RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive112

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is an archive page, last updated 29 July 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>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <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>
, (new)(back)

Indian woo[edit]

It seems that a lot of woo and mystical thinking comes out of India so I was pleased to discover the Indian Rationalist Association and Rationalist International which seem to be islands of sanity in a sea of woo. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 15:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Edamaruku is a legend. That is all. --Danfly (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
And we don't have an article on him. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 15:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I should really be working on my thesis, but I guess I can pull out a three sentence stub for others to improve. --Danfly (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
A friend of mine on facebook just admitted to herself and then her family that she is an atheist. I thought it was a big deal for some xians in the states, but was shocked at the reaction she got. Someday, someone will explain to me why Gods have such power over people - such that they would turn away family who say simply "yeah, over it.".--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 15:42, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Mr Wang won the competition after he attracted 26 kg of bees onto his body in 60 minutes[edit]

Bees! Beeeeeeeees! ONE / TALK 15:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody's done it with bees - E Weatherwax. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, it amused me...[edit]

Unfortunate ad placement.png

It's BBQ time! --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, it tastes like pork.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Dang it, now you have me thinking about Venezuelan Beaver Cheese. MDB (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Am I the only one who hit "replay" repeatedly?--Talpidae (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
No, you're not. I got confused. BTW, it can't taste like pork, because it's a fish!--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Fish, tasty fish! Aboriginal Noise What the ... 19:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Marchus Bachmann[edit]

At first I was unsure, but now I do think it's okay to make fun of him for adhering to certain gay stereotypes. My thanks to Dan Savage.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I will see you your Dan Savage and raise you an Alex Pareene:

Oh, one more question: What do you think will be "worse" for Bachman's campaign: Her religious extremism, or the fact that her fabulous gay-curing "therapist" husband buys her shoes?

From a 2006 Star Tribune article (reprinted here) that industrious reader Denise S. dug up:
Bachmann, 50, describes her style as "classic with a snap." "I dress fairly simply," she said. "I like clean lines. I like solid colors. But I like an outfit to have a little kick." For inspiration, she looks to Audrey Hepburn and Jackie Onassis - and indeed, the pale pink suit and gloves she wore for President Bush's fund-raising visit in August seemed a flashback to Camelot.
That choice was inspired by a girlfriend who owned "a darling pink suit" that she'd bought at Herberger's. Bachmann thought it was the special outfit that the event required, "so my girlfriend went to get an identical one at the store's sidewalk sale," she said. "For $39!"
And the gloves? They were a garage sale find, Slama said.
Shopping help comes from another quarter, as well. Before Vice President Dick Cheney's visit this past summer, Bachmann's husband, Marcus, hit the stores - "he's got a good sense of style" - and came home with "a sleek, simple hourglass dress with a yoke collar! in winter white." He even bought a matching coat and shoes. "I just slipped it on."
I feel like plenty of Republican voters can relate to hoping Jesus comes back real soon, but how many GOP husbands out there would be able to buy their wives full outfits -- that match and fit properly -- on anything resembling short notice?
Hee! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Gawd that's too good. Thanks for that, I laughed (out loud, even!) For only 39$!!!--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Shared with my anti bachmann facebook friends. thanks for the funny on a monday!--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 21:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Beacon Library[edit]

"The Beacon Library has been at beacon.wiki-site.com but it is now gone from there. Some of its content is now at atheism.wikia.com, where it joins a lot of existing content. Some of its content now also resides at some other wikis, Iron Chariots and RationalWiki."? where? Pippa (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Milton Friedman: Liberal bogeyman[edit]

HuffPo invokes the recycled Naomi Klein vast Friedman-ite conspiracy again, which I'm getting pretty tired of by now. Of course, if you've paid attention to Republicans' reactions to monetary policy, Friedman would have facepalmed at their regression to goldbug/Austrian views. I think Paul Krugman (yes, that one) put it best:

And just to be clear: although this essay argues that Friedman was wrong on some issues, and sometimes seemed less than honest with his readers, I regard him as a great economist and a great man. Milton Friedman played three roles in the intellectual life of the twentieth century. There was Friedman the economist’s economist, who wrote technical, more or less apolitical analyses of consumer behavior and inflation. There was Friedman the policy entrepreneur, who spent decades campaigning on behalf of the policy known as monetarism—finally seeing the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England adopt his doctrine at the end of the 1970s, only to abandon it as unworkable a few years later. Finally, there was Friedman the ideologue, the great popularizer of free-market doctrine.

Friedman as Great Satan is just as ridiculous as the wingnuts writing off Keynes as a socialist. There's my free market rant for the day. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

If you've ever seen him interviewed, he comes off more as an insane old coot too old to acknowledge that some of his theories don't quite work out in practice. It's very hard to have a great satan who seemed a bit off his rocker. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 03:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
More so in his older days. He still comes off as pretty sharp on a number of things -- like here where he eviscerates the drug war. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Do 'ave a Dubounet[edit]

That's Desiré Dubounet, better known as "Professor" Bill Nelson - the genius behind the Shoo!Tag, Quantum Xrroid Consciousness Interface and the safe return of Apollo 13 - whose new career as a drag queen in Budapest is as a 'singing' artiste. (If only Hungary would nominate him as their €urovision candidate.) I also discovered that Hungary's immigration medical examination is so intimate that they discovered that he has ovaries. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 11:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

WTF? ADK...I'll meditate your idiot! 11:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I am speechless. ТyTalk 14:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
-eyetwitch---Dumpling (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

and b) LCD HD TVs[edit]

Does anybody here know anything about repairing them? I ask because my Sony has just started acting up. The screen is now displaying in a very deep red and yellow colour and the refresh rate seems to have dropped pathetically low. Is that a repairable problem (by an engineer) or a put-it-out-for-the-binmen-tomorrow type of problem?--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 19:13, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Since no one else replied, I'll give the stock advice. Best thing to do would be to call up Sony, who can give you a list of nearby repair people. They'll be able to give you an estimate on fixing it, but it may end up costing enough that it might just be better to bin it. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Between the transport costs and the inevitable fee-before-we-do-any-work, I'm probably looking at getting a new TV.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 01:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
In a previous life I repaired and adjusted audio gear for both consumers (audiophiles... hah) and rock&rollers. About eight or ten years ago I had a talk with the owner of a TV repair shop; I was looking for some income on the side. He told me that the TV repair business is a sunset industry. The boxes are not really made to be fixed, and new tech comes along so soon that binning and buying new is usually the answer. I imagine that goes for screens as well. Of course that is generalisation; you may find an old bloke on a side street who will say, "nothing to it sir, your framistat is out of sync with the pronometric gubbnistor, and that'll be five pounds ten and six." (He will probably be that old.) In reality it is most probably a forlorn hope. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, definitely a sunset industry. Diagnosing faults is much harder, the parts tend to be integrated which means you're replacing a $40 board instead of a $0.50 part, and that's assuming the board is even available, and there are fewer faults occurring, which means you need a larger market to sustain a business. To be honest it's been in decline for a long time. In my grandfather's day TV sets were much less reliable, and a radio enthusiast with a few weeks on the job could diagnose and fix most faults. By the time I was born, TVs were already so reliable that "renting" a TV was seen as a scam because it was effectively an expensive way to buy the TV on credit. Flat panels, because they run cool, accelerated the improvement in reliability (well, once the initial models worked the kinks out). And then to top all that the TV itself is dying, as people increasingly want to watch shows on demand over the Internet. Good news if you're willing to retrain though - a modern gas plumber's job is less dirty than it used to be and more about brains than brawn. Same steady hand and intuition needed. Unlike TVs, gas fittings are very expensive to replace still, so customers won't say "No thanks" when you estimate an hour's work and $180 of spares to fix their problem. And because gas explosions are deadly dangerous it's a restricted profession so your competitors all have the same high overheads and won't be trying to race to the bottom on prices. (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
I attempted to post a reply at the same time as Jeeves but got EC'd and gave up. I agree with all the above posts so my advice depends on how big is your screen and how old is it? The greater your original investment (big screen) then the more likely that is cost effective to repair; with a large screen your paying more for the panel rather than the control electronics. However, the likelihood of it being repairable diminishes with age as the replacement boards will be harder to come by. Last year my 4-year-old 24" Acer monitor burnt out because I had it under a bookshelf and it overheated (not all of these flatpanels run cool, it depends on the backlighting/display; LCDs need an auxiliary light source, LEDs make their own). So if it's not too old I would make a note of the model and contact either the manufacturer or a local repair shop to find out if replacement boards are still available. Otherwise recycle it responsibly. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 10:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I should have been clearer that "Runs cool" is relative. Any flat panel is cool compared to a CRT, but there is still a significant amount of heat and it needs to be dissipated. If the flat panel TVs were still built the size of an old CRT television it wouldn't be a problem, those things were huge which left enough room for big vents to dissipate the heat, but with 40" widescreen panels scarcely thicker than my finger all that heat has to escape through a very narrow grill at the top (at least it better be the top, check those manufacturer's installation warnings before re-purposing a TV as a vertical display by rotating it). (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

First thing to check is the cables. Are you using SCART?Sphincter (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Damn, that's a good suggestion! Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 15:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Weird colours could totally be an analogue cable fault, but "pathetically low" refresh rate sounds very digital to me. (talk) 15:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Definitely the TV playing up. Shame, it was only a couple of years old as well. Ah well, new one arriving tomorrow.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 15:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
If it wasn't that old, is it still under warranty? Might be worth checking out, 'cos then you'd get a new one for free. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Hah, you've got to be joking. Welcome to the UK where the warranty is 12 months and you get a merry 'Fuck You, Jack' if you try and claim a repair under the six-year rule. (six-year warranty only applies if you can prove that the equipment failed as a result of manufacturing error. Good luck with that.)--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 17:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Here is a fairly competent survey of the law in layman's terms.
The important thing here is this bit. And this is harmonised European legislation:
  • If you take the goods back within six months of buying them, the trader must accept that they were faulty at the time of sale and offer to repair or replace them. If the trader doesn't accept that the goods were faulty, they will have to prove this.
  • If you have had your goods for more than six months when they go wrong, you can still ask the trader to repair or replace them, but you may have to prove that they were faulty when you bought them if the trader doesn't agree.
In other words you have an absolute warranty for only six months - after that it's down to you to "prove" that it was a problem of manufacture. Good luck with that.
You have further rights which extend out over two years and many shops/manufactures respect that and give you full rights for that period - but your are really only fully covered legally for six months.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

lolsec has hacked the sun website[edit]

the sun AMassiveGay (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

nice--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Looks normal to me. ADK...I'll edify your alfalfa! 10:09, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Meh. Such power, and they just use it to do pointless stunts. Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 10:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Run away! Run away![edit]

Rebecca Black has another single out. Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 11:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I could have quite easily lived the rest of my life never knowing that news. That said, now everybody will rush to YouTube and give her 500 squillion views, whilst proclaiming how crap it is. Just another example of how today's manufactured, mass-produced pop culture sucks. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 11:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I am happy to say I don't know who Rebecca Black is. (Well, I didn't till I looked at the link. I've heard of Friday, but never heard the song.) MDB (talk) 11:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
That can be remedied. --PsyGremlin講話 11:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Only if I actually click on the link. MDB (talk) 12:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I think Charlie Brooker said it all about her, or more specifically, her anti-fans. ADK...I'll litigate your brickbat! 12:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
OK, so for those who have no idea who she is - is it worthwhile raising our clicking fingers to find out? --BobSpring is sprung! 12:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Depends. If the thought of jamming fondue forks repeatedly into your ears is something that makes you feel warm and fuzzy, by all means click away. --PsyGremlinHable! 12:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
DON'T DO IT! TT_____TT--Dumpling (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Listen to the song to find out what the fuss is about, realise it sounds exactly the same as every other half-baked pop starlet out there and wonder why the fuck people got so irate about it. For, I'm sure, 90% of the population, that will be how it happens. For that remaining douchy and insecure 10% it's time for the comment box to feel some hate. ADK...I'll pull your amplifier! 16:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

In honour of the NotW investigation[edit]

As undoubtedly there are going to be a lot of select committee meetings coming up, I think they should take some advice from the master himself, Sir Humphrey.

