria! Even the dipshits got at least that far. ^{— Unsigned, by: Cgb07305 / talk / contribs}

Maybe that's becaue it's called the "arab dawn", as spring would incline that there's an end to it naming it like that wouldn't be very kind. --85.182.145.82 (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was the 'Arab awakening'. Or is that something else? AMassiveGay (talk) 08:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Cute. Let's argue about the name of it instead of being informed what is going on. Every time I come back I wonder why I left...then about 10 minutes later it's clear why. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 19:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

But what are you actually talking about? And if you don't get the name right, it's often difficult, especially when you're otherwise vague and abstract about it. Can you find little on this thing on RW, or with Google? What about Syria and Bahrain do you want to know? Who are the "dipshits"? If you possibly ranting about RW missing an article that you know something about, it's an easy step to create it, or at least explain what you're talking about. ADK^{...I'll waste your bomb!} 19:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm part of a special envoy to the Middle East so there is no need for me to come here (or anywhere on the web for that matter) to get information. It's disappointing no one seems to be talking about it here. Haiti lit up the conversation last year. Apparently this site (collectively) only cares about anything that they can throw at dipshit (Andy). O well, if I don't like it I don't have to stay, right? These historical events are going to change the world no matter where you live so as a word of advice I'd follow what's going on. It's important. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 20:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The revolutions happening in the Middle East are known as the Arab spring. It doesn't matter what anyone else wants to call them, that's what they're know as in the English speaking world (and Arabic, Farsi, Urdu when translated). δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 20:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's true an article was never made, but we were talking about it extensively on here while it was breaking out. it mostly dominated this area the week Libya broke out, with me and a few others live updating Gaddafi's first statement. once it broke into all-out civil war, it was just too much to keep up on. Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 20:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I made an honest effort to search the saloon and didn't see anything. Im glad some people do care. That's at least a bit encouraging. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 22:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Then say what you mean before demeaning people repeatedly about it. I have never heard the term "Arab spring" and I've have some discussions and watched quite a bit of it. ADK^{...I'll explicate your ooze!} 22:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are you getting defensive? People were arguing over the name simply because they wanted to be dicks. It's really obvious they knew what "Arab spring" was as they were using every term but "Arab spring." I haven't demeaned anyone (unless you want to count calling Andy a dipshit). δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 22:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Yeah, it's not, and never was an issue of "not caring" it was more an issue of "shit's breaking out so fast, we have no hope of giving it adequate coverage, go to CNN". I think it's not only fascinating, but it gives me renewed hope in humanity, what's going down in the middle east. I also hope it keeps going and picking up steam. Nothing would make me happier than my kid to grow up in a world without Islamic dictatorships. (Not to be down on Islam specifically, it could just as easily be "theocratic dictatorships", but it is Islam, and, well, it does make me happy to see Islam specifically) Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 22:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and you suck at searching: Libya and On the Middle East That was the Libya coverage, Egypt was surely a few pages before, but I wasn't around, as I had real life going on, so I don't remember.. Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 22:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha, thanks. What's happening with Islamic dictators is very interesting to say the least. Pan-Arab (or even bigger pan-regiional) policy has generally been to steer clear of each other's business but Iran and the Arab league are both pushing their strange views...as are the EU, US and the Saudis. The void of al-Qeada is almost spooky and is showing they have lost almost all the influence they ever had in the region. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 22:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm "defensive" because you decided to be dickish yourself by insulting people for not understanding you when you weren't being clear yourself. I don't think anyone was "being a dick" for asking what it's called when you weren't clear what you're referring to. You're talking about an event happening now; no one knows what history will eventually call it. It could fizzle out, it could spread, it could lead to something, it could not. No one knows right now. Giving it a name like "The Great Arab Spring Awakening" is nonsensical if in three months time all the protesters are shot and it ends up like the 1832 June Rebellion, which incidentally has several names for it too. So I don't think you have any right to accuse people of being dicks for disagreeing on a naming convention for an event in progress. ADK^{...I'll insult your xanthochroi!} 22:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Punishment from God

Saw this tragedy in the news and I got to thinking (not something I usually do). Various disasters, earthquakes,tsunamis, hurricanes and the like occur all over the world and someone inevitably says it god's wrath. These tornadoes seem to hit all time but I've never heard any one say it was God's will. Is it only non-americans who piss off the lord? AMassiveGay (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

We'll know it's god's will when the same tornado sweeps across the US, killing John Hagee, Fred Phelps and Ray Comfort and avoiding everyone else. Until then, I think we can chalk them up to natural causes. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Plus the rest of the world generally have the decency not to say "ooh look! Thousands of your inhabitants are dead. It must because you (or maybe even the hummuseksuels in our country) displeased Magic Man in the Sky." However, there is a certain irony to the Bible Belt getting thumped by God natural disasters. --PsyGremlinTala! 10:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC)It's probably because the ones that are "God's Wrath" are the major ones that are reported. But as you can see from looking at earthquake and storm records there's a fine line in magnitude between what's reported and what isn't reported. It's like 1% that determines whether something overwhelms our preparations and defences or not. If it does, it's Wrath of Khan God. If it doesn't, it may as well not have happened because it isn't reported. And then there's the stuff that's even bigger but never hits populated areas (see here that the deadliest and largest quakes don't often match up). People will just say anything, really. ADK^{...I'll stride your hobgoblin!} 10:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually to expand on ADK's "what we hear compared to what happens" thought - here's a link from the same site, showing the most recent significant earthquakes - Mag 5+. How many of those have you heard of in the news? --PsyGremlin話しなさい 10:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Nutters like this are what make Christians look bad and why many people are turning to atheism. Ex-Troll Cheerleader^{Give me a G, give me an O, give me an A, give me a T, give me an S.GOATS! ♥} 15:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It's people like you who are destroying the world! Oh, sorry... was channeling someone else for a second there... Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 20:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey everybody

I havent been on in a few days, have I missed anything? Ex-Troll Cheerleader^{Give me a G, give me an O, give me an A, give me a T, give me an S.GOATS! ♥} 15:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Just us missing you. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Awh youre so sweet Occarionaluse! <3 Ex-Troll Cheerleader^{Give me a G, give me an O, give me an A, give me a T, give me an S.GOATS! ♥} 15:27, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Big Leagues

I wanted to do a page the convention of using "big x" by critics of a certain industry or organizations and conspiracy theorists to demonize said industry/organization, but I don't know what to call it (I like to call it the "Big Leagues" because of the crank magnet tendency to believe every industry is conspiring against them). Some of the more common ones I've seen:

• Big Pharma
• Big science
• Big Agribusiness/Big Ag/Big Food - Agribusinesses are conspiring to poison the world with GMOs and monopolize the food industry as part of the New World Order (usually Monsanto features heavily, see also useless eaters)
• Big Oil - Usually involved in free energy suppression, also seen some weird theories floating around in the more conspiratorial hard green circles.
• Big Tobacco - Tobacco cos. paid off the GOP to impeach Bill Clinton.
• Big Government - Features in wingnut conspiracy theories
• Big Water - Like Big Food, but with water. Sometimes involves water fluoridation conspiracies or cancer quackery involving bottled water.
• Big Placebo/Big Quacka - I think this was coined by Ben Goldacre to parody this phenomenon. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How about the granddaddy of most of the above, Big Business? ListenerX^TalkerX 04:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I love that picture. IMO, still quite relevant to the modern day (but without the royals)---brxbrx 05:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It is badly out of date, so that now it does not even appear to be accurate. Even back then, the fellow carrying the red flag would have had to be up with the priests, and at least some of the people on the "bourgeois" stratum would have had to be at the edge handing food down to the proles. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm amused that even though it's from "back in the day" it still decides to have "we fool you" written by the priests. ADK^{...I'll lick your glycerin!} 12:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Some sort of fallacy of malignancy, or something like that. The idea that there is an evil controlling central agency effectively sidesteps consensus conclusions of science, for example, without having to attack the philosophical bedrock on which they're based - in other words, that's why anthropocentric climate change isn't occurring even though most scientists think it is, because an evil central authority is subverting the real institution. The same sort of principle is in operation behind why no one thinks Trump stands a chance in 2012 - it's not that reporting or analysis is wrong to do, per se, but rather that a liberal central authority enforces negative coverage. I assume you will make much mention of Andrew Breitbart and his line of websites of that name, by the way?--^talk 00:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

What says "Meh"?

A goat of course. ADK^{...I'll coax your pizza!} 16:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

reh? Тy^Talk. 16:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A royal wedding spectator. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Obama to release long form birth certificate

Just like it says in the headline.

