RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive118

This is an archive page, last updated 3 September 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>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>

, (new)(back)

To Train Up a Child

NZ looks to censor and remove the book from sale which is probably good considering the vicious child abuse problem NZ has (it's often considered NZ's "dark secret") but it puts me in a bit of a position because I don't believe any books should be censored. Thoughts anyone? Abuse? Sexual innuendo? Ace^{of Spades} 23:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You can 'abuse' me... with fuzzy handcuffs. Ah no, but seriously I think it's a fucking great idea. I don't advocate removing the book, more like putting it in the hands of psychologists, therapists, other such people who can read it and understand what sort of people and what sort of trauma they'll be dealing with. It can be a learning tool... just not the kind it was created for. HollowWorld (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

EC Not too familiar with the book, and while I'm against censorship, I'm also for appropriate places and times (which is why I don't expect the local library to carry Hustler); what's this book on about that some people think Kiwis shouldn't read it? Also, fuck you, toad. Also, I'm wet for you right now. B♭maj7 So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. 23:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It's best to fight lies with the truth, and not censorship.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It advocates raising children the "biblical way". How to administer proper discipline and it has been implicated in a couple of murders. In NZ we have a serious child abuse problem so its not the sort of thing we want on the shelves. But, that said, it shouldn't be banned. Ace^{of Spades} 23:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like banning the book is deflecting attention away from the real issues here. B♭maj7 So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. 23:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

No it's not that - the book is more seen as "one of things we don't need considering the problem we have". Ace^{of Spades} 23:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of "we have this problem. I know, let's blame this book, instead of addressing social issues." Anyway, yeah, can't see a case for banning it. B♭maj7 So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. 23:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Its been a social policy nightmare in NZ for many years. But I am more concerned about AD's beer drinking habits. Ace^{of Spades} 23:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Tui is cheap!--^talk 00:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't banning the book just make it more legitimate in the eyes of the type of people who would follow the advice within anyway? I mean, it's not like you can *actually* ban a book these days. At the most it'd make it slightly harder to obtain, but in reality it'd just be a symbolic gesture. Within hours there'd be scans/full text of it on the internet. X Stickman (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not think it should be banned, because (1) sunlight is the best disinfectant, and (2) I think the book just appeals to the kind of wretch who is inclined to child abuse anyway. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Bleach is the best disinfectant. I say the book should be bleached. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sunlight, bleach, fire, sulfuric acid, are weak dilutions; the surest disinfectant is time. Markedc 64.28.251.41 (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Question for the veggies

I have friends coming over on Saturday for a meal, and one is a veggie which means basically all the food (well, bar one dish) will have to be veggie, but I'm struggling for a good indian veggie starter. I thought maybe I could use some of the Quorn fillets and do them tandoori style, but I have no idea if that would actually work or not. Any vegetarians here who use the Quorn fillets often and can tell me if it would work OK? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, maybe I should learn to JFGI. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

tell 'em to bring sarnies. Pippa (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Veggies get quite arsy if you invite them for dinner and don't throw out every bit of animal-based food in the house, hide all leather clothing / furniture, and stop buggering your cat. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Not all. Some. But when you do get one like that you really want to just punch them in the face. There are a few I know who were in an uproar about an "abuse of trust" because chips were being fried in the same fryer that some chicken samosas were fried in a few days previously. I mean, get a grip, that's like homeopathic meat. ADK^{...I'll redeem your centrifuge!} 16:49, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course if you use beef dripping in your fryer they may have a valid point. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Crundy needs to meet a better class of vegetarian; it's one thing for me to say "no, thanks, I'll just have the salad and some of the rice," which is what I do when in somebody else's home--it's another to rag on somebody for their food choices. The Qurn looks like it might go nice in a tandoori sort of thing, yes. I would eat it. B♭maj7 So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. 17:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

but I'm struggling for a good indian veggie starter - Crundy needs a better Indian cookbook. I'm a committed carnivore and but I never miss the meat when I'm eating authentic Indian. I mean, apart from veg samosas and Onion Bahjis (sp?) how about some puris with an interesting filling. The choice is nigh on endless. Jack Hughes (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

As a vegetarian who loves Indian food (and who's not a dick about it) I have to agree with Jack. At least when eating out I can always find tons of good appetizers. Pakoras or samosas are some of my favorites. DickTurpis (talk) 18:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Veggie here too, we're not evil you know, even the dickish ones are dickish because of their compassion. Not an excuse to be rude, of course, but they're just misguided. FairyCupcake (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I would advise against the Quorn. Most of my veggie friends are divided on fake meat things, with some liking the texture of TVP in food and others reviling the chunkiness of it. I myself don't eat much of any meat substitute things, because it just reminds me of what I'm not eating in all the worst ways. The best veggie patties, to me, are not the ones that try to imitate beef but simply replace it with something different yet delicious in its own way.

That said, Quorn would "work" okay for tandoori, if you do decide to go that route anyway. I have actually had a similar sort of thing at an Indian restaurant, and they also have it at some Loving Hut franchises.--^talk 00:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh, my friend isn't one of "those" veggies. I was making a joke. It was my decision to make everything as meat free as possible. Re other starters, I dislike onion bhagies, and the mother-in-law never taught me how to make proper "bhajia" (diced mixed veg made up with gram flour and spices and then fried) which are awesome. I do like pakoras, but in general I get banned from any kind of deep frying because tehwife hates the lingering smell. I did think of doing puris, but (1) I can't think of a nice veggie filling, and (2) I'm only used to making "breakfast puri" which are very small and puff up like UFOs. Oh @AD: I'm pretty sure he likes quorn because at a BBQ a few years ago he made a quorn chilli con carne (which was actually really nice). I'll give the quorn a go and report back :) Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Rights of Man - grammar

dumb question, but i'm doing one of those "is this plural or singular" issues. The sentence - The old testament is troubling for those who think that the Rights of Man is important. -- even though "rights" is plural, it's a single document, so the copula should be singular, right? En attendant Godot 17:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Go with human rights. Also, it's "are" for both cases.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Rights of Man is a French document (formally, Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du Citoyen), which is why I used italics in it. And why i said it's a single document. En attendant Godot 17:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

If talking about the document it's singular (obviously) if talking about "rights" then it's plural (equally obviously) Pippa (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The Rights of Man is a document about the rights of man which are undeniable. Pippa (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess i knew that should be correct, but each time i wrote it, I would change it cause it sounded wrong. I do that with sports teams, too. ;-)En attendant Godot 17:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, being French, I know at least a little bit about the French Revolution. But why pull this one out? Say human rights. The rights of all humans. This old manifesto ignores women, and human rights encompasses all of its contents anyways.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sports teams are an exception here, I think -- nobody would say "The Yankees has signed a new pitcher", it sounds silly. Stranger still are teams with a singular noun form like the Miami Heat: "The Heat has won five straight games"? Still odd to me (I prefer "have won"), but better than "The Yankees has won five straight." I think there's a Safire column about this somewhere. --Benod (talk) 18:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Some words are ambiguous or context-dependent though. Words like "headquarters" and "government". Depends on whether you conceptualise them as a group or a unit.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Oft-times we omit words which can help sort these things out. When you say "the Rights of Man is important" you are really saying that "the Rights of Man is [an] important [book]" or "the Yankees [team] has won five straight games" but "the Yankees [players] are great sportsmen". Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 18:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, when it ever sounds really wrong, I just add the qualifier. But then it messes with my style. ;-) As for why "The Rights of Man" specifically, cause it is one of the single most ground breaking texts we have, (along with some declarations of independence, maybe some constitutions and bills of rights), etc. that really puts into action, the ideas of Enlightenment. Those ideas, and that set of documents are the first time we are able to point to something and say "human rights matters". Up until then, Human rights was only important if/when someone bothered to care that given day. And why DdH and not the Bill of Rights? It's more expansive, more general and probably more influential world wide.En attendant Godot 18:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

GK just made me more confused about sports teams. "The Yankess have won 10 straight games". BUT "The Yankees defines itself as one of the oldest franchises in sports". (maybe you'd only see that if they add the qualifer "itself", but you dont' say "themselves". heh. ah, grammar, how i loathe/love thee.En attendant Godot 18:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself it depends on whether you are conceptualising it (or them) as a unit or a group. Some entities can be conceptualised as one or the other depending on the context.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about the case in question, "The Rights of Man", I'm finding it difficult to think of a context where one wouldn't be referring to the name of the book - in which case it would be singular. As been mentioned above, we would probably say "human rights" if were were speaking about the rights themselves.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

• Rights of Man is a book by Thomas Paine.
• Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen is a document of the French Revolution.
• The Rights of Man is a fictional ship, named after the book by Paine, from which Billy Budd was pressed in 1797.
• The Rights of Man is a hornpipe in E minor which is the first thing I think of when hearing the phrase "rights of man." Oddly enough, the Fiddler's Companion link leads to some historical perspective on the eponymous book and other contemporary writings. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Then here's the tricky bit, Cogs: how do you refer to these as a group? "The Rights of Mans"?--^talk 00:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Why would anyone in their right minds want to refer to such a group? Certainly not me. Rightses of Man? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I just confirmed with a composition postgrad that no possible construction exists. Just a gap in the language because no one ever needs to say it.--^talk 04:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There are three books on the table. Three Rights of Mans. I use "peoples" a lot, which makes people think I'm strange... a plural plural, but in teh context of native american peoples, it's correct.En attendant Godot 04:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The difference, I think, is that "people" is the plural of "persons," when it comes to talking about individual humans, but in another sense it is singular when it comes to talking about grouped sets of those humans. The two uses of "people" have a different functional definition: one is a generic group of humans and the other is a specific group of humans organized around a social or political framework. Even further, "peoples" operates on existing and accepted conventions. That's in distinction to the proper noun "Rights of Man", which is a singular label containing both a plural label modified by a singular label, and the various forms of which cannot be easily pluralized under traditional conventions. That's why we have to use italics to make the distinction - Rights of Mans works on a read, but Rights of Mans looks like a different book unless you have already been working through this discussion. Another complication is the audibility factor - we're inclined to write things in a way that is functional when spoken, which is why people who are feeling freed from the 18th century rules on plural possessive are shifting towards "Jesus's" rather than "Jesus'." When I, at least, say "Rights of Mans," I actually say "Rights of Manses," which works even less. That might just be me, of course, but it introduces an additional disconnect to make it difficult to naturally pluralize Rights of Man as Rights of Mans, even if would practically function that way if it was forced.

tl;dr: You can force it but there are reasons no convention dictates a solution.--^talk 05:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘There are some hoops not worth jumping through. In casual speech, nonverbal cues are available if needed. In careful writing, strategic parsimonious circumlocution can help keep it clear. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 07:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If you really wanted to force a plural wouldn't it be "Rights of Men"? But the book is not about "man" but (in an age before political correctness) "mankind".

Furthermore, "Rights of Man" is is grammatically equivalent to "Men's Rights" - a concept which now has different meaning. All the more reason to simply refer to "Human rights". --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There are three books on the table. Three Rights of Mans. Nah, I don't think you can pluralise the name of the book. You would simply say "Three copies of...". Otherwise you get problems:

• Three On the Origin of Speciess
• Three The Infinite Books
• Three A Brief History of Times

I'm not buying it. ^{ONE / TALK} 08:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with "Rights of Mans" when talking about several editions or copies of the book, yet acknowledge it could confuse someone not up to speed on the context. Pedantic opinion will differ, no doubt.