ADK...I'll exorcise your mandate! 12:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The committee is sitting now, and it just looks like Rupie threw James under the bus. "Who informed you of the settlement payments to 'whoever'?", "No.", "You mean your son didn't inform you?", "No.". That's not verbatim, but close enough.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 13:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

VASSAL, anyone?[edit]

Anyone else out there a strategy gamer with Vassal set up?

I'd love to play Twilight Struggle. I'll even let you pick sides and decide if you want to be the Godless Communists or the Capitalist Exploiters of the Masses. MDB (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I love Twilight Struggle but have only tried the Wargameroom version. Vulpius (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The vassal version of TS is very well done. MDB (talk) 22:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

WIGO World[edit]

I think that this deserves an entry but can't quite get the right angle. Anyone like to have a go? Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 13:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Check it out. P-FosterThe Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.Moderator 13:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Nice one! --PsyGremlinTala! 13:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
V. good. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 13:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


Nebuchadnezzar's edit here reminded me of a very funny joke my grandmother once told me that I'd like to share with you all. Here goes.

There was a British man visiting France. During his visit, he goes into a flower shop and buys a rare and expensive orchid. The next day, he finds that he's forgotten the name of the orchid. He goes back to the store, and the clerk tells him. The following day, the British man is embarrassed to find that he's forgotten the name yet again. Thus, he returns to the store and asks the clerk. This is to no avail, as he still forgets the name. So he goes a third time, where the clerk gives him the name in an annoyed and exasperated tone. He writes it down, but loses the paper in the wash.

Sheepishly, he returns to the store and asks the clerk one final time. Frustrated and thinking that the man is trying to hit on her, she rolls her eyes and says "asshole." This time, the British man doesn't trust the thought of writing it down. Thus, he thanks the clerk and leaves the store repeating to himself "Asshole. Asshole. The plant is called an Asshole" until the name is engraved into his memory. The man leaves France for Britain, quite happy with his beautiful new orchid. A few years later, he returns to France, but a different part. He comes across a woman gardening, and notices that she has the exact same orchid that he bought years prior, only that this one seems healthier and is flowering quite well. Intent on discovering her secret, he comments as she bends over:

"Why, Madam, I see that your Asshole is much more open than mine!" --User:Brxbrx/sig 14:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

ba-dum tish. I'm reminded about the joke of the golfer and cow. But it's too long to tell. --PsyGremlinSermā! 14:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
But since you asked so nicely
A man staggers into an emergency room with a concussion, multiple bruises, two black eyes and a five iron wrapped tightly around his throat. Naturally, the doctor asks him what happened.

"Well, it was like this", said the man. "I was having a quiet round of golf with my wife, when at a difficult hole, we both sliced our ball into a pasture of cows. We went to look for them, and while I was looking around I noticed one of the cows had something white at its rear end."

"I walked over and lifted up the tail, and sure enough, there was a golf ball with my wife's monogram on it - stuck right in the middle of the cow's backside. That's when I made my big mistake."

"What did you do?" asks the doctor. " "Well, I lifted the cow's tail and yelled to my wife, "Hey, this looks like yours!".

I don't remember much after that."

--PsyGremlin話しなさい 14:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Love the tuesday morning humor! thanks.--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 15:15, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


I hope this link works, because it's to Facebook, but Rupert Murdoch got pied during his testimony before Parliament. MDB (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Saw it. He's an idiot! Pippa (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Better link.
I shouldn't laugh, really -- Murdoch is an elderly man and doing anything physical to him is a risk. But still.... MDB (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah! Give Murdoch the opportunity to look like the injured party! fucking idiot. not funny at all. Pippa (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The protest against Rupert Murdoch seems to have completely backfired, Paul Owen writes. It has transformed Murdoch into a sympathetic figure, an old man under attack from a young one, and may have contributed to the committee's decision to allow Murdoch to read his lengthy statement in full. He ended the session having the last word, able to express his contrition to the country. The headlines tonight and tomorrow may well be about the attack on Murdoch rather than the complex and detailed issues that were discussed in the session itself.
See! Pippa (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The conspiracy theorists are already speculating the guy was paid by Murdoch for the stunt. MDB (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
"You're a greedy billionaire!" Eloquent. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I think the first time I heard him speak the Evil Emperor image just dissolved. You expect some kind of booming arsehole Donald Trump style figure, but instead you get this really sqeaky half-Aussie bloke. ADK...I'll plagiarize your suicidal lemming! 16:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ibid and opcit[edit]

Any fancy way to say "go back to reference #3, cause it's the same damn citation" in the world of wikiediting?--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 18:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Might have something to do with giving a ref a name. I don't use that wiki feature, so I don't know. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's refname. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, guys. I figured it out. I'll go back and fix it in the article later.--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 20:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
You might like to pass that tip on to Ken because he certainly hasn't worked it out yet. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 23:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Are you kidding. me. Ken. cannot. manage to. edit without saving 100 times. I'm dubious he could figure out what a citation is, anyhow. much less an ibid (it's a bird, right?) or an opcit.Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 23:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I kid you not. Check out cp:Homosexuality (373 refs) or cp:Evolution (324 refs), both have masses of duplicates. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 02:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
WOW :O Eyeonicr (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Climate Change Wiki run by climate change skeptics[edit]

read all abaht it Looks missiontastic to me. i'll write it up tonight unless anyone wants to dive in while I'm having dinner and watching a terrible old horror film. Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 19:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a section on it in the Heartland Institute entry. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Remember Prussian Blue?[edit]

The teen-girl white power pop band? They're back. P-FosterThe Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.Moderator 19:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait. Aren't they supposed to be twins? Why did one of them get caned unmercifully with the 80s stick? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, someone needs to tell the one on the right to STOP MAKING THAT DUCKFACE!!!! P-FosterThe Grateful Dead were neither grateful nor dead. Discuss.Moderator 20:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
inb4 conservatives use the transition from Nazis to hippies as proof that liberals are nazis--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
If I remember right from the documentary on them, they definitely weren't up for the whole white nationalism/supremacy thing and it was their mother basically forcing them to do it. She wrote all the songs and lyrics and you could tell they used her as a prompt when being interviewed and had no clue what they were talking about. Actually quite cringe-worthy. It makes me very happy for them that they seem to have escaped from that (I can also imagine that the holocaust comment was well out of context). ADK...I'll fly your bassoon! 10:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd put the holocaust thing straight down to them being kids. It happened long enough ago that they don't know anybody personally touched by it, so it's a historical curiosity, like slave galleys, or the French revolution. They don't care about it, even though that's shocking to some people older than them, but history is all the same, right? (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Anyone wanna poke a crank with a stick?[edit]

So Mensur Omerbashich is raging behind the scenes because of a brief mention in the article Comet Elenin. Apparently we are violating his moral rights not to be criticized and he is going to sue us all. Oh and I am part of some grand masionic conspiracy. If anyone wants to poke the hornet's nest with a stick I think he deserves his own article! Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely it would be far more insulting to just say "who he?" and move on. ADK...I'll stir your read-only memory! 17:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Maybe but not nearly as fun. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll get reading... ADK...I'll unify your belt! 17:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Interestingly, USGS data doesn't seem to match his. ADK...I'll curate your muffin! 17:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
And apparently he thinks the Space Shuttle was for testing human habitation in orbit so They can escape "whatever it is". This guy is a fucking hoot. ADK...I'll voice your neverland! 17:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
If someone is going to write that article, this link is a good starting point. :D--ZooGuard (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
He's trying to harass Godlike Productions, too! http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1567851/pg1 I can't stop laughing. --ZooGuard (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Austrian man allowed to wear pasta sieve in official photo?[edit]

Maybe this is old news here, but this made me chuckle a bit. άλφαTalk 00:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That is truly awesome. Good for him. SoCal 212 I can't find my talk page 00:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
We were here before. --ʤɱ sinner 00:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I searched for something like that because I was sure that I wouldn't be the first one, but I guess I missed it. That's what I get for calling it a day after only searching for "pasta" (and not clicking Everything, apparently). άλφαTalk 13:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

BBC Science[edit]

For those interested in pop science and communication, the BBC review of their science output has been published. Generally very good, as expected, but there's room for improvement. Of note is Prof. Jones comment:

An at times “over-rigid” (as Professor Jones describes it) application of the Editorial Guidelines on impartiality in relation to science coverage, which fails to take into account what he regards as the “non-contentious” nature of some stories and the need to avoid giving “undue attention to marginal opinion”.

So basically, it's been noted that they're a little too impartial (i.e., balance fallacy) in areas like MMR, climate change, and probably stuff like alternative medicine too. Since we know that much of the MMR scare was, frankly, a media-hyped hoax this should improve things in the future, hopefully. ADK...I'll receive your xanthochroi! 15:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Do not knock my BBC science. It accounts for nearly 80% of everythign i download and is the only reason I know what "everythign" is, and what "nothing" is, and what the history of math means! (all three very very good shows, by the way) And in all honesty, when you compare even the worse of BBC docus to those of National Geo or "the Discovery Channel" (yeah, discovery my ass), they aught to get daily nobel prizes. --Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 16:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
That's pretty much what the report concludes, it's just a few things about sorting out the news coverage and trying too hard to be impartial when it's not necessary. ADK...I'll jostle your jellybean! 16:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Being that I'm US, i did have to learn what (I think) BBC4 is, and why the shows from that channel that are "supposedly" science, fail so badly in comparison. they are for the "youth" market, as i understand it. So we downloaded quite a few shows that really were more T&A than science. There were a few religion shows I was puzzled about, but again, they were no where near as "tinfoily" as the US sister shows (shows on the Knights Templar by both US and BBC versions; shows on ancient egypt, etc). I do not i must admit, undestand the stuff from "free uni" and "the sky at night".
Do you mean BB3, as that has fuck-all science on it, although its non-science documentaries are usually very interesting despite appearing to be pretty low-brow on the surface (it's remarkable how engaging shock stories about midget sex can be). Though part of the more detailed sections of the report do contrast it with other networks, although only briefly with the US, only stating that CNN no longer has dedicated science coverage. ITV and Channel 4 in the UK are notably dire these days, both having given up science for other things (ITV is now basically the Peter Andre Network...). ADK...I'll edit your daffodil! 16:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I haven't really had time for channel 4 recently (I only get home at 11pm now), but I remember it being decent for comedy on weeknights. Has that changed? --Danfly (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I like this one from the report. Very RWian. :)

Before discussing the subject in detail it may be worth putting the mind‐set, and the tactics, of some (but not all) proponents of the idea that global warming is a myth into context. They, with many others, practise denialism: the use of rhetoric to give the appearance of debate. This is not the same as scepticism, for a sceptic is willing to change his or her mind when provided with evidence. A denialist is not. Many among them see themselves as intellectual martyrs in a war against political correctness and as worthy successors to Galileo. Whatever the claim – AIDS has nothing to do with viruses, the MMR vaccine is unsafe, complex organs could never evolve, or even that the 9/11 disaster was a US 67 government plot – the syndrome has some consistent themes. The tale is told of a vast conspiracy to hide the truth and of dissent quashed by secret forces. People with strong opinions should be given equal weight with experts. Any evidence that contradicts their ideas must be publicised and the rest ignored, while any statement of doubt about conventional wisdom is trumpeted from the rooftops. Standards of proof should be set so high as to be impossible to attain. Personal attacks (Hitler was against smoking) are acceptable and absolutism is useful (one ninety year old smoker proves that tobacco is harmless). Doubt shades into certainty: a scientist can never be sure that a vaccine is always safe – which means that it never is. Often, the proponents unite into a movement that can, in these electronic days, bombard its enemies and give the impression of being far larger than it really is.

ADK...I'll litigate your tomato! 17:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

ironically, living in the US where we deal with creationism in our schools more than you will ever have to, and were science denialism is a virtual part of modern "tea party" views of the world (anti intelleculism in general) i found that show about "denialism" to be very informative and useful. yes, it did go out of its way to "overstate" the case, but i think that worked for **the us**, even though we are not the target audience. It made sense to me, and it helped me figure out "how do you talk to a school board that dismisses science's findings with "but it's just a theory"".Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 17:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
By the way, do we have a project page for Docu reviews? I am keeping several on my own page, essay like style, but it might be a fun project for people to give reviews from the "value as entertainment" "value from the science / history point of view" etc. I just assume what is on BBC is "trueish", but it would be great if someone who knows something says "yea, mostly true, but X and Y were really poorly explained". Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 17:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
There's a category for reviews. Just bung them up in the essayspace and add the category. An actual "review" project has been proposed before but how to organise it was the issue and it never went anywhere. ADK...I'll withstand your feng shui! 17:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

TV listings fail/win[edit]

How very very apt... ADK...I'll rinse your steak knife! 14:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hehehe, noice! Lord of Reckless Noise Hooray! I'm helping! 13:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't get it... The unbusinesslikeman of business 23:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Very nice :D Eye on the ICR Quit talking and start (not) talking! 00:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I hate this username.[edit]

Anyone got any ideas for a new one? Thanks. --RatMaster háblame 01:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any particular hobbies or anyone you look up to a great deal? Something like that. Or, of course, your name.--ADtalkModerator 02:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Na i like pseudonyms. Hmm hobbies, i don't know.. I just go to school ha. And xbox live. And burgers and beer. (hey it's summer!) RatMaster háblame 03:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
How about Xboxliveburgerbeerschoolandheyitssummer! Aceof SpadesSilverbrain.png 03:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
How about Pseudonym?--ADtalkModerator 03:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Already taken. ThunderkatzHo! 03:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
How about Thunderkatz then?--ADtalkModerator 03:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
According to RWW, it's taken too, but I've never heard of the dude. UnderpratzOh... 04:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Characters from your favorite but obscure book/animePink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 03:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
In a Monty Python vein and following your present name how about MouseMan? Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 05:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Put your real name into an anagram generator and use that. ONE / TALK 08:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
If you go with the Spanish theme then "El rey de los roedores" sounds really grand - though a little long.--BobSpring is sprung! 09:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Or a rather silly French pun. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Or a Conservapedia in-joke. Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 13:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Or a Greek letter! άλφαTalk 13:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Guys, guys, I'm just going to say what we all already know. The best usernames are numbers. ONE / TALK 14:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
How very right you are. Number 6 (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I prefer something more discriptive. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I suggest RatMasterAwoogar.--

Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 18:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC) ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────wow, thanks thats a lot to consider! :) Sorry I haven't replied, ridiculous busy day... I'll think of something ! RatMaster háblame 21:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

LongEaredJerboaMaster. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Your username reminds me of:
  1. Master Splinter...the Rat (father figure) from the Ninja Turtles
  2. Some rat-based pokemon like Pikachu/Raichu/Rattata/Raticate...or something.--Dumpling (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Relativity denial[edit]

Besides you-know-who, there actually are/were a surprising number of relativity deniers/anti-relativists. This would make for a pretty good article, but the math and physics in the more complex denialist literature is over my head. Here's the stuff I've dug up so far on this if anyone's interested: The links on the pages for:


Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Surprising number? AFAIK, attacking relativity is the most common form of physics crankery. And "relativity denial" doesn't sound right to me.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Anti-relativity movement is the usual term, I believe. -- (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I didn't realize there was such an organized movement around it. I've seen both "relativity denial" and "anti-relativity." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
"Movement" too doesn't sound good to me. Is it that organized? I think that there have been movements attacking relativity (Deutsche Physik), but most cranks are independent.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems like they were fairly unified, but the organized movements have mostly died out. One of the pieces above links to this, for example. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure which WIGO category to put this in[edit]

So I'll just toss it out here into the saloon bar.

Rush Limbaugh does not believe in the heat index, apparently thinking it's part of a global warming conspiracy.

The Washington Post's Capital Weather Gang begs to differ. MDB (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that explanation does not conform to da rules. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Religious Skepticism as distinct article[edit]

I'm not sure if this goes here, but i was curious about people's views. I'm working on some of the xian articles, and the scholars I cite often call themselves religious skeptics as a school of philo/theo/history. Do you all think this is worth an article? or is our article on Skepticism plenty to cover it?--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 18:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you write enough about it for a full article? --Danfly (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
There is, cause it's kinda a necessary reaction to the "Our bible is an awesome bible, don't mess with it" crap that is the norm for some 2000 years give or take a few hundred. I think the best answers is to sandbox something, and then let you all (and myself) see if it's worth its own article or not.--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 20:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
There is also a bit of a split in the skeptics movement in the US - at least as I understand it. As far as I am concerned religion is as valid a target of skepticism as homoeopathy, but I am told that others - presumably accommodationists - draw some line when applying skepticism to religion or the existence of God. Worth mentioning? If it's true?--BobSpring is sprung! 20:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
VERY worth mentioning. why should religion get a pass from critical review, be it what they currently teach, what they taught historically, the authenticity of their work, etc. That exceptionism seems to me similar to - oh what is the acronym, NOMA? where science should not look into morality, religion and "god". But the fact is, science must look into it, and as it does look (surprise surprise) we find there is every increasing evidence that most religions, morals, "gods" are by products of the Brain's response to trying to survive. And religion (especially our dear friend the Xian one) has walked around for 2000 years saying "I am right cause my bible says so". if the bible is wrong, was does that make you?--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 21:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
"if the bible is wrong, was does that make you?" Fractally wrong? BTW, we have an article on NOMA. I'm not quite sure where you're going with this page idea, though. Can you be more specific? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Your most valuable editor has returned! (Cheers)[edit]

You have suffered for a long time, but it'll be okay now: I am back. I will lead this humble website right down the Path of Glory, Wikipedia should watch out. Just in one year people will talk more about Rationalwiki than Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga altogether. In the next few weeks you should wear sunglasses, because the intensity of the brilliancy of my work will must surely blind you.


Idiot number 59

--Idiot number 59 (talk) 19:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

We look forward to more pottery. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 19:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Why hath goat forsaken us? --ʤɱ digital native 19:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Who he? ADK...I'll advocate your street sign! 20:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
No, the great goat that kept him away. Would have come better in spoken language. And I just killed another joke... --ʤɱ structuralist 20:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's so nice to see your warm welcoming messages. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Who the inferno are you? The unbusinesslikeman of business 01:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Major cancer quacks[edit]

Came across Mike Adams crowing over some newly released cancer quackery and was surprised we don't have an article on this. I recall seeing clips of Charlotte Gerson peddling raw food as a cure for cancer in some pseudo-documentary, but this woo is waaaaaaay worse than I thought, as in it's actually illegal. Anyone familiar with this? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Stubbified. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
A lot of woo is bonkers but mostly harmless, it strikes me that we should have a list of woo topics that are definitely dangerous to health. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 06:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Hence Category:Cancer woo. But yeah - David Gerard (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Those crazy creationists![edit]

This is really funny and quite ironic when you consider all knowing creationists like PJR. Aceof SpadesSilverbrain.png 22:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of Paul Graham's Keep Your Identity Small: everyone thinks they are an expert on religion because anyone can have an opinion on it. What the creationist article forgets, of course, is that you can't just apply this to arguments you don't like, you have to apply it to everyone evenly.obligatory link Tetronian you're clueless 02:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
So the diss poor Steven with a false analogy

When atheists talk about theology, should we as Christians listen to them and take their word for it? Not at all. That makes as much sense as the mechanic listening to my diagnosis of the car.

When the correct analogy is:

When atheists talk about theology, should we as Christians listen to them and take their word for it? Not at all. That makes as much sense as the mechanic listening to my diagnosis of the flying carpet.

Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 12:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


I'm a little fuzzy on the rules when it comes to obvious spammers. Binned? Banned? Permaban? IP ban? Can we set a standard and stick to it? P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 22:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference if they're both blocked and binned? Unconstructive = doesn't make a difference. They can request a redress of grievances via their talk page, which should rarely be disabled. RatMaster háblame 22:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I know that it doesn't make a difference if they are binned if they are also blocked. I'm asking which option one should go with. Moreover, how long should the block be, if that's the case.... P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 22:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the status quo of 3 months is appropriate. RatMaster háblame 22:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that seems reasonable. Not permanent, but long enough to make sure it's not worthwhile coming back.--ADtalkModerator 23:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
We stopped binning spambots a while ago because it was ineffective if the spam program runs less than once per half hour. Thus, after some research across multiple Wikis, I came up with the 3 month block formula because it was the most effective means to disrupting the spambot, and the 3 month block usually disrupts the program enough that the spambot is disabled in the process. When we first added the 3 month block to the MediaWiki options, it had a "spambot" comment next to it, but that was removed due to confusion some time ago. Lord of Reckless Noise Hooray! I'm helping! 13:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
When I adminned the RW forums I used a spam blacklist, mostly IPs from Russia and China. I don't think blocking for three months is such a hardship so long as the genuine mistaken block has a possibility to ask for reconsideration. But I don't think many people who have posted ads for Cialis, replica handbags or fake Rolexes are really interested in RW's mission. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 11:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

A Quandry[edit]

How come in Europe, men can pee (somewhat) in the open using pissoirs but women have to hit the can? -- (talk) 06:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There's a joke somewhere about "You're a-peein'", but I'm just going to give a standard Yank response: "You furriners are weird."
Think you need to be a little more explicit than "Europe".--BobSpring is sprung! 08:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that the most blatant has to be Queen's Day in the Netherlands which is a gigantic national piss-up and when you will see these and this pretty much everywhere in the major town centres. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 12:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Bang Bang Club[edit]

Forget District 9, forget Invictus, this is the Sauff Effricen movie y'all need to see. And I'm not just saying that 'cos I know (and knew) some of the people it's about. --PsyGremlinParla! 08:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