If you think the birthers will shut up now, I have a bridge for sale. MDB (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

please. this is quite obviously a trick to hide the fact that Barack Obama is in fact a homosexual muslim communist from kenya.---brxbrx 13:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It's out!!! OMG I can't wait for WND to write about it!!! Occasionaluse (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

hehe...in true WND fashion, they use dick quotes for 'birth certificate'. And fox news is killing me. "URGENT: OBAMA RELEASES BIRTH CERTIFICATE" lol Occasionaluse (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a clever move. They boost the sideshow of Trump, who is already claiming this is his doing, and help perpetuate the birther issue (which is going to serve them well) by feeding into the controversy and making them even more marginalized. Plus, they screw over Jerome Corsi (author of Obama Nation) who is about to publish (from WND publications) Where's the Birth Certificate?--^talk 14:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It would have been awesome if he released it on April 1, but it was just the shopped Kenyan one. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Step 2: REPEAT. Hahaahahahahahaha.... Occasionaluse (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

EC Bad move, politically. All the talk from the right--and from the early leader in the GOP race--about where Obama was born was crowding out alot of criticism of more important policy stuff. By trying to put an end to the nonsense, it opens up room in the public sphere for stuff that he can't simply wave away, like he could the Donald. Plus, he now looks like the Donald's bitch by taking him seriously. That being said, if the Donald chooses the low road at this point and continues buying into the conspiracy theory, he totally undermines himself. P-Foster (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. He's just killed some of the most popular GOPers that didn't have a chance, and is now more likely to face a sane conservative in 2012. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 14:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

He should have left it until a week before the 2012 election. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 14:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It is more useful to him now, to encourage Trump. If he waits, then the circus will have left town. This way, he ensures the clowns are taken seriously for a lot longer. This is an issue that works for Obama, he wants to keep it around as long as he can. He wants to get people competing - it's in his interest to have a long and bitter GOP fight, not this long-delayed quiet one where no one really wants to get in the race.--^talk 14:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this was an incredibly politically shrewd move. This is enough to strengthen the cracks in the Republican's base. The right-wing extremists will continue their birther conspiracy, and Donald Trump will become their hero. Meanwhile, independents (who will decide the election) and moderate Republicans will renounce it and it won't be a talking point anymore, really. This has further marginalised the Tea Party movement, or at least it will, if they keep pressing it. Any Republican candidate for 2012 has to placate both the Tea Party/extreme-right AND appeal to the moderates/independents. This will be much, much harder to do over the coming months. Good work, Obama. ^EXTERMINATE 16:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You could be right Dalek. Looking at a very active Tea Party forum, they're not buying it. "It's a certificate of live birth! WHERE'S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE!" "He's trying to hide something!" "If you look at it in photoshop, there's something funny there!". The Tea Party isn't buying it - but independents will. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 16:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

if the Donald chooses the low road at this point

now he takes the low road? Any lower would have him calling Obama gay and sayin his wife is a transexual---brxbrx 16:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You saw it here first. Our president is gay, and Michelle is a tranny. And I guess I can never run for president. Michigan has "certificates of live birth" instead of "birth certificates" Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 19:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The "Obama is gay" claim is already out there. During the campaign, some guy whose name escapes me, claimed to have had sex with Obama, along with smoking crack with him. Note that he has a history of blackmail attempts against African-American politicians, as well as a history of mental illness. That didn't stop people from taking him seriously, though. MDB (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The Onion hits it out of the park. for the headline alone. P-Foster (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No more eating and drinking by the computer for me, nearly choked. But that isn't far off "release your college records!" is it? Obama satisfies their lust for conspiracy with one thing, they just shift it to another. Makes me fucking sick to be honest. ADK^{...I'll spit your muffinface!} 17:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The Onion's really on today: Trump Unable To Produce Certificate Proving He's Not A Festering Pile Of Shit. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Blue (pester) 00:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it was Rich Hall who said Trump produced two birth certificates, one for him and another for that thing resting on his head masquerading as hair. ADK^{...I'll crinkle your cable!} 23:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

So I saw the actual video of the announcement. He always comes off like an exasperated teacher in these speeches -- "Now settle down children wingnuts, we have classwork public policy to do." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Obama's birth certificate (from WIGO CP)

Okay, so, question about this recent birth certificate business. What's the difference between the one released recently and the one released... a while back? The new one is apparently a long-form certificate? Iunno. Can anyone explain, or link to somewhere? Atreus (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. the short form is legal, and more than sufficient for citizenship. The long form just has all the details.. It was just a way to keep the thing going, despite having done what needed to be done. it was, and will likely continue to be, fucking ridiculous. Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 18:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks. That's what I thought, but I didn't have the time to google anything about it. I did notice the short-form had the same date and time, so I assume either one is legit, or they're both made-up. I wonder which one is more likely :P

And another question i have, then... Why didn't he provide the long-form in the first place? It would have shut everyone up... Atreus (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

From what I understand, regulations particular to Hawaii mean you have to jump through a few more hoops than normal to get ahold of a full birth certificate. The effort of doing so for the sake of shutting up a few mad yowlings probably seemed (and I would say was) too burdensome at the time. Grumblejaws (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The short form is the only publicly available form, ordinarily; it's a computer-generated form with almost all the same information. The long form is the original, of which these are certified true copies. There is almost no new information.--^talk 22:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Just as a point, there's no new relevant information. There's lots of detailed information.. name of the hospital, name of the doctor, birthplaces of the parents, parents jobs at time of birth.. There may be more, as I don't know what Hawaii has on theirs.. Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 22:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm just wondering where I can get the potent crack Andy's smoking. From the WIGO, according to him, this new certificate gives extra details proving that Obama was born to a 'foreign parent just visiting America' (link to capturebot image). From what I can see, it actually indicates that his mother was born in Kansas, was living in Honolulu when he was born, and his father was in living America whilst attending university, not merely 'visiting'. 86.162.90.175 (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What the hell, world affairs

Doesn't this piss anyone else off? Seriously, look at the speculation over why Obama released the thing. It's all about how Obama is trying to undermine the GOP and so on, and at least some of it is probably true. Doesn't that annoy anyone else? That announcements like this have to be analysed to such a ridiculous depth?

I usually just go along with it and do it myself, because it seems normal, but every now and then I get hit with this weird moment of clarity; this is fucking insane. We shouldn't have to deeply analyse what a political leader says, framing it in terms of how it's helping their chances of re-election/hurting the other parties rather than helping the country, we shouldn't have to second guess what newspapers say because they're pushing an agenda and are known to publish lies/misinformation. But we do. The world has created a ridiculously complex system of lies and dodgy dealing that we've locked ourselves into and it drives me mad sometimes. X Stickman (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, pretty much. I doubt this incident will even be a blip on the radar come Nov. 2012. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? You actually believe that this wasn't a fundamentally political move that needs to be understood as such? P-Foster (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

What? No. I think this *is* an important thing that *does* have political ramifications. I think that the decision to release the certificate now was a calculated one rather than an "OKAY HERE IT IS NOW SHUT UP" thing. What annoys me is all of that. Why can't politics just be "How can we make the country better" rather than some ridiculously retarded war between the parties, each move calculated to get their own people into power rather than actually doing the job they're supposed to do. That's what politics is, and it pisses me off. We've grown to accept it, for some reason, even when it is *literally* batshit insane. If our current system of politics didn't exist, and you proposed it, you'd be laughed at. X Stickman (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Additional: I guess to summarise it in as short a way as possible: analysing it = right, the fact that we have to analyse it = wrong. X Stickman (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It can all be traced back to people being massively stupid. --62.142.167.134 (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree entirely with BoN. Sure, it'd be great if we didn't need to be like this, but people don't just vote rationally on the issues. I -do- think that this is a shrewd political move. It's been _CLEAR_ that nothing would change the conspiracy theorists' minds. A home video of Obama being born, surrounded by white nurses and doctors, with a hawaiian landscape outside wouldn't change their minds. They hate Obama, possibly for racial reasons, and it's been pretty spiteful. Obama has dropped his birth certificate into the news at exactly the right time, cleverly - to make it harder for potential Republican candidates. ^EXTERMINATE 20:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what I've been thinking for years. Why can't we keep the politics out of politics? Why can't someone just do their fucking job without dickheads screaming "That guy once jaywalked when he was nine!! Throw him out!". Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

"The world has created a ridiculously complex system of lies and dodgy dealing that we've locked ourselves into and it drives me mad sometimes." There is a serious hypothesis that chimpanzee tribal politics as an evolutionary runaway is precisely why we grew this ridiculously resource-intensive peacock's tail of a brain - that the easiest way to convince the other chimp to give you the fruit was to actually evolve intelligence to work out the layers of "I know you know I know you know ...", and quantum physics and a huge technological civilisation are mere side-effects of the very hardest problem known to humanity, which is to figure out the other humans. So I think you're stuck with this one - David Gerard (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

FORGERY!

This youtube video has gold in the comments. There are literally dozens of forensic document examiners (i.e. anyone who has ever made a PDF) commenting every minute. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

It just goes to show how utterly stupid they are. Do they really believe that the White House would release a forgery that can be easily discovered by anyone with a copy of Adobe Illustrator? If it were a forgery, it would be far more sophisticated. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 20:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Lots of them think he's "stupid like a fox" for doing it because a professionally forged COLB would have looked legit. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

My favorite comment so far:

“”Obama spent millions avoiding the long form bc but sent out an image that was layered? If what was put on the wh website was changed and resaved, who would know for sure? (Only people who downloaded it.) I just find it hard to believe that a sloppy photo shop was put out unless it was deliberate. Haven't they been saying that the "birthers" would never be satisfied? This administration is Machiavellian. Watch for more "wag the dog" politics before the election--like lowering gas prices, etc LIBERTYinPERIL

Junggai (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm anywhere near an expert, but all PDFs I've seen tend to have those sorts of layers because if they scan from original documents they often engage in some OCR for compression and search reasons. ADK^{...I'll neuter your autobiography!} 21:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Further proof that pdf files are incredibly annoying. X Stickman (talk) 22:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

OH SHEE-YIT!! IT HAZ LAYERZ!!!11!!!! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

To paraphrase the immortal words of cp:Alger Hiss, "In the future the way that Barack Obama was able to carry out forgery by typewriter will be disclosed." nobs^{don't bother me} 02:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Quote Time!

“”"Proof is boring. Proof is tiresome. Proof is an irrelevance. People would far rather be handed an easy lie than search for a difficult truth, especially if it suits their own purposes."

—Joe Abercrombie, Last Argument of Kings

Orly Taitz is on Lawrence O'Donnell right now...

Must watch. Nutty Roux (talk) 00:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

She didn't say "birth certificate" once. Hahaha. Occasionaluse (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Incredible. Must see. Nutty Roux (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Professional journalism needs a template. 04:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That was one of the finest bits of television ever - David Gerard (talk) 09:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but I felt the interviewer got a bit carried away. He could have kept a bit calmer and just kept asking the questions ala Paxman. I suspect that there will be lots of birthers who felt Orly won that round. --Damo^Hi 09:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Obama's just a sucky president

And that's why people are so desperate to get rid of him. DMorris2 (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

That perception would more than adequately explain the astonishing levels of dishonest coming from the right. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Do your parents know you're using the computer for things other than Farmville? ADK^{...I'll dehydrate your raid!} 23:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Mafia Wars is more of my game. DMorris2 (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

We should be Facebook pals. I'll bet we have a lot in common and would get along real well. Nutty Roux (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

DMorris, there was bullshit on the Internet about Obama being the antichrist during the primary season, and birther rumors were circulating before Obama took office. Try fact checking every once in a while. ATP (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

If he were a good president, do you really think so many people would be determined to oust him, including people that supported him in the election? Maybe the reason people were so desperate to stop him before he took office is because he was a terrible Senator? DMorris2 (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

The existence of birthers do not prove that Obama is a poor president, it only proves that there are unfortunately many people in the US who have a hard time accepting non-white people as Real Americans^TM. Your argument is really, really ridiculous. ATP (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So the masses were wrong when they elected him but now that they agree with you it validates your position? --62.142.167.134 (talk) 00:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah man, I guess I'm not gonna be president because I'm not all white, I'm only half white. The other half is Asian. DMorris2 (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suppose if you run you'd best have your long-form birth certificate, your kindergarten report cards, and a picture of you being delivered onto an American flag in order to prove that you're not part of a diabolical crypto-muslim-commie plot. ATP (talk) 00:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I will give you a serious answer: Define "good". Political opinion, particularly in the US is highly polarised. Indeed, a recent issue of New Scientist effectively concludes that no democratic system is 100% fair, so there will always be individuals - who will be heard loudest because dissenting opinions and complains are more likely to be vocalised than simple approval or, to use the technical term, "meh" - who will not like the leader. Political actions and opinions are also multi-faceted and spectral. An indiviudal may view one political action as "good" but the same individual may view another action, by the same politician, as "bad". Another individual may see the opposite. You might genuinely think (although I fear it may be your groomers on Conservapedia and your favoured TV talking heads just telling you what to think) that Obama is "sucky" but that doesn't make that opinion objective, or true. Even if political approval ratings dropped below something as low as 10% it's not possible to say, objectively, that they're a "bad" person as it is possible for 90% of the population to be wrong. ADK^{...I'll rebel your Nintendo 64!} 09:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

One question that has not been asked too often :re Obama's birth certificate?

Why won't Hawaii, without making a discretionary exception, release long-form birth certificates? The real story behind Terrence Lakin is that he already knew Hawaii wouldn't release a long-form birth certificate for his daughter in Hawaii. I can understand restricting the public from birth record access, but why restrict the individual who for a variety of reasons may need his record? ConservapediaEditor (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, the birth certificates were digitized. Not all information was required or necessary, so it was not digitized. Apparently, the real copies are on file, but it's not required (or worth it) to retrieve it. Read the bottom of the "short form". Occasionaluse (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Then, charge a higher fee for access. However, the fact that government has vital information about you that you can never access (unless you're the President) is ridiculous. This has cost way more for the State of Hawaii rather than if they had allowed Obama to request the long form to begin with. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 00:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If demand keeps up, I'm sure they'll establish such a program. I don't think it's as easy as being the crazy guy with a fistful of dollars demanding a document he has no real need for.

It's not "vital information". Not at all. Did you read the bottom of the birth certificate Obama originally released? Occasionaluse (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait...On second thought, isn't that program the FOIA? Occasionaluse (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Does FOIA allow any private citizen to request his or her original birth certificate? ConservapediaEditor (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

You are allowed to see your own original birth certificate. The state of Hawaii is very restrictive of who else is allowed to see it. - π 01:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this question is, in Obama's words, a sideshow and quite a major red herring. "Why don't they just release it?" is completely beside the point because the short form is adequate identification and proof for all government and non-government purposes. Asking it of Obama was just a ruse to draw the whole manufactorversy out as long as they could. What does the "long" version give out that the "short" one doesn't? Little to nothing. Indeed, it's like me handing you a print out of a photograph showing event X and you then demanding (to ensure event X is real) the 1s and 0s of the original JPEG file with the meta-data of what camera it was taken on. (and before anyone talks about photoshopping in that analogy, I should point out that there's only one instance of photoshopping in the whole birth certificate thing and the birther muppets fell for it hook, line and sinker despite its obvious absurdities.) ADK^{...I'll affiliate your chisel!} 09:56, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

More birther fun

Washington Post Times gets it totally backwards. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That makes me cry from my face... ADK^{...I'll recollect your attorney!} 22:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to regret this, but where do you usually cry from then? Тy^Talk. 12:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

From my anus, of course. ADK^{...I'll seize your cellulite!} 12:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm never watching chick flicks with you again. --PsyGremlinParla! 12:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

No, wait, that's bleeding. I keep getting those two confused. ADK^{...I'll negate your Playstation 2!} 17:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

A dash of idiocy

WorldNetDaily is really bunkering down. My favorite part though:

In the Nordyke twins' birth certificate, in Box 20, "Date Accepted by Local Reg." and Box 22, "Date Accepted by Reg. General," the date is stamped "AUG 11 1961," while the date is stamped on Obama's birth certificate as "AUG -8 1961," with a dash before the middle number designating the day.

Some of these differences may be explained by different people preparing the documents on different typewriters, yet how two different formats appear in the date stamp used in Boxes 20 and 22 is more difficult to explain if the Obama birth certificate is legitimate.

Really, they can't work out where the dash came from. - π 23:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Wait... the stupidity just caught up with me... the idiot actually can't see that it's the holding place for the tens unit?? Wow... just wow. I feel like writing to him and sharing my wisdom. --PsyGremlinFale! 12:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

WND is really ramping things up now His parents need to be "American" - once again, conveniently ignoring his mother's citizenship and If Soetoro adopted him, he's no longer American. --PsyGremlinPraat! 09:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I was still surprised when Farah just came out and said Obama is ineligible. He has danced around it for so long, but he has finally thrown his hat in with the crazies. - π 10:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

So I wrote to Corsi, saying "Surely you must realise that the "-" is simply the placeholder for the > tens unit on the adjustable stamp. It could just as easily have said > "0". Unfortunately, when you make such fundamental errors in trying to promote your conspiracy, the rest of your arguments tend to lose credibility too. The horse is dead, Mr Corsi, it's time to stop flogging it."

The reply is pure conservative style "You rush to judgement -- I noted a difference. I did not make the argument you imply I made, namely that the difference proves a forgery. Good-bye."

It seems that conservatives are generally a miserable bunch. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 16:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Nice, add it to his article. - π 02:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Inter-wiki pictures

So apparently we can use Wikipedia pictures without first uploading them here. For example [[File:Syrian Demonstration Douma Damascus 08-04-2011.jpg]] is, as far as I'm aware, not in RationalWiki's list of pictures. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's been abused recently, most notably by someone putting a vaguely pornographic image on the sexual intercourse page. Even "pornographic" Wikipedia thought this image didn't belong in their sexual intercourse article, and took it off the page. My main concern is that we can't mark such pictures with the NSFW tag that stops them from automatically appearing. A secondary concern is that it lets BoNs unable to upload images use WP's vast library of pictures to do whatever they want - not that their wandalism is hard to fix, it's just, I dunno... does anyone else see that as a problem? I'd consider the first part as definitely a problem. Thunderkatz^Ho! 07:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

All I'd suggest is removing upload rights from BONs & non-sysops. --Scream!! (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC) Stricken: silly me! --Scream!! (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the benefits of the system outweigh the potential problems like this. Wikimedia Commons are vetted as under the right copyright license and this data is transcluded across when we use them. It essentially cuts out the middle-man of searching through Commons, saving the image and uploading it here while copying over the relevant data. If it means we're at risk of people transferring some of Wikipedia's free porn across, then I think it's worth it. We would just have to be vigilant and revert as needed, even suppress the edits if we feel it's too much of an abuse. Images should also have adult tags on them so that they're automatically hidden, but I'm not sure if that's included with the shared repository. ADK^{...I'll swirl your cake!} 09:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It only works for filenames which are not hosted on RW. I uploaded an innocuous smiley to replace the commons image that was posted at cunt. But by and large it's up to community policing.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of the days when I was uploading pictures of my friends to the main page. Anybody here remember Brianna and Julie? Ex-Troll Cheerleader^{Give me a G, give me an O, give me an A, give me a T, give me an S.GOATS! ♥} 15:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, guess what. You CAN put __NSFW__ onto a commons image and it'll work. -- Nx / talk 10:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Royal Wedding live on TV

Yuk! Yuk! Yuk! Spew! Spew! Spew! Hurry up and make it finish already.... --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You can turn off the TV, you moron. ħuman 04:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

My mother threatened me with death because I phoned her just as Kate arrived at the church. Still, let's hope she doesn't follow in Diana's skidmarks... --PsyGremlinSpeak! 11:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

What an embarassing day to be British. ^EXTERMINATE 11:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How so? I think it's being carried off very well. Americans, take note, this is how you do patriotism - you do it gracefully and when foreigners are watching; you don't wield it like a bludgeon and use it on your own countrymen. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 11:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I will admit that I find this stuff fascinating, and I enjoyed watching the wedding.

I will also confess that I whinnied once when Camilla was shown. (My niece was born shortly before Charles married her. I was holding said niece while the wedding was on TV, and I looked at her and said, "Her name is Camilla Parker-Bowles. Can you say 'horse-faced'?" My mother said "I think she's pretty", to which I replied, "would you have preferred 'horse-faced man-stealing bitch'?" MDB (talk) 11:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Granted I don't really care about it and I'm channel hopping between BBC One and Comedy Central during the commercials, but as EddyP said, a very patriotic yet elegant display of Britishness. Nothing embarrassing in it at all. SJ ^Debaser 12:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

They nicked pretty much all the music I had at mine. So they have taste. ADK^{...I'll exemplify your rabbit!} 12:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit, a combination of Anglophilia and morbid curiosity made me want to check the damn thing out, but I sure as hell wasn't going to stay up all night or get up at 4 AM. Then the perfect solution hit me: get drunk and pass out on the couch with the TV on. I wake up at 4:30 like clockwork whenever I do that, and slowly drift back into slumber. As a bonus, being half asleep gives you an interesting and slightly hallucinatory take on it. Playing "was that part real or a dream?" hours later is quite a bit of fun.