I would not use that construction in writing, nor in front of someone with a limited grasp of playful English. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Man here is a generic singular . "Rights of men" suggests rights that all men possess collectively, "rights of man" suggests rights that each man possesses individually. I prefer the term human to man, since it is indisputably gender neutral; and while rights of humans sounds right, rights of human sounds a bit odd (makes me think of the rights of User:Human, such as the right to control his own talk page which he has recently been so pettily denied). I think the answer is, that the generic singular is no longer very productive in English, so it sounds fine in set phrases established back when it was productive, but attempting to use it in newer formulations just doesn't sound right. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Spam

For the first time ever, I checked my Gmail "Spam" folder. Horrors: Loads of not spam in there including some I'd been waiting for. Pippa (talk) 16:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I pretty much never have anything fall into my junk folder. I also keep an eye on it regularly for the laughs. So many messages pretending to be from Facebook. ADK^{...I'll model your ax murderer!} 16:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Damn, now i'm singing that song.En attendant Godot 16:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

For the unaware. Pippa (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Did someone say... spam? HollowWorld (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

SPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMBACON--Dumpling (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Scrapple. The unbusinesslike^{man of business} 21:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Obama the traitor honors mean old indian who killed whites (Fox)

You all know I have a particular tie to things Native, especially Lakota, so this article inflamed me. Please remember, sitting bull was killed during a prayer services. A bunch of old men (all teh young bucks were dead, too dangerous too keep on the rez), women and of course children. Slaughtered at Wounded Knee by an ancient "machine gun" type weapon... that ripped though the camp with devastating power. The Ghost Shirt dancers were praying. Just praying. But fox thinks that attention should not be given to them, or Sitting Bull. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_big_picture/2010/11/fox-news-attacks-obama-for-celebrating-sitting-bull.html --En attendant Godot 03:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

eh, what great outrage. what old news. damn you facebook for recycling news and tricking me into thinking they are new articles. evil. (hum, i could of course, just read teh DATE.... but thatwould be silly now).En attendant Godot 03:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"Comments for this page are closed." Heh, indeed. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Idea of the decade

Via Facebook:

If academia fails, I want to open a hairdressers called the Socially Awkward Salon, which will have a sign promising no inane questions or unnecessary talking. There'll be books, comics and maybe even a games console below the mirror. And you could get a hair cut without having to interact with anyone (except to clarify the haircut). Hell, maybe even a poster of various standard hair cuts, like a menu, so you could go "that one".

ADK^{...I'll terrorize your lighting!} 13:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

What's a haircut? Тy^talk 14:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Fucking cutters always asking me questions about my life...--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Something about... I have no fucking clue

wow..... you gals and guys are good.

If I may interject at this point..... as I have slowly found myself descending to the bottom of this page I have been

intrinsically enveloped in the wide thought 'pattern's of each person talking. Listening as intently as I could I found myself

sinking ever so deeply into thought ..... I think I found my brain!

As we process the 'qualia' of cause vs effect or experience either physical or emotional sensations, the 'mind' is but the

body/physical brain 'We' use to process all of the 'intricate stuff' that makes up our Universes. Therefore 'We' as the energy,

that is divine/spiritual wasteland of ever-living, ongoing, never-dying space, 'We' guide these experiences/qualia ..... yes???

Splinter groups of religion after man-made religious folklore ebb and flow across the seas of time, expressing individual ideas

that are of want to be followed, whether or not there may or may not be a truth to that particular idea. Us/We as the One who

exists in this realm of choice drive this body/physical 'vehicle' for lack of a better word/analogy.

But as to tasty ponies, since I could only suppose that the pony would be more tender than a horse, I would only wonder if a

pinto would be sweeter than a mustang, ( oil not included for digestion ).....

Our minds are just that ..... the keeper of the knowledge that 'We' throw into it and hopefully something sticks! ( I really

hope that sometimes ).....

Evil is the product of Abuses..... our bodily illnesses are of the bodies life breakdown and maladies that affect all bodies at

one juncture or another. If 'One' was not brainwashed from childhood with any sort of abuses then the evil that comes from

those abused would therefore not exist, quite literally. As for a 'Goddess/God' (lets be well rounded here and say that you

can't have a female without a male and visa versa ) - Whatever made or created all of this had one thing in mind..... to give

Us something so Beautifully coordinated that when we look up through the universal Eye we can see forever.

And as far as cutting One's hair - I prefer to not even walk near a person trained or not who bears a tool remotely shaped like

a pair of scissors...... for I feel that nothing good could ever come of it ..... So if I were to see something of that type

floating out in cyberspace ..... I personally would hit the delete key and take the train North!!! It just reminds me of that

commercial where a piece of dust lives between the keys of K and L and ends up spending to much time at the Space Bar!

This is a really interesting site. Thanks for letting a Canadian into your lair, it really is very appreciated. Oh, last note:

don't worry - we got your backs up here ..... although I don't know about our feds either at this point - they're not exactly

the brightest lightbulbs in the package. TLOS 10:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that was really very witty, but without my Concerta it's just tl;dr--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Didn't mean to be..... but what is Concerta??? and does tl;dr mean total drivel??? ..... for in that case..... ok!

and I'm not a hair dresser so I surely won't be asking you questions about your life any time soon either. TLOS 11:51, 21 August 2011

Concerta is nickname for methylphenidate, a drug taken against the effects of ADHD. "tl:dr" is internet slang for "too long; didn't read". So both together make sense... --★uːʤɱ libertarian 19:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, sorry but first I wasn't writing it to you - it was to the page - second - if you are refering to a malady of ADHD

from a simple little paragraph written in expose - pretty bad - and third if you've really got nothing nice to say, why

bother writing anything - you don't know who I am and are certainly not in any position to assume - for that just makes an

ass out of you then - doesn't it - I would certainly not assume that you where an ass - that would just make me like you-

something I surely wouldn't want to be - but thank you for your input - I'm sure you had fun writing it. TLOS 1:23, 21 August 2011

What I was saying is that I'm out of my medication and that makes it a chore to read long posts.--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Then please accept my misunderstanding of what you said - I felt as if I'd stepped on toes here and there is no way I

would even consider doing that. I came across this 'community' very accidentally - I was just here to comment on a page I

had come across - and then found myself writing introductory excerpts - sorry for the length - I'm a programmer not a

good writer and this is my first community - I'll do better in future. TLOS 1:42, 21 August 2011

Hello TLOS, I read your post, I understand what you are saying. Hey, people here love to call me "TLDR" too ("too long didn't read"). Then again, I think yours and my "TLDR" styles are very different. Yours seems much more diffuse, like a painting... mine is sometimes more like hyperrational, hyperdetails oriented, like I'm trying to write out a mathematical theorem in prose... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Everytime I read "tl;dr" without a good excuse (like "have to go to work" or "forgot to take my pills") I assume the peson has lost the debate or at least any interest, But hey, still better than people moaning about your "walls of text" (equally bull) or "rants"... --★uːʤɱ digital native 11:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If you've lost interest, the best thing to do is not respond at all. If you are still interested enough to respond, even if just to say TLDR, you haven't really lost interest. Polite responses include, (1) not responding at all, (2) That sounds interesting, sorry I don't have time to respond to it in full now, but I will later if I get the chance (even if you never get around to doing it, so long as you had some genuine possibility of doing so when you said that, you aren't being impolite or untruthful)... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad UHM accepts that me running out of my medication is a valid excuse. Me and Maratrean, however, have a score to settle now...--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Brxbrx, that wasn't really directed at you. If someone says Too long to read because I haven't taken my ADHD medication, I don't think there is anything impolite about that. Such a statement is too honest about your own limitations for me to consider it impolite. It is those who respond with TLDR in a dismissive tone whom I am addressing. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no grudge with you. I was joking. It's hard for me to get that across at times.--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Organizing a sports competition that's ostensibly about bringing the peoples of the world together in the spirit of brotherhood and fair competition...

...while a billion of those people are in the middle of a month-long fast. Discuss. B♭maj7 Define "talk." Define "page." 19:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Ramadan moves around quite a bit, the Olympics less so. And as it lasts a month, if you were to pick a random time in the year to do something you have a 1 in 12 chance of doing it when Muslims are fasting. So. Fucking. What. If they want to put religious fasting above the Olympics that would be their problem, not anyone else's. They made a choice, well we assume they made a free informed choice, to follow a religion and actively hold it above absolutely everything else in their lives so they should deal with it. ADK^{...I'll bescumber your deity of personal preference!} 02:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Besides, a billion people are already going hungry for that month, and the month after, and the month after that, and not out of choice or religious compulsion. ADK^{...I'll voice your rope!} 02:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

That second argument is weak -- Famine-afflicted states make sure that their athletes (as well as just about everyone living in the cities, food experts call it "urban bias.") As for the first part of your argument, I find it cold. Belief exists. Belief matters to actual, living, breathing people, and dismissing it with a "fuck them" is rarely productive. Moving the Olympics forward by a couple of weeks would have allowed the games to do in deed what they say they're all about. B♭maj7 Define "talk." Define "page." 02:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless countries are forcing their athletes to adhere to the fast during the games, it must be regarded as a personal decision on their part; they need to consider whether they believe more in fasting or in winning a medal at the games, then make their decision and face the consequences. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

It's putting people in conflict between two really important values, and it's the organizers thumbing their noses at a billion or so people worldwide, no small number of whom, coincidentally, lived under the colonial rule of the country putting the games on (its the local organizers and not the IOC that fixes the dates). It runs totally contradictory to the values espoused by the Olympic movement (for whatever those are worth) B♭maj7 Define "talk." Define "page." 02:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume that the argument that "No season, week, month or day is any more relevant than any other" (as one of our anti-theistic editors put it a while back) would carry no weight with you in this question?

Also, do you know if any of the Muslim countries that are participating in these games, such as Iran, have lodged any complaints about this matter? ListenerX^TalkerX 04:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know one way or the other, and maybe therefore, I'm making a tempest in a teapot. I wonder what this guy might say. Amazing how humans can never quite make up their minds, eh? B♭maj7 Define "talk." Define "page." 04:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I am of the "who gives a flying fuck" persuasion. Ace^{of Spades} 04:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

There are always other things going on, in the world, in a particular country, and in people's individual lives. What I see from Islamic voices is mostly a fairly moderate position, that it's unfortunate but can't really be helped, the Summer Games is held in the summer, and Ramadan moves so that an overlap is very nearly inevitable in some years (there was literally no way to prevent the 2012 Games overlapping with at least some interpretations of Ramadan, without violating the IOC's rules on timing of the summer games). The requirement to fast is not strong enough to utterly compel a moderate Muslim, a person could argue to himself or herself that representing their country and Islam to the world was of overriding importance, and then fast after they cease competition for the required time. Only the strictest observers would find this unacceptable (the same kind of people who would think the Olympic swimming events were inherently immodest and therefore no Muslim should watch let alone participate - fundies are killjoys everywhere). 82.69.171.94 (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Also I saw some quite positive thinking, suggesting that the inconvenience itself is a positive attribute, that Muslims benefit from living in societies that tolerate their belief but don't rearrange everything to make it as convenient as possible (as almost inevitably happens in a majority Muslim country, secular state or not). The idea here will be familiar to Jews of a certain stripe, that confronting obstacles that are unique to your religion reminds you how important your religion is, and not to take it for granted. Ramadan doesn't make competition impossible just more difficult. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 15:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This has been an issue that Muslim sports men and women have had to deal with for ages. Some footballers take a pragmatic approach to fasting, in that they'll eat normally the day before and on a match day and then make up the fasting time at a later date. See here. Bondurant (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Cold? Really? It's plain fact. We could bung the Olympics at any point in the year and have a 1 in 12 chance of bumping into Ramadan. The world doesn't stop for a month just because some religion demands people stop eating. The Earth turns, the sun fuses hydrogen, and people still eat, excrete and watch TV. The universe is in the same camp as Ace here, it doesn't give a flying fuck. Adhering to a religion is a personal choice. Millions of people go out each Friday night after work, get absolutely slammed and wake up on a Saturday afternoon with a mental hangover, should we move the Olympics away from the weekend so those people also have a chance to compete without it conflicting with their personal choices, desires and traditions? No. That would be crazy. But because it's religion it's suddenly special and magical and we can't even take a dump without offending one of them. To put it in polite terms: Fuck. That. Shit. ADK^{...I'll graphitize your equestrian!} 13:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, made a miscalculation there, as the complaint is that the Olympics is oraganised in the weeks after Ramadan rather than during it, it's actually closer to 1 in 10 or 1 in 9 chance of it clashing, not 1 in 12. ADK^{...I'll bescumber your embryo!} 13:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Would it be utterly tasteless to suggest that in light of their judicial dismembering the likes of Saudi Arabia could send a team to the Paralympics which are post Ramadan? Also it should not be forgotten that Eric Liddell did not run in his best event at the 1924 Olympics because as a devout Christian he refused to race on a Sunday. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me like looking for reasons to be offended. If you don't like the rules, don't play the game. See also Johnathon Edwards who refused to jump on Sundays. (He's now atheist) Pippa (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Given that Muslims are involved, this could become an explosive controversy LOL! 74.89.192.173 (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't 'LOL' mean something is supposed to be funny? AMassiveGay (talk) 03:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it does, and it IS funny, at least, in my opinion. And the opinions of some of my friends, who love these kinds of politically-incorrect jokes. 74.89.192.173 (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The Great Recession and the death of manufacturing

I came across this IMF paper recently, which ties together income inequality, debt, and financial instability. It's an interesting analysis of the spike in all three that occurred in the 1920s and 2000s. Another similarity not mentioned in the paper is the erosion of the economic base over these periods -- in the 1920s it was agriculture that was wiped out (and even more so in the '30s) and manufacturing in the 2000s (as well as years prior). Interesting to speculate that there may be a single underlying cause of these economic disasters, but it's always best to remember Mencken's words: "For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple--and wrong." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

These industries aren't dead, they were just relegated to developing and undeveloped nations. Faced with unions and the labor rights movement in general, the bourgeoisie simply moved the proletariat to places where they weren't organized. Now, the US and other developed countries are mostly just masses of petit bourgeois unaware or uncaring of the fact that while they enjoy their easy lives the very shirts of off their back were made under grueling conditions by foreign laborers that can only be thankful for the few dollars a week they make, because protesting the miserable conditions would simply mean that production would move to another location free from regulation or labor syndicates. The classes are still quite real, we just don't see it because the lower classes are far away and out of sight.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

And our rivers get less of the dyestuff and other nastiness, while the airborne pollution has a chance to spread out or precipitate before it reaches our shores. Even less reason to keep the EPA bureaucracy in business. I remember the eighties, when the suits got all breathless about the service economy. Yeah, right, we can all make our living by shining one another's shoes. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Well it doesn't matter that our rivers get less dye stuff because we're going to be shoving a giant fucking oil pipeline through, from the tar sands in Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico... which is apparently bad news for the environment. Who knew? HollowWorld (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I should have added the qualifier "American." Globalization is one reason for the erosion of manufacturing, though I imagine technology played a role as well. And both of these changes coincide with a shift in business cycle and employment trends. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Will there ever be a time when even the robots are getting laid off? It's hard to get a job where I live, because employers are firing, or 'hardening up' by keeping the employees they have now. Apparently, everyone here thinks we're at the tip of a roller coaster and we're about to plummet hard. HollowWorld (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the future! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Offshoring has played some role in "de-industrialization," but automation has made the remaining industry much less visible. I read somewhere that Sheffield is now producing more steel than at any other time in its history, except that the industry is now automated, so large numbers of steel workers are not needed anymore. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup. The problem is that automation destroys the low skill / low responsibility jobs because those are the jobs we most readily get machines to do. The economics works out OK (socialism lets you re-arrange the numbers so that some of the benefits of the automation are siphoned off to feed, house and clothe those whose jobs were destroyed) but the psychology is tricky. We have been teaching people that working for a living is a virtue for a long time. If all the jobs a particular person can do no longer exist, how are they to achieve this virtue? In my informal surveys although a fair number of people had no trouble with the idea of spending the rest of their life living modestly with no fear of poverty but no job, many more felt they would have to have some kind of job to give structure to their lives. There is definitely potential for violence as a society tries to adjust to permanent low employment -- both from those who want jobs and don't have them, and from those who have jobs and resent the fact that other people live comfortably without -- and it is perhaps for this reason that governments around the world have tried hard since the industrial revolution to keep people employed. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I doubt we will ever run out of work to do. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't have to run out of work, we just have to run out of work that some people can do. For every firefighter, tax accountant and train driver, there are hundreds of people filling sandwiches and sewing T-shirts. One day a robot derived from work on Robocup Rescue might replace one firefighter per shift, the government might simplify tax regulations, and a few more of the world's railways might switch to driverless operation, but meanwhile all the sandwich fillers can lose their jobs in a single day when a machine does their job for half the money. The sandwich fillers probably don't have the physical stamina of the firefighter, the head for figures of the accountant, or the ability to work alone and low risk health record of the train driver so they won't be competing for any of those jobs, that's why they became sandwich fillers in the first place. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

...but the psychology is tricky. The old saw, "the devil finds work for idle hands," has been largely validated by examples across much of recorded history and all subdivisions of society. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Should we capitalize "internet?"

A number of publications do not capitalize the noun "internet." I personally think the word's headed for common noun usage. Blue (pester) 00:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you volunteering to go through the wiki and make our usage consistent? B♭maj7 So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world. 00:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No, by the royal "we" I meant humanity in general, not RationalWiki. Blue (pester) 00:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

No more than we capitalise or even hyphenate email nowadays, in my opinion. E-Mail just looks weird now. X Stickman (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

An internet is a network of networks. The Internet is one particular internet, built on the TCP/IP protocol suite. The Internet is getting close to being the only internet, although arguably historically some other networks have qualified, such as the global X.25 network.

I would expect in the future, with space colonisation, the current TCP/IP Internet will fragment into many separate TCP/IP internets, since the protocols that are optimal for intraplanetary use are highly non-optimal for interplanetary and interstellar use, although then I'd expect we'll probably have an interplanetary/interstellar DTN internet of TCP/IP internets.

In conclusion the Internet is an internet, and is only one of many internets past, present and future, although it is close to being the only internet right now. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Your conclusion there is a good summary of it, I agree. Generally speaking, either Internet or internet is acceptable for those reasons.--^talk 02:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh, right; similarly, the Norwegian Nazi collaborator's name may be scribed "Vidkun quisling." ListenerX^TalkerX 03:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A proper noun used to refer to that person is rather a different matter. As you probably see, it introduces confusion about the referent - "Are we speaking of the generic quisling or the actual Quisling or some hybrid?" - which is the opposite of what communication is intended to do. In contrast, the near-complete identification of the mega-internet that is the Internet with the term itself is more of a form of a "generic trademark": a specific example that comes to stand for the whole set because of its ubiquity, like xerox or kleenex. So when you say "internet" you almost always mean "Internet," and that's understood.--^talk 03:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

An internet, the Internet. The latter refers to a unique entity, hence is a proper noun and should be capitalized. The analogies with genericized trademarks are invalid, since there is more than one photostatic copier and more than one facial tissue. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

There is more than one Internet, as well. My school's Student Internet is a link of local computers networked together. But no one calls it the Internet or even internet, really, because that word has been so thoroughly generalized.

I'm not a proscriptivist, so I don't hold much with the idea of rules in English. I do agree that formal use should probably prefer Internet, but functionally they are identical and both correct.--^talk 04:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think your school's network is technically an "intranet."

I grew much more enthusiastic in my prescriptivism after a couple of semesters grading student homework. You could tell the foreigners apart from the Americans in that the former wrote legible English and the latter, well-stuffed with descriptivist dreck, often did not. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking, of what other internets are there, or have there been, other than the TCP/IP Internet we all know and love. The global Signaling System 7 network (also known as the public telephone system) is arguably an internet (a global network of networks), although due to VoIP and other factors it is slowly merging into the TCP/IP Internet. Past examples of internets would include FidoNet, BitNet, UUCPnet, and I've already mentioned X.25. Other possible present day examples of internets include the global AMHS system used for international communication between air traffic control authorities, and MMHS networks used for communication between allied military forces (including NATO). The later two are interesting, as being networks which for security reasons are kept quite separate from the public Internet, whether or not they are running on TCP/IP. (They are both X.400 email systems, so they could run either over the TCP/IP or OSI TP stacks, not sure what they use in practice, I suspect quite possibly a combination of both.) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I never realised it was supposed to be capitalised until a spell checker started shouting at me for it. Generally I think it's a bit "meh". ADK^{...I'll forsake your flagella!} 16:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Gonna have to agree. I honestly don't give a shit. If that makes me a bad person, I don't give a shit about that either. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Military networks are separate from "the" Internet, but use TCP/IP. Their IPv4 version used part of the public address space, as they are far too large to use RFC1918. Most of the telephone network, including the higher layers of SS7, run over TCP/IP (e.g., IETF SIGTRAN). Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. TCP/IP military networks are a TCP/IP internet, separate from the TCP/IP Internet. Most SS7 now may well be over SIGTRAN, but that is a relatively recent development, for a long time most of the global SS7 internet did not run on top of TCP/IP. And, most current X.400 email systems (i.e. MMHS and AMHS) probably are running over TCP/IP, but I would expect many of them would have run over OSI TP instead originally. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

What the fuck has Obama done so far?

What the fuck has Obama done so far? Dan Savage posted this. Too bad the expletive means you can't link to it in a bunch of places. Of course, I still don't like the president, he's black he promised change but I see nothing but politics. He supported DOMA, FFS!--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

An interesting counter-point--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't care, primary his ass! ARGLE BARGLE /Firebagger Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Wat?--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

47 positive things, according to the first website. I'm still meh towards him. Тy^talk 23:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

See here. I'm still pretty much on the Firebagger side, but the whole "Primary Obama!" and the Hamsher-Norquist thing are just fucking idiotic. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm far left of Obama, who is a moderate conservative, but even I recognize that it's about getting the best possible President in a practical sense, and that shouldn't be sacrificed to some hypothetical perfect candidate. Of the possibilities, Obama really is the best - the best just doesn't happen to be very good because it continues the extension of executive power and the security state, and only half-heartedly fights Austrian economic nonsense and the Judeo-Christian dominionist crowd.--^talk 23:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you see, that's the brilliance of the Democrats -- get elected, ignore your base, then come next election, point to the GOP candidate and go "Look, do you want this batshit crazy wingnut instead?!" Wash, rinse, repeat. It helps even more now that the 'baggers will essentially primary out all the "RINOs." Also, even the wingnuts aren't insane enough for the Austrian school stuff except for a few, and crediting them with having any knowledge of economic theory is probably giving them too much credit. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

He is black still collects taxes, therefore he is a douche. That's all his opponents will be thinking. Balls to what actual stuff he has managed to get through the fragmented clusterfuck that passes for government in the US. ADK^{...I'll admonish your noseblower!} 12:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I really don't think Obama is the problem here. If he had the majorities he would do great things for America - the thing is he doesn't. And so all he can do is push has hard as he can, whch considering that he has batshit insane opponents that would go so far to shut the whole country down and then blame it on him. I mean the whole debt seiling deal made it pretty clear, you have wingnuts that make up half of the other party pushing for less spending and being basically completely unreasonable in their demands, on the other side you have a guy who really isn't an agenda pusher and neither is he equally insane. I think if I would be in his position I would have long ago quit office and tell America they can fuck up their own country if they insist so much. The man is basically caught between a rock and hard place, so even if I'm much much more left then he is (hell I'm left wing in Europe, they'd probably call me a radical socialist in the US), I try to go easy on the guy because he didn't actively create these insane idiots the other side.

I think the only thing that could help right now is a huge propaganda deal of the progressives using the same style as the Teabaggers, forcing the Teabaggers to go completely off track - basically trying to turn the othe side into raving lunatics that even in the midwest loose all grounds, until the left wing of the Republicans either splits up or strikes out their Rs and change into Ds - which would resonate in the Republicans splitting their base and the Democrats winning elections because the other side isn't in any form for contest. But then again, that isn't the style of liberals. So basically, the guy is fucked no matter what he does. --★uːʤɱ sinner 13:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I love obama, cause i love smart, sharp people. so understand that when I say this, it's while sobbing in my cereal. He HAD the majority, for 2 years. and the party (and i too do not blame obama, i blame all of them) acted like pussies, just wallowing in their own incompetence over simple disagreements. And they wouldn't do anything if they did not have 60% and they were SO FUCKING SCARED of the voters. The republicans do something that I both despise and admire. they say, plain and simple "vote with us, or get the fuck out cause we will spend every time we have replacing your sorry ass". they threaten within their own party, and end up with a line that is all but lock step. (a few too-powerful-to-remove descenters like Olympia Snow are still in the Senate). We need to learn to do that. but we like to be so inclusive and all. ;-)En attendant Godot 14:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

They had the majority, but also staggering levels of obstructionism that continue today. Despite that, they passed the Affordable Care Act, which alone makes him the most successful recent Democratic president. It's not a perfect bill, but it is pretty great and provides a good foundation for later further reforms once it (hopefully!) starts to see real results in 2014 and 2015.--^talk 13:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

In reference to the OP, that site has a link to a clean version, if you want to link to it somewhere with profanity restrictions. άλφα^Talk 12:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You're driving down the road late at night...

what would be the scariest thing to see on the side of the road? An alien, a guy in a hockey mask, or a clown?--Thanatos (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Ed Poor. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 06:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

. Ace^{of Spades} 08:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

We need a description of the alien.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bob, it depends on the alien. The other two I can likely take.The unbusinesslike^{man of business} 21:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

If it's a proper Stanisław Lem alien it's going to be totally incomprehensible. Like, maybe there are forty things that look like cat-sized floating pyramids, and they're painstakingly disassembling a tree into component atoms. As you slow down, six of them float over to you, project a holographic image that vaguely resembles an octopus, dematerialise the car stereo and your glasses, then vanish. If it's not stranger than any dream you've ever had, it's not a proper alien. The Clown and Mr Hockey Mask are just people, whatever they do is at least going to be largely consistent with your previous understanding of the world. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, there have been attractive aliens out there. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

1421 exposed!

For anyone interested in Chinese history, I just happened to come across this site. Apparently some crank is claiming that China discovered the entire world in 1421. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"For anyone interested in Chinese history"... uh, I think maybe the Chinese would be interested in Chinese history! There's 1.3 billion of them and they have thousands of years of history behind them! Or don't you think they're smart enough to be interested in history? Are those Asians getting out of control and too uppity for you? Maybe they should go back to work building railroads? You are so racist.

This unjust accusation has been brought to you by the Department of Irrational Offense-Taking.--^talk 08:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That's really old news. No offense, nebby.--User:Brxbrx/sig 15:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I must confess, however, that both books were a fairly interesting read, in a Fingerprints of the Gods way. --PsyGremlinTala! 15:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I remember reading about 1421 in a Chinese history class I took in secondary school, and my teacher was partly "this would be really cool if it were actually true!" but mostly "this is a load of crap, but it just goes to show you that anyone can make up/distort evidence." άλφα^Talk 12:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Chillis!

Dorset Nagas at the bottom

Huzah! It's that time of the year again where I buy extremely hot chillis and get my arsehole burnt off. May consider sending seeds if anyone's interested? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Arsehole seeds sound terrible.--^talk 12:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

We're running short of arseholes here so it would be productive to grow a few more. I'm slightly concerned that in 2 out of my 3 latest SB posts the conversation has been more about my arse than the topic in hand :-\ Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Dorset Nagas at the bottom? What is it with you? BTW my own nagas from the seeds you sent me are pretty pathetic after 2 months of neglect because I was stuck on a coral reef in the middle of the Timor Sea and have only just got home. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Nagas are pretty hard to grow. They seem to be obsessed with getting as tall as possible rather than making good chillis. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As a Jalapeño/Cayenne farmer, I'd love some seeds, I need something spicier. The unbusinesslike^{man of business} 21:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll start drying some seeds out. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Potheads...

Please report to your friendly local police station.... we need your help, we really do... to solve a murder.... Trust us! Yours Sincerely, Your Friends at Victoria Police. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 13:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a trap! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 07:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Very Special Epsiode

I tucked this comment into the "moral panic" talk page, - but who knows if you all read the talk pages. heh. anyhow, do we have a page about "A Very Special Episode" under a different title? I linked to a non page, making a dreaded redline, and before i pull the link, i wanted to make sure it's not that I just mis-remembered what "a very special episode" meme is really called.En attendant Godot 16:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the proper phrase from what I can gather [1] [2]. Any particular reason you need it? ADK^{...I'll toast your guru!} 16:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't know of it here (UK) but I don't watch much telly. Pippa (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to decide if i care to write it or not. (I loath stubs more than I loath redlines), but in effect it was this tagline added to mostly comedy 1/2 type shows (family focus shows) that dealt with "serious" topics. I remember it most from Different strokes when the littlest boy was approached by a (yes, gay) man with the intent of "touching" him. Before the show started, this deep, serious and grave voice announces "Tonight's Espiode of Different strokes is a very special episode." hence the name of the meme. All the shows did it in that era. Different strokes, Facts of life, Family Ties, etc. Drinking and driving, drugs, aggressive dates (never got as far as rape or anything, but you know, he pushed you and touched your boobie, or something).En attendant Godot 16:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Totally out of fashion now. Thank fuck. ADK^{...I'll subvocalise your Honda!} 17:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Job Hunt Update

So far, so good.

Three phone interviews so far, one has led to a definite in person interview next Monday. (That could get postponed, because some of the people have property that's in the path of Hurricane Irene.) With another one, the recruiter said there would be an in person interview, but two of the people I'd interview with are on vacation, so she's setting up another phone interview with one of their engineers.

There's a third that's probably my favorite. The phone interview went very well. I'm still waiting to hear about a face-to-face for that one. This one is a little more difficult because I was contacted by a talent search company, not by the employer themselves. My suspicion is that it would probably be the lowest salary, but the commute is the best, and their 401K match... the term I've used for it is "jaw-dropping." (It's a financial services company. Which leads to another plus -- for the first time in my entire professional career, I would not be doing government work.) MDB (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. En attendant Godot 21:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Financial services doesn't have anything to do with mortgage-backed securities, does it? Anyway, good luck. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a large, diversified company, and one that seems to have come through the turmoil. I'd be in their data center anyway, not doing financial work myself. MDB (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I use these two songs to get myself psyched up for an interview. MDB (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

A request for a favor.

One of the facebook pages I am subscribed to posted a link to a MotherJones.com article titled something along the lines of "The Greatest 110 Words About Dick Cheney, Ever" or something like that. However, I can't even access MotherJones.com for some reason. Would someone please copy and paste the article into an e-mail and send it to me? THe comments on the post have me intrigued as all hell. Thanks in advance. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty short. It says: ^{ONE / TALK} 10:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

---

If you must read a summary of Dick Cheney's new memoir, make it this one, from Charlie Savage of the New York Times. Here, in two paragraphs, Savage manages to summarize Cheney's obstinacy and cluelessness:

Former Vice President says in a new memoir that he urged President to bomb a suspected Syrian nuclear reactor site in June 2007. But, he wrote, Mr. Bush opted for a diplomatic approach after other advisers—still stinging over "the bad intelligence we had received about Iraq's stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction"—expressed misgivings.

"I again made the case for U.S. military action against the reactor," Mr. Cheney wrote about a meeting on the issue. "But I was a lone voice. After I finished, the president asked, 'Does anyone here agree with the vice president?' Not a single hand went up around the room."

Now, Bashar al-Assad is not a nice guy, and inshallah, he's a soon-to-be-ex-dictator. But unilaterally bombing out a "suspected" nuclear reactor? In Syria? At the height of the civil war in Iraq? Bare months after Israel went into Lebanon and World War III nearly broke out?

When even the Bush cabinet, to a man and woman, can't stand Dr. Strangelove's bully ramblings anymore, you know the good doctor has turned one hell of a corner into Crazytown. Read on, and find out why Cheney was so ready for 9/11 and Condi was such a girly-girl.

---

Thanks, One. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 10:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Project Blue beam

Found this while rooting round the web. " This RationalWiki article has itself been redigested into a Romanian Wikipedia article (translation), which was translated back for English Wikipedia and then deleted.". Interest? Pippa (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

??? Someone reposted one of our articles on a crank site? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Creative Commons, what can you do? But really, it looks like a spam blog to me. Things get copy/pasted by bots to try and link farm to other places for whatever purposes they want. You find all sorts of random stuff copied to them that it barely makes any sense. ADK^{...I'll wash your Suzuki!} 17:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Links in long articles

If i'm editing a long article, with lots of initial content links at the top, i tend to make linkable references several times in an article. ie., if a page on gay rights had 5 longish content (edit) sections, I will make "marriage" linkable the first time it's cited, but also one or two other times near the end of the article. To me, it seems more rational, but i wanted to make sure i wasn't stepping on toes doing it.En attendant Godot 19:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I must admit that repeated wikilinks of common terms (like "marriage!) irk me. I'd tend to stick them all in the "see also" at the end,if at all. Pippa (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean from article to article, or just in one article? And i admit that where i do this most is on Wiki, when talking a techinical issue about native americans, like a link to Wavoka or Paiute, where people actually say "what is that" or "who is that person", rather than links to "gay" or "marriage". but the habbit sticks. ;-)--En attendant Godot 19:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I hate having to hunt down the first mention of something in long articles on WP just so I can click it. It's okay for common terms, but for more obscure stuff it should probably be linked more than once. -- Nx / talk 19:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If the article has subsections which are directly linked to from elsewhere, then yeah. Otherwise, no. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

NX, me too. when i'm editing WP, i make sure that any somewhat obsure reference is lined in any sub "edit" section. (I don't know the technical name for it). the other reason i do this is a cop out. I edit by clicking on that sub section, and really have no idea if I'm using a word that has or has not been used before, so i wikilink it anyhow. Here, not as much, cause it's not generally as technical (or rather, where it's technical we are not likely to have an article and that's ok) and our sub sections are not as long. but yeah, i hate reading something I'm not well educated in (oh, the history of boullibase) and finding some ingredient i've never heard of, and having to look it up higher on the page.En attendant Godot 19:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Is the policy there to link the first mention in each section, or am I imagining that? People there also seem to adhere to rigid protocols at times when it comes to things like that. Really common words shouldn't be linked, such as "time", so people will remove such links even when the article is on some time-related concept, apparently believing that policy dictates the time article should be an orphan, which is ridiculous. DickTurpis (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

MOS: "Link the first time a term is used (unless it's in a header), not every time." Pippa (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a rule I see lightly enforced at WP. I have probably been guilty myself once or twice, but I do it with my eyes open. If it is in long article and the previous link was more than a pageUp away, I am willing to link it again. In this case, being considerate to the reader trumps rigid sticking to rules. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The more complete WP becomes as an encyclopedia, the less well it is served by conventional hyperlinks internally. Before the web came along and distorted everybody's idea of how to do hypermedia, it was very common for hypermedia systems to provide so-called "generic links" where the user can select any arbitrary thing and get links to related material. So you see that WP's entry for "King Arthur" mentions something about "knights" and you can select that and get a dictionary definition of the word 'knight' or the WP article on knights without some editor having to manually specify this for that particular instance of that particular word. Sadly the web doesn't really provide generic links, and attempts to retro-fit them have met with little success. In the early days of WP this was good because manually authoring links causes "red links" that helped editors find useful work to do. But today the red links are mostly for nonsense, or the most obscure things possible e.g. "Popularity of beverages in Southern Australia" and so generic links would be way better. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Do I understand you? Generic unfiltered ambiguous links are not what I go to Wikipedia looking for. I go to WP looking for information and hyperlinks that have been selected as relevant and useful, selected by a crowd of editors who, for the most part, are knowledgeable enough about their subject to choose relevant reliable sources. The process is transparent enough that sources of bias are mostly visible, and most silliness is swiftly reverted. The manual specification of the appropriate link for each instance of a particular word, taken in context, is the value that crowd adds, and I am not sure I would want it any other way. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure, did you miss the word internally in what I wrote I above? Because what you're describing sounds like it might be useful or relevant for external links, but I don't think it's really "value that crowd adds" within Wikipedia itself. Sure, a generic link isn't going to pick up the fact that "All Tomorrow's Parties" in one context is a reference to the song, in another context it's a reference to the festival. But situations where that's a major problem are the exception rather than the rule, in the ATP case they're a disambiguation page away and nothing stops WP from still having manually authored links, just they shouldn't be the burden they are now. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 05:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I meant internal links as well. (By the way, in the ATP example, there is also Gibson's 1999 novel, the last one in the Bridge trilogy.) I watch slightly fewer than two thousand pages on WP, and a fair bit of my minor editing has to do with targeting wikilinks more accurately, in aid of building the web. Based on that experience, I cannot agree that "situations where that's a major problem are the exception rather than the rule." A "disambiguation page away" is still a miss, in my estimation. Worse cases happen with words like "property," where describing something as a physical property can link to an article on real estate.

Manual linking more burdensome than generic? I think you are greatly underestimating the magnitude of the task of vetting and fixing an encyclopedia's worth of inaccurately targeted machine-generated links. Smartening up the link-generating algorithm to a usable standard would be even more Sisyphean.

In the WP context, I still prefer hyper-links selected for usefulness by human editors. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Posting nudity/pornography on other's user talk pages

Seriously, I can't be the only one here that finds this objectionable. If people want to see that stuff, they can post it on their own talk page all they want. But, putting it on another user's talk page, when you know they don't want to see it there, surely others would object to this. I am particularly interested to hear the opinions of our female editors, since I suspect many of them may have a somewhat different perspective on this issue from what many of our male editors do. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

If you KNOW that the other editor doesn't want it there it's harassment. If it happened to me I'd just remove it and block the other editor for 5 minutes to send the message. Rinse and repeat until HCM. Senator Harrison (talk) 12:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I personally don't find it offensive, but if a user says he or she finds it offensive and the other user doesn't stop it - it's trolling. I would only delete hardcore pornography from my pages, but that's me. --★uːʤɱ socialist 12:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The images are not displayed by default, they are turned into links (which now have warnings), you have to either click the link or enable display of filtered images. Both of those actions count as wanting to see it -- Nx / talk 12:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Well, the issue for me is not just whether I personally feel uncomfortable with the image, I want others who might find such images make them uncomfortable to feel welcome on my talk page. So I don't want to have those images displayed, or linked to without any fair warning of their content. Different things offend different people, but discomfort at nudity or pornography are common enough that such discomfort deserves some respect. You don't have to agree with the people who feel that way feeling that way, but please show them some respect. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:50, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Priest Church employee. Pedophile. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Ho-hum. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 15:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Jesus. Because of these people (disclaimer: it's the Mirror - it might be horseshit), it's almost getting to the stage now that you're automatically suspected of being a paedophile if you want to work with children. Sorry state of affairs. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just finished "Beyond Belief" by the excellent David Yallop. I'm not sure which is worse - the scope of the abuse, or the way in which the church has covered it up for so long. Either way, it's horrific. --PsyGremlinPraat! 15:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The church cover-up is a result of that noted Christian doctrine, "forgiveness;" a good deal of the hysteria over the abuse scandal is aggravated by wretches who want to have their cake (be forgiven their debts) and eat it also (not forgive their debtors). ListenerX^TalkerX 15:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, this guy is C of E, not RC. Has four kids of his own, and the C of E seems to be co-operating with the po-pop more than the Catholics have, historically B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 15:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The article says he is a Catholic. ListenerX^TalkerX 15:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Here Pippa (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there a project anywhere that keeps a tally on the number of reported paedophiles with religious connections (priests and so on) compared to the number of reported paedophiles with no specific religious connection (i.e. they may be religious but they aren't a member of the clergy)? X Stickman (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)d

Joe.my.god does not keep tallys, but he does do a week by week "over view" of the religious (including sexual) crimes done by religious people. En attendant Godot 17:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

So ListenerX is right, we are talking Catholic here. I skimmed the article really quickly and saw the guy was married with four kids and therefore assumed he wasn't RC. He was an RC employee, not a priest. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 21:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

And there are plenty of abusers out there with no connection with religious groups. I'd even say the majority of abusers have no links to religious groups. Obviously, if abusers are everywhere in society, you'll find them in religious groups too. People seem to me here to be picking up on the Catholic church connection even though it is irrelevant. It would be relevant if this was a case of the church trying to cover up this man's offences, but in this case, there is no evidence it has done so. And, even though the Catholic Church is guilty of covering up abuse, so are to my knowledge Anglicans, Jews and Buddhists, and probably quite a few other religious groups I'm sure, and secular organisations also. Many people, including those in authority, religious or secular, find it easier to discredit or hush up abuse allegations than to actually acknowledge them publicly. I know someone who was abused as a child by a family member, and the rest of her family refuse to accept it happened, and so she has just given up on that — just like church cover ups, except on a smaller scale. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The Catholic church has always touted itself as a moral arbiter. For them to knowingly conceal such behaviour is much worse than a single person, or family, doing so. Hypocrisy in the extreme. Alright, they haven't hidden this guy but they facilitated him in the past and one would suspect that if this had come to attention of the church ten years ago we'd never have heard about it. True, everyone's as fallible as everyone else but we can't all hide it. Pippa (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

PS. Marathing: you're a total idiot. Pippa (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The Catholic Church being hypocritical? Nothing new there. Plenty of cases of that going back centuries that have nothing to do with abuse. I don't deny the Catholic Church has done a lot of wrong things, both involving this issue, and many others. I just can't agree with people who want to paint it as some kind of problem exclusive to the Catholic Church, when other denominations/religions, and secular institutions, are guilty of the same things. And, it is sad that you feel the need to resort to personal attacks, it is a poor substitute for discussing the issues. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

" I just can't agree with people who want to paint it as some kind of problem exclusive to the Catholic Church." Okay, name one other wealthy hierarchical organization with a presence in virtually every country in the world and close historical ties to political power in many of those states as well as a strong connection to the providing of social services, medical services and education with a decades-long history of facilitating the sexual abuse of minors by overlooking/sweeping under the rug the abuses of its members/employees. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 23:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

EC) Not a personal attack: a statement of fact. I cannot think of one word that you have written on this site that would dissuade anyone from agreeing with me. You are an overeducated simpleton. Pippa (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

@BBMaj, in terms of covering up abuse, other religious groups have problems too - see e.g. the Rabbi who is opposed to reporting abuse revelations to the police. See what I wrote on Talk:Anti-Catholicism. Pointing out the Catholic Church's wrongdoings while ignoring those of other churches/religions is a form of Anti-Catholicism. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

So, Maratrean, than you can't name a wealthy hierarchical organization with a presence in virtually every country in the world and close historical ties to political power in many of those states as well as a strong connection to the providing of social services, medical services and education with a decades-long history of facilitating the sexual abuse of minors by overlooking/sweeping under the rug the abuses of its members/employee, then. So there is something particularly noteworthy about Catholic sexual abuse then. Thanks. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 23:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Catholic Church is bigger and wealthier and more centralised than other religions/denominations. And it has the same abuse coverup problem the others do. You are pointing out things that make the Catholic Church special, not what makes its abuse coverup special. It's abuse coverup is not essentially different from that of Anglicans or Jews or Buddhists or other religious groups. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me add, it is only in more developed Western countries that people feel free to bring up these sort of issues in the open. I'm sure in lots of third world or less free countries, there is lots of abuse that gets covered up (both by religious and non-religious authorities), that never sees the light of day. Do you think, if an imam in Saudi Arabia is abusing kids, will it get covered up? Quite possibly. Will you ever hear about the coverup? Probably not. Do you think that Roman Catholic priests are more likely to abuse children than imams in Saudi Arabia? Who could know? We certainly hear more about the misdeeds of Roman Catholic priests than those of imams in Saudi Arabia, but that could well be because in the Western cultures in which the RCC is having this problem, these kinds of issues are more likely to become public. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"You are pointing out things that make the Catholic Church special, not what makes its abuse coverup special." No, those are the things that make the abuse coverup most odius. Men will always abuse children, I get that. But most men do not enjoy the protection, if not the facilitation, of a wealthy, transnational organization that provides them with easy access to potential victims, stymies law enforcement efforts, and uses its moral imprimatur as a way to keep the dogs at bay. You're argument about other religions has no evidence whatsoever to support a contention that a similar kind of coordinated, centralized decades-long pattern repeated itself with another group that is plugged in to hospitals, schools, social services and other target-rich environments. B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 00:31, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The Catholic Church isn't a single organisation anyway. It is a whole collective of many different organisations. It isn't as centralised as you think. In many ways, it is less centralised than many other religions, due to factors such as the enormous proliferation of religious orders. Do the Franciscans take orders from the Jesuits? Or the Sisters of Mercy from the Sisters of Charity? Has there been one big coverup? There have been lots of little coverups, independently arrived at. Sure, the Vatican has in some cases made policy decisions that would made these coverups possible, but its not like there is some secret Coverup Committee deep inside the Vatican calling all the shots.

Are you ignorant of the long and odious history of Anti-Catholicism? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Most anti-Catholicism was nothing more than a cover for ethnic animosities, as in Ireland after the Cromwellian conquest, or in the U.S. during the large waves of Irish immigration. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There is an element of truth in that statement, but it is more complicated than that. Look at the history of persecution of the English recusants — a history of native English Protestants persecuting native English Catholics. Or consider the Anti-Catholicism of Jack Chick, which has nothing to do with ethnic conflict that I can see. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, bashing the Vatican for the failings of its sub-units is like bashing corporate Shell for its record in Nigeria (where SPDC is 55% owned by the Nigerian government). It's not at all fair. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't know enough about Shell to comment about the validity of that comparison... but when you bash the Catholic Church, you are bashing all Catholics, a lot of whom actually strongly disagree with the Vatican. Most of the Catholics in my family strongly disagree with the Vatican — and that includes religious brothers/sisters in my extended family... actually, the majority of lay Catholics disagree with the Vatican on many issues (like contraception)... some religious orders are well known for being a thorn in the Vatican's side... e.g. a lot of well known Jesuits, like Father Frank Brennan, are much too liberal for the Vatican's liking. I've seen Fr. Brennan, on national television, speaking positively of a lesbian relationship — although he was careful not to go so far as to openly endorse same-sex marriage, which was the topic, but he wasn't very strident in his opposition to it either... — I really doubt the Vatican would be keen on his endorsement of a lesbian relationship, or the meekness of his opposition to same-sex marriage, but the reality is the Vatican can't control him, because the Catholic Church is not actually as hierarchical/authoritarian as many non-Catholics believe it to be, or as many conservative Catholics wish it was. Most Catholics understand the difference between Catholicism and the Vatican, something which many non-Catholics don't get. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest that if you don't agree with what the Pope says then you'd be better off leaving the Catholic Church and starting your own religion; then you don't get to be associated with them. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I've done... but unlike me, the vast majority of Catholics don't see things that way. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 14:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

My experience of Catholic flocks is that the style has a lot to do with obedience to authority. Some of them know how to party as well, but the reflexive obedience is still there when Fr. Riordan or Fr. Vespucci shows up. I would suggest that a sane course for a recovering Catholic is not to make up another set of hymns and prayers of their own, but see if the local Unitarian-Universalist congregation is at all simpatico. When my children were in grade school, we went to the UU church on Sunday, for some civilizing influence on the little savages, and some hymn-singing for Dad. The fellowship was supportive too. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The punishment of English recusants was regarded as the punishment of traitors; English Catholics at that time were more amenable to England's enemies, France and Spain. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins - Beware the Believers (Expelled promo)

I present to RationalWiki this old but hilarious video, which was released sometime in 2008 as promotional material for Expelled. But according to PZ Meyers, it was made by Michael Edmondson, who apparently didn't care too much about Stein's message and just wanted to make something funny. Is it a parody of the New Atheists? A parody of creationist critiques of the New Atheists? Or is it a parody of a parody? Who knows! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I've seen that, I always thought it was an attempt to capitalize on the popularity of MC Hawking. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

MC Hawking? Nah. Epic Rap Battles of History is how you do it. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Two things: 1) Why does he sound more like David Attenborough? 2) I am never going to be able to look at Eugenie Scott in the same way again. ADK^{...I'll reiterate your businessman!} 14:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

ADK, your #2 was pretty much what I thought as well. I'm still a bit unnerved by the way they portrayed her. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:46, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Generally everything in that video is unnerving. ADK^{...I'll revolt your fact tag!} 00:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Any Haitians in the house?

Or anybody who speaks Haitian Creole (Kréyol)? B♭maj7 “We are moving too fast for any label to stick.”-CLRJ 03:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Not here. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Eira, might be able to decypher whatever you have, but I don't know if she's just taking a break or retired and just didn't give enough to post that. She won't kill you if you ask friendly. --★uːʤɱ atheist 14:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The poor get poorer and the rich get pumped full of Vitamin C

I have been looking through *hangs head in shame* Fox News, when I happened through this: http://entertainment.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/08/25/simon-cowell-plans-to-put-himself-on-ice-in-the-afterlife/ Now, I get, kind of, why someone would like to turn himself into a low-entropy popsickle for the unlife after, but what is the rational dirt with the intravenous B-12, magnesium, vitamin C? Is it bull as suspected or have I been missing out in a whole lot of fun to be had with needles and oranges? Sen (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I've heard people say that taking large amounts of vitamin C can help you recover from small illnesses like the common cold faster than you would otherwise (though I've never actually tried it). I don't know what the effects of taking it every day would be though. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, here we go. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

That's the Ray Kurzweil diet. Sounds like old Simon has fallen for his bullshit hook, line and sinker. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It won't do much besides darkening your urine. And it's all Linus Pauling's fault. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It was a plot point in House that vit C was supposed to cure TB. I won't spoil it, just in case, but suffice to say the punchline is "it's total bollocks". ADK^{...I'll pull your ox!} 00:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it was a plot point on House that large doses of vitamin C had once been shown to cure TB but that the study had never been followed up because nobody rich cared any more. The point of the episode was that the chosen method of gaining support for testing the hypothesis was so outrageous that even House wouldn't support it. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 00:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The House episode was about curing polio with vitamin C, not TB. Still really good though.

"You gotta get over here. [The CIA's] got a satellite aimed directly into Cuddy's vagina." Osaka Sun (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes or No on RW-Tan.

There. I kept it simple. Now whether or not you like it...is none of my concern.

An Attempt

--Dumpling (talk) 23:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That... That… looks like a victim of pedobear. Also that's the RWW logo... --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 23:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

HAHAHAHA! XD Well, it was mentioned before (The RWW logo, I mean, not the pedobear victim). The logo can easily be changed. And minor edits I can do. Starting from scratch is a no. Unless I have more free time.--Dumpling (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't usually comment on such things but I feel it necessary now: Fuck no. The whole concept of a 'tan' is just so much arse. (Very nice work none the less) AMassiveGay (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. HollowWorld (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Eh. I don't really care if there is/isn't a 'tan'. I just drew on command. (Thank you though.)--Dumpling (talk) 23:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

WHOO! HOO! Now I can knock this off my "shit to draw" list! ADK^{...I'll revolve your igneous protrusion!} 17:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

OHDEARGODWHATISTHATTHING? The unbusinesslike^{man of business} 15:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Different idea

How about this "Tan"? I have zero art skills though. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 23:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

That can be done rather easily. Any debate as to what color the goat should be?--Dumpling (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually that was a joke. --★uːʤɱ kant 23:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

This one cannot sense sarcasm very well and is very gullible.--Dumpling (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

You can't be gullible - the word has been removed from the Oxford English Dictionary. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 12:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This one too — the gullible at least. --★uːʤɱ kant 23:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

No, no, I really like the idea of having a manga-style goat as our tan...~SuperHamster Talk 23:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

YAY! Me too actually! I much rather prefer a cute goat. Unless you're being sarcastic as well...NO MATTER! I'm not.--Dumpling (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is a tan needed or why is a tan even desirable? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

People that comment in this section really should say if they are serious or not, 'cause I really can't tell. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 23:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm very much serious. And to answer your question (AMassiveGay)...It isn't. Or at least I don't think it's needed, but it'd be something interesting to have.--Dumpling (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I"m 40. i'm slow, old, and get off my lawn. What the fuck is a "tan".En attendant Godot 23:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Aw~ You're not slow or old. And Yes ma'am! Anyways, a "tan" is basically like a Japanese-manga drawn mascot that a lot of wikis have.--Dumpling (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

By 'manga', read 'hideously generic'. They are an unnecessary abomination. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we'll be officially adopting any tans, like via a vote, but if you make a cute goat one, then that can just be the RW tan. It doesn't have to be an official thing or anything and it's interesting to have. Awesome work by the way!--^talk 00:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine by me. :3 And...thanks.--Dumpling (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Not even knowing what a TAN is used for, if it's cute, and it's a goat - i'll vote. but only if it's cute. like this but in goat shape.En attendant Godot 00:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Its the cuteness that I find so displeasing. Also, that parrot isn't cute. It is a rapist AMassiveGay (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Mark was clearly all for it. I mean he went out of his way to make sure he had a parrot scar teh scene before. Little did he know that the cute guy would try to rape him. and Fry wasn't about to help, he was dying of laughter (as were my husband and I). En attendant Godot 17:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll voat for a gote if it is sickeningly cute. I'm talking massive-eyes cute. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

How about this shit? It's something called "Pleasant Goat" (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 18:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this maybe a case of Wikipedia Jealousy Complex (WJC)? I disapprove about every Manga-crap except ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ's proposal, which is so incredibly amateurish as to qualify as a parody. Rursus dixit (yada³!) 09:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I must be getting old. Tan?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Cute anime-esque mascot. WP has one. CP has one, courtesy of ED. The "tan" is a childish honourific from Japan. Supposed to be really cute, comes from small kids who apparently can't say "san". Teddy bears are kuma-tan. So our mascot - when not being rogered by Pedobear - would be Rational-tan. Or something.