So, what is it about? MDB (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
4 photojournalists who were covering the ANC / Inkhata (Nationalist Party backed) violence in the run up to the first elections in '94. Earned the nickname the Bang Bang Club, because they were often directly in between the opposing factions, getting shot at from all sides. Basically the story of their experiences, up to the death of Ken and the suicide of Kevin (who also took this picture you might remember). Joao Silva was the one I was friendly with (through his wife and her sister) - he recently had his legs blown off in Afghanistan. It's strange seeing a film about people you know. wp:Bang-Bang Club --PsyGremlinParla! 15:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
"he recently had his legs blown off". cripes. i mean... Some serious balls and respect to these men for telling stories no one wanted to hear. I'd seen the picture before, it was always sad, but never ever knew the background behing it. now I can read about it. thanks. and sorry for your acquaintance cause - i can't imagine that kind of thing. --Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 15:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Tx. The man has balls as big as a house. I mean he carried on taking photos, even as they were working on his legs at the blast site. Fair play, AP and the US military have been fantastic - best hospital treatment, they've flown Viv over there to be with him. Hell, he's even had a visit from Michelle O. He's learning to walk on his prosthetics at the moment, no doubt raring to get back, knowing him. --PsyGremlinSprich! 16:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
For some reason I have the burning need to let everyone know that until my brain kicked into gear I thought 'Sauff Effricen' must be the name of a famous producer or something. Whoopsie. Grumblejaws (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Naw, eet ees jest the wey we ken laaik to talk, hey. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 10:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Bless. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 12:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

...I'm not a guy...but ouch. O___o[edit]

...So, a friend told me to look this up on google. Rape Axe.......Am I the only one that's has heard of this for the first time?--Dumpling (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know what to say... ADK...I'll deter your antibacterial! 20:35, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Can't tell if they're trolling or just stupid... Occasionaluse (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd say that once the rapist becomes flaccid, that thing (which would in fact hurt like hell) would be pretty easy to remove. The tons of scabbed over hook-holes, however, eh, I don't even want to think about it anymore. Aboriginal Noise What the ... 20:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
What about hygiene? Isn't there a really good chance that the rapist is going to get blood in your vagina? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Read the FAQ. -- Nx / talk 20:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd be willing to say that for every actual rapist that was on the receiving end of one of those, there'd be a dozen cheating husbands with disgruntled wives who got the same. That really doesn't look like a device created to deter rape (I can easily think of better ways) so much as a weapon. Ouch. (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
It is real, it does penetrate the head in such a way that it does not fall out, and it is easily removed, and it's marketed for areas like South Africa, Zimbabwe, and other shall we say -- brutal places for women where your odds of being raped are generally something disgustingly near to 1 in 1. (South Africa reported to the UN, a year before they were awarded FIFA that they had "proudly" reduced the rate of rape of girls under 17, to 65%.) It is in fact, somewhat uncomfortable to wear, says the woman who designed it, so it's not likely to be common in places like the US where rape is far less common. (only one in 10 women here, report being raped. I hope you can hear my sarcasm that this is somehow an acceptable number.)--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 20:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC) (ec x 2) oops, is NOT easy to remove, sorry.

I didn't look at that, but I suppose it has something to do with world's current moral regression. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's approximately the Dentata from Snow Crash. The Dentata incapacitates the would-be rapist, whereas this just injures them. I wouldn't like to say how likely the plot point from Snow Crash is with an actual device that's probably uncomfortable and thus difficult to forget. Meanwhile Godot's 10% should be taken with a pinch of salt after you remember how many Americans report they've been abducted by aliens, and so on. Our memories are not what they seem, as psych experiment after experiment has shown. (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
You are really going to stand there and say women (and some men) are making up rapes that by and large happen when they are fully able to remember it? really??--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 21:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC) From the Colorado coalition of sexual assult "According to United States Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, there were overall 191,670 victims of rape or sexual assault reported in 2005.[17]1 of 6 U.S. women has experienced an attempted or completed rape. (according to Colorado Coalition Against Sexual Assault)". but sure, dismiss it with teh number of people who claim to be abducted.--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 21:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Who said anything about "making up"? This idea that people are either "fully able to remember" or they're "making up" things is the kind of nonsense that thrives among those who have never been forced to call their memory into question. Your memory is not a video tape, it doesn't faithfully record stimulae without interpretation or judgement. What you remember was constructed and reconstructed, it's the storyboard for a "true story" TV drama of your life, not the biographical notes made by an impassive historian. And that's before you even notice the fact that our live experience of the world is synthesised anyway. And for investigating or prosecuting potential crimes where two people's conflicting recollections are the only evidence, this is all very problematic. (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I kinda have to say that those who try don't really have deserved it any better. And I was once heart down there so I know that it hurts - alot. --ʤɱ pervert 23:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I once heard of a lady who put razor blades in her vagina. The unbusinesslikeman of business 00:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I can only assume any rapist getting the cock pierced in such a way is likely to murder or maim their victiim. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Life imitates art? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, older than that, I recall such a device in one of the Thieves World short stories from the late 70s or early 80s. The unbusinesslikeman of business 01:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I think that this might count as a mantrap which would have questionable legality in England. It might certainly make for an interesting legal case. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 01:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
One thing that bugs me about this device is how did they test it? Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 02:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully using an... artificial device. The unbusinesslikeman of business 02:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
...There's actually a movie about...Oh nevermind. Why do I even ask. x___x...Oh god. Now, as for the The testing. D:...I'm not going to even think about it. -shudder- --Dumpling (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Wanted: Masochists for an eye opening opportunity in our product testing department. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 03:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Speaking as the site's resident masochist, I don't think even I would qualify for that job. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...if I were a bad enough person to rape somebody, I think I'd also be a bad enough person to beat the shit out of the victim once I realize that they hooked me with one of these things. ~SuperHamster Talk 03:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

If that thing hurts half as much as I think it does, you'd be doubled over and crying for mommy, not beating anyone up. Also, the device assumes the rapist isn't going to feel his victim up first... P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 03:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The FAQ suggests that most rapists are in a hurry especially if the woman is resisting. However it seems to me that these things will only be effective if they are uncommon. If the whole population wears them then rapists will expect them and take appropriate measures.--BobSpring is sprung! 08:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Not wishing to go over the whole date rape argument again I can see that it might be the amorous drunk who gets caught out rather than the dark-alley sicko who might be prepared for the worst. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 11:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I remember reading about these a while ago. The main objections were (1) disgruntled women could use them as revenge for a partner, (2) the woman might end up getting murdered instead of 'just' raped when the attacker gets angry about having barbs in his cock, and (3) attackers will know to check for them first (yes they might be in a hurry but if it comes down to a quick check or a dismembered knob I think they might do a quick once over). CrundyTalk nerdy to me 11:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The arguments are similar to defensive weapon of gun. The more likely that innocent people have guns the more likely that the criminals will use them first. And if we're going into details on this rape thing then a premeptive strike with a banana would be sensible if premeditation was involved. Of course if women want to get revenge on a partner then some sleeping tablets and a knife are the way to go. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 11:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Where's the drama[edit]

What has happened ever since I left you? Has there been anything interesting? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, have you been away? Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 08:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
We killed all the bureaucrats and replaced them with clowns clones whom we now call the Moderators. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 10:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and as I see that you stopped editing in January you probably don't know that SusanG/Toast died. Most people left a tribute on her talk page, and remembering her has now made me all tearful again. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 10:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I thought web-based entities can not "die". We just fade away or retire. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 10:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore TK kicked the bucket just before Christmas but it took until February before we found out - and CP only found out from us. Now they are trying to remove all traces of his existence and blame him for all the bad. RobS even had the temerity to blame us for his death. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 11:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
He did? Where did Rob say that? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 11:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
He has said it several times on WIGOCP:talk. You would have better success with a search on your wired broadband than me on my 3G access. Sid would probably be the goto guy if you need more. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 11:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
See here and the talk page. --PsyGremlinSprich! 12:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Psy. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 12:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Heaven is For Real[edit]

I've noted that the book Heaven Is For Real is a best-seller now, so I decided to look at the commentary for it on amazon.

Oh my, there's lot for skeptics in there.

The book purports to be the experiences of a child, the son of an evangelical pastor, who, at the age of four, had a near death experience during surgery and went to Heaven.

Here's some of the flaws I've seen pointed out:

  1. The child is now eleven years old. Now, I'll admit that, if the story is true, it's a memory that would probably stick with him. But apparently, his memory of it improved as he got older. Memory fades with age, not improves, especially when you're talking about the memories of a small child. It seems more likely his memories were "coached" by his parents. (I'm not necessarily implying any intentional fraud on their part, mind you; I'm willing to believe he just agreed with the questions his parents asked him.)
  2. He met Jesus, who had blue eyes. A first century Jew with blue eyes? Even if you by into the theory that Jesus was the result of the rape of Mary by a Roman soldier, that's rather unlikely.
  3. He supposedly met a long-dead relative in Heaven, a grandfather, I think, and then picked him out of a picture "back on Earth". However, the picture showed the relative, his wife, and two children. Not hard to do.
  4. It conforms exactly to the theology taught by his pastor father, down to the men in Heaven (just the men!) having swords and bows to fight Satan some day soon.
    1. Well, except for the "you get wings and halos in Heaven" part, which is no where in the Bible, but right out of popular media conceptions of Heaven.
  5. He said he saw Jesus giving "power" to his father as he preached. But his father wasn't preaching at the time, he was in the hospital, praying for his son.
  6. The medical records show he was never biologically dead.
  7. The book was written by the ghost-writer of Sarah Palin's Going Rogue, who is well-experienced in writing books targeted at the gullibleevangelical Christians.

Now, I've not read the book, nor do I have any desire to do so. I'm basing my remarks entirely on the amazon.com comments on the book. But it doesn't sound credible.

Incidentally, there's a reasonable amount of negative comments coming from Christians who take issue with the theology of the claims, too. It's not just non-believers taking it to task. MDB (talk) 11:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I reviewed it at length, with many quotes, if you have further curiosity.--ADtalkModerator 11:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Memories improving with age sounds rather like false memory syndrome. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 12:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Just remember that in heaven everything is fine. Doctor Dark (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Mystery of the Week[edit]

What is the speed of dark? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

-c. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 12:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Another cry for HELP!!!![edit]

Okely dokely. Today's techy question. I have a Sony TV with Internet, no wireless adapter (because I'm not paying £50 for something that could have been incorporated into the TV), a TP-Link WA701ND Wireless N Access Point, and a D-Link DSL-2680 router. So far I have:

Phone Socket <----> D-Link Router <--- x ---> TP-Link W701ND <----> Sony TV

The Router is definitely connected to the intertubes, and the Sony is definitely communicating with the TP, but I can't get the TP to communicate with the D-Link. I've tried setting it up as a repeater with a wireless protocol and password that matches the router's, as somebody else claims to have done and got working, but nada. I'm missing something here. What settings do I for the TP-Link and the D-Link for them to communicate with each other successfully (oh, and the TP_Link is set to use as the gateway).--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 13:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Your router doesn't support WDS so repeater mode won't work. You should try client mode on the ap and don't check the WDS checkbox. -- Nx / talk 14:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Phew, thanks for that. It was the old D-Link router that had the WDS on it, not this piece of shit from my current ISP. Finally, one internet ready TV.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 15:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ack, i'm talking like west wing[edit]

I've been rewatching West Wing, and am finding my writing style (here, and in my professional writing) is taking on the cadence and the jargon of the show. Ack. Anyone else ever get influence by a favorite tv/movie/author's style?--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 14:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

You're only talking like West Wing if each and every conversation is made whilst walking briskly between offices. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
'Tis an actual trope. ADK...I'll soak your fruit! 14:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
David Simon and Hunter have both affected my writing. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 14:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
That's nothing, since playing L.A.Noire I've found myself pointing at things a split second before picking them up :-\ CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
For me it's always been Monty Python, "Not as such" is now a permanent part of my vocabulary although some Hancock and Round the Horne have also left their marks. But one of my worst habits is mirroring the accent of people I'm talking to if it is particularly pronounced. When one of my wife's Welsh friends phones I drop into a mock Welsh accent almost immediately and I can't stop myself from doing it. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 15:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Back in high school that phrase got a secretary really pissed off at me when I gave it as a reply after she asked if I had a pass to be in the office. Hadn't thought about that in years. DickTurpis (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Way too many to name. It's pretty po-mo, man. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I always stare at the address on something I'm just about to post, like they do in every film and tv show ever. I felt a bit sad when I realised I was doing it, and probably had been doing it for years. Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 21:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at this site...[edit]

While cruising the Internets and making good use of the Google (Bush humor), I found a fundamentalist, Protestant website that is too extreme for even my tastes.


The above site is crazier than anything that I have seen in a long while....--Lefty (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That's Matt Slick's little slice of the interwebs. His one trick is presuppositional apologetics and, just so you can get a feel for how nutty he is, he's good buddies with Ray Comfort and co. We could probably have an article on him, but I'm not sure he's ever done anything interesting. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Matt drove off my fellow Christian Humanists/UUs from his sandbox when they started to get frustrated with his intolerance. Some of their witty quotes are still recorded by him in his "Hateful Posts by Unitarian Universalists" section. He seems fairly thin-skinned, and he apparently could not handle a bit of criticism.--Lefty (talk) 00:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

How do you make a space exploration geek get choked up?[edit]

Have him watch this video of thirty years of Space Shuttle launches compressed into a three minute video. MDB (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's to the upcoming era of soulless private sector vehicles. ADK...I'll deconstruct your nuke! 16:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
As I've remarked before on these pages, I hope I live to see a human being walk on Mars.
I was born about three years before the moon landing. I figure that if I could go out not long after a Mars landing, those would make nice bookends for a life. (Kind of like Mark Twain arriving and leaving with Halley's Comet.) MDB (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
(EC) [Soulless private sector] [vehicles] or [soulless] [private sector vehicles]? :) Anyway, I do look forward, not backward.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Is there really a benefit to doing that, vs better and more complex probs, robotics for mining, etc? I do hope you see it. Me? I hope i see us send a probe to the various moons of Sat and Juipter to explore for life. but i'm not that impressed by the big red rock! :-)--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 16:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
And oh, yeah... that was touching. bye bye shuttle. and in a small way, bye bye NASA being NASA as we seem to keep lowering its funds and reducing its projects.--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 16:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I know it's certainly easier to send out probes to explore Mars and the moons of Saturn and Jupiter, and it may well be of greater scientific value. But I also believe this: there is value in doing something for the sheer glory of human achievement, of taking on an incredibly difficult task and doing it just to show we can do it. I want to see a man on Mars just to prove that humanity did not reach it's apex of achievement with the moon landing; I want us to go to Mars and then say, "okay, now that's done, what's next?" MDB (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

ADK...I'll reward your hostel! 17:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that sums up my attitude well. I just don't have his speechwriters. MDB (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
He was a man who fucking well understood. ADK...I'll discalceate your fritter! 17:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Obligatory xkcd link.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Both, come to think of it. Though I'd really like to see them build this. ADK...I'll obliterate your chump! 16:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
This is probably too much to hope for... MDB (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Both don't look like they have enough volume to house the reaction mass. :p I'll be happy if they build this. Or something like this.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
So what *is* next, from US, EU, china. What is out there, what is being drafted and tested? be it space flight, or trips to other celestial bodies by robots,e tc--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 17:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
There's always this to look forward to. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
USA: get a new ground-to-low-Earth-orbit craft and rocket ASAP. This includes both NASA and private efforts. Bigelow wants to make an orbital hotel.
Europe: ESA mainly wants to maintain a presence on the ISS. The Skylon from above is a private British project.
China: They seem to be the only people with some fixed milestones at the moment. Small Salyut-type space station this year (maybe), larger station later, BIG station by 2020, moon landing by 2025.
All of the major players, including India and other wannabes also have unmanned spaceflight programs with different extent.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Japan is intending to build a space elevator, after they invent the nanotubes or whatever. -- (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I was ~4 years old when the first shuttle was launched, and it was a major part of my childhood fascination of space and science (along with Carl Sagan's Cosmos). I was home sick from school in 1986, and I watched with horror the Challenger explosion (I'd made it a special point to turn off my Atari 2600 to watch the launch). I woke up extra early this morning to watch the shuttle land for the last time. Did I get choked up a bit? You bet your ass. I can only hope that we are on to bigger and better things. Aboriginal Noise What the ... 19:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I am just old enough to sort of kind of remember the Apollo 11 moon landing - I was nearly 4.
I was a yoof at the start of the Shuttle programme. I had been invited to a friend's Sunday lunch and we were eating in the garden at their house in Marlow. Old Granny suddenly piped up, "Ooh look, there's the Space Shuttle." We all looked up expecting to see a cloud or a jet or something. But sure enough, there was Enterprise sitting atop its Jumbo carrier on its way over London then on to Stansted on part of its world tour.
While all of these huge engineering projects are flawed - how couldn't they be? - they are wonderful human endeavours. For all their faults, they speak to our primal instincts to explore. And they are the tentative beginnings of what must eventually happen on a grander scale if we, as a species, are to thrive not just survive.
They deserve our rational support. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
This space-themed XKCD made me blub the first time I saw it. And yes, I remember watching the first shuttle launch in school, the Challenger disaster in uni, the Columbia disaster whilst recovering from a party. Was too young to remember the Apollo 11 landing (hell, I was 1, gimme a break!) but this is the end of an era - one that's seen the Viking probes, the Voyage missions. I guess the next thing to look forward to are the results of the Pluto mission in 2015. --PsyGremlinParla! 10:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Here you all are drooling over the shuttle and moon walks but I remember when Goonhilly Down was the topic on everyone's lips and Telstar was top of the Hit Parade. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 12:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
404. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Fixed Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 22:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Good riddance Space Shuttle[edit]

Good riddance white elephant Space Shuttle, I say. The Space Shuttle was too expensive, overly complex, unsafe, tried too hard to be all things to all people, etc. The US space program followed a sensible line of development from Mercury to Gemini to Apollo. They should have stuck with an incremental evolution of what they already had, rather than this silly Space Shuttle approach. Something like the Russian Soyuz, only more advanced. If you look at what is going to replace it, it will be something like the SpaceX Dragon or the Boeing CST-100, which are returns to that tried and true approach. Even that great money waster Constellation/Orion/Ares (killing it is one of the best decisions Obama ever made, up there with Health Reform and repealing DADT) is going with a capsule rather than a shuttle. (((Zack Martin))) 08:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That debt ceiling thing[edit]

Dunno what to make of this discussion. Potential consequences of failure to reach an agreement that I can think of:

  • Bad: Markets go bananas; recovery from recession slowed even further; US loses yet more influence and prestige; US economy loses yet more ground to rest of planet; price for upmarket French champagne quadruples within days due to unexpected urgent bulk orders from Mainland China.
  • Good: general chaos bitch slaps sense into wingnuts; Obama vindicated; GOP stops being the Party of No; US gets back on track towards 19th century health care and 18th century public education; nation regains chance of halting decline within as little as twenty years.

What do you think? Will it happen? If it happens, is it good or bad? Mountain Blue (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Almost certainly bad. Wingnuts like chaos... Eye on the ICR Quit talking and start mystifying! 02:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe the democrats will give in in the end. It would be a political victory for them. -- (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Considering the track record, smart money is on the ceiling being lifted by Aug. 2. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
But if there is any money to be made it will be done by taking the contrary position. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 10:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I estimate about a 90% chance that an agreement is reached by the deadline, which is why I'm dumping all my gold and silver on any dumbass willing to give me $1,650/$40 an ounce on it. I'm making a fucking fortune here, it's hilarious. I wonder if it's possible to short gold- because if it is, I'm totally going to do so. I think I'll buy a new car with all this cash I now have... --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 23:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know whether to applaud you or scold you. The unbusinesslikeman of business 15:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
You can applaud. I bought a kilo of gold and five of silver back in the early 2000's for around $11k, and now I'm selling it for over 5 times my purchase price on the gold, and the return on the silver was even better at around 6.5 times, but I had a lot less of the silver in terms of value. Sure, I suppose that I could stay in the market a little longer and increase it to 6 or 7 times my initial investment, but I'd rather just bow out now and miss out on a few extra thousand dollars and laugh when the bubble bursts and everybody gets stuck with gold prices at $500 an ounce after they just invested their life savings in gold at three times that price a week ago. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 19:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That climate change thing....[edit]

This is apropos. So did anyone else, besides me, have a full-blown panic attack today over the fact that the climate is irreversibly fucked and we'll all be living in The Road any year now? 'Cause I sure did. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 03:56, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, the first thing I thought when I learned about geo-engineering was "Hey, just like the final episode of Dinosaurs." Of course, there's always carbon sequestration. There's always "ecopsychology." (Which mostly exists as denialist snark fodder. Al Gore jokes getting old? Find an article on "Mama Gaia therapy!! HAW HAW!") Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the planet is fucked, but you can sleep soundly knowing that only poor people are going to be affected because of it. ADK...I'll castrate your Wii! 08:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank goodness Little Miss Sensible can put it all into perspective. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 10:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Well then, I think now is a good time for trees to gain sentience and bitchslap us all into stop ruining shit. Damn. HollowWorld (talk) 22:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This is annoying[edit]

I've got an HTC Desire HD supplied by Vodafone Spain. About a week ago I got an over-the-air software update to the operating system. Since then the GPS hasn't worked.

Initially I thought that it was something that I had done wrong so I spent quite some time trying to work out the nature of the problem. Eventually I went on-line and found out that it was a known problem. Vodafone forums have info on it in both the UK and Spain. I've contacted both HTC and Vodafone who say that they are looking into it but neither of then will give any proposed resolution time.

I'm also not sure if it is an HTC problem - though they tell me that are working on it - as it seems to be Vodafone customers who are involved. It is my impression that operators produce their own versions of these updates to give to their clients. Vodafone is not providing any way to get back to the original set-up, though the roll-out of the download has been cancelled while they are investigating it.