Were there trees inside? DickTurpis (talk) 12:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Er... yes, for some reason. Best part is, half the people in Westminster probably couldn't even see the ceremony, due to the layout. Also, I liked her dress. And Kate is flippin' hot. --PsyGremlinPraat! 12:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

QILF! ADK^{...I'll edify your President of the United States!} 12:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If that stands for what I think it stands for, you do realize that Kate isn't queen yet, and the one who does fit that moniker is something like 90? DickTurpis (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand that. But I have yet to figure out a shorter and wittier way of expressing it. ADK^{...I'll bust your nystagmus!} 12:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

PILF taken? Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 13:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If we get Liz to abdicate, then have Charles openly declare his madness, we're sorted. ADK^{...I'll explicate your nuclear reactor!} 12:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking at some old stamps here and Lizzie used to be well hot. --PsyGremlinSprich! 12:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Why does that feel like saying "I'm looking at some old photographs and my mother used to be well hot"? ADK^{...I'll vomit your alfalfa!} 13:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Something like this? SJ ^Debaser 13:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Wills is quite attractive, too -- except for the misfortune of having his father's ears. MDB (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

As has been pointed out a few times on the net, William looks just like his father. Harry also looks like his father. Bondurant (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to wonder how pissed Harry is going to be tonight. ADK^{...I'll fill your squibble!} 13:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Is he attached? I'd lay odds that he's going to try the good old tradition of the best man attempting to cop off with the chief bridesmaid. Who, I have to say, outshone Kate. Bondurant (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Isn't he still shagging Chelsey Davey? Also, best thing about the whole wedding? The Dobermann Camilla now has to call Kate "Your highness" wa! ha! Ha! ha! --PsyGremlinParlez! 13:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been wondering if the menu for the reception includes a bag of oats for Camilla, myself... MDB (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Two mudbloods in line for the throne, she'll have to watch out for white Fiats. ADK^{...I'll deter your lemming!} 13:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Does Camilla have to address Kate as "Your Highness"? I would have thought at the very least it would be the other way around, since Camilla is the consort to the next monarch. Bondurant (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

They both have HRH titles... I suppose when they talk to each other it's like dividing through by zero. ADK^{...I'll construct your thumbtack!} 13:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Is making fun of Camilla for being ugly much different then Ken making fun of people for being fat? DickTurpis (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No. And I can't see how she's that "ugly". She's just average. ADK^{...I'll incarcerate your ox!} 13:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Because she is. We're not saying 'la la she's ugly because she's an atheist." We're just saying she's ugly. Fact. And AFAIK Camilla isn't HRH and won't be when Charles is King either. She's only King's Consort (or something) and that isn't an HRH title. But I could be wrong. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Still seems like puerile "Ha ha! You're ugly!" shit to me. She seems pretty much universally disliked, and I can't help but think that wouldn't be the case so much if she were beautiful. DickTurpis (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sure, spil my catty fun by making me feel all guilty. MDB (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I always thought Diana was a bit fugly. At least Bonnie Prince Charlie likes Camilla. ħuman 04:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I thought the same about the HRH, but upon checking Wikipedia to verify, it appears she is. Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 14:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, she has HRH, it's "Princess of Wales" that she doesn't have. ADK^{...I'll shake your cheeseburger!} 14:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Really? Because as per that link, she clearly has "Princess of Wales".. She just chooses not to use it, to avoid confusion with Di. Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 14:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, misread it. I see. Though not in the way that Fergie "just doesn't use it" :P ADK^{...I'll roll your rucksack!} 14:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've got a drinking game going - I take a shot every time they're irrelevant. Someone call me an ambulance. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

QILF is currently a trending topic on Twitter. Let's see the BBC report that one... –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

PILF!! PILF!!! Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 16:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You have to admire the Internet for its sheer audacity. ADK^{...I'll hurt your Suzuki!} 16:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

The clog we've all been waiting for: The Worst Dressed of the Wedding. Done in that arbitrary style that only fashion commentators can do. But no mention of Beatrice's Cthulu hat! ADK^{...I'll stink your teabag!} 17:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That's because she's in the best dressed section. The hat is "fun [and] eye catching". I shit you not. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 17:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do the younger generation appear to be wearing their hats on their foreheads? I don't think I'll ever understand fashion. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could embed.. I don't want to upload it.. The point of fashion. Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 18:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've managed to avoid news of it for the most part -- as 'Murrican, the royal family is just Princess Di and homeopathy to me. But WTF? This is fashion? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Best dressed? What in the fuck? I swear, when it turns out that David Ike is correct and they reveal themselves as alien lizard creatures, that hat will have turned out to be their symbol. ADK^{...I'll recollect your road!} 21:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A picture is worth...

I think the attitudes of the kids in this photo perfectly encapsulate the British public today. I'm totally down with the one on the left. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

is he trying out for a role in a Gilbert and Sullivan show, or is that the way the British Army dresses these days ? 67.72.98.47 (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a fairly standard dress uniform. Although William getting smashed and trying to sing "I am the very model of a modern heir to the throne" would be something I'd pay to see. ADK^{...I'll bomb your ostrich egg!} 08:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Fuck you, Ken Ham.

The poor don't need your money, Ken Ham does. As if non-Christians are going to go in to the wilds of Kentucky (A tourist hot spot!) to be preached at at a fundagelical amusement church. Some days I see the lure of believing in the supernatural. If there are demonic forces at work, it would help to explain Ken Ham. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It makes sense to me. The Bible never quotes Christ as saying that we should give to the needy. Instead, it clearly says that he wanted his followers to build a kitschy theme park instead. Oh, but whom am I kidding? Everyone knows that if a Bible verse can't be used against the unholy trinity of abortion, homosexuality, and modern science, then we're free to ignore it. ... of liberals? (talk) 01:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, "fundangelical" would be a better portmanteau than "fundagelical". - Gameboy (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

They could, of course, always quote what Jesus said (Matthew 26:10-11) when his disciples sniped at similar wasteful behavior on his part: "Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always." ListenerX^TalkerX 03:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

So now atheists don't build hospitals, churches, or theme parks... --PsyGremlinTal! 08:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it would be a point in atheists' favor. I hate theme parks. - Gameboy (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

So where do I go from here?

This is Ex-Troll Cheerleader, and I take it everybody hates me now. Im sad to see that. So is this really the end? :( Alyssa Bryant (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

if you're of legal age, you could post some nudes. That would make us like you again.---brxbrx 20:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

A1) just not cool. B2) I think she said she's starting high school next year. Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 20:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

damn, quaru, you're a prude. well, xtc, looks like you're doomed to be disliked, if you're too young to provide nudes (but you could always get back at us/me by making accusations of pedophilia. After all, you were just asked for nudes---brxbrx 20:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

In full 419 Eater style, it would have to be nude pics while holding a sign saying "RationalWiki is the BESTEST place in Teh WORLDS!!11" ADK^{...I'll golf your snorkel!} 21:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Why would everyone hate you?--^talk 00:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

'Cuz they, by proxy, went on a massive vandal spree this morning. Granted, they gave out their password at a website for trolls, but still. They are not trustworthy. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 00:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well that was very poor judgment on her part.--^talk 00:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Putting it nicely, yeah. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 00:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I see she lost her userrights already, so that's good. Shouldn't get them back again. Why would someone want to hang out here if they were going to be such a constant jackass with stunts like that, anyway?--^talk 00:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The "Wikipedia crat" got bored? Lol. Rationalize (talk) 00:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ So wait, your name's Alyssa Bryant now? -- Nx / talk 04:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

'everybody hates me now'

I don't hate you. I'm not sure who you are, but I wasn't sure about that to start with. I've looked at recentchanges, and read all the comments from this recent mini-HCM, and I can't really see what this changes. I still like you, in a sort of cautious way. I'm still your friend, but I'm not going to be lending you my priceless ming vase anytime soon. :p

And I might be wrong, but I don't many other people hate you exactly. Not everyone, at least.

This was probably badly written and poorly expressed, but hey, it's pretty late here. I wasn't even going to edit RW today. Grumble grumble. Mei III (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Is dislike the same thing as what someone impersonating a teenage girl would call "hate"? Nutty Roux (talk) 04:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It's obviously Marcus messing about. Helped by his sock brxbrx. (And hi Ty.)

What the fuck is wrong with you? Nutty Roux (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you want? Тy^Talk. 18:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Most batshit Teabagger site ever?

Witness the guano. Also, Trump is a RINO. And Jooish bank$stahs control everything. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

this is reminiscent of time cube---brxbrx 02:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Considering the vast Commie-Jew conspiracy here and the support for re-regulating banking, I'm thinking this what it would look like if Father Coughlin were reincarnated and decided to make a website. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear... ADK^{...I'll coax your Etch-a-Sketch!} 08:57, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think this takes the cake: Japan was going to close US military bases, so Rothschild used HAARP to create the earthquake --PsyGremlinTal! 09:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I swear people just make up conspiracies for the sake of making up conspiracies. ADK^{...I'll shave your telephone!} 10:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It's like a rule 34 for conspiracy theories -- if you can think of it, there's a conspiracy theory about it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Article complete, add more Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I like that Rothschild one. I'd quote stuff, but really, it's a gold mine, just go read it. ħuman 04:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Timecube Law ATP (talk) 05:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Genitalia?

so I'm sort of in and out of wiki contact over the next few days, but I just checked in and noticed a lot of edits related to images of vaginas. What's up with the pics? We need them? P-Foster (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Nx was marking them NSFW, there have been genitalia vandals recently. Тy^Talk. 17:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Some b-tard, I think. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay who wants to start a band called Genitalia Vandals? I call harmonica. X Stickman (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Me. I want to play acoustic guitar and sax. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 20:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Who'll do orals - I mean vocals? RagTop^{Gone sailing} 22:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I can sing. I can also do lead guitar. I know some pretty mean licks. Senator Harrison (talk) 00:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm also good at fingering (the fret board). Senator Harrison (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Make it Genitalia Vandals Project and you've got the start of a pretty decent prog band. ADK^{...I'll coach your lentil soup!} 00:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I sing baritone, and play the viola. Тy^Talk. 01:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Next step...Immortality

Saw this news today. How soon until I am able to live forever? AMassiveGay (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Not soon. But have this to cheer you up.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 11:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Goddammit I want to live forever. Until science makes it happen, it can suck my balls. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Mortality is scary. That's why an afterlife appeals to so many. But it depends on how immortality is expressed. If you still get older, that would still suck. If you cease aging, that would be bad for society. If you cease aging, and it's not found until your old, that would still be lame. Only time will tell. Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 21:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, if you could literally halt the aging and development process, how many batshit insane parents would do it to their children to keep them as children forever? You see so much of people keeping them smothered and refusing to let them grow up that it's a scary prospect to enable that to literally happen. ADK^{...I'll bamboozle your copy-paste!} 12:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ohinternet

It's old news already, but I just actually tried to read the new site and...wow. This is pathetic. Seems like the owners are only trying to attract advertisers...which is no use if you have nobody reading this crap.

ED was a nice source of comedy for the people who didn't care. I was one of them. Wish I would have contributed more...

Ah well. Trying Uncyclopedia now...Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 03:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ohinternet always seemed like a copy-paste job of Know Your Meme. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

ED's still alive. http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Main_Page Webbtje (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Mike Luckovich Cartoon

I doubt the cartoonist even knows what CP is, but this cartoon is a pretty accurate depiction of what it's like debating on CP (minus a banhammer.) MDB (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, who's stupid idea was it to have a massively annoying anti-theft "NO!!!" sign when you mouseover it... when if you're desperate for a copy you can just hit "print screen". Really, talk about fucking up the user experience that I have to keep perfectly still to read their content. This is the dumbest thing I've seen yet amongst the art-theft paranoid. But when I'd figured out how to read it, yeah, that's pretty much what all the anti-Obama lot are like. Though on the internet they'd have gone to blocking after the second panel. ADK^{...I'll speak your hotel!} 12:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit, what are they trying to achieve? Prevent me from seeing a context menu and saying "Save image" or something? To bad there's an obvious direct link to the image in the page source and at any rate the image is already on my drive anyway.

My company does occasionally license stock photography and syndicated cartoons for various publications but we would never buy from anyone that testy and puerile. It's not conscious policy, but whoever would happen to be the one fishing for images that day would shrug and move on as a matter of course. We can't be the only ones to feel put off by passive-aggressive crap like that. Mountain Blue (talk) 12:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I've screengrabbed it, just to piss'em off. Hopefully. It's be easier and nicer to block downloading from the site with a polite explanantion, wouldn't it? 81.158.167.106 (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Good cartoon. In other news, I don't get that "No" thing - must be a No Script thing. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 13:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that was a hugely offputting unwelcome surprise. (Went straight to the toon without reading what you all had to say about it. For science, of course, to keep my view unbiased.) Disabling javascript in my browser preferences got rid of it.

Now there is a copy of it in my waste basket. Those morons. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

So doesn't anyone think that we could use $125 of the foundation funds to post it here for 12 months?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia

I just noticed WP have turned off open editing, i.e. from IP address. When did that happen? --PsyGremlin말하십시오 13:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I can still edit as an ip, I just get a message saying it will be recorded. <patronising> Are you sure you got a non semi-protected page </patronising> NDSP 13:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Same here 81.158.167.106 (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

<equally patronising>Given that it was for a non-league football side, no. Hmmm, that's strange - after logging in, editing, and logging out again, I can edit as an IP. Odd. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 13:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

<even more patronising>Were you trying to edit the cache? 81.158.167.106 (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

<possibly the most patronising physically possible>Are you sure it was actually switched on and you weren't confused by the tipex left on the monitor from the last time you made a spelling mistake? ADK^{...I'll devour your sacrifice!} 14:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I hate you all. --PsyGremlinPraat! 14:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you were looking at Wikipedia and not a standard paper encyclopedia? Those tend to be difficult to edit. DickTurpis (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't you just hate it when you can't find the edit button on a book. ADK^{...I'll shove your fat!} 14:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to feel like one of those guys from Alabama describing a sighting. "But... but... it weren't there. There wuz a light and there weren't no edit buttons there. An' I knew I weren't dreamin' cuz I wuz still chewing the corn Daisy Sue given down at the County Fair. An' I wuz lookin' and lookin' and weren't no edit button. Then these guys came and stuck a probe in my ass." --PsyGremlinParlez! 14:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I can only suppose that you got WP confused with a real encyclopaedia, like that one which Phyllis Schlafly's son started.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Genuine Prophets

Parodying people painted orange with impossibly white teeth for 30 years now. --Brendiggg (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

School's out

A bit longer than "for summer" for me, though. This term was really not my best, and I ended up with a crisis of confidence as things went on. So I failed myself. Not my actual marks (which I don't have), those are probably fine, but in my mind I didn't reach a sufficient level to move forward. So I'm going to take this term over again next year, regardless of whether I pass or fail. Which means back to working on my own for 8 months and back at it in January. Not the best result, but not a tragedy either. At least I'm more certain than ever that I'm headed in the right direction. --Kels (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Good luck, enjoy your break. Тy^Talk. 15:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Bit harsh isn't it Kels? I suggest looking at it a few more ties in the cold, light of day (and at least twice with your actual marks in your hands) before deciding for certain. --PsyGremlinTal! 15:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I've talked to quite a few folks at the school about it, and it's looking like a smart choice. Confidence in your abilities is a big part of this business, and that's a lot of what's at the heart of all this. It's not an uncommon thing either, so I was able to chat with people who did the same thing and had good results. Traditional animation is a difficult skill (or rather dozen or so skills at once) to master, it takes more time for some folks. --Kels (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Confidence is going to be one of those things that is more important than the marks. Even if you pass with flying colours that is meaningless if you can't take it on board and be happy about it. I know people who get 90% and are critical and self-doubting, I know people who get 50% but are happy and confident - and it's the latter that's most likely to succeed. Do think about it again when you know if you pass or fail, though. There's no point committing yourself to something that you really don't need to do. ADK^{...I'll explicate your igloo!} 16:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Confidence is a preference of the habitual voyeur of what is known as...

No, but seriously, good luck Kels. SJ ^Debaser 19:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You have to do whatever you're happiest with. So, good luck and get in the practice to boost your confidence for next time.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty much what it comes down to, a very personal journey to build my skills and generally synthesize all the skills I built over the past two years. One thing that does make me hopeful is some of the best animators in this years crop of graduates repeated the year as well. --Kels (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Lovecraft in a classroom

I have a compulsive need to share this video and there seem to be a few Lovecraft fans on here (or at least a notable amount of references): --Danfly (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

the beginning's frantic tone reminds me of the music of Eric Zahn---brxbrx 21:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Princess Beatrice's hat could be the height of Lovecraft fashion...unless it's Medusa. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I love the idea, but the narrator's voice was too annoying for me to get through more than half of it. Thunderkatz^Ho! 02:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

My Last Free Summer

After graduating high school three years ago, I decided to take a year off to figure out what I was going to do with my life. Number one priority? Make sure I wanted to be a teacher. Then I took another year off when the economy bit the bullet. Last year, I worked construction to save up money. After keeping maturity at arms length for so long, I finally applied for college (granted, I was going to give up my spot to my sister to help ease my parent's burden). This September, I will be entering the paralegal program at Loyalist college.

My plans for my last free summer? Beat Final Fantasy 5 and 6 and finish watching Shin Mazinger.--Thanatos (talk) 02:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

sounds like a fairly mature set of actions actually :) Paralogal can be interesting work and may be a step to a law degree. Teaching is admirable in my opinion but I did not enjoy it at all. Good luck with your studies. Hamster (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I approve of the FF 6 part especially. Wish they'd get around to making a DS port for that one. --Kels (talk) 04:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Some parting words from the resident cheerleader

Thanks guys (and girls) for all the good times. Since my account was hacked I dont see any reason to continue here since no one here will ever trust me again. If the person who hacked my account is reading this, thank you. Thank you a lot. Thank your ass, I wish it a very jolly fucking. People commit suicide over trolls on the internet. I can appreciate that, I can understand why. Suicide is peaceful. Suicide is enticing. Suicide is a nice way out.
Its no secret that I did not originally come in good faith. I broadcasted it with my username, Ex-Troll Cheerleader. Once a sysop. Now blocked and binned. Fuck my life. Theres a few things people here dont know. One thing is that I posted my login credentials back in my days of being a troll and it just took them this long to find it. I did it because I at the time thought it would be funny. I wanted to see what some random troll would do with my old SRQ girl account. I never posted Ex-Troll Cheerleader there but I unfortunately used a very similar password for the account. Be careful what you wish for,
Then you have the mailinator thing. I cant remember who it was but I wanted to hide my email address from someone who I was emailing. It was probably MC or Dmorris or someone, I dont fucking know. Anyone else here want to share their email address with those assholes? I just never changed it to my real email box. Then we have Nx thinking Im male apparently because of something in the mailbox. Considering Im looking at the right one theres absolutely nothing there. All I can figure is hes trying to railroad me or he found some Viagra spam. Big fucking deal, Ive made brand new email accounts with an obviously feminine name that received Viagra spam that same day. Woop woop!
Then theres the fact that in real life I have no life. I have no friends. I was a cheerleader. But then something happened. Im not going to go into the specifics because I dont want people trying to feel sorry for me, I wont stand for that, but all I can say is my life sucks. I was once beautiful, I was once popular, but its all gone. Now all I have is some old cheer friends that email me on occasion and the rest is all but a memory. Some are in high school, some are in college, fuck some are in middle school. They have lives but all I can think of is what might have been. Though Im not a cheerleader anymore Im still a cheerleader at heart. Being accepted here meant something to me. I can relate to a lot of people here I think. Mei knows my story. But Mei wont share my story or at least I hope she wont. And it seems Mei is my only friend now. Even Goonie who I thought would be the first to stick up for me. Well fuck you Goonie. In the ass. Fuck you in the bloody ass. And Nx, too. Fuck you in the ass all night. And lastly, fuck you Nutty. Suck my clit all night tonight. Print out this thread and lick it Nutty. Compare me to MC and DMorris until the rapture. Fuck you Nutty, Nx, and Goonie. To the frest of you, I love you, I really do. Alyssa Bryant (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kindness. Fuck off and I hope you don't come back. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Replies like that are why I think RW would be better without you. Alyssa Bryant (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Everything about your presence here is a bore to a good many of us. Just get going already. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to go out and shoot yourself Nutty because you are not just bad for RW, you are bad for this world. Srsly. I say we all should enter a suicide pact, Im up for it. Alyssa Bryant (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

For those of us who haven't been paying attention, anyone want to briefly summarize the situation? DickTurpis (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Im sorry Im acting like a dick right now, Im just at a loss. Im as shocked as anyone else that it happened. Granted I posted my login for my old account on Bugmenot. But that was months ago back when I was trolling. I had forgotten that I had even done it. Alyssa Bryant (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently she posted her account to bugmenot, and used mailinator for her account's email. Then someone used her account to vandalize a bunch of shit. Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 21:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I pretty much got that much, but that doesn't seem to be the end of it. DickTurpis (talk) 21:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

She is also very unhappy that people were annoyed by the whole thing, and doesn't recognize that the worst thing to do is make a huge fuss like this. I think she's seeking closure, either in the form of rejection (allowing her to leave in a righteous huff that she wasn't extended any leeway) or friendly forgiveness. It is tedious.--^talk 23:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

She posted User:SRQ girl's password on bugmenot, someone logged in, vandalized, got promoted. I logged in using the same password (the vandal wasn't smart enough to change it first), and I changed it to prevent impersonation. Then someone apparently figured out that User:Ex-Troll Cheerleader's password is the same as SRQ girl's and used that account to vandalize again. I logged in and changed the password again. The account had an email address associated with it, which was a mailinator account with a full name as the account name. I googled that name and found a facebook page of a girl who looks like the one from the images ETC uploaded. Her name isn't Alyssa Bryant though, and I think ETC was just impersonating her. ETC also had profiles on two adult dating sites, where "she" claimed to be male and 30, but of course that doesn't mean anything. -- Nx / talk 06:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh. So, is ETC actually a 30-year-old guy? It's not an unheard-of tactic, although it is so beyond the pale in terms of sadness that it's hard to believe people justify it to themselves.--^talk 07:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If ETC is suspected of just impersonating this girl, it might be worth contacting her to say that there's another Facebook account using her likeness. As FB is supposed to be for real-world connections they don't look on that sort of thing too kindly. It's borderline Serious Fucking Business. ADK^{...I'll reconstruct your noseblower!} 12:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There isn't another FB account. -- Nx / talk 12:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There's CHS Tarpon Cheerleaders which is on the RW group. Unless that's the one you found via Google. ADK^{...I'll prove your ripple!} 12:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Wasn't aware of that. Let me check it out. The account I found was an account with a real name. -- Nx / talk 12:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I wasn't too clear that I'd seen the other one and you might not have been aware of it. ADK^{...I'll castrate your ooze!} 12:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I've sent you an email with the details. -- Nx / talk 12:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing about any online dating site so I assume what ever that was is spam. Please leave Morgan out of this; shes one of my old friends and I dont want her involved in this drama. Alyssa Bryant (talk) 13:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You should have mentioned this earlier as I've just sent her a message asking her if someone is stealing her identity. ADK^{...I'll affiliate your tuba!} 13:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Im never going to forgive you for this. You should have left well enough alone. How do you suppose I had those pictures if I wasnt friends with the girl? Thanks for screwing up my life, bye. Alyssa Bryant (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

You should have thought of that before taking someone's pictures and putting them on the internet. You should contact her to apologise. ADK^{...I'll withstand your search engine!} 13:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I would but I dont know how to say it. You didnt tell her who I am did you? If you didnt dont. I will tell her when I feel the time is right because she will flip out right now after having these strangers bugging her that her ID has been stolen (lol). I shouldnt have done it but I did it in self defense, so that people wouldnt think Im some old fart getting my rocks off acting like a young girl. I guess its the /b/ tard in me, you know what they say, tits or gtfo. Well theyre not getting my tits to jiz on. Alyssa Bryant (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No, just your friend's. Nice. Stay classy. Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 14:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

I use Wikipedia pics on /b/. I just didnt see any harm in using friends' pics on RW. Im ugly, I dont want you to see what I look like. Alyssa Bryant (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't leave Alyssa, it'll all be good. Whatever the little squabble you are referring to - I don't know all the details - everyone will forget about it sooner or later. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Here's a drama, there's a drama, and another little drama, fuzzy drama, funny drama, drama drama duck. ADK^{...I'll exercise your DJ!} 00:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Blue (pester) 01:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Drama, drama, people like to watch... from the ancient Greeks to Shakespeare to Days of Our Lives... would you deny the masses their bread and circuses? --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Goodbye then.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

LEAVE BRITNEY MORGAN ALONE, SHES ONE OF MY OLD FRIENDS AND SHE DOESNT LIKE TO TALK TO STRANGERS. Alyssa Bryant (talk) 13:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Bye..--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

tell me this aint funny

This discussion was moved to Conservapedia_talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP%3F#Annoying_troll_is_yada_yada.

Any guesses as to what my friend will do?

Anyone think she'll turn me into the FBI? Anyone think she'll turn me into FDACS? (Grin) Alyssa Bryant (talk) 14:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody cares. --85.78.125.67 (talk) 16:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

NDSP 18:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

as always

I get a strange amusement from the cabal that's so obsessive they couldn't ignore someone to save their lives wiki. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy

Yippie! δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 02:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

We'll see. But rumor has it we killed some of his immediate family! Not to come off as a dick for celebrating deaths, but in this case, I'm making an exception.. Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 02:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"We killed Saddam! Now we can get out of Iraq! Right? Right? RIGHT?" Blue (is useful) 02:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC)We killed Osama a week ago? Nice... Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 02:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Bin Ladin be dead. Non-extremists win! δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 02:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Materially, this changes very little. Blue (is useful) 02:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No more fatwahs. This changes Islamist fundamentalism more than the death of Qutb. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 02:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

As per your edit on his article, the news we're getting over here is he was killed ~a week ago.. Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 03:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not what I've been hearing but my sources on this aren't great. It's pretty certain he was in Pakistan but the other details aren't firm. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 03:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

All we have is "dead, bomb or drone attack, Pakistan, approx a week ago, we have his body" but it's a bit crazy... Still waiting for Obama to come on and give a statement. Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 03:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Horrah! According to Fox News, he was killed a week ago, and CNN states that it was reportedly in Afghanistan. ~SuperHamster Talk 03:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm now hearing from the bottom (where the news is the best) that he was killed in a mansion in Allahabad. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 03:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, and it only took ten years. Good enough for government work, eh? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Good news, but I'm concerned that Al Qaeda will retaliate. I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that they had something prepared in the event that OBL was "martyred." Doctor Dark (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Fighters are not going to like how he was living when he died. His death will not be retaliated. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 03:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's cool. And suddenly they started changing their tune. They're saying it was ground operations now.. (It is Fox news... no cable, just moved, local Fox affiliate is giving the Fox News feed... Fuck Geraldo.. ) Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 03:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Al Jazeera has a live English stream. Why you'd listen to Fox is beyond me. δ_ij$^{i.broke.it.}$ 03:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Local Fox news is great. I found an ABC news feed that was much better. My internet is slow as shit right now, something about everyone in the city checking the internet for news... Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 03:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

People are setting off fireworks on my block. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's good to know he's dead. Sounds weird to say, but it IS good to know, somehow. Now we just have to worry about the million other terrorists. - Gameboy (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it is a very, very cool symbolic victory. Time will tell if it's anything more than just symbolic.. Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 03:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Now am I alone in not being overjoyed with this? I would much rather that he was captured, interrogated and put on trial. There are still equally nasty minds behind Al Qaeda, it's not just a one-man show.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but given the choice between Osama confirmed dead or Osama alive and operation, they'll pick the bullet in the head. Captured alive would certainly have been better, but if he was willing to go down fighting rather than be captured in anyway, they'll have to have taken the second preference. ADK^{...I'll rebel your riddle!} 10:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

darn talking heads - now I will never know how CSI miami ended ;(

Its not like the interruption told me anything either, maybe Bin Laden is dead, maybe not , nothing confirmed, sources say maybe yes , maybe no. Does it make a real difference either way, probably not . argghhh , I want 45 minutes of my life back Hamster (talk) 03:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

SPOILER ALERT: He puts them back on again. ADK^{...I'll mollify your mycobacterium!} 07:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Booyah!!!

Needed doing. - π 04:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I've never been one to celebrate death, but I sure as hell won't miss him. People like him make it really hard to be a pacifist.---brxbrx 04:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There are certainly times when "killing for peace" make sense.. Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 04:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Per my hero Walter Sobchak, pacifism is nothing to hide behind. 04:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

BFD. Gas is still 4 bucks a gal. nobs^{don't bother me} 04:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Gas 4 bucks a gal: Boo hoo Bondurant (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I would have preferred him to be captured, so he could have been put on trial.