And I would oppose having a goat as our tan until my dying breath. Jerboas on the other hand basically define the word "cute". My dictionary even says (ok, in my handwriting) "See jerboa" under "cute". --PsyGremlin話しなさい 11:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

How about a girl with goat horns? The unbusinesslike^{man of business} 15:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The difference between policy and enforcement (or, crap political arguments)

PolitiFact slips up a bit here, as anyone who's been following the creationist movement knows the "analyze and critique" language is just an attempt to slip creationism in through the cracks. The article notes that to some extent at least, but glosses over it. Assuming law and reality are consistent needs to be its own political fallacy. It tends to lead to idiocy like this. Hey, murder can never happen because it's illegal! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of an old Monty Python sketch - If you want to bring down the number of crimes you just need to reduce the number of offences. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Crossword help

Stuck on one clue on the everyman crossword in the Observer. 22 Lot, husband of biblical character (4) _ E _ H. I think those letter are correct but I could be wrong. I have no clue as the answer. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps 'Leah' who was a biblical character. Lot & lea are both words used to describe land, with 'h' for husband. RagTop^{Gone sailing} 03:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

May be something useful in here. Also, is that what crosswords are like in the UK? They could use a Real Man's Crossword. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

UK crosswords are prettier. And the you linked appeared to be a concise crossword. They are for pussys AMassiveGay (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

And you can get half the answers just by solving the other clues. You only need to do half of it. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Leah is right. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Also yes, once Torquemada's cryptic crosswords appeared all the non-cryptic ones should have vanished except from puzzles aimed at primary school children. It's as if instead of Poker, some people played "Go Fish" for money. Or there was a "pro gamer" league playing Pong instead of Starcraft for cash prizes with a live audience. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The evolution of Republicans

[3] What paper is this from? - David Gerard (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I did a tineye.com search and then looked around on Google... must be some student newspaper or something.--^talk 03:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It's an old joke, "the descent of American presidents from George Washington to Ulysses S. Grant was enough to discredit the theory of evolution." First appeared in the 1870s about the second Republican president. Henry Adams, U.S. Grant, and Evolution: Practicing History in the Age of Darwin. [4] nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 03:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, if Lincoln was alive to see what's happening to his party. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is a highly amusing quote from a Southern crank in support of the Dominionist Michael Peroutka, 2004 Constitution Party candidate (capitalization in the original, emphasis mine):

“”If YOU are TIRED of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS and want to SAVE the Republican Party and RETURN it to the party of RONALD REAGAN instead of Lincoln, Rockefeller, Karl Rove and the South-HATING NEO-CONS of the Bush administration, then VOTE for Michael Peroutka. [5]

ListenerX^TalkerX 06:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me for asking a dumb question, but isn't the Constitution Party not the Republican Party? nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 16:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Wiki the party, and see "Notable persons." Osaka Sun (talk) 20:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

General site news

I just noticed on Rc: (Intercom log) . . Blue (Talk | contribs | block) sent a message to General site news (Vote closing soon). What is this "General site news" and where may it be read? Pippa (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Click on "message" -- Nx / talk 05:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but if I don't happen to notice it on Rc, what's the point? Seems silly to me. Pippa (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but intercom messages appear at the top of the page, similar to the "you have new messages" orange box, so you'll probably notice them. However they also have an expiration date, after which they won't appear there. In this case there's no point in bothering you with the message if the vote is over. -- Nx / talk 06:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Go to the Intercom page, click on the "Configure groups" link there, and make sure you are a member of the "General site news" group. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks LX, Probably worth telling newbies about that, or making "General site news" also default. Pippa (talk) 06:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"Urgent" appears to be the default. The unbusinesslike^{man of business} 15:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, urgent is on by default, all the others are off. -- Nx / talk 05:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Fat too much time on their hands

The SCP Foundation For when TV Tropes gets boring. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 14:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should slip this (http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-655) into Andy's homeschool classroom.........--Lefty (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've loved the SCP site for years now. My favourites are this one (especially the testing logs at the bottom) and this one, again because of the test log, even if that does go against the spirit of the site I guess. Word of advice, though; *seriously* think through *any* ideas you possibly have for SCPs if you plan on trying to add one to the site. The community will completely and totally rip your second asshole a new asshole (your first asshole will have had a second asshole ripped in it when you try to join the site in the first place, unless they've changed it recently) when criticising your attempts. It's how they keep the site relatively well written and interesting and make sure it doesn't turn into a huge list of SCPs like "Stickman, The Man Who Gets All The Women And Is Totally Awesome All Of The Time". Oh! Also for fun, TV Tropes has a page for the foundation and the foundation has an entry for TV Tropes. X Stickman (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

WARNING!!

Don't read uncensored SPC reports.

You will never sleep again.

They all have something in common.

It isn't what you think, and it is about 10 times worse than the average Nightmare Fuel in horror movies.--Lefty (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

"Fat too much time"? You've been spending too much time with Kenny-baby, Psy. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 21:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hiding comments in "recent changes" view

I know we can hide things like "m" or group all of the changes to a document into one - but is there any way to hide (for a given user, like, oh - me) from having to have particular pages or people listed? There are some trollspeople I'd rather not read, if only cause i can't control myself and have to say "are you frigging kidding me? Science does not work like this, and i'm not even a scientists!". ;-)En attendant Godot 18:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

You can filter a namespace, but I don't think you can filter users. Тy^talk 18:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

shucks. I have no impulse control (says the obese woman who is sitting here eating chocolate). En attendant Godot 18:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't use Rc: use your own, editable, "watchlist" and check Rc once a visit or every hour? Pippa (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Smart woman, that pippa. even though she makes me think of "pippi?" longstocking. :-)En attendant Godot 19:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There is also watchuser... Тy^talk 19:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

That script serves the opposite function as she inquired about, though it could easily be modified to accommodate hiding a particular user's edits from RC as well. Blue (pester) 19:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I know, I was wondering if that was possible. Тy^talk 19:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If I had that script on hand (the follow user), i'd not make one useful edit on this page. I'd just follow those I deem stupid enough to deserve my vitriol, making whiny comments. ;-)En attendant Godot 19:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Some people have talked of a script or something to ignore a certain editor at Conservapedia. I think Nx might be able to help.--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's Night Jaguar's, but I have a feeling it might need to be updated. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This may or may not work. It's hardcoded to hide Theemperor, so you have to change that. -- Nx / talk 20:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Completely off topic, but when are browsers going to support tag selectors? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

News?

BBCBreaking BBC Breaking News Judge temporarily blocks a tough new immigration law in the US state of #Alabama after challenge from the #Obama administration.
That's all I've got off Twitter. Anyone got any more? Pippa (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Stoned lemurs

Sounds like one of Punky's bands, but it's true.

“”Gently biting the head of giant venomous millipedes puts the large insects into a defensive mode, triggering their ability to excrete highly powerful toxins. Lemurs are resistant to the poison so they indulge in the psychotropic effects.

Yo, man, gonna get me some 'pede man... --PsyGremlinFale! 16:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I had a friend that would say "Do bugs, not drugs!" He would then follow by taking up a sleazy sounding voice you'd imagine coming from a drug dealer or pusher and say "I've got centipeeedes..." Centipedes was on a higher note than the rest of the sentence. This friend of mine never failed to make me laugh.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You should read 'Naked Lunch'. People are getting high on centipedes all the time in that. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I started the movie, but I got bored and I stopped watching--User:Brxbrx/sig 11:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The film is not like the book at all. It is still good though, you should give it another try. The book is cool too. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

All the woo you want

The Quickening - your recommended annual dose of woo in one easy package. My brain hurts. Everything you ever wanted to know about the end of the Myan calendar... which is Oct this year, not Dec 2012, complete with Comet Elanin, collective consciousness and god knows what else.

All narrated by a stoned chick, over repetitive visuals. Why can't woo-meisters make interesting movies?? It's like Terrance McKenna - just listening to 5 minutes of him speak and you want to jab fondue forks in your ears. --PsyGremlinPrata! 15:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

What's worse? They copied their name from one of my favorite action movies. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 16:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Whats even worse is is that you list Highlander II as one of your favourite movies. For Shame AMassiveGay (talk) 10:40, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Conspiracy Files

For the Brits in the house who can get iPlayer, BBC2 is showing The Conspiracy Files with a special on 9/11 ten years on. ADK^{...I'll hurt your squibble!} 23:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Really, how are people this stupid?!!? ADK^{...I'll stride your liquid goo!} 23:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I saw that program. It doesn't matter how much evidence/proof you provide, they will always think it was conspiracy. They've already made up there minds and they are not budging. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, the chap who made that 9/11 conspiracy film, keep saying he and his friends were just civilians, but kept refering to them with psuedo military terms. He also had a big picture of Christ with the caption 'employee of the month'. I always find strange to see young people with what I assume to be strong religious conviction. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Those Loose Change guys promised me a version narrated by Charlie Sheen. I am disappointed. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bullshit! episode on conspiracies (I think it was 9/11 specifically) had a guy and this open-mic night for conspiracy theorists who uttered the immortal line "no one can convince me [that the government wasn't involved]". No one can convince me. No one can convince me. No one can convince me. If you want proof that conspiracy theorists are full of shit, look no further than that one little phrase. ADK^{...I'll stride your kumquat!} 15:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the basic structure of all conspiracy theories can be boiled down to the equation: Morton's fork + paranoia. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Something I stumbled upon in my readings of stuff

I found this as a citation on Wikipedia- actually, the citation was for Fox News, which had a summary and linked to the Daily Mail for the complete article. Naturally, an anti-union piece pimped by both the Daily Mail and Fox aroused my suspicions. Can anyone offer some insight into the context of the controversial comment in question? Thank you, RationalWiki--User:Brxbrx/sig 06:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The article itself seems confused as to what it's about. Both the article and the alleged quote use an example of an 18 yo sixth former but in reality an 18 yo is an adult, and the law they're talking about (the article itself eventually explains) only covers minors. Obviously it wouldn't be unusual for a school to fire a teacher who has sex with older pupils, but that's a long way from them being convicted of a crime, or even arrested let alone put on the sex offenders list. But anyway, it's a press release to generate interest in a commercial TV show. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

There was change to the law in 2000(?) with the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill (1999-2000)/Age of Consent and Abuse of Trust Bill which makes it an offence for professionals in education and social care who regularly come into contact with people 'under the age of 19' to engage in a sexual relationship (which includes taking 'indecent' photographs) with those under their care. This is a link to a parliamentary briefing paper but I have been unable to actually find the bill's exact wording. So yes, it is a crime but whether it merits being put on the sex-offenders register is a different matter. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Where does this under the age of 19 that you've quoted come from? It clearly doesn't come from the Bill itself, since you admit that you were somehow unable to find that. Here you can read the relevant text for yourself starting here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/44/section/3 -- so, no, as I already explained it's not a crime for a teacher and a consenting 18 yo pupil to have sex. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

"1)Subject to subsections (2) and (3) below, it shall be an offence for a person aged 18 or over—(a)to have sexual intercourse (whether vaginal or anal) with a person under that age; or(b)to engage in any other sexual activity with or directed towards such a person,if (in either case) he is in a position of trust in relation to that person.". So anyone below under 18. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Working with persons 'under the age of 19' actually refers to the Education Reform Act 1988 which defines who is covered by the legislation. While AMG has pointed out that the law applies to sexual activity with persons under 18 the Secretary of State for Education has powers to enforce regulations that apply to the wider abuse of positions of trust which would not be restricted to the lower age limit and relevant institutions are expected to have internal rules governing this. However, this would then be disciplinary issue rather than a criminal one. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW the Mail article doesn't even cite the case of an 18 year old it is just a hypothetical scenario so it appears to be another bit of scare-mongering. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hurricane freakin Irene

I'm right in its path (so is the ASchlafly). There was a time where I loved stuff like this and wanted it to happen but now I'm anxietying out over losing power for a week or my workplace blowing away or something. If I don't post for a week after this Sunday afternoon, I either died or lost power. On the plus side, the Conservapedia server might get flooded. Senator Harrison (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it's going to be interesting. Can't be as bad as Floyd was back in 1999, though. My whole town was knee-deep in water for a few days. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's supposed to be worse than Floyd. They're also making evacuations in Cape May county mandatory. Senator Harrison (talk) 03:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm in central Maryland, between DC and Baltimore. When the leaves are off the trees, you can see I-95 from my front yard. I'm under a tropical storm warning, though I think I saw I-95 is the extent of the tropical storm conditions. I've got bottled water and food I can cook on my gas stove.

If someone asks nicely, I'll tell you how the last hurricane (Isabel, I think) to hit this area prevented me from meeting Sarah Ferguson. MDB (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and as far as Andy being in the path of the storm -- Andy, if you're reading this... we make fun of you here, we insult you, but no one here wants to see you harmed. Keep you and your family safe. MDB (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that he's praying to God and when he, his family and his property emerge unscathed it will all be down to the power of prayer. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I remember Katrina and Gustav. Massive power-outage for about 2-3 weeks. Everyone in the neighborhood started gathering their meats and such from the freezers and started to BBQ. It was hot. Humid. Mosquito-infested. And only very few people would actually have electricity...or even internet.Good luck. D:--Dumpling (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I guess we'll be seeing a stream of Lead Belly references in the headlines soon. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll keep you all updated until my power goes out which I fully expect to happen. When it does I'll post from my phone if I can but I want to conserve the battery obviously. And yes I hope that Andy and his family make it through just fine, I just won't be shedding any tears if the server doesn't. Senator Harrison (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I doubt it will be worse than Floyd was for me. That one knocked over a tree that smashed a transformer, causing fireballs to shoot out of it and set our lawn on fire. No shit. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Fireballs shooting all over your lawn in way cooler than the drain backing up and flooding your basement, which is the only kind of disaster we get around here. Doctor Dark (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Or a horse flying through your living room window. Senator Harrison (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope that everybody is all right. It occurs to me though that if this one is big enough to climb the entire east coast of the US without seeming to lose a great deal of energy then it'll presumably still have some life left in it when it crosses the Atlantic and hits the dear old United Kingdom. (Otherwise know as "England".)--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Reading some of the tweets on the BBC reminds me that I was in NY when Agnes hit in 1972. I don't remember much in the way of wind but a hell of a lot of rain. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

In my town (central western NJ), we had minor wind damage but major flooding. Most of central NJ is flooded. Rt 1 is under six feet of water. Senator Harrison (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘My home has been without electricity since sometime between 2:30 and 6:00 AM Sunday. Believe me when I tell you it is a challenge trying to make sure you're clean-shaven for a job interview when the only light you have is flashlight and candles. MDB (talk) 10:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Power was out here in Cape Cod, Massachusetts (easternmost part of the US) until about 10:30 PM Monday. We have a generator, but the power really needs to be filtered better before we put electronics on it. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Gay Nazis

So I've seen this masterpiece being cited to back up the "gay Nazi" meme. But has anyone read it/know anything about it? I have to say, I'm rather tempted to read it if I could find a free copy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 12:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You can probably find a torrent of it some whereAMassiveGay (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

hereAMassiveGay (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No seeds. Anyway, stop posting communism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Viva revolution, comrade AMassiveGay (talk) 16:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Try this - looks tiny tho - 15k. Also here here and here --PsyGremlinSpeak! 16:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The online versions don't have any images which is why they are quite small but nearer 920kb than 15kb. I looked at the review quotes at "The Pro-Family Resource Center" (Abiding Truth Ministries) and ... well the name of the site should probably tell you all you need to know. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Why does 'pro-family' invariably mean 'anti-gay'? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Why does a bear shit in the woods? Anyway, thanks for the links, quite awesome. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit, Obama makes a good advisory appointment!

As WIGO'ed. And Galt almighty, he's not a total Wall Street hack (cf. Larry Summers, Bob Rubin, Gene Sperling). Cue wingnut outrage at the SOCIALIZMZ of the Card and Krueger studies. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, he's pretty good. An appointment to be happy about, in the face of the swelling ranks of unfilled positions, and the judgeships staffed by strangely elderly appointees.--^talk 04:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Links to hate sites

Some of what I edit deals with ultra-racist or otherwise hateful bilge. I was just wondering if there's an official policy on this. It seems like it's mostly older articles that have links to these sites broken up by spaces, hyphens, etc. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure about written policy, but precedent is probably on your side: at one time we had a vandal, "Fred," who kept getting blocked for linking to Fred Phelps's site from the article on Phelps. He wound up creating about 70 separate accounts, but when we later allowed the link to Phelps's site in the article, he stopped vandalizing. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

No official policy - just use your own good judgment. If you think linking to a site will do more harm than good, don't do it.--^talk 06:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think one of the reasons for that semi-policy was that people thought it would improve their pagerank. But external links are all nofollow, so don't worry about that. -- Nx / talk 06:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Call me crazy, but I've always been of the opinion that people can't truly understand hateful bullshit if they aren't actually allowed to, you know, read it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the more rabid advocates for censorship of hate-propaganda (Searchlight in the U.K., for example) are openly communist. Such people often view themselves as locked in a propaganda battle with a fascist/capitalist machine that pulled the wool over the eyes of non-communists, partly through the use of "fascist" propaganda. Unfortunately, these censorship policies have the double effect of giving the propaganda "forbidden fruit" status and giving the spewers of it something legitimate to gripe about. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you should be allowed to link to whatever you want, so long as it is somehow relevant. If a site is a legitimate target of criticism, then it is legitimate to link to it for the purposes of that criticism, no matter how odious its content. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

ORLY? NDSP 10:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

NDSP, personally I have no qualms about linking to stuff if I feel doing so adds value, but I know Philip etc. have a different perspective, so I try to show some respect for that... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember us having at least two full-scale debates about this, during which I was down and out with a case of IDGAF... I don't see a problem with linking to hate sites, as long as there's a little NSFW-type warning. Blue (pester) 10:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe mostly a "will make your skin crawl" warning. NSFW as well because I suppose that your boss may not view you browsing StormFront too kindly.--User:Brxbrx/sig 11:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I try to put NSFW warnings on that kind of stuff anyway, or it's something that's pretty obvious, like a ref to White Power magazine. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This does pop up occasionally because the ruling is only informal and mostly maintained as more a community meme than an actual law. The rationale against linking directly basically revolves around depriving such sites of their hits and search engine rankings through links, and not on grounds of censorship and not wanting to link to offensive things - as Neb rightly says, how can you understand it without reading it? Screen grabs help with this (as well as recording any potential dynamic changes), and this is what we have capturebot for. But this has never been an official or written policy. The Fred vandalism pretty much put and end to the informal ban on linking to Westboro Baptist. Stormfront is also now linked to directly as a result, but Metapedia still mostly consists of screenshot links and no directly links. ADK^{...I'll erect your railing!} 00:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

But nofollow makes that irrelevant, right? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me for stepping in doo doo (I just love the feel of shit squishing between my toes), but what is a hate site? Are the wp:American Enterprise Institute, the wp:Bradley Foundation, and the wp:Ludwig von Mises Institute hate sites? nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 03:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't be obtuse, Rob. You'll know it when you see it.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The term "hate" as used in "hate group" and "hate site" does differ from the usual sense a bit. It generally refers only to hatred based on some immutable characteristic (usually ethnicity, or a religion that is the external representation of that ethnicity). Also, it only applies to hatred of those groups designated as underdogs (cf., "persons of color cannot be racists") — unless the hate is too obvious to be swept under the rug, as with Farrakhan's Nation of Islam. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

^What he said. If you want to get pissy about definitions, that's fine, but as this is only an informal rule and casually applied very haphazardly partly out of tradition, partly because the individual examples came up and people rolled with it, and certainly not a hard and fast legally binding Law, then "if I think it's a hate site then it's a hate site" is adequate justification. Same reason that the political statement "I know what pornography is when I see it" is fine when someone is installing Net Nanny or whatever, but not when prosecuting and jailing people for possessing it. ADK^{...I'll withstand your paper!} 15:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless you want to link to some absurdity in a sort of FSTDT way then I can never see a need to. Those who want further clarification can use Google or whatever to go and look for themselves. If I say to you www.godhatespeoplewithredhair.org (I just made that up, btw) is a hate site against those with red hair then that's all most people want to know. The curious, should they desire, can google it. Bob Soles (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

www.godhatespeoplewithredhair.org wouldn't be a hate site. It would be purely factual. It is why judas is always depicted with red hair.AMassiveGay (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

True, but <ref>JFGI</ref> is rather poor form at the very least. When we're talking about linking to sites we're really talking about the intellectual honesty to prove what one is saying is true. That's true whether a politician has said something or someone has said something on a forum post and whether it's easy to find or quite obscure. If I was to cite a scientific fact, I would put the authors, journal, date and page/volume numbers in the footnote, not instructions on what key words to stick into Web Of Knowledge to find the right thing. Making any kind of work for a potential read, to make them jump through hoops to understand you, is no different than what multiple creationists and conspiracy theorists do on forums all the fucking time where they say "there's plenty of evidence if you Google it!!!11". The same standard of citation should be expected regardless of the content of that citation. So these full URLs should be given. Additionally, in an examples I have just recalled, we had the case of Christopedia where I failed to include the URL in the first version of the article (indeed, that place was worse than Metapedia by a good order of magnitude) and subsequently someone mistook it for a different Christopedia which was an obvious parody site and the article was mashed up between the two for a time. Now, that's a very specific example that is unlikely to be repeated, but shows the ambiguity that can occur if we use "JFGI" as an actual policy against linking. ADK^{...I'll curate your cuddly toy!} 17:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

The example given is taken from the true life files of Wikipedia. According to the reputable and verifiable Southern Poverty Law Center, the Bradley Foundation is a hate group, meaning because of its extremist nature, the Bradley Foundation, like Stormfront, can only be used as a source about itself and in no other mainspace article. While it's interesting that the PBS's News Hour has been sponsored by a hate group, no one would dare challenge the integrity and scholarship of a reputable and verifiable source like SPLC, especially now because BLP, as well. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 19:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘OT. but still wrong. Not on the list. Seems like the only mention of Bradley on SPLC is criticism of their funding of The Bell Curve. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Bingo. You're right. But Wikipedia did suffer growing pains earlier. Simply cause the SPLC designates something a hate group, does that qualify Wikipedia using "an authoritive" source, like the SPLC, and citing it likewise? As you've rightly shown, Wikipedia does not. nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 23:17, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what? My point was that SPLC doesn't classify it as a hate group. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The National Review covered this:

If they’re too promiscuous with the “hate group” label, they would lose what little credibility they have left... as they reserve the designation mainly for groups that at least sound scary — Aryan Nations, Supreme Ferret of the Ku Klux Klan — even if they’re just P.O. boxes with no members, they can get away with it. But labeling AEI, for instance, or the Bradley Foundation as “hate groups” would strain the credulity of even a lot of gullible lefties...instead, the SPLC includes such targets ... in [lists] of those “spreading bigotry,” or whatever, along with others they have decided to label “hate groups,” secure in the knowledge that the SPLC’s allies further down the leftist food chain will apply the label for them...

and you'll recall, this discusion began not about "hate groups", but about "hate sites". nobs^{I am a fugitive from an ideological fever swamp} 19:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)