I could "root" the thing, as some people seem to feel this is the way to go, but I'm rather daunted by the process. Any thoughts?--BobSpring is sprung! 18:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It depends on a lot of factors. Is your phone still in warranty? Rooting it will void the warranty and are you happy to do that?
Either way, can you afford to replace your phone in the highly unlikely event that the rooting process goes wrong and turn your very expensive Desire HD into a brick? If you can't you might have no other choice but to wait until Vodafone fixes this. The only problem with that is that Vodafone could take anytime from a really long time to never to actually fix the problem.
Then again, is the GPS really that important to you? If it is then maybe stripping Vodafone's crap out and installing Android yourself might be your only option. Failing all of that, and I'm assuming that your phone was part of a monthly contract, you might be forced into the position of checking to see if it's still in warranty, replaceable, and see if it can 'develop' a fault that would see it replaced with a Desire HD that's pre-upgrade.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 19:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's still under warranty, but actually claiming under warranty isn't always that easy here. Obviously my main concern is ending up with a phone which does noting at all.
Is GPS important? Well, it's very useful for a number of things - but my life doesn't depend on it.
And, as you say - it is not clear how long they will take to fix the software. So I'm still pondering.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and if it's any help, the day the warranty ends on my Motorola Defy is the day that Blur gets stripped off and a decent version of Android gets put in, and as you can tell from the section above, I'm by no means an expert on tech, so I reckon if I can do it, you can do it. I doubt that rooting the phone will be any more difficult than hacking the firmware on a PSP, so it could very well be something that's worth looking at.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 19:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. The descriptions I've seen look a bit daunting. Some of them start with making a "golden card" but others seem to "root" at a deeper level. And the existing version of the firmware seems to make a difference too.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Wow, rooting the HD is considerably more complicated than rooting the Defy, and it looks like you'll need to check the build number as well, anything above 2.37 looks like it can't be rooted at the moment. If I was in your position, I might still consider trying to root the phone, but to be honest it looks like you might not be able to.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 19:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes. I suppose I'll hang on for a bit, keep checking the forums and see what others do.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I have a Desire S and rooting it is supposed to be impossible. Thankfully everything works on it but I have to say I have found it a little disappointing. I was expecting it to be a huge step up from my HTC Hero but if anything it's slightly less stable and the battery life isn't as good. If GPS suddenly stopped working I'd dump it. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, I was originally going to go for the Desire Z (flip out keyboards, a boon for those of us with Hulk-sized thumbs and type using the tip of out fingernails) but it went out of stock at the monthly price I was aiming at, so I ended up with the Defy at the same monthly price. I have to say that I've been impressed by what I've seen so far (swype can make up for a lot of key mashing as it turns out), and once I get a chance to strip out Blur (awful, I mean, what kind of system doesn't allow you to view files in any other order than date put on phone?) I reckon I've got a nifty bit of kit for what I'm paying for it.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 00:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I had a Legend before the Desire and I was very happy with it - till I dropped it. The Desire battery life is certainly disappointing but I like everything else about it.
I'm not familiar with Blur - I assume it's a customised Android os from somebody?--BobSpring is sprung! 10:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, it's the crap that Motorola wrap Android in so that when you use the phone you're left in absolutely no doubt that it's a Motorola phone you're using there. I wouldn't mind quite so much (open office makes up for Blur's filing inconsistencies), but Motorola is notoriously slow in getting Android updates out. Here in the UK we only got the official Froyo update about a month ago, so it's anybody's guess if we end up with another update or not, given that Gingerbread is rapidly becoming standard, especially on tablets.--Stunteddwarf Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 10:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah. This is the process for rooting the desire apparently. Seems to be: Create gold card which will allow a downgrade to rootable version, downgrade, root, install new ROM. Followed by (presumably) reinstalling all your apps. But I'm not up to it yet.--BobSpring is sprung! 11:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Substantial edits[edit]

I have not made one substantial edit the entire day. just "talk talk talk". Wheeeee!!!!!--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 22:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It all depends out your definition of productive. The unbusinesslikeman of business 15:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Some information[edit]

Holy batshit, Batman![edit]

A rapture ready site with Chuck Baldwin and Debbie Schlussel I came across, if anyone is looking for snarticle material. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Creationist Hall of Fame Stalled[edit]

I see Hurlbut's pet project seems to have stalled. According to the site, not a single red cent donated yet. Must be going towards all those hospitals. Also why is there a picture of Newton? Surely he'd have been a Creationist by default? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 13:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The thousands of living inductees[sic] page is crammed full. Pippa (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Those are some expensive bricks. -- (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd forgotten about that. Man, that's embarrassing. I'm tempted to send him a dollar just so he's got something to show for it. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
as many deceased as living inductees. They could at least add Behe. Hamster (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
What we need is two Buglers for their board and a third lined up to replace one of the current members when ousted. Then with complete voting power we remove all their nominees and start adding Lenski and Dawkins. -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 23:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk WIGO CP Error Page[edit]

Requested Range Not Satisfiable

None of the range-specifier values in the Range request-header field overlap the current extent of the selected resource.

Apache/2.2.14 (Ubuntu) Server at rationalwiki.org Port 80 — Unsigned, by: P-Foster / talk / contribs

If by your cryptic heading you mean 'I can't get TWIGO to load when I click on it' well it works fine for me. PsyGremlinSermā! 15:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I can't get TWIGO to load when I click on it. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 15:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Cleared my cache. Fixed it. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 15:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
What would you do without me? PsyGremlinSnakk! 15:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes that thought keeps me up at night. Hold me. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 21:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The Applocalypse[edit]

Meanwhile, in Financial news, Ticonderoga Securities guy says Apple stock price will soon reach THE NUMBER OF THE BEAST!. It's the Applocalypse! Steve Jobs is the Anti_Christ! DogP (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Scientology book[edit]

surprised we haven't been talking about this. P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 00:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

NPR interview with the author.P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 00:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

BBC on Amy Winehouse[edit]

Does someone who put out two records really qualify as "the voice of a generation?" --P-FosterThe French Revolution was neither French nor a Revolution. Discuss.Moderator 05:57, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Drug addict dies should be the headline. Call me a nasty prick but it isn't really news. Aceof SpadesSilverbrain.png 06:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
You can be the "voice of a generation" even if you deny it through your whole career, so I guess just about anyone is fair game. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Records? Nobody listens to records, this is the 21st century. The Google+ personality Almighty God posted "I tried to make her go to rehab" and got comments answering "What did she say?" and "No no no" within minutes and that brightened my day. All deaths are tragic, and we are all mortal (except Almighty God presumably) so we will all end in tragedy. (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
What a waste of talent. There's no doubt she'd got something but such a waste! Scream!! (talk) 08:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I know I'm an old fart, but I know more about her drug problems than her music. It's not like we've lost a John Lennon. Just another junkie crack whore with good marketing. --PsyGremlinParlez! 09:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Dammit, if I hear one more person thinking their being clever by remarking how Winehouse "should have gone to rehab" I'm gonna puke. If you're going to try to make a funny at least put the tiniest amount of effort into it, and don't make the world's most obvious joke over and over again. DickTurpis (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I was actually quite freaked out by BBC Three's "60 Seconds" thing where they said it was the only story. Fair enough if they'd said "top" story. And yes, fair enough that BBC Three is so awfully Yoof orientated that it makes me feel like an old git even in my mid-twenties, and yes, 60 Seconds is sometimes entertainment news orientated (but not always, and they usually split it into two separate ones) but only story, the ONLY story?! Fuck me that's overboard. ADK...I'll untie your potato! 13:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

For goat's sake what is wrong with people?[edit]

Five killed during a birthday party at a skating rink in Texas. "Guns don't kill people, people do" but they don't half make it whole lot easier. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 06:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

And then the gun nuts come in and say crap like "you can kill people with ballpoint pens just as easy!!!" If so, then why is there no National Ballpoint Pen Association to protect peoples' right to bear ballpoint pens as arms?

Of course, simply outlawing guns wouldn't work too well. Too many nuts have them now. --User:Brxbrx/sig 06:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Your resident "gun nut" here, but I'll direct you to this report by the National Research Council instead of arguing about ball point pens. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Having a well-informed opinion requires too much reading...--User:Brxbrx/sig 07:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Shorter NRC: "Shit's pretty complicated." That's why my position is that the "if only everyone had guns so we could shoot all the bad guys" gun nuts and the "if only guns were banned forever this would never have happened" types are both wrong. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Seems to me that statement deserves some sort of snarky reply, ending with you addressed as a certain "Captain Obvious". DickTurpis (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Political necessity ("We must do something, and this is something, so we must do this") aside, the British laws mostly serve to reduce the number of people who get killed without anyone intending it. You can kill with a ballpoint pen, and no doubt ugly drug territory violence would resort to that if we took not only the guns but also the knives, brass knuckles and broken bottles away. But guns kill people without the intention to even injure them. Ballpoint pens don't kill the schoolgirl sat at the next table, they don't "accidentally" take your best friend's hand off when he's posing with the pen for a photograph. (talk) 07:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
There's this ting called gun safety that intelligent people take VERY SERIOUSLY. For instance, that news about the Arizona state senator point the gun at the loaded report absolutely shocked me- no one who campaigns for guns should be ignorant of something that is literally the first law of gun safety- never point any gun at anyone under any circumstance unless you are seconds away from pulling the trigger. The people who constantly yammer on about gun rights and then do stupid shit with their guns (like say, Dick Cheney) are incredibly embarrassing to the literally millions of Americans who are able to use their weapons in a totally safe and harmless manner. Any gun owner would agree with me that it is, in fact, impossible for a gun to "accidentally" take your best friend's hand off when posing for a picture, because you and your friend are fucking stupid for doing such a thing and deserve what you get for not obeying basic gun safety. One thing RARELY mentioned by gun opponents is that shoting sports have the lowest rate of injuries of fatalities of ANY major sport. More people have been killed in major league baseball than in the Olympic Biathlon, and so many people have been more injured playing American, or for that matter regular, football than trap shooting it's not even funny.
And if I may take a second or two more of your time to address the claims that gun availability increases crime, I'd like to point out that the people who are committing these atrocities very rarely obtain their guns through legal channels. The gun that kills an innocent child in a drug turf war isn't bought in your local sporting goods store, the gun Loughner bought to assault Giffords was obtained by lying on his application forms, and I highly doubt that the gun (s?) used in the recent Norwegian killing were obtained legally. Just about the only type of murders that gun control prevents are rash murders committed on impulse, such as when a wife grabs her gun and murders a cheating husband, and I highly doubt that those account for any significant amount of casualties in the murder rate, especially when compared to gang or drug violence that gun control would do nothing to curtail. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 00:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Reminds me of Banlieue 13. A druglord stole a tactical nuclear warhead, and aimed it at the Champs Elysee. When the protagonist told him "You'll kill millions!" the druglord responded "You should have thought of that when you built it." Same thing here. We should never have invented firearms in the first place. We should never have legalized them in the first place. But now, we're in this miasma of deadly weapons.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Sure, because the all of history will magically be better if we were shooting crossbows at each other and hacking people apart with swords. The unbusinesslikeman of business 01:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
It (may) have been better if they had never been legalised, but I don't think you can say that of their invention. We'd have never have got rid of the old knights, for starters... Eye on the ICR talk, or type, or whatever... 02:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
It probably wouldn't have even cut down on casualties that much. Westerners, and especially Europeans, like to think that the massive casualties of WWI, WWII, the Thirty Years' War, and so on, were caused by firearms, but humans are more than capable of death on an epic scale with pointy metal rods and arrows. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 02:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
While not wanting to be facetious about a tragedy, that chap on the Swedish island would have needed a hell of a lot of ball-point pens.--BobSpring is sprung! 08:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
It was Norway, not Sweden. Don't be ashamed though, most people I know always switch them around in there head. --ʤɱ netlabelist 09:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah yes. Still a lot of pens "there" though.--BobSpring is sprung! 11:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
He's German. Forgive him.--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:35, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Do convicted people in Norway actually serve out their full sentence? In the U.S. it's normal to be eligible for parole after serving 1/3 of the sentence. Doctor Dark (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
So I steadily fuck up the orthography of a language I can think in, sue me. And for the fact that I when I was writing that comment was having a phone conversation in German and still only fucked up the orthography and not the grammar - I think that says something. --ʤɱ libertarian 23:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Something to lol about.[edit]

Dictionary of the Mainstream Media by Imran Garda from Al-Jazeera English: A, B, C and D. Really snarky, cynical and hysterical. --ʤɱ socialist 09:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Pissed at us[edit]

I was wondering if anyone would like to help fill in this little project, documenting cases of RW pissing people off. I'm not aware of the total number of legal threats, Trent claims ~7-8 but I don't know which ones. ADK...I'll rinse your beak! 13:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I alphabetized it for ya. What would RW do without me, I ask? (inb4 human, nutty)--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

WIGO idea[edit]

I've noticed a tendency for Onion-type articles to make into WIGO pages, which is good fun, but perhaps there should be a WIGO:fun page for such articles. as long as they relate to teh mishun and aren't just a load of lolcats of course. Whaddayasay? Huh? Real first name and last initialTalk, talk, talk skim my contributions 21:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Elevatorgate and Rationalwiki[edit]

So, I have been reading about Elevatorgate in the skeptic community (if you don't know what it is, here's a recap). And it got me thinking.

Rationalwiki is fortunate enough to have had a great representation of women in our ranks. I guess I could list some, but luckily enough we're so far from the tokenism that can occur in Internet communities that it seems almost silly for me to reel off some names. But I have also seen some creepy behavior at times - again, I won't name names. But it does seem like users who are open about their female gender get weird attentions, and I might even speculate that the reason some other users are careful to keep their gender quiet might be to avoid that attention.

I was wondering if any female users felt that sexism on Rationalwiki was a problem, and what they might think we could do about it.

I know that you might feel uncomfortable commenting with your customary username, of course. If you'd rather, you can email comments to me (and I will post them) or maybe use a program like Tor.

After seeing how many guys had just been blithely ignorant about problems like this, I just want to make sure we're proactive. Sexism is irrational, after all.--ADtalkModerator 11:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm frankly disappointed in the number of people who picked option 5 in the Pointless Poll on the subject of elevatorgate, but 1 and 5 were intentionally outlandish for reasons of satire and I trust people who picked it "got" the joke. As for general sexism, you're always going to find one or two cases of it that will cloud the overall picture. Certainly any sexist attitudes can be muted on-wiki by the fact we're not communicating under real names (in the majority of cases) or with avatars or profile pictures that openly express a sex/gender. ADK...I'll quantify your exhaust pipe! 13:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I have always used a gender unspecific version of my name to write. Academically, I tend to publish under B. Lastname, rather than Betty or Bonny. I am open about "who I am", but only if you bother to look into it (my gender here, is listed on my profile. My gender is NOT listed at Wikipedia). It's got nothing to do with RW or the internet. But i think you'll find that many women of my generation (I'm 40s), and maybe the younger generations assume (and i have no evidence this is true, it's just an assumption i've always held) that on cold reading, we are taken more seriously if you do not know we are women. You don't have to know we are men. Here, I've never found anything at all "creepy", other than what you'd find in any office, and on any street. a small % of the human race is creepy, i suppose. I'm apparently not a very good feminist, cause i actually agree more with Dawkins that the women over reacted, and acted in a way that had she said "I was worried the black guy would rob me", would have been dismised as a bit over the top. Women say i have no idea what i'm talking about and should shut up. I guess we all have to agree that you should feel fright by creepy men and go blog about it. (gee, i'm not sarcastic). hehe.--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 13:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's good to hear you guys don't see a serious problem here. I'm glad we're not in that space. I hope people will speak up if they ever start getting any of this sort of guff. Cheers!--ADtalkModerator 00:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Everyone completely blew the Elevatorgate story out of context. In fact, I could barely get an honest recap of the situation due to the fact that almost all of the opinions either distorted what Rebecca originally said or vilified Dawkins. My two cents? Ms. Watson had a right to express disdain over a creepy young man in an elevator that she met, and Dawkins walked *himself* into this mess.--Lefty (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm kinda getting sick of it now. Everything on Watson's Facebook page is now about this (albeit not her fault) and it's frigging depressing... It's like everything she now writes is being piled on by her supporters and/or detractors as about this sort of thing. I'm sick of it, really. I want to see interesting skeptical info for her and the people following her, not this utter horseshit. ADK...I'll bang your communist! 23:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I voted Dawkins is an out of touch ignorant asshole and hanging is too good for him! because I actually feel that way except for the hanging thing. Not a big fan of killing here.--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Both are wrong, each in their own way. (((Zack Martin))) 09:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Worst movie ever[edit]

2012 Ice Age.
Seriously. Not even "so bad it's good" - this is just abysmal. Ham acting, continuity errors galore (for example CGI planes changing make in between cuts), implausible plot (volcanoes shift ice shelf, which then starts thundering across the US like a glacier). Seriously, there is nothing good to say about this horror story - take the scene where the glacier is bearing down on our hero family, chucking giant lumps of ica at them. They speed off down the road, fishtale a bit and suddenly - no glacier.

But don't take my word for it - IMBD --PsyGremlin話しなさい 11:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No. The worst movie ever is Titanic. And that last X-File thing - they ruined Scully. --Idiot number 57 (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume this is something from The Asylum, right? ADK...I'll anglicise your fetus! 11:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
How did you guess? Do they have a reputation for this sort of thing? And if you tell me it's parody, then they fail. Dark and Story Night was parody and that was teh awesome. --PsyGremlinHable! 11:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, they're well known for it. They've even recently branched into sex comedy and, trust me, the trailer alone is barely worth the time to watch it. Apparently they make their money by putting out things that look suspiciously close to actual hollywood titles and hoping people get confused. I think it was their War of the Worlds that made them a ton of sales because Blockbuster rentals actually ordered theirs instead of Speilberg's ADK...I'll legislate your seaweed! 12:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Apparently it's considered quite an achievement to sit through Transmorphers without throwing up. ADK...I'll swim your cow! 12:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
It was hard to watch this without jabbing my thumbs in my eyes. Best parts has to be the changing cockpit for the helicopter (which doubled as the cockpit for the AWACS), spotting the ramp which led to the obligatory car roll (from which the all emerge unscathed, except for dad, who has a blob of tomato sauce on his forehead), and what has to be the worst death scene I have ever seen. In my life. Ever. That's the last time I pirate movies without checking IMBD first! --PsyGremlinSnakk! 13:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I love The Asylum. Snakes on a Train may be one of the best films I've ever seen. Also their War of the Worlds ripoffs are amazing (in the second one, which basically rips off Battlefield Earth, a load of survivors fly jets from Earth to Mars through a wormhole and bomb the martian's capital city.) Yup. X Stickman (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I take your 'Snakes on a Train' and raise you 'Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus'. It has a big shark jumping out of the sea and downing a jumbo jet. And it has Debbie Gibson. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I see your Debbie Gibson and raise you Eric Roberts. In 'Sharktopus.' It can walk on land using it's tentacles. ThunderkatzHo! 16:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
You kids and your CGI. Now I must go watch that. The unbusinesslikeman of business 16:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
You kids are so spoiled. ABC movies of the week were terrible. The unbusinesslikeman of business 15:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Do ABC movies have sharks taking out a jumbo in mid fight? Do they have Debbie Gibson? Do they have Debbie Gibson AND Tiffany in them, like 'Mega Python vs Gatoroid'? Do they have 'vs' in their titles? If not, ABC Movies are clearly worthy of the Palm D'or in comparison. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
No, we got Killdozer! The unbusinesslikeman of business 16:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Not the worst movie I've ever seen, but this is pretty "what?" As an example, it has someone taking down a helicopter by jumping over it (on skis) while holding a rope (which tangles up the rotor). It is amazing. The cinematography and editing in it is actually really, really good. It's just the script and acting that are utterly ridiculous. X Stickman (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I have seen 'Killdozer'. I sat through the entirety of it. Something I have not managed with 'vs' Asylum films. They absolute shit. Also theres an Asylum film where Sherlock Holmes fights a robot T-Rex. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────According to the Wikipedia article, "The script will take from an hour to a few weeks to write." That says it all right there. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

As shit as they are, considering the small budget they are no shitter than many big budget hollywood 'blockbusters': Transformers, Battle: los Angeles, anything with with Nicolas Cage. Multi million dollar piles of shit. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The "small budget" is, on average, half a million dollars or more. I've worked with a few amateur film companies who have official budgets of ZERO and they put out stuff that is better by a considerable margin. ADK...I'll throw your gun! 13:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

On a related note[edit]

They seem to have an affiliate called Faith Films, for when the production standards of the Left Behind series are just too high. ADK...I'll detect your tennis racket! 12:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


The problem of the "Worst movie ever" is that I can easily beat all of you - I inadvertently shot 30 seconds of the floor with my cameras - boring or what. That is the worst move ever. Of course this doesn't really count. What we mean is "Worst commercial movie ever". However, I'd go further than that. To really get into this category we shouldn't be thinking about low budget straight to video pieces but films which ought to have been good. For this reason I'll start with 1941 - Come on, this is Spielburg, Ackroyd and Belushi - how could it fail so badly. That's what I call a 'worst movie ever' one where you take top talent and lots of cash and still create an unwatchable turkey. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

In that case, I see your 1941 and raise you Ishtar. Or Hudson Hawk. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 13:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

21 years[edit]

I read here that Norway's maximum sentence is 21 years. Does that stack? Is there much recidivism after two decades?--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Not really, 20 years is a long time and the world and your motivations change. Clinically crazy people can be held for as long as they are considered dangerous, I believe. -- (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes. But there is also the option of "forvaring" (confinement) for dangerous criminals who are not clinicly insane. This means that while the perpetrator are sentenced to a given number of years in prison, but unlike standard punishment, this periode can be prolonged indefinetly.--Thule (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The bomber guy should get death in my opinion. 93 people dead = 21 years? Really Norway? That's 82 days per murder. RatMaster háblame 23:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Normally I'm against the death penalty, though I have withheld condemnation of it in the most extreme cases (this would qualify) and when the guilt is 99.99% certain. The problem is one is in the eyes of the law one is either "guilty" or "not guilty". There is no "very guilty" or "certainly guilty" to counter a "pretty sure he's guilty" so putting my criteria into effect doesn't work. In any case, here in the states, even if there were a 21 year maximum I think we could get 93 convictions of 21 years to run sequentially, giving him a potential sentence of 1,953 years. I'd be all for that. DickTurpis (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The problem with life sentences is that you still have to pay more taxes for them - it costs money for food, clothing, laundry etc.. .just to take care of an idiot who ranted on the internet and then wanted to kill 93 people to start a nonsense revolution. Why waste the money? I suppose that sounds cruel, but the actions of this man are beyond cruel. At least when they're dead sooner they provide nutrients to the ground. RatMaster háblame 23:19, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
The death penalty is more expensive than life sentences. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
And once again I'm so happy to be born and bred a European and not an American I could run out in the garden and kiss the worms... --ʤɱ libertarian 23:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
That article is interesting. Na, I love the USA. Europe's nice, love Spain, but I love my homeland. RatMaster háblame 23:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I am no supporter of the death penalty - but isn't it very expensive in the states because of the way the US legal system works? I don't imagine it's so expensive in China for example.--BobSpring is sprung! 07:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. The appeals process is what makes it expensive. But getting rid of that would be really fucked up.--User:Brxbrx/sig 09:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Even if you think the death penalty might be an acceptable option ethically, which I can't do myself, this guy's nowhere near being impossible to reform. To me it's obviously a greater triumph to turn a killer into the guy quietly running a gardening business under a new identity than to just kill them. Remember we used to routinely execute people for theft under the same reasoning that's offered above. And then we discovered that hey, some people, if you change how they see the world, stop stealing and become productive citizens. Wow! (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Not killing him is a way of saying we are better than him; killing him is a way of reducing ourselves to his level. If we return his hatred with hatred, we let hate win. If we return his hatred with love, we prove that love conquers hate. (((Zack Martin))) 09:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
No punishment should ever be in line of vengeance and no human life should ever be meassured by it's usefullness to society, the right to live is indefeasible and all other rights should only be taken away to protect others. Killing somebody who killed somebody does not bring back the original victim of this chain of crimes, nor does it restore any power or safety for the loved ones of either victim. Killing a murderer is just another life wasted. --ʤɱ netlabelist 14:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Just beautiful[edit]

A few fans and a couple of pieces of cloth.

via Miss Cellania Pippa (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of American Beauty.--ADtalkModerator 03:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Gorgeous!--Dumpling (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Here come the vultures![edit]

Good post from Mike Konczal on ratings agencies. Last month, the SEC hinted at going after the ratings agencies. Now they're pushing for heavy budget cuts, which inevitably means cuts to the SEC and making provisions of Dodd-Frank unenforcable. Coincidence? I JAQ off, you decide. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

God only has a 52% approval rating![edit]

From a new poll:

  • If God exists, do you approve or disapprove of its performance? Approve 52%; Disapprove 9%; Not sure 40%
  • If God exists, do you approve or disapprove of its handling of natural disasters? Approve 50%; Disapprove 13%; Not sure 37%
  • If God exists, do you approve or disapprove of its handling of animals? Approve 56%; Disapprove 11%; Not sure 33%
  • If God exists, do you approve or disapprove of its handling of creating the universe? Approve 71%; Disapprove 5%; Not sure 24%
  • Would you describe yourself as very liberal, somewhat liberal, moderate, somewhat conservative, or very conservative? Very liberal 10%; Somewhat liberal 15%; Moderate 36%; Somewhat conservative 21%; Very conservative 17%

Well! God needs to get a better spin doctor! --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Mmmm. Looking at how the people polled self-described their politics It doesn't really fit my (presumably biased) perception of the US.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, if God exists, then His morality is perfect and without a doubt different than the moral beliefs of any one of us. That is not to say that perfect morality differs from our moral feelings just as white differs from black, it's rather like a perfect circle which undoubtedly differs from child's first attempt to draw a bicycle, but in the end we realize that we were always striving for that.
As for the bad that happens around the world, I suppose you are familiar with the concept of free will? Well, the free will requires a world in which we can use it. God could have created a world in which we could do only good things and where anything bad never happens, but that would mean our decisions have no significance and therefore we wouldn't have free will. God can make miracles, but He does so rarely. In most time our world is a subject to the usual chemical, physical and biological processes described by science. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
"If God exists he has perfect morality!!¿" Eh? What God would that be then?
Zeus certainly didn't have perfect morality.
Or you mean the Christian version? That guy who murdered whole cities? That guy who tortures people for eternity in hell? That guy who punishes unborn babies because their grandparents didn't believe in him? But in that case you're right - this murdering torturing deity certainly has a moral code different from ours.--BobSpring is sprung! 08:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not in your competence to judge God, because whenever your moral beliefs differ from God's morality, you are obviously wrong and God is right. All people more or less don't understand God, so we can either trust Him or declare a war at him. The latter opportunity is in the nature of human beings - but that is also obvious, for that ever since we left the paradise we live in a world occupied by the enemy.
God described in the Old Testament is a version by Jews, but all versions of God are more or less false, because no human being can fully understand Him. I do not assume that today's understanding of God is in some way perfect; in some sense it is right and in some other sense it surely is wrong. The same goes for the Jewish version. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 09:27, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Whatever.--BobSpring is sprung! 10:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I knew you would understand me, smarty. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, thoroughly disapprove of God's handling of creating the universe. It's about time he rebooted the entire {poof}. MDB (talk) 10:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

God's such a slacker. He does all the amazing stuff like creating the universe, earth, life, light, pretty stars and autumn foliage but now just hangs around waiting for people's prayers to help them win football matches, lose some weight or win the lottery - but only a select few, not everyone. In the meantime he turns a blind eye to his mortal servants buggering little boys and raping little girls. I rate him: 0/10. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 11:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
As I said, in most time our world is a subject to the usual chemical, physical and biological processes. It's a real world and people can do bad things in the real world. God created the world this way because it's the only way how people can also be good and just to each other. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
"God created the world this way because..." How do you know why god created the world? This is always the problem with religionists: they think they know the why, and then act on those thoughts. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea why God should have created the world in the first place. But I do have thoughts about why the worlds is the way it is. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay, that's a different sentiment than what you wrote. Everyone has ideas about why the world is the way it is; none of us know why a god would make it that way. --Phil Leotardo da Vinci (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, let me say it otherwise then: I have thoughts about why God created the world this way. I do not pretend to own the monopoly of truth in this question, but I do think my answer, in its Christian context, is fairly obvious. God created things which had free will. That means creatures which can go either wrong or right. Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having.
You can see this is the general answer, though only in the context of this topic. I don't know why God wanted the Earth to be round rather than flat, but that isn't nearly as important. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Creating evil is good, because without evil none of us exist - in a world without evil, people might still exist, but none of us would. Objecting to the creation of evil is basically objecting to the creation of us; it is saying, "I am evil, if only I had never been born, the world would have been such a better place!" How are we to atone for the sin of existence? I would prefer to do without such self-hatred, such putting zero value on our own lives and being. (((Zack Martin))) 08:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

No I don't approve of God because he has made us die, growing old and scarcity based. Anyone who votes yes to that is an outrageous brown noser and I don't see why free will has jack shit to do with any of those. If God grows old about 160 billion times (depenting on how many humans have existed in total on earth), and then he gets cancer another couple billion of so times, and parasites another billions or so times, and strokes and drooling and genetic disfigurement since birth, and lives of ossification progressive, and gets born a couplee million of times as siamese twins, or leaves with lock on syndrome/epillepsy/skinphotreactivity/congenital blindness then we can talk about it. Sen (talk) 13:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
We only live because other people died, got sick, had horrible illnesses, were murdered, killed in war, genocide, starved to death in a famine, drowned in floods, etc., etc. In a "perfect" world, without all those things happening to other people, none of us would have ever been born. And is a perfect world really so perfect if none of us are in it? It wouldn't be a perfect world for us, it would be non-existence. (((Zack Martin))) 20:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Someone else has to be born with two heads for me to exist? Hey, here's an idea. Someone else -doesn't- get born with two heads and me -still- existing. Simples.Sen (talk) 16:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Oslo and Utoya[edit]

Well... that was... I don't even know, guys. I just don't even know. The fact that so many people are probably flocking to white wash this or bury it underneath cries of it being an undercover Muslim extremist will be staggering in the following weeks, I bet. No True Scotsman indeed. HollowWorld (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, our favourite fundie is firmly on board. PsyGremlinPraat! 15:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Faux News promptly changed the header from "Terrorist" to "Madman" as soon as his ethnicity became known. Behring calles himself a "conservative christian", so I guess that according to Assfly, Behring must be a part of the liberal media. Then again, Behring claims to be "pro-homosexuals", so he is of course no true conservative. QED.

I think there are enough links with crank ideas to warrant a page. I might make one, but not today. It´s just an hour away, and several people from my town is missing, so it´s not a very good day.--Thule (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

84 dead ? last news report I saw said 10 maybe. Thats very sad, shooting kids like that is just uncool. Hamster (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
92 now. 5 more missing, presumed drowned when they fled the island. Some 20 in hospitals with moderate to serious injuries. He published some sort of manifesto, a 1400 page load of nastiness, including a diary describing his preparations. Apparently he sees himself as a Knight Templar, about to strike the first blow in a war against marxists, muslims and multiculturalists who are destroying the West. Oh, and he describes himself as a martyr for the cause. --Thule (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh no, don't you see? It was violent video games which made him do it! He's not a real Christian, he's a Muslim extremist pretending to be one!!!! HollowWorld (talk) 22:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not surprised a mass murderer played violent games. Who the fuck doesn't these days? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I was playing a violent video game just the other day. It was brutal: I had this guy on this horse who killed this high ranking-clergyman, only to be smashed by this moving fucking tower (WTF!!!!!). Luckily, it ended peacefully, the reigning monarch on the other side was never killed; the game ended when he found he had no safe place he could get to. I forget what the game was called. But violent. Very violent. DickTurpis (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Clearly we are all just ticking time bombs. Lock and load, my comrades. For we are all murderers. HollowWorld (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Fuck Anders Behring Breivik[edit]

And RIP Amy Winehouse. A sad day. My heart goes out to any Norwegian RationalWikians.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed.--ADtalkModerator 12:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


Rationalwiki might want to do a commentary on it. It is mostly quotations, so the contents are not just the ramblings of a single man. Find it on google: http://www.google.com/search?&q=2083+-+A+European+Declaration+of+Independence -- (talk) 08:58, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I've looked a bit on his ramblings. Media claim that a good part of it is a rip-off of the Unabombermanifest, with blather about a coming European civil war. But it also contains a diary of his purchases and preparations for the acts, chilling stuff. Among the scariest stuff is his idea that his acts are justifiable, since the kids were "B-level marxist traitors". This matches the statements from his lawyer, Breivik admits to the acts but does not consider them criminal. --Thule (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Among hundreds of references Breivik cites are several well-known British newspaper columnists and articles in publications across the political spectrum. Melanie Phillips, of the Daily Mail, is quoted at length, including an opinion piece about Labour's immigration policy which is included in full.
Telegraph (my emphasis)

Pippa (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Climate Change Denialist[edit]

I don't know if it has been raised anywhere here already, but apparently he's a climate change denialist. (As if we couldn't have guessed it already)

"...he presents climate science as having an agenda “to contribute to create as world government lead by the UN or in other ways increase the transfer of resources (redistribute resources) from the developed Western world to the third world.” He calls it the “Anthropogenic Global Warming scam.” He recommends a video starring our old friend Christopher Monckton. And presents the classical denier rave about “climategate.” "

Eye on the ICR talk, or type, or whatever... 07:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Most conspiracy theorists are. The irony is that they are accusing "the scientists" of covering up all kinds of apocalyptic scenarios, but when some scientists come up with a real crisis, they decide that it is a nefarious plot to deprive them of freedom. Damned if you do, damned if you don't...--ZooGuard (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
It's the wrong kind of apocalypse, that's the trouble. You can't kill people to stop global warming... Eye on the ICR talk, or type, or whatever... 08:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)