As to "pacifism," yes, it is very easy to be a pacifist right up until the point at which your own people become the victims of violence. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

What LX said. Also, are we going to see yet more goalpost moving and cognitive dissonance from the far right in the US? "Big fucking deal if Osama is dead, the one our military obsessed culture has been banging on about for years, where's the birth certificate and why is my gas costing me money???!?!" Oh wait, there it is, cheers Rob, you're predictable down to the the very letter. ADK^{...I'll baste your carriage!} 07:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

We're already seeing some wingnuts claiming that it's Bush's victory. See this for instance (h/t Wonkette). –SuspectedReplicant retire me 08:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I understand why some people feel that way, but seeing people celebrate Osama's death, it makes me feel queasy. I don't think anyone's death should be a cause for celebration. I don't have all the information necessary to make a fully-informed judgement, but based on the information available to me, I think the US was justified in this action. But I still don't think his death, or anyone's death, should be a cause for celebration, no matter how evil the person's deeds; it may be a necessity, but it should always be a regretful one. Osama was once a baby nestled in his mother's arms; I wonder how his mother feels about his death? A man who did some very evil deeds, but still her son, whom she once held in her arms. How do his children feel? To the world he was a monster; to them, whatever they thought of his deeds, he was still their father. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's been pretty disgusting the ammount of people, some whom I thought sensible, turned into... Well,animals pretty much. The US military and goverment sure succeeded in their hunt for a symbol for evil. It's really just a example of how far much of the west have sunk in their dehumanization of muslims in general and arabs in particular. People who would never, ever, want to hear of somebody getting judged and sentenced without a trial, and who claim to oppose the death penalty saying they don't care etc. Dendlai (talk) 08:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ideally, he should have been charged and tried as a common criminal. Maybe the special forces were attempting to arrest him to do just that. Bin Laden in death is no less powerful than he was in life - and some say he was in ill health and not really in charge in any case - but now he's a martyr. Bondurant (talk) 09:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Guilty until proven innocent, hence it was all fine. And "arrest"? Arrest warrant under what jurisdiction? And using *military* to do civilian work? Yeah... Let's see you cheer using the US military to take out American criminals in America next. How's GWB, directly responsible for *far* more civilian deaths than Osama, doing by the by? Planning to arrest him by military anytime soon? Dendlai (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You have to remember that you are dealing with a non-US citizen, who is not in the US, wanted for a terror attack on the US. Those changes in variables are hugely important. Osama is no way covered by the US constitution, it is not a legal issue, it is a national security issue. There only other alternative is to do nothing, hardly an option when he would just continue to plan attacks. Target killings to protect US citizens is the only responsible option the president can take. - π 09:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's covered by the fact that it's War. Sad but true. It's no different than, pardon my Godwin, going after Hitler. Yes, it'd be better to take them alive and do all that jazz but he's not a US citizen who's behaviour is answerable to the domestic powers, e.g., police. ADK^{...I'll navigate your tree!} 09:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a war. Unless you actually *believe* it's possible to wage a war against terror. Osama represented no state. he was a civilian. Are you, seriously, saying that youone suspected of drug dealing can be killed by the US military because there is a "war" on drugs. And as for 3.14153etc... All you said just reinforced my impression. Humans = Americans, and at best otehr westerners. Arabs and muslims = animals. Care to show where the legal precedent is, in the US constitution, for taking military action against a civilian, and care to show how he threatened American lives (no, not lives. Just American ones). Yeah. (And the godwin with regards to Hitler... you DO know he was the de facto dictator of Germany, and declared war, and waged war? See the difference? If not... Oh dear....). Dendlai (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I am Australian, like it matters. Obama has to make the calls in the best interest of the US, that is in the constitution. They can target Al-Qaeda in the same way can target a drug smuggling ring, as a matter of fact I can't see how the RICO laws don't apply. But Al-Qaeda did declare war, fuck it the moment Bin Laden declared war on the US back in the 90s they had the right to kill him. - π 09:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC) The one downside of taking him alive and putting him on trial, would be the risk of revenge attacks during the trial, like the worries in the Hague during the Lockerbie trial. Even if the trial was held in Gaunotommysintheknow Bay, there would be the risk of hostages being taken and demands for his release. It'll be enough to put his head ona spike at Ground Zero. --PsyGremlinPrata! 09:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(conflict of editing) It's in the constitution, or the presidential oath, or whatever that he has to "uphold the constitution". I don't recall anything in it being about "Do what's best for America!". And about "Al-Quaeda did declare war"... You... Do know that war has to be between countries? A civilian can't declare war. Nor can a company like coca-cola. And... They in no way declared war. They (probably) committed a terrorist act. That is not declaring war, in any legal sense whatsoever. Do you seriously think they did? Then you fail law harder than Andy. And right to kill him? According to what law? NONE of the international treaties the US have signed allows it, and other than for treason (which would only be possible if he was a US citizen), no US law allows it without trial. Dendlai (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that a country has the right to protect itself by whatever means it can that are in line with international law and within the co-operation of other nations. The instant a plan was hatched and executed to kill US citizens, it became war. Not against a country, which makes it marginally different, but an organization (albeit not in the conventional sense). In doing so Bin Laden, as its leader, opened himself up to similar attrition. It's harsh, but the law of tit-for-tat is how it works. You can't just organise an attack against a world power and say "but I'm a civilian, you can't kill me!!". ADK^{...I'll mature your cow!} 09:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC)I think it would have been better to have arrested Osama rather than killing him. I assume the Americans felt the same way, although maybe I'm wrong. But, I am quite sure he wasn't going to let them arrest him - from what I've heard, he'd made it clear he'd rather fight to the death than be captured alive, since he saw that as more honourable - and finally he gets for himself the "martyrdom" to which he has lead so many others. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(ECX2)He doesn't do what is best for America, he has to protect America, that is in many way his primary job. Really wars can only be between countries? What about civil wars? - π

(EC times X hah!)"I'm saying that a country has the right to protect itself by whatever means it can that are in line with international law".... In line with International law... And "The instant a plan was hatched and executed to kill US citizens, it became war."... That's the most idiotic thing I've read on this wiki. It's more idiotic than anything I've read on conservapedia. You have no idea what you are talking about. Thousands, tens of thousands of people get killed in the US every year. And even if the perpetrator is a furreiner, it is not considered war by anybody not Ayn Rand crazy. Dendlai (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

So you expect the US to roll over and just take it? As in, 3000 civilians were killed and for their leader to say "hey, it's just pranks by something that isn't a country, big deal". It doesn't matter how many people have been killed by the US, innocent civilians or not, as that's a different point. The question is; is Osama Bin Laden fair game for them because he headed a group that launched an attack on the US? The answer is, spoiler alert, yes. ADK^{...I'll roll your computer!} 10:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

We are talking about a person that headed an organized paramilitary network, not some person acting alone. They are not a country or an army in a traditional sense, but they act as an entity in their own right outside the bounds of international law. You can't throw a punch and say "you can't hit me back, we are not in an officiated boxing match". - π 10:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"you can't hit me back, we are not in an officiated boxing match" Perhaps the best way of putting it. ADK^{...I'll deport your oven!} 10:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's amusing. All you people mad at me use the exact same "We KNOW he was guilty, so we had the right to do it without trial, evidence, or support in national or itnernational law". "He was the ehad of.... He did this... he did that...". you aremissing something, dears. Dendlai (talk) 10:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It is like the police are going to arrest a suspected murderer only to find he has hostages. You can wait until he kills the hostages to confirm he is a murderer or you can shoot him to protect innocent people. As for international law Pakistan don't look like they are crying over this. - π 10:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I forgot all those videos of them claiming credit and wishing death on the US and its allies were all faked. ADK^{...I'll optimize your league!} 10:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC)No, it's amusing that you seem to ignore the fact that we've got a full confession from bin Laden, repeated on multiple occasions and all on tape. If this had happened in a courtroom, evidence would not even be necessary under these circumstances. Röstigraben (talk) 10:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

For 3.141s very funny comparison.. You realise Al Quaeda is extremely decentralised, and the supposed "leader" has... Well, very little power. Certainly no hostages... And Pakistan not crying is relevant how to international law? And for the videos of "them" claiming credit... Sure. use them as proof in court. They don't mean you can bypass court, do they, eh? Dendlai (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, we know Al Qaeda is decentralised. And yes, bin Laden is a figurehead. But this is an international incident dealt with by the military. You cannot just say, as Pi said, "you can't hit me back because it's not a real war." I can't run into a bank and then tell the police they can't touch be because it's not a real robbery for some arbitrary reason. Yes, we all know and would have liked to have seen him taken alive, I doubt many dispute that apart from your real hardcore militaristic chickenhawks. He is not a civilian in this matter. ADK^{...I'll crinkle your loser!} 10:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Al-Qaeda has no leaders and highly decentralised because we went to war with them. Before that they had training camps all over Afghanistan. Arrest him? You realise that he probably wasn't going quietly, shit for all any of us know they probably gave him the chance before he started firing. Pakistan's opinion is very relevant, that was the country the US forces were working in at the time. - π 10:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh really... You... think that? No... Sorry, no... Al Quaeda was always a loose decentralised organisation. I have no idea where you get the idea they were not from. Dendlai (talk) 10:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(Unindent)For fuck's sake, this was a commando raid, not a drone strike. They wouldn't have risked the lives of these soldiers if they had simply intended to kill him instead of capturing him. Bin Laden apparently took all of his talk about martyrdom seriously and went down in a fight instead of letting himself be apprehended. Under these circumstances, he was granted his death wish. How is that the fault of the US? Röstigraben (talk) 10:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

You, like all the others here, take assumptions put forward by the US military and goverment as truth. That's the problem here. Dendlai (talk) 10:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Got the news from Al Jazeera this morning. It’s a mixture of “meh” and “dumbf*ucks” mixed into one. I have no sympathy for the guy, but seeing the right pour onto the streets in NYC and DC full of animalistic grunts of “USA-USA-USA-USA!” did not convince me that many of the public really understood the full implications of their governments actions before celebrating their morbid achievement.

I don’t think Osama bin Laden had, or ever had, much direct control over what we call Al Qaida. AQ is essentially a “brand” much like the Animal Liberation Font. Anyone can brand actions they undertake with the AQ name, and there is no real AQ institution beyond a hand of people with an ideology that a load of other constantly changing and totally unrelated groups happen to identify with sufficiently to brand (some of) their operations with the AQ name. As such, killing Osama bin Laden is going to have negligible direct impact on the operational effectiveness on most people using the AQ brand.

It probably will cause a temporarily increased threat from people wanting to carry out “revenge” attacks, and I’d honestly be surprised if we don’t see some, especially in places where exploding western soldiers and/or intelligence assets into squishy puddles of goo on the tarmac is considered an national pastime, like Afghanistan, Iraq or Pakistan. Martyrs are powerful things, but I imagine the administration did the sums (even if Bin Laden was wanted alive, the chance of killing or suicide was always far more likely) and figured that the sheer symbolism of killing him is worth sacrificing some soldiers and spooks for. It will boost Obamas currency domestically, steal some thunder from the right, and most people won’t ask awkward questions about either the dubious ethical questions it raises, nor the limited impact it will actually have on the operational abilities of AQ branded groups.

So to paraphrase a great sage of the Americas, since many are ill at ease with moral ambiguities, let us act as though they don't exist…. USA-USA-USA-USA-USA! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! (in other words,meh... That operation was practically pointless, ethically grey, and possibly stupid) -- 10:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, bin Laden was a figurehead and a symbol, and he'll continue to be an asset to al-Quaeda after his death. But that doesn't mean that his death doesn't help the US at all. The way I see it, Americans can now attain a sense of closure about 9/11, and Obama has the opportunity to wind down at least the military component of the war on terror. That fight is as unwinnable as it is expensive and on several occasions even counterproductive. Now the US has accomplished its most important symbolic victory, and they can redirect their attention and resources to matters of greater actual importance. Röstigraben (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much all that, except for the Al Jazeera bit, I heard a net rumour and went to MSNBC.com - π 10:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC)I don't believe everything they say, but I'll believe them if they say their first choice was to capture him, but his preference was death. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC)If they just wanted him dead I'm sure they'd have done it remotely by now. Arms-length warfare has improved by orders of magnitude in the last decade. All they need to do is sniff him out and press a button and there's no need to risk your own side's lives. The only reason to do it with boots and bullets instead of tomahawks and predators would be to attempt to capture him. ADK^{...I'll run your Etch-a-Sketch!} 10:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

@ADK - Actually I believe they would have acted earlier, but that Pakistani intelligence was throwing obstacles in the way. You don't build a mansion withinin 60km of Islamabad and live in full light of day without the blessing (and full knowledge) of the Pakistani intelligence and government. I believe that the US has been able to act because there has been a major defection/leak within Pak. Intel., that the US has been able to benefit from. 10:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

(EC)The fact his, he is/was the head of an organisation that perpetuated an attack on a sovereign nation and forfeited the right to be dealt with while wrapped in the cotton wool of civilisation. Doesn't matter if it was loose and decentralised, it doesn't matter if it was a "proper" country or not. He doesn't come under domestic US laws that would have meant the FBI or police would have dealt with him. Patch up your bleeding heart and get over it. ADK^{...I'll riot your sceptre!} 10:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

While I would have preferred to see him captured I hardly sorry he's dead. though it may have been a good career move.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm with you -- a capture, followed by a trial, followed by an execution for crimes against humanity would have been the ideal solution, but I'm not going to complain. And hey, if the Navy Seal(s) who shot him got a little overzealous and could have captured him but decided immediate justice is fitting, I can overlook that. MDB (talk) 11:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The story is that he resisted the assault. We can ask whether the official story is correct, but I tend to believe it because it puts OBL in a favorable light (i.e., going out fighting instead of crawling out dispiritedly a la Saddam). It's hard to capture someone alive who doesn't want to be captured alive. Doctor Dark (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It'd be intweresting to know what kind of a role the Pakistani nuclear weapons played in this.

--85.78.125.67 (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe he was killed with conventional weapons. :-) --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The hell he was. There is nothing conventional about a US Navy Seal. MDB (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Huzzah! The best part about Bin Laden's death is that now, maybe, my friend who is stationed in Afghanistan will come home sooner. At the very least, this was an excellent victory for Americans of all stripes and creeds. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 13:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to say, I've been tempted to join in the fun by blasting the Team America theme tune on the basis that my "tactless asshole" quota for the year isn't quite filled up yet. ADK^{...I'll incarcerate your fluorescent light!} 17:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And so it begins

ZOMG!! Look! Look! it's not him in the picture, it's fake! FAKE!!! and so ad infinitum. --PsyGremlinTal! 13:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I swear these people are just doing it for a laugh. Though I love that they point to the similarities, conveniently ignoring the differences like the cheek and chin beard-coverage, the eyebrows, the muscles around the nostils and the lighting. ADK^{...I'll exorcise your raccoon!} 19:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, it is fake, but not in the way conspiracy theorists may say. ADK^{...I'll push your cob!} 20:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Whoever did that shoop is my hero. Perfect IRL trolling. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. I indeed feel like a muppet for immediately dismissing the conspiracy nut as a conspiracy nut. Although in my defence, I changed my mind on reading the Guardian's article where they had the second photo (would the nuts change their mind on similar evidence the other way?) and the reasoning for it being faked in the video was far from compelling. Still, trolling bastards! Give me my smug superiority back!!! ADK^{...I'll exercise your bridge!} 20:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Bin Laden already buried at sea

Seems to be the latest news. Full Islamic burial. - π 10:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Makes the oceans a homeopathic concentration of Al Qaeda, then. ADK^{...I'll graphitize your Honda!} 10:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It would be a bit on the strong side for homeopathy wouldn't it? --Damo^Hi 10:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

But Al Qaeda is loose and decentralised, so there's only tiny amount of it in the man himself. ADK^{...I'll dance your can opener!} 10:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The only problem with burying him at sea is that there will undoubtedly be claims that he's not dead, either from his supporters, or from the American right wing who can't stand the thought it happened under Obama's watch. MDB (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Potentially - but it think it was a good move.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"Show Us The Long Form Death Certificate!"--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The corpse was already shown on Sky News at 8am. Gotta love the modern media's obsession with such pornography. ADK^{...I'll forsake your deity of personal preference!} 10:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I must commend you on the correct use of the word pornography in one of its lesser known meanings. - π 10:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a fake! :P -- 10:58, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

If by "full islamic burial" you mean "tossing his corpse out of the helicopter"... Occasionaluse (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well they rapped it up nice and they did it in 24 hours, so they got a couple of thing right. - π 14:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Why he was buried at sea

No country would want the body (scroll down, there's a lot on the page). MDB (talk) 13:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Simple answer - they didn't want to create a shrine. Of course, they missed the bit about there being nothing Muslim about burial at sea. The Koran is quite explicit that you get buried in the ground. Still, at least they didn't cremate him. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 13:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it's that, too. Same reason there's no signs marking the location of the Fuhrer Bunker in Berlin. (I think I saw somewhere it's underneath a parking lot.) MDB (talk) 13:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I would call this a landmark, but it's something. --UHM, Your favorite pain in the ass! 17:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Haha...I remember visiting that parking lot on a tour. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

"Islamic" burial

They claim his burial accorded with Islamic law. Well, from what I've read, Islamic law permits burial at sea, although burial on land is to be preferred. But I wonder, if Islamic law prohibited burial at sea, would they do it to him anyway? There seems to be an element here of getting rid of any resting place that could have become a shrine (like the cases of Eichmann or Hitler). But I wonder, if there was some terrorist from a religion which insisted on mummification (like the ancient Egyptians), or cryonic suspension, or something like that. How would they meet their concurrent objectives, of getting rid of the body, and obeying the rules of the person's religion regarding corpse disposal, at the same time. --(((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Birthers and Bin Laden

Looking around a few Tea Party forums (which have been taken over by birthers since Obama released his BC) the Teabaggers think that this whole 'Bin Laden is dead' thing is an elaborate scheme to distract the nation from Obama's BC. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 15:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That surprises me about as much as the sun coming up in the morning. MDB (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and tea party forums being "taken over by birthers"? Wouldn't that be a little like Mexico being taken over by Hispanics? MDB (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Generally before the BC it was a mixture of birthers and non birthers, but now the birthers have taken more or less total control and troll non-birthers off the boards. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 15:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

One of my ex-gf's on facebook posted that this morning. Now I have to assume her current bf is a TP Birther... She'll be unfriended by the end of the week. Fucking retards. Quaru^{osmium - You can't explain that!} 16:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

That's funny, because I always thought the birth certificate thing was an elaborate scheme to distract the nation from... ADK^{...I'll unify your belfry!} 17:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The troofer response is even better: Osama's been dead for 10 years, it's a hoax to start WWIII!!! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I have on several occasions said that Osama was alive and making videos from a Hollywood sound stage. But just to make it clear to the Fox News table, that's a joke. ADK^{...I'll mystify your stool sample!} 17:48, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

And what's the deal with Biggie and Tupac? Supposedly they're "dead", but I reckon they kickin' it in the Caribbean, all an elaborate ruse in order to boost their record sales. SJ ^Debaser 15:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully The Donald will be on it. ADK^{...I'll steal your cabinet!} 16:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Biggie and Tupac will be the next Celebrity Apprentices! MDB (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

“”The troofer response is even better: Obama's been dead for 10 years, it's a hoax to start WWIII!!! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Corrected for truthiness ;-) 18:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Not worth a WIGO

Fox News has the wrong guy dead. It's only a typo, so not much to blame them with here, but funny anyway. --DogP (talk) 23:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The charitable explanation might be that it was supposed to be "Obama: Bin Laden Dead". But when has Fox News ever been worthy of charity? Fuckers. --Yossarian^{Speak, Memory} 02:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a Fox affiliate station, not Fox News proper. It's no more fair to say that's "Fox News" then to say "ABC got the weather wrong" if the local weatherman on the ABC station predicted clear skies and it rained.

Anyway, Fox News would have said "Osama bin Laden (D-Pakistan) Dead". MDB (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Bin Laden death was a miracle of pope John Paul II

According to Alan Garcia, president of Peru. [1]--Tlaloc (talk) 00:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Didn't they just bureaucratize beatify him? We need to declare something a miracle stat! Тy^Talk. 00:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

And there is no better way to thank for your recently given beatification than killing a dude. --Tlaloc (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Damn Catholics. That kill belongs to the Thelemites and they know it. - Gameboy (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

excerpt from the book of Horus:

“”I will give ye a war machine, and with it, you shall smite your enemies!

---brxbrx 02:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

He might be set to be the patron saint of ignoring pederasty in an organization. ATP (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

beautifully put

[2]---brxbrx 21:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Something about that guy's delivery makes it hilarious. Kinda reminds me of how Obama talks down to the type of morons who want to see his grades. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)