RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive123

This is an archive page, last updated 9 October 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>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <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)

Occupy Wall Street according to ED

This article made me laugh. Particularly these two pictures: 1, 2--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh goodness. XD --Dumpling (talk) 07:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I lol'd much harder at this, but you know me. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't help but think that polishing boots with your tongue would be of little help in achieving cleanliness.--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:27, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That depends on how dirty they start out as. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

FFS

Just went to plug my reverse osmosis unit in for a water change for my tank only for the push-fit pipe it screws into to come completely undone and wouldn't go back on. Wouldn't be too bad if I knew where the stop tap was, and so about 20 gals of water all over the utility floor and hallway carpet I finally found it. Any tips on dealing with a soaked carpet (other than just pulling it up, changing the underlay and using a fan & dehumidifier to dry the carpet)? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Make love to it? Ace^ace 09:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

After that. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Lay in bed and smoke eCig's together? Ace^ace 09:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Tried a wet/dry shop vac? (or have access to one?) BacchusBaccalaureate (talk) 12:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That's an idea. I'm just using towels at the moment which seems to be working. I didn't realise how expensive dehumidifiers were! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I bought a used car with an interior that was almost too disgusting to sit in. I hosed the whole thing down with chemicals, then used an actual hose to rinse everything off. A shop vac basically dried it out for me. The resulting water I poured out of the vac looked like black coffee. Long story short, if you have one, it's a lot quicker and less labor-intensive than using towels, at least for the first 90% of liquid. BacchusBaccalaureate (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

a RugDoctor or other carpet cleaner will get more water out than a shop vac. You may be able to rent a dehumidifier or one of those carpet drier fans. 67.72.98.45 (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

After you use a rug doctor or something similar to remove as much water as possible, generously spray Lysol disinfectant on the carpet to kill mold and bacteria before you really dry it in earnest. Open windows on both ends of your house and set up as large a cross draft as you can manage with box fans in windows and fans facing down over the rug. If it's too cool outside, turn off your heat and go out for the day. It will probably take all day for it to dry sufficiently to continue running fans over it without the windows open. 16:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Article on Spanish Skeptic

I'm thinking of writing some articles on Spanish skeptics and skepticism starting with this guy. He's a Spanish science journalist who writes about things like the moon landings; homoeopathy and conspiracy theories. He's also got a blog along the same lines and has recently produced a documentary series for Basque television on skeptical topics.

But when I look at our mission statements they are almost exclusively about the anti-science movement - there is nothing about cheer-leading for the pro-science side. So if I start writing about the Spanish skeptical movement will anybody object?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't object. It'd be interesting to see what's out there in the rest of EuropeLand. ADK^{...I'll optimize your Xbox!} 13:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't object either (not that I do that often). In my mind the mission statement covers stuff like this because it is the other side of the medal. If we were to only cover the crazy side, we would have to delete a lot of stuff immediatly. Also it will give me a case to defend the upcoming writings about German cranks. --★uːʤɱ federalist 13:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll get onto it later. One unfortunate consequence though is that any links will only be to Spanish-language (or German-language) sites. On the other hand it might encourage more international input.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Eejits can use Google translator. ADK^{...I'll advocate your bear!} 14:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Dumpling (talk) 18:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think we're a bit light on the English-speaking skeptics as well. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That could be because the mission statements are generally about fighting "x" rather than about promoting "Y". But it seems to be a logical extension.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I've noticed that. I'm wondering if it's because making a hatchet job on a bad guy is easier than writing up fairly normal biographies on the good guys. ADK^{...I'll mature your dot!} 00:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

There could be something in that. When I started writing Luis Alfonso Gámez it felt sort of odd just writing positive stuff. Probably less interesting for the reader as well.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Wondering if it would be useful to have a "notable skeptics" list or something like that. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Random Thoughts from someone too hot to sleep

When print newspapers and magazines finally become extinct, what will we use to swat flies? Are compact umbrellas with curved handles for midgets to use as canes?

That is all. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:19, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

It must be fucking warm for that to be the most pressing thought. Let me just rub it in that I work in a lovely air conditioned basement! But really, I don't know what we'll whack flies with. I know anything rolled up tends to be really inefficient because it blows them out of the way before it actually hits them. ADK^{...I'll sacrifice your tooth!} 00:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That just means you aren't hitting them hard enough. You've got to really twat them. It relieves pent up stress too. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to keep my ornaments and stuff in one piece, thanks. ADK^{...I'll execrate your broom!} 00:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

At least you think about something. I obsess about french song lyrics of some random song i've heard once. "was he singing "so and so" or "this and that". and who turned on the heat? It's october 1 tomorrow, and we've not had one single snow fall nor have the trees lost their leaves.GodotThe Peyote God awaits 00:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which, why exactly is it three men who vow to kill John Barleycorn? Why not five? Or twelve? It's not like it needs three to rhyme with anything. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:46, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

This heat wave needs to end before you all go mad. ADK^{...I'll bescumber your igloo!} 00:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it's far too late for that. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:54, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The iPad 4 will have a fly swatter app loaded onto it for free before you even buy it. Thus begins Apple's plan to get people to buy a new iPad every 2-3 days. See, I'm suggesting that people will use their expensive iPads as a flyswatter, breaking it, forcing them to pay for a new one, which in turn gives money to Apple so they can fund their other pure white, rounded corner based world domination plans. X Stickman (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That also fucking reminds me. BRB. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:53, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

re op: A rolled up piece of flexible e-paper. Occasionaluse (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

There. Hopefully this may keep me safe from the insanity. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

We should also rig the server not to admit Safari for 24 hours. ADK^{...I'll explicate your DJ!} 02:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. I suggest redirecting them to whatever the kids today are using for goatse. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Rebbecca Black, I believe. ADK^{...I'll push your arthritis!} 02:23, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

oh for the love of... is that what my generation will be associated with for all time? άλφα^Ταλκ 04:03, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

A flyswatter ^{—Preceding obvious comment added by: Captain Obvious / talk / contribs} 07:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, our current generation may go down as the worst in history. Advertising executives look at YouTube and think that shit defines our generation. I made my choice and I say "Fuck Ray William Johnson" ADK^{...I'll analyse your rake!} 14:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Dominionism

How popular is the term? It seems there is disagreement between our article and their article as to how common its usage really is. TheocracyWatch uses it, but apart from that, is it really a mainstream term, or just an overused, incorrect (theologically) term that's tossed around by bloggers? TheocracyWatch describes how it's often lumped in with Christian Reconstructionism, despite that association being mostly incorrect. άλφα^Ταλκ 14:26, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather just call them the American Taliban. Osaka Sun (talk) 14:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

RightWingWatch ran a couple articles about this question a few weeks ago (arguing that the term is indeed used outside liberal blogs), e.g. this one and some linked there. They did find some of these theocrat types throwing around "dominion" a fair bit, but it's not really clear to me that the term's in wide use among those accused of supporting it. --MarkGall (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not used all that much by those labeled dominionists. Christian Reconstructionism is a subset of this originating mainly with Rushdoony and his followers. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It's all Berlet's crap. He wrote most of these paranoid ravings for Wikipedia. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 20:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I always get Dominionism confused with Discordianism, which is a made-up religion (or rather an admittedly made-up religion, unlike all the other made-up religions). ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you ever let a grudge go, Nobbykins? Since Chip Berlet made hist last edit to the Dominionism article (in 2008!) about half a dozen sentences survive from that last revision he worked on. You really need to get over your various obsessions. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Rob has shown himself incapable of quite a few different things; letting grudges go is not the least among them. άλφα^Ταλκ 22:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

He's also in a state of denial. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is where Wikipedia is much improved: Template:Dominionism has been deleted and Dominionism is now listed on wp:Template:Conspiracy theories. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 00:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

nobs is correct, Chip Berlet did coin the term along with Fred Clarkson, with some influence from Sara Diamond who earlier used the term Dominion as a reference to the religious right's goals. Chip himself writes about it here. Secret Squirrel (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

PPSIMMONS Slams Atheist Site Rationalwiki on Erroneous Posting

someone's annoyed. Pippa (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Next: "and believes that global warming is a hoax"

Our response: Wrong! The globe warms and cools in predictable, regular cycles we like to call "seasons".

Wow. That is officially the dumbest anti-AGW argument I've ever heard. Had no idea who the guy was, but he deserves some kind of prize for that. Röstigraben (talk) 01:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Certainly disingenuous, if I'm using that word right--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:13, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

We probably ought to put his response in the article, just in the interests of balance. Also, because it's hilarious. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Imma fix his article for him.--^talk 02:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

" ..."and believes that global warming is a hoax" Our response: Wrong! ... We do, however, believe that anthropogenic global warming (man made) is unproven science and appears to be a profit-driven scam." See that, it's not a "hoax," it's a "scam"! Totally refuted! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay it is greatly improved.--^talk 02:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget RW:PISSED ADK^{...I'll reiterate your stool sample!} 12:49, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

We do not believe in global warming, we believe in seasons! and the evoultion hoax demands women be weak. Ohhhhh i LOVE teh royal "we". what is/who is this fucker? :-) GodotThe Peyote God awaits 16:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Dissociative identiy disorder

Doing some research on DiD I came across this very strange place. A forum for people who claim to have DiD. In their signatures they list sometimes 20 different personalities, and color code their text for whose talking. Some very odd topics like the dead "alters" stuff. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to the fact that this is the internet, I'm having trouble accepting that the colour-coding thing is anything more than people writing bad fan fiction about themselves for the sake of getting attention and feeling unique. But that's me being cynical, perhaps it is a genuine attempt to make a coping mechanism for a real problem. ADK^{...I'll pilot your Suzuki!} 18:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I am more than skeptical about DiD in general. I was just very surprised at the elaborate lore that has developed. Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

O_____o...-eyetwitch- Eh? Some of these are rather...questionable. As well as a colorful eyesore.--Dumpling (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This just looks like therianthropy without the furry twist. User Johnny-Jack, for example, lists his alternate personalities as "John: liberalish academic / the Sphinx: android gatekeeper / Marc Dominic: refined patrician / Quato: 44, sarcastic nihilist / Jonathan: 33, conservative entrepreneur / Dack: 12?, hot-tempered jock / Jack: 11, mellow outgoing hillbilly / Hansel & Johann: 4, secretive twins / Little John: 3, quiet child / Ashár: 2, savage wolfdog / Adam: 1, timid core". Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the most blatant example of someone turning themselves into TV Tropes archetypes... ADK^{...I'll deport your milquetoast!} 21:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

George Lucas explained

It's the only explanation that makes sense. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

My goodness, it's so true. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh god. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! XD Well, that explains a lot. Now who'se going to explain the reason why they're remaking my anime shows in live action? D:--Dumpling (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Seen this one? Osaka Sun (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No I haven't. That was awesome. :D OldBoy referencessss! --Dumpling (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The real question... WHICH ONE IS THE TRUTH!--Mikalosa (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

DUN DUN DUNNNN! Evil George Lucas...or Replacement Geo---Wait. IT COULD BE BOTH! -legasp- THERE'S TWO OF THEM! --Dumpling (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Never knew Rupert Grint could pull off such a convincing American accent. ADK^{...I'll eat your fat!} 21:43, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Eh, not as good as Hugh Laurie, but better than Eddie Izzard. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Red Tails movie...

Who is excited besides me? Besides the fact it'll be horrible historically inaccurate and have bad dialogue probably, I am! I always hoped there'd be a nice movie about the Tuskegee airmen and now it's here in all it's dog fightery glory! At least, I hope it has dog fights. I'd be disappointed otherwise. Here's a link for those who want it. Also, new Muppets movie. Any thoughts? HollowWorld (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You already know how I feel about the Red Tails movie. Anyhoo. Muppets FTW. --Dumpling (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh fuck

The job queue is over 16,000. Shit. Blue (is useful) 21:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

We need to give you a medal. Ty^talk 21:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Daaaaaamn~ --Dumpling (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Was this all me? Blue (is useful) 21:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

-shrugs- I have no idea. One can only assume. But if it was...Kudos to you. O____O--Dumpling (talk) 21:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No, some of it was from messing around with templates and cleaning up the religion category. Ty^talk 21:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Considering Religion is never a clean topic to begin with.--Dumpling (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This is why I was talking about asking the job queue for forgiveness before altering anything. But then again, that's why it's there, to prevent the site grinding to a halt when you do this sort of thing. ADK^{...I'll fly your salad fork!} 21:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This will take hours to resolve, won't it? Meaning we won't actually know whether my bot is working or not... I stopped it after a few edits, but if the gold article talk pages category ends up acting funny, you know who to blame. Blue (is useful) 21:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It has gone down ~400 in about 30 minutes so... about a day to empty. Ty^talk 22:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well shit. Blue (is useful) 03:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Did you break the internet again? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Apparently without the queue to act as a buffer I would actually have broken the site. Like when P-Foster deleted T:WIGO:CP. Blue (is useful) 04:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

New Lappy

Hey guys and gals, I'm looking for a new laptop 15 inch (weight not an issue, performance is), in teh 500-600 buck range. Anyone happy with their lappy, and willing to give recommendations? I'm currently on an eeePC which I love, but it's simply not robust enough to do what i need to do for work and play. (Play, mostly MKV HD documentaries). GodotThe Peyote God awaits 02:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You can probably get a laptop for much cheaper than 500$, if the highest functionality you want is playing videos. Go to your local Target or WalMart, they should have some nice things for you. Assuming you shop there, of course. I can certainly understand the principle of not doing so.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:35, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they actually don't have anything with a video card/processor sufficient enough to handle MKVs - just due to the intensity of the processing. Hubby's lappy is 3 years old, and would be comparable to what i can get for under 400 - and it's just at the edge of being able to play BBC stuff. I figured looking in the 500-600 will get me something with a powerful enough vidoe processing "system" (since it's not just one element), 2-5 gig of RAM, 250-500 HD. But at that point, some of what you want is that sense that "I've had my Lenova/Gateway/korean made junk for a few years, and really like it, or hate it, or it broke", etc.GodotThe Peyote God awaits 02:41, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

My standard solution to this problem is to go to the dell website and buy whatever the best laptop you can afford is. That's of course how I ended up with one of these beasts as my latest. Fully size keyboard! *nerdgasms* Seriously, it pretty much is the best thing to do. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't even imagine what one does on one of those. ;-) My best friend is a programmer and just today blogged about her new lappy that is about like the one you have. :-) Does everything but feed the cats, and i suspect she's working on that particular problem. Me, I'm a researcher, in all effects...I have lots of things open at once, doing lots of little mini problems, but would never need something that could compute the average air speed velocity of an African sparrow. ;-)GodotThe Peyote God awaits 02:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The main thing I find with laptops is that if you want anything other than some shite integrated graphics chipset, it bumps the costs at least 600 quid. It's also getting increasingly difficult to find a laptop that has a discrete graphics card that isn't styled as a "gaming laptop" and hence looks ghastly. I try and spec something that's going to last for 3 years without me desperately craving a replacement. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm on my second Dell right now and except for the cheap-feeling keyboard (as compared to my first Dell, a five-year-old Vostro that's built like a motherfucking tank that is now my take to the archives-office-library-coffeeshop machine), I'm totally happy with it. ‎Please, Reverend Jim, ‎more Kool-Aid! 03:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have a Lenovo Thinkpad and absolutely love it. For ~$480 USD, it's 4 gb of ram, 500 gb hard drive, 2.2 intel dual core (the core2duo, not the new i series) and came with windows 7 home premium (wiped for ultimate and various forms of linux immediately). It's not the prettiest thing in the world, but it certainly does the job, and I watch HD movies on it all the time. For intensive video encoding? No. Just for playback? Absolutely. The graphics is an integrated chipset, but just for playback, you don't need anything more. Plus it will definitely last longer than the HP that died after 14 months... άλφα^Ταλκ 04:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Pah, that ain't a proper Thinkpad. It's an ordinary Lenovo branded as a Thinkpad. Sorry, but it's true. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the branding, it's served me as a great laptop so far, so no complaints from me. άλφα^Ταλκ 21:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I guess I can't really recommend my lovely laptop...because it's not made anymore...nor is it near the $500-$600 range. BUT~ unless you're in a hurry to get a laptop...I would recommend to get it on Black Friday. That's what my parents did. Bwahaha.--Dumpling (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That's what hubby wants me to do is wait till bf. But the problem is my company is offering to let me work from home 3-4 days per week, and my mini lappy just won't cut it. They are budgeting 300 for the lappy, which would be perfectly fine for research work, but I want to be able to watch the cutting edge docs that break up even on hubbys 2 year old Gateway. So he and i agreed we could add 200-300 bucks to get something that will be also an entertainment center for me, games, docs, etc. And really, anything we have looked at online, is better than what we have now. maybe it's all about "style". ;-)GodotThe Peyote God awaits 20:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Ooooh. I see. Hahaha. Well, I guess that makes sense. ;D GOOD LUCK ON FINDING YOUR NEW LAPPYTOP. --Dumpling (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I am quite happy with my Laptop, a Toshiba from walmart for $500. dual core, 3gb of memory and a 160 gb drive (I think) battery life is a couple of hours and has dvd writer. You would probably find something better and cheaper now , its a few years old. Hamster (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Since we need to act rationally

Once again a confirmed fuckhead has waved about the "oh, but if you're Rationalwiki, why do you act so irrationally?" bullshit. I think it's time that we act like a rational site and delete all the made-up fairy tales, promulgated on this site by the worst attention whore since MC (who might in fact be MC for all we know).

The user does not contribute to the well-being of the site and in fact, seems to ferment conflict, which he can then write about at other websites. He has already threatened "Prepare to have your behaviour called out relentlessly and kept in view" - something similar to what MC used to threaten.

With this new call to rationality in mind, I propose that with immediate effect the following irrational fairy tales are deleted from this site:

• Cosmodicy
• Christology
• http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:A_new_approach_to_probability
• http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:How_to_Overcome_Atheism
• http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:In_defence_of_belief_in_the_existence_of_the_soul
• http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Essay:Some_arguments_against_evolution

And all references to Maratreanism, which exists only in the mind of an out-and-out attention whore. That is how we act as rational people. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 10:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

--^talk 10:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I should note that both Cosmology and Christology have WP articles — and the Christology one was not written by me, and WP's Christology coverage is actually quite extensive when you add up its numerous articles on this important topic in the history and theology of Christianity. As to my essays, I thought that within reason people were free to post whatever essays they want. It does say in the mission statement We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue. Or are you proposing you remove that section of the mission statement also? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Those essays make me think we should dissolve Essay space, or at least ban original research in Essay space, or at least limit Essay space to useful meta things such as those that Blue makes. None of this inanity is even tangentially on mission; on the contrary, this shit is an embarrassment to the site. Mountain Blue (talk) 11:14, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This entire thing sounds like a sick joke. Osaka Sun (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't delete it. Edit it. Mock it. But don't delete it. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You probably didn't read the probability one. It was just making up a change in notation from linear to exponential. Apart from the completely arbitrary semantics of "certainty" and "uncertainty" it wasn't as far out as you might think. ADK^{...I'll burn your Geiger counter!} 12:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind the essays at all, they do contain some interesting ideas, and it usually takes some effort to uncover the flaws in those arguments that lead to evidently silly conclusions. And the relevant discussions are easily contained to the talk pages and consist mostly of a back-and-forth in lengthy posts that take a lot of time to compose, so they don't clog up recent changes. What I do mind is the incessant attention-seeking behaviour and his tendency to make the whole damn wiki revolve around himself through blatant concern trolling. Since he's taking great pains not to do anything that would violate the community standards, there's unfortunately no administrative response to that either. We're dealing with someone who's willing to spend his whole Sunday arguing about a minor point on a small wiki, then whine about that incident at even tinier ones. Ignoring him is the best response, but as always not as easy as it sounds. Counter-trolling him on his own talk page (all within the rules as well, of course) should keep him distracted as well and the rest of the wiki shielded from his crusades. Röstigraben (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Christology is a useful article, though cosmodicy is more one person's obsession than any sort of current concern. I wouldn't raise any objection of that were deleted. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't give much of a rat's tale who started an article, or who edited it. If you don't like what it says, then change it (with cites). Some of you attack mara or his articles merely on principal, even if he were to put up a chocolate chip cookie recipe someone would say it's not ok. That said, Essays are some of our greatest tools we have here at RW to grow beyond being a CP mocking tool. Cause it's in essay space that you see things that are truly insightful, emotionally poignant, etc. Course I'm of a mind we should be HIGHLIGHTING them, not hiding them. (well, the good ones).GodotThe Peyote God awaits 16:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Cosmodicy is a real thing. I've heard about it. I've discussed it. Both earlier than I've been to or heard from RW. If Maratrean is obsessed about it or not doesn't matter. Although I wouldn't mind reading somebody making the point that it's off mission.

The essays can still be moved to Maratreans personal userspace. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 16:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

we have to kep Terror-Taba at least. A short wingspan rock dropping bat is just to good to lose. * flap flap flap flappity flappity flappity whoosh thud * Hamster (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, it's a real thing, but no one outside a very tiny handful of philosophers gives a crap. None of the real religions that engage in apologetics take that view of the world, so it's never an issue in any theistic argument. The only reason it has articles here or on wikipedia is that Mara uses it to prop up his idiotic proto-cult. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

And with that in mind, it is exactly on mission. So there's no reason to delete the article. Instead somebody who actually cares might write something up why it is bullshit in their minds. And then we have an RW article.--★uːʤɱ pervert 17:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I suppose you're kinda right. I do think we have to draw the line somewhere, though. It seems OK to me to have a half page blurb taking the piss out of a one-man religion that happens to cross our paths, but it seems like a waste of time addressing their arguments until such time they have missionaries knocking on your door. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If articles are not up to scratch or promote some pseudoscientific crap they should be corrected or deleted. Essay space is different. It was (partially) created to allow a voice to people who disagree with the site's ethos and thus to avoid group think. I can think of no reason for deleting the essays referred to. It is an opportunity for people to challenge us - we do not demonstrate the superiority of our arguments by deleting them. We may refute them or - if they are not even wrong - ignore them after identifying them as such.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Racists are weird

So I was on the bus and out of the window I spotted a guy and girl dressed up taking photos of each other. Looked like a wedding, but not quite in the right sort of place and didn't have any guests. The fact that they were asian didn't really register to me as much as trying to figure out if this was an actual wedding-y event or some cosplay photoshoot. But then this guy standing on the bus spotted them, gawped for a bit and just went "ching-chong ching-chong" sneered a bit, said it again, and kept muttering "ching-chong" under his breath until we hit the bus stop 50 seconds later. I really just don't get it. ADK^{...I'll anglicise your catamite!} 17:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I woulda slapped him, damn assault charges.--Mikalosa (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

psychologically, i'd guess it's some kind of defense mechanism. a need to be better than other people? I am "prejudiced" in the classical sense that I know almost no black people, so when I meet one, I'm bound to do something stupid like ask if they like basketball. And truth be told, I've worked with so many mexican immagants that i've made some bad sterotypes in my head. But to act on those sterotypes? or to make some kind of public jesture????? it would never even occure to me. cause while i may for the shortest instant say to myself "oh, god, another poor mexican without papers", i remind myself that maybe he's not. GodotThe Peyote God awaits 17:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

So I saw a japanese racist (speaking in terribly broken english) saying "what has china done" and who cares out them, all they do is run bots on MMO's!" so I listed off a nice number of japanese war crimes from ww2.--Mikalosa (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

-siiiiiiigh- I always wonder about what goes on through their heads when they do things like that. Who'se the one that looks like an idiot in that situation. I never understood it when I was little, and I still don't get it now. "Ching Chong"? Really? Oh well.Everybody's a little bit racist....--Dumpling (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Mikalos, Oh daaaaamn~ Well, we all know the Japanese committed quite a handful of crimes...They just don't teach that in their schools. Of course. Which, of course, pisses off a lot of the other Asian countries. TENSIONNNN.--Dumpling (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The best part was they said "im not racist, but", in broken englisch. then they said "those dont matter"--Mikalosa (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Related to the original post, there's a terrible film called "The Wild World of Batwoman" that got covered by MST3K. There's a scene in it where the main character carries out a seance to communicate with a dead chinese guy (I assume, I find it hard to pay attention) and the voice they give the spirit is literally a man saying "ching chong ting tong" over and over in a "funny chinese" voice. Yuuuuuup. X Stickman (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The worst, when it comes to being racist against Asians, is when they can't even get ethnicity straight start making chop suey jokes about Vietnamese people. At least have the decency to be properly racist. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That too! Koreans own Hair and Beauty salons as well as doughnut shops. Vietnamese have their nails. The Chinese have their wontons, eggrolls, fortune cookies, and "Made in China" labels...and the Japanese have their...Toyotas and Karaoke. And yes. All the Asian mothers are crazy. It's a fact. --Dumpling (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Most people who dont know too many koreans, japanese, chinese or X group arent going to be able to tell the difference between them I sure as hell cant and one of my Ex's was a korean (Then again i dont normally care much either as it isnt a topic of interest with what non-white friends i do have).--Mikalosa (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

True. Most people really can't tell the difference. Sometimes I even get a little bit confused. But the majority of the time I'm able to tell which is which. Especially if they're speaking in their native language, then it's easier to tell. But I mostly can tell from facial features such as eye shape, nose, and cheekbones. If that doesn't work, it's the clothes and mannerisms. --Dumpling (talk) 03:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"...facial features such as eye shape, nose, and cheekbones..." Surely that's about as (un)reliable as trying to tell the differences between various Europeans. "Oh, he looks kinda Scandinavian", only to find out he's Croatian, kinda thing. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Haha. I suppose. :3 It's rather hard to explain though. You walk through the streets of Japan, China, or Korea, you start to get a feeling on which is which. --Dumpling (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah it's hard, but Dumpling got it right. If you are around it a lot you get a feeling for it. Bone structure, gestures, mannerisms or in the case of native Japanese the way they eat. I'm European and around a year around it I can tell the difference — although I'm still wrong about 20% of the time. What is even worse is if you can't tell the single individuals apart and than act on that. Yeah, some awkward moments there... --★uːʤɱ secularist 23:20, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha. Those moments are the worst, but it's best to just smile awkwardly, apologize, and laugh about it later. I had a lot of those problems once I left to England, and again in the States. A lot of people started to look the same, and things just meshed together. But again, you get used to it after a while. Just have to pay more attention. --Dumpling (talk) 03:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Anthropology's greatest manufactroversy?

I haven't touched Margaret Mead since anthro 101 back in the day, but I picked up Shankman's The Trashing of Margaret Mead recently, aware of Derek Freeman's criticisms of Coming of Age in Samoa. Perhaps the most interesting thing about it out of what I've read is how COAIS, which was basically intended to be a popularization of Mead's more technical ethnography of Samoa, has really lived on more as a proxy for intellectuals engaged in a much broader philosophical debate that often has little to do with Mead or Samoa. More on Shankman:

• http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-12-16/
• http://savageminds.org/2010/10/13/the-trashing-of-margaret-mead/
• https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/PacificStudies/article/viewFile/10311/9957

Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, anthropology... something I haven't actually looked into since reading Watching The English. I'm getting a little confused here, so is it a case that Mead shared a joke with some people, this worked its way into a pop-anthropology account of her work and then it snowballed into "she was gullible and it was a hoax", when that might not really be the case? ADK^{...I'll run your pill!} 16:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

More like Freeman became more and more of a tireless self-promoter as time went on and went from "Mead may have been misled" to "she was hoaxed." I'd bet that a big reason Skeptic actually ran an article on Shankman was due to the fact that Freeman famously hounded Michael Shermer (as well as the editors of Skeptical Inquirer) to no end trying to get a platform for himself at the magazine. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone see Contagion?

Not to spoil anything, but it was much better than I expected. And it really lays into homeopathy/anti-vaccine cranks. Blue (is useful) 06:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh! It's on my to-do list. I've heard mixed reviews, but I'm rather interested on how it goes.--Dumpling (talk) 07:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do movie studios and game developers assume that a perfect virus is one that kills people "within days"? Surely an insanely contagious virus which can spread while the patient shows no symptoms would be more of a worry? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:02, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It's actually really good. Some parts felt a little rushed though, and I wish there was a little more character development. I say rent it once it comes out on DVD. Osaka Sun (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Not really "more of a worry". All our problems with viruses are incidental, the virus (to the extent that we can consider something that's not even really alive by most definitions to have intentions) just wants to make more copies. Mild sniffles, nasty diarrhoea or multiple organ failure are all just inadvertent side effects, with the major downside that their occurrence makes us determined to wipe out the virus. Some of the worst side effects in some cases are actually your immune system, doggedly trying to destroy the foreign virus particles even if they themselves aren't that dangerous. Like the Transportation Security Administration, except there's evidence your immune system actually works. So an insanely contagious virus with few or no side effects is just fine, nothing to worry about. Stay away from newborn babies and the elderly. Watch TV.

A virus that kills people "within days" certainly isn't perfect for the virus (which can expect to be eradicated, one way or the other, fairly swiftly) and it's not clear that it makes much sense as a bio-weapon. Days isn't long enough to forgive the people who bombed you, but it's definitely enough time to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike, or send your (presumably also infected and thus doomed) women and children to plead for mercy, ensuring the enemy suffer massive psychiatric problems and/or become infected themselves. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue is R₀, which can make eradication very difficult if it's higher than 1. And not to be a shill, but the scientific plausility of the "perfect" virus and how it spreads in this film has been praised, unusually for this type of flick. Blue (is useful) 16:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe my "one way or the other" wasn't clear. A virus that always quickly kills the host eliminates its own reservoir, it may last weeks or months but it can't stay long. Then the inevitable population of immune people clean up and get on with life. Consider HIV. It takes a long time to kill humans, its cousins in some other simian populations don't kill the host at all and they're very successful. Some simian species get a few mild symptoms, then become permanently host to the virus, and their systems adjust, allowing them to live a long healthy life. A new variant could arise in these species which "perfectly" kills them, but there would be strong selection pressure against this change. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That reminds me, we seem to carry around plenty of fairly benign viruses, which is why we need to be careful with "uncontacted" people - as whenever they do come in contact they usually get wiped out by the flu pretty quick. But I suppose so long as the virus reproduces and spreads before the host bites the dust because of it, it can still be very successful and the selection pressure isn't too great. It would be analogous to any problems that we'd only experience when we're 60 or 70, we've most likely reproduced already so there's no way natural selection can do much about it. ADK^{...I'll recollect your flagella!} 19:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There would usually be some selective pressure even against those infections that wait until you're in your post-reproductive stage before they kill you. It's helpful for the kids if someone with an investment in them is around; why else would the female of the species goes into menopause in the most highly altricial mammals but nowhere else? Mountain Blue (talk) 00:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I liked Contagion, although I think the social disruption end of things was probably underplayed. sterile^talk 16:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Once you take a microbiology or pathology class, you see contagions everywhere. Que groans :D --User:Brxbrx/sig 01:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

For all the nerds in de house…

New series of Doc Who just finished. Wow. Just……wow. British Sci-Fi has made a true resurgence. Now all they have to do is remake Blake's 7.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 19:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Can someone just give me the spoiler ridden tl;dr here? Every motherfucker on Facebook is currently going on about this "oh it was amazing" "oh it was shit" "no it was amazing" "no it was shit". Really, what the hell could be that awesome/shit? ADK^{...I'll throw your Angel!} 20:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Who fans split three ways. There's the old fans who believe any remake is blasphemy. There's the new fans who believe the old episodes were dreadfully slow and entire episodes seemed to rely on 20 minutes of dialogue in a cell whose walls shook every time the door was closed, followed by 2 minutes of running up and down corridors which, on closer inspection, appear to be composed of the walls of the cell. And then there are real fans who actually watch the episodes and rate them on what they are (which are family episodes aimed for 7 year olds as well as adults). Plus, of course, the usual sprinkle of sad tossers and trolls, although that's probably a tautology.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 10:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"Remake" seems like the wrong word. They're new Doctor Who episodes. There's not even much attempt to retcon things, Doctor Who was never terribly consistent in the first place so there's little need. At it's best it's one of the few shows attempting to do Science Fiction for a mainstream audience, and the rest of the time it's mildly entertaining family-friendly drama with a scifi backdrop. People have favourite Doctors, which colours their attitude to the show as a whole, the same way if you like Juliette Binoche better than Julie Delpy [heretic] it's going to influence your opinions about the relative merits of movies in Kieślowski's Three Colours trilogy. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

True, more accurate to describe it as Fan Type 1 moaning about a reimaging or reformat of their old beloved episodes (how can a story be told in only 44 minutes? etc.).-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 16:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Thing is, I blame Star Trek for the reason that fans are the way they are. That was always Serious Fucking Business and all the continuity and supposed "science" was frigging gospel. Of course, that's just something for people to obsess and geek out over (hey, how many scores and batting averages have you sports fans memorised?) but it really permeated through sci-fi a lot. So "old" Who fans may not have given two and a half flying fucks about continuity and retcons but the "new" Who fans GOD FUCKING HELP YOU MOFFAT IF YOU EVEN DARE THINK ABOUT ABUSING OUR EXPECTATIONS!!!!!!! Know what I mean? This is perhaps why I'm attracted to Warhammer 40K, it's like it intentionally retcons the story every edition to scare such people off. ADK

^{...I'll model your fritter!} 16:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

There never were any squats. Ever. Lies by the followers of chaos. Heresy. BLAM. Ty^talk 17:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Meh, Star Trek isn't alone with such things. I generally see it as an evolution in mass taste that has come from "continuity, ah, fuck that!" to "Oh, look there's the book in her bookshelf she read when she was 6 years old!"-continuity porn. But that has given us such amazing mindscrews as the lifestory of River Song, Lost and what they are currently doing in Fringe. Just wait 20 years and we're back to the 80s and everything goes again. I for one, are able to appreciate both very much. --★uːʤɱ soviet 17:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

As an Dr. Who fan in the states, at least wait until my download of it finishes in about 6 minutes... Never mind, I hate surprises, and Wikipedia told me everything I need to know. άλφα^Ταλκ 21:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I've never got "sci-fi". Sure, I liked Star Trek, Star Wars, and the later Battlestar Galactica as fun TV or film. Dr Who seems a little too kid orientated for me although I did watch it when Baker was the Doctor - and he cooked me lunch a couple of years ago. No really, he did. Seriously. I mean it.

But as a hard SF reader, I can't take any sci-fi seriously. Baxter, Clarke, Bear, Simmons, Dick, Banks, Heinlein, Hamilton and co are my cup of tea. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll give you Clarke I suppose (for Fall of Moondust in paricular), but you read Banks and call that hard? Hamilton? Fucking Hamilton, who writes this horribly complicated three volume series and resolves it with deus ex machina and a shrug? You might as well add Lois McMaster Bujold to the list. Gah no, you want hard you need someone like Greg Egan. No FTL for Greg, it's impossible, and besides that overused, so he just never does it in his stories. But some of his characters still travel the galaxy, they just have to accept that anyone you leave behind is dead to you, and you to them. Google his short stories if you've never read one. "Riding the Crocodile" maybe, or "The Moral Virologist" if you like a little humour. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

No, OK, I'll concede Hamilton is very space opera and veers sometimes too far towards the fantasy element. Although he does try to ground his fantasy by explaining how it all works in what could possibly pass as some sort of scientific basis. At a stretch. If you close your eyes and don't think about it too much. And yes, the end of The Naked God annoyed me as much as anyone else.

But implying that hard SF cannot have FTL is just arbitrary bullshit. There's plenty of good hard SF from the likes of Niven, Baxter and Robinson that include things such as FTL and time travel. As long as the literary enabler is thoroughly grounded in scientifically-based conjecture (not just firm theory), then that is, in my view, perfectly acceptable and does not disqualify it as hard SF. And Banks fits the bill.

I've read both those from Egan. Don't like his style.

I'm currently re-reading Bear's Forge of God/Anvil of Stars. It rocks. Ajkgordon (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me refine my statement on FTL. Impossible is not the big problem. It's lazy and overused. It's lazy because it turns our vast galaxy (or occasionally even the universe) into a quaint backyard. It's overused because, well, go into a bookstore or library and pick up a random book passing for "Science Fiction". Some authors have tried to take it on. Did you ever wonder why Stross didn't finish the series that starts with Singularity Sky? He realised that his attempt to do FTL seriously (with the Eschaton providing a mechanism to forbid characters from time travel) had tied itself in knots in the second book. Vernor Vinge has a neat excuse for how it's possible for his characters but not us (the "Slow Zone") but to get away with it everybody in the story needs to be heading the same way ("down") or it would all fall apart.

I really like Banks: Whit is one of my favourite novels and I own all the Culture novels including Inversions. But he's not hard SF. How does fiddling with the grid enable FTL travel? Mumble mumble. How do the Minds communicate even faster than that? More mumbling. Ships can turn at FTL speed, so why can't they fly a timelike curve? Nobody even mentions it. I enjoy this stuff, but I have to operate under the MST3K mantra to do so. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That should say "spacelike" not "timelike". I think. Ow. This of course is why hard SF isn't a hugely popular sub-genre, it makes your head hurt and that only appeals to a small audience. (I think it hurts in a good way, but I can completely see why others don't agree). Anyway, if you do this, you don't need to be an Eccentric starship with years to plan and billions of tonnes of mass to spare to fend off an approaching armada, you can conjure an instant warfleet using your FTL drive, simply travel along a path such that you are simultaneously at multiple locations relative to your opponent's frame of reference. Now you outnumber them. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the trouble with categorisation of sub-genres using arbitrary rules like "no FTL". What about all the other technologies? What about Clarke's Rama series? No FTL there but there's loads of other stuff that is not explained and where it is difficult to imagine how it would work. No, it's not the no FTL rule that makes it hard SF. It's the attempt to ground everything in plausibility, even if there is currently no known mechanism that would allow it.

Personally I prefer broader categorisation - such as Sci-Fi, SF and fantasy - all the while accepting that any work can cross those boundaries. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Moffat has written nearly all of my favorite New Who episodes, but he appears to be pulling more and more out of his ass. That finale started out brilliantly but ended badly (compare "The Pandorica Opens"/"The Big Bang," which were five hundred percent better than "The Wedding of River Song"). But at the end of the day, I'm just glad we're finally through with Amy and Rory. Blue (is useful) 18:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

All I'm saying is Amy Pond + machine gun = Hottest.Thing.On.TV.Evah! Oh and unless you've read "Wang's Carpets" by Greg Egan, all you "hardcore" sci-fi buffs are pussies. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 08:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually I kinda liked his Diaspora (which has Wang's Carpets as a chapter I think?). Ajkgordon (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Need assistance

I'm trying to find an animated video I saw a while back, probably over at Pharyngula. It was a parody of YECs who believe in the great flood, and featured Noah arguing with his sons over how to collect all the animals and fit them in the ark. It was made by this British guy who has done similar videos, with pretty minimalistic animation. Sound familiar to anyone? It's a minor thing, and the only words I can use to describe it are so general and common that regular search functions aren't yielding results. DickTurpis (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

here you go. Ty^talk 15:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Either NSC or 43alley. Probably this. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Damn! That was fast. Thanks guys, that's exactly what I was looking for. DickTurpis (talk) 15:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

He ain't British. Sounds Australian. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Australian living in Japan IIRC. Ty^talk 18:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I liked it a lot better than the crap cartoons that usually come out of Japan. Mountain Blue (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was totally frigging awesome. ADK^{...I'll deconstruct your nexus!} 18:49, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad people still managed to find the video so quickly even though I misremembered what the accent was. DickTurpis (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a hoot. We should link to it from the ark page or whatever.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

what Bob said. Bad Faith (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've enjoyed most of what NonStampCollector does. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Today, RW is an Apple Fanboi free zone

Is this some totally random thing, or is there something going on? B♭maj7 (talk) Medical science has confirmed that this is the worst head cold that anyone has ever had. Nobody has ever been sicker than this. Ever. 00:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Shiny new iPhones may be released today. Röstigraben (talk) 00:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Came from something a few days ago. Check the barchives for "windows fanboy". Can't remember the specific motive. ADK^{...I'll enumerate your random string of characters!} 00:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Apple will be having one of their sycophantic little gatherings today, and there'll be the usual tedious press feeding frenzy. The internet needs somewhere safe from the madness. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I'm a Linux man myself; this stuff never makes my radar. B♭maj7 (talk) Medical science has confirmed that this is the worst head cold that anyone has ever had. Nobody has ever been sicker than this. Ever. 01:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Motive for the windows fanboy was I installed windows 8 on a tablet PC and was hyped about the new changes. Spoiler alert: There is not iphone 5 or 4g, but the 4s will have double the 3g download rate by using two antennas. That and they are re-introducing voice commands and calling it something new and innovative. MarkeDC (talk) 18:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What to title this article?

I'm putting together an article (or attempting to, at least) on the Cornucopian vs. Malthusian debate (see here if you're unfamiliar with the terminology), but not really sure what to call it. It doesn't make much sense to split it into two separate articles. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That first paragraph makes me vomit. I mean, what the fuck do they expect us to strike next; Imulsion? Tilium? Freaking unobtanium? It's okay, says the turkey, I've always been fed in the past what can possibly change in the run up to Christmas... (fine, I need a new metaphor, but that is so damn appropriate!) As for a title, you can do "future resources" as a more general idea, or just leave it as "cornucopian vs malthusian debate" - of course, cover all bases and just redirect like crazy. Or, let's just call a spade a spade and title it "we're all fucked". ADK^{...I'll dehydrate your microwave!} 11:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Theres actually a debate that a much delayed malthusian scenario isnt the inevitable outcome of the current world situation?--Mikalosa (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure. There's an excellent chance that population will stabilise at 10 billion or so. We can easily handle 10 billion people, if we can keep most of the world from tearing itself apart in fighting. Africa for example is quite capable of being self-sufficient when it's not a war-torn disaster zone. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 23:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

On new bullshit Clinton claims.

Something I mentioned here. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

People will always try to pass off successes as belonging to their clan, and failures to the other clan. It's kinda like No True Scotsman in reverse. ADK^{...I'll expunge your cod!} 17:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Haven't liberals been saying the same thing for years? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Excluding the passing of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, no, not really. If US liberals had a choice to choose between Clinton and Obama today, I'd bet they'd still choose the former. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Homeschoolers

Found this interesting but kinda unsurprising. SoCal ²¹² 02:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"They're wooing us, it feels really good". that's what's fucking wrong with this country. politicans playing to the fucking lowest common denominator. GodotThe Peyote God awaits 02:53, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Mara is seriously ruining this place for me

It used to be when you came here in the evening you found a few interesting new discussions in the Saloon bar and some funny new discussions over on the WIGO. The WIGO became something of a guilty pleasure two or three years ago because it felt more and more like taunting retarded children, but somehow it never totally stopped working. It remained a reliable source of trainwrecks to unwind by long beyond the point where they actually had any editors.

These days you come here and every other section on every other page is about Mara Mara Mara. You browse the Saloon bar and its Mara Mara Mara. You go to the WIGO and it's Mara Mara Mara. You try to form a meaningful opinion on things and stuff in a moderator election but half the election pages are about Mara Mara Mara. You have all these user talk pages in your watchlist that you've posted to and some point and they're all about Mara Mara Mara. Fuck, half of my own talk page is about Mara Mara Mara, thanks to Mara Mara Mara himself. Mara Mara Mara Mara Mara.

This is getting old, fast. Mountain Blue (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

New plan: There's already one Maratrean Wiki. Go there if you want to feed the troll. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I concur. ADK^{...I'll envision your Pokémon!} 19:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes! Just do what I do and ignore him (barring things like votes).--^talk 21:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I like that idea. Every time he tries to start another one of his attention-whoring sprees and you feel tempted to retaliate, just do so at one of the other wikis he frequents. Point out the shocking lack of an anti-suicide policy on Maratreanwiki, call him out on his theological ideas on CP, or on his trolling on ASK. Make him scurry back and forth, I've never seen him leave a comment unanswered. Anything that distracts him enough to prevent another ten-hour Maratrean-related HCM that stops the whole wiki in its tracks. Röstigraben (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, fine... if people feel like they simply must answer him, then they should do it at CP, or ASK, or Ameriiwiki, or MaratreanWiki.--^talk 22:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It's only "mara mara mara" because people freak out every time he posts--User:Brxbrx/sig 15:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Since certain members of the community can't ignore him, we should ban him. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a metaphor for you: imagine the Cordova Jewish community in 1391. They practice their religion, and perhaps discuss it with others. Like all citizens, they have their opinions on how the government should be run. But for some reason, the majority population of Christians does not like them. They really get riled up whenever they see or hear of Jews. Jews are made to wear insignias denoting their religion and ethnicity. But that isn't enough. People just don't like the Jews. So, this disruption to the community is brutally excised.

In this metaphor, Maratrean is the Jewish community of Cordova in 1391. He has his own beliefs and his opinion on site politics, but his very existence chafes users. The rest of the RationalWiki community are the Christians, with prominent and more outspoken users being Ferrand Martinez. These users hate Maratrean most of all, and give wildly exaggerated accounts of his blasphemy. A pogrom is held against Maratrean, just as it was with the Jews. Because his mere presence was disruptive. Now, this is just a metaphor. Ragging in Maratrean is not nearly as bad as angry rabble tearing innocents apart. But it applies. The situation is similar. Have some perspective, and realize that the stance so many take against Maratrean is irrational.--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You compare people's intolerance of Maratrean to an anti-Jew progrom and then tell others to "have some perspective"? Are you like this on purpose? Ajkgordon (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw this coming. I made a metaphor. I explained that it was just a metaphor, and I only made it so that perhaps people could see the absurdity of treatment of Maratrean. Of course, you had to be obtuse and ignore any point I was trying to make.--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Is that like being a conservative who's upset that he can't lynch niggers anymore? You make some stupid fucking metaphors, Brx. B♭maj7 (talk)

Medical science has confirmed that this is the worst head cold that anyone has ever had. Nobody has ever been sicker than this. Ever. 16:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The point you tried to make is pointless because it has no perspective. As metaphors go, it's shit. The only absurdity is your hyperbole. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

pffff... see the section I just made at the bottom.--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Wait... Is Maratrean a persecuted Jew or the kind of Jew that runs the media? Occasionaluse (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that made me laugh.--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it time to start talking about creating the crank namespace? Tmtoulouse (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. ADK^{...I'll golf your dishwasher!} 13:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It would solve the question of not deleting these loony essays. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

See the above metaphor concerning the branding of Jews. Essay space is meant for opinions and such.--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't Godwin me. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Marking Maratrean because you don't like him is in fact similar to marking Jews because you don't like them. It's not as bad and not as malicious, but it's just as stupid. Perhaps there is a converse Godwin's Law, where people try to shut down discussions by crying "OH MY GOD HE MENTIONED NAZIS." By the way, I was talking about Jews in Spain, not Jews in Germany. And it was a good comparison because I enumerated that the users here are not violent anti-semites--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me for a moment while I head-desk so hard I shatter my graphics tablet in twain. ADK^{...I'll terrorize your operating theater!} 16:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. You all owe me £50. ADK^{...I'll putrefy your oxygen!} 16:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Apt?

Scream!! (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A man can't make a metaphor, can he? (Or even know the difference between a metaphor and a simile)

I mean, really. I was exposing irrational behavior by citing a similar but far graver incident. Spaniards acted stupidly in 1391, and RationalWiki is acting stupidly in 2011.--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So RationalWiki has a chain of events set off and finished by minor things. Cordova had the same chain of events set off and finished by major things. Get it? You put a bigger number into the function, and you get a bigger result. But the equation remains the same. Can you wrap your heads around that?--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I get it. Instead of killing thousands of Jews, this appalling culture of promoting vandalism, abuse, and harassment will only kill a few Jews. 17:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

We need an article on User page vandalism and anti-Semitism. B♭maj7 (talk) I feel worse than the Cordova Jewish community after what happened to them in 1391 17:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll do it when I've finished User page vandalism and obesity. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I object. I'm obese. You all hate me, don't you. ;-) Troll troll troll troll... GodotThe Peyote God awaits 17:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I bet you've never built a hospital. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Christ, pay attention. Use critical thinking. You're all capable of divulging my meaning but you're so set on pushing around Maratrean you refuse to see anything that might tear up your flimsy justifications for doing so.--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Everyone gets your meaning. Not everyone agrees with you, exacerbated by your idiotic "metaphor". Stop being so precious about an obvious mistake, learn from it, and stop being a drama queen. That is all. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow, he actually made that metaphor? I thought it was a joke. Ace^ace 21:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but i *thin* it was actually a simile. c1blag.GodotThe Peyote God awaits 21:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Analogy, allegory or parable; it doesn't make it any less dumb. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that goes without saying. :-)GodotThe Peyote God awaits 21:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

So lets Anal ize it

1. In Cordova the Jews were already there when they were persecuted. In RW Mara has chosen to set up camp here.
2. In Cordova the Jews were persecuted for being Jewish, even though they kept a low profile. In RW Mara is persecuted (if that be the case) for trying to impose his views on others
3. In Cordova the persecution involved being robbed and murdered. In RW Mara gets photos of penises.

Yep, that analogy works on so many levels.

On the other hand, let's suppose that Arthur Scargill decided that he wanted to join the local Conservative Club. He turns up and starts preaching his rather hard line left wing views. At first the other members point out, politely, that, whilst they respect the whole political spectrum, this, being the Conservative Club, is not the place to preach workers ownership of the means of production. Still he persists until the members start to get really pissed off. However, apart from a few rude words, he's most tolerated although he'll never really be loved. Hmm... Bad Faith (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yah let me join the chorus of "what the fuck is wrong with you?" There is no inherent rights associated with posting on a website, nor is there any right to "not be offended." Mara has placed himself in a community that is going to call him on his bullshit. There is absolutely no way he could have thought we would be receptive to his fantasies. We are under no obligation to provide him a platform if we do not want to, and denying him that platform, or mocking him for his strange and crazy ideas does not violate any human rights.

The comparison is just, it is, wow. It is the reason Godwin formulated his law. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Playing Devil's Advocate, there have been so-called parables, similes, whatever made on this site about activities on CP that are pretty much of the same standard as this one of Brxbrx's. They should be called out too when they happen. Which they might be. I don't pay enough attention. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure they do. I remember getting angry when someone (RobS) posted a picture of Hitler next to someone complaining about Karajou. This was the basic reaction of everyone and the picture was removed promptly. Damo^Hi 23:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Maratrean has different views than others on the site. He shares those views. Everybody hates Maratrean because he politely shares his views. People want to create a crank namespace for him, others want to outright ban him, and others want to drive him off by harassing him. Let's drop my analogy for a minute, and let's think about how immature we are acting just because somebody disagrees with us. We try and justify ourselves by saying his ideas are silly and warrant mocking, but what benefit does mocking them provide us? It's not going to change his mind. In fact, the only purpose our mockery serves is to please ourselves. It is a selfish desire, and not a particularly moral one. We attack Maratrean to sate our desire to prove ourselves better than him and to see him squirm. Is that what this site is about? You did found it, tmtoulouse. Tell me, is this site meant to analyze pseudoscience, fundamentalism, et cetera, or is it meant to indulge feelings of superiority and schadenfreude at the expense of people we disagree with?

And on the subject of fun, why do the complainers only seem to be able to have fun at other people's expense? Can't you make a joke without it being about somebody? Especially when these so called jokes aren't so much funny as they are blatant insults. Don't pretend for a minute that insulting someone will somehow enlighten them as to your ideas.

Finally, back to my little metaphor: I made it clear that the users on this site were not murderers. I did so in anticpation even before complaints arose. The actions and results of the Cordovan massacres and RationalWiki's treatment of Maratrean are not the same, but the method and justification are. You can't just shit on somebody just because you don't like them. Does it really chafe that badly when he talks about cosmodicy? Is your only possible response to call him stupid? You can't take a minute to refute his assertion? Don't act like Maratrean is the oppressor. He is not violent. He is not destructive. He has broken the rules a few times, but those instances were quite similar to Human's own violations (you know, the whole troll sanctuary thing). He has the right to his opinions and if you are rational instead of turning the hoses on him you will dialogue with him (although I'm not sure dialogue is a verb...).--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

For the record I would vote "no" on banning Maratrean. But Brx, dude, what the fuck is wrong with you? Foot in Mouth disease? Ace^ace 00:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

is this site meant to analyze pseudoscience, fundamentalism, et cetera, Yes, and not only does Mara not agree with this objective, he seeks to openly promote pseudoscience and religious concepts. We have been extremely accommodating to all his views but why should we be required to give him a platform to actively oppose us? --Damo^Hi 01:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

And you can save us this " Is your only possible response to call him stupid? You can't take a minute to refute his assertion?" People have been debating Maratrean on his views for months and months. The vast majority of which has been polite and rational. Just look at the talkpages of his essays for evidence of that. Damo^Hi 01:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Maratrean is a crank. Polite but still a crank. Ace^ace 01:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

{ec}I am addressing those that would rather insult him than debate him. Also, the only platform given to him would be user space and essay space. Doesn't seem so bad to me.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What is the point in an endless debate with someone who made up their own religion and who believes Ken's bestiality essays actually make a good point? Ace^ace 01:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

On that matter, he woefully misinterpreted both ken's logic as well as his intent. He overestimated the man child's intelligence.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

You know, Brx, you could turn that first paragraph of your lengthy comment around and it would actually describe Maratrean to a T. He knows he's not going to change this site, the amount of rejection and sometimes abuse he's received from all corners of the community should have made that abundantly clear. Yet he carries on with his concern-trolling and bogging us down in procedural quagmire. Why? I personally believe he wants to make a point about how we treat Conservapedia by demonstrating how much of a pain in the ass dissent can be, and actively tries to get us to ban him just so he can crow about it somewhere else. If that's what motivates him, he obviously misses the point that we're not trying to change CP at all, that he hasn't experienced harassment just for editing our mainspace, and that even if he were banned, which I don't think is going to happen, it would not be for what he believes, but for his behaviour. Anyway, if you're going to mount an organized campaign to get a website to abandon a viewpoint and culture you don't agree with, you're picking those conflicts yourself and you've got no right to complain about the inevitable backlash. It's his attempt to troll RW into changing its culture that earned him the near-unanimous enmity of the other editors, not the arguments he started about his own beliefs. Those discussions were always civil and nobody who didn't want to participate in them was inconvenienced. But the situation is totally different when he spreads his concern-trolling over half a dozen different pages, floods RC with discussions revolving around him and makes it generally impossible to ignore his antics. Seriously, try to understand why so many editors, despite coming from different camps and having different visions about how the wiki should be run, are pissed off with him. I get that you probably feel indebted to him because he's the only one still willing to give you the time of day, but you shouldn't extrapolate that and assume that there's no problem at all with his general behaviour. Röstigraben (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

edit break

The two archives to the talk page of the essay Essay:Some_arguments_against_evolution total 441 kilobytes. According to my sources, this equates to nearly half a 500 page book! Looking through the pages it is virtually all people expressing their opinions in a calm and rational manner. Ditto for Essay:How_to_Overcome_Atheism at 114 Kb. We also had massive debates with JimJast. I can remember similar occasions with Earthland and others. RationalWiki is as polite and accommodating for people of other persuasions as can be reasonably expected. There comes a time, however, when expecting people to continue to be endlessly polite to people who openly and brazenly oppose the site is asking too much. And I would also say that you protest and defend Maratrean far too much, you even tried to stop an article on Maratreanism his religion because you thought it would offend him. Damo^Hi 01:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. I ignored him most of the time but now that he's trying to push his butthurt in site policy debates and then whining about it on other sites, I've lost any motivation to defend him as RW's mostly harmless pet crank. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Look, Brxbrx, the fact is Maratrean has been debated rationally by a large number of people here. Extensively. (Maratrean would argue, as he does about almost anything, that the opposing arguments were not rational, but hey.) Nobody, even after very extensive and detailed arguments from Maratrean, agrees with him. Indeed, many of us find his arguments and beliefs ridiculous and we've told him why. He is therefore either subjected to ridicule or ignored. The man is a crank even he's a polite crank. There's no surprise he gets on well with PJR.

I would also suggest that, judging by his promotion of his religion, he is perfectly capable of defending himself and doesn't need ill-advised comparisons with medieval persecuted Jews to help him. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Gordo, I don't think that people who disagree with my views are automatically irrational. There are a number of people I can think of who clearly reject my views on religion and other matters, yet I can't fault their rationality. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

No, you smell. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Even you... you've never struck me as particularly irrational... in fact the only time I felt you were being particularly irrational, you were rational enough to admit to it, which makes even your irrationality rational... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

For your rating pleasure

I've added a finished version of my article rating script to Special:Gadgets. You can enable it in your preferences. Blue (is useful) 20:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sweet. Thanks Blue! The Noisy Orchestra ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 09:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Nice one. So are we evolving criteria for "importance" ratings? - David Gerard (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Amanda Knox and shit...

I'm 2 degrees of separation from Meredith Kercher. Perhaps a detail too far to be sharing, but right now it's really bugging me. It's not that I have an emotional involvement that means I JUST KNOW OKAY!!! that Knox is guilty and demand revenge of some kind. Obviously, she's still a friend of an extremely close friend, which puts it in that awkward middle ground where it doesn't seem so close that you must care but not so far off that you can not care. The cold hard rational part of my brain that makes me look like a soulless cunt controls and prevents that feeling of grief driven anger from ever existing, and even then if it did slip through I'd have another layer of defence that would prevent me from acting on it or vocalising "KNOX MUST PAY FOR THIS!!" as an opinion because my rational brain would never allow me to say that without being able to back it up properly. So it seems really odd seeing people I know think and say those sorts of things because they really are in the zone where such feelings of grief driven anger seem inevitable.

But that's not the point. The point is that it this sort of proximity gives you a massively different spin on events. It's possibly why I'm so cynical when it comes to this whole "grief tourism" thing. I've seen inside the memorial Facebook group for Meredith, the one with 2-3 dozen people in it. I've also seen the public one, the one with thousands. So I've seen the messages left by the people that I know knew her and I've seen the the ones from people definitely didn't. Comparing the two is... uncomfortable. The former I know serves a purpose, her friends are now scattered through a few dozen universities and several countries and are communicating, while the latter seems oddly self-serving to me. Did these people know the girl? No they didn't. Did they know her friends? No. Did any of them stay up all night comforting one of their friends just after she got a phone call through about it? No they fucking didn't. But there they go writing "R.I.P" as if it somehow magically makes them a better person; or "my thoughts are with your family" but no they fucking well aren't, you'd hit "submit" and three seconds later you'll be back watching cats on youtube and not give a single shit any more; and then sticking a picture of her up fucking covered in badly photoshopped fucking candles; and yet more fucking "R.I.P" and... yeah, this is fucking weird. ADK^{...I'll ruffle your xanthochroi!} 02:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't take this the wrong way, ADK, but so what? So what if complete strangers post RIP and "thinking of your family" messages? Sure, grief tourism can be rather unattractive, but it's not as if any of the insincere posters to the public Meredith memorial page are doing anything bad. Let them be. Let them make themselves feel better about themselves or whatever the reason is. At least they're not posting unpleasant messages like that twat in the news a couple of weeks ago. I imagine that Meredith's family (or any other family in these types of cases) is probably grateful for the show of public support even if they are well advised to view it at arm's length. The wife of the dead Red Arrows pilot used similar public support to raise money for charity. Just my 2p. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's specifically a bad thing, well, perhaps I am but not in those words exactly. Just that I feel remarkably uncomfortable with it. It seems, to me at least, to be distracting and going me-me-me-me-look-at-me-and-how-touched-I-am. Perhaps because I detach myself so easily from events, I then project the same ability on to others; ergo from my point of view if someone fails to be detached they must be doing it for a reason and without direct first-hand involvement in a situation I can't fathom a non-selfish reason for it. And so that just feels wrong. Going back to 1997 when Princess Diana died (when the whole let's have a competition to see who can lay the most flowers thing started) I was at school and we were asked to write our thoughts and feelings on cards. I didn't get it at all. The teacher went ape shit when someone else dared roll their eyes at being asked to do it, as if we were under strict orders to feel something. Yet Diana did nothing for me. No one in the class met her, no one benefited from her charity work and we were all too young to be glued to her wedding and divorce and slobbering celebrity obsessed sheeple. Why were we not asked to write out our thoughts and feelings for the kid in the class who's grandparent died only a few weeks earlier? Why? Indeed, "Why?" was what I eventually wrote on the card, as in "why the fuck are we doing this?" yet said teacher praised it for being somehow poignant and went onto talk about God's plan or some shit like that (yes, it appears I credit my strong atheism and unending cynicism to the same middle-schoole RE teacher!). Raising money for charity following a tragedy is one thing, I'm fine with that because it has a constructive and non-selfish angle. Perhaps at a push the messages of support I could accept but it would still feel selfish to me. But using it as an excuse to let out some bloodlust over an accused (or even convicted) murderer is something else entirely. Sure, it's "not as bad as" the trolling, but I'm divorcing the trolling from what I see as faux-sympathy - they're different things and I'll address them very separately. The trolling does not figure into this at any point. ADK^{...I'll calcify your killer whale!} 15:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

GPWM. The Diana thing was excruciating but caught out a lot of people who would normally cringe at such a thing. She died, there were some suspicious things involving white Fiats, paparazzi, a drunk chauffeur, and a mad Egyptian, it's sad, she did some great things for land mines, poor kids lost their mother, did you see the match, the ref's a cunt, fancy a pint? Ajkgordon (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I'm specifically not going to comment on the pro-Knox trolls currently dicking about on the public memorial group on Facebook, not least because the English language doesn't have the right words available to convey my thoughts on that. But I'm finding myself in an increasingly cynical mood tonight because of this. ADK^{...I'll drink your osmosis!} 02:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Both sides say that the evidence clearly obviously points to her guilt/innocence. I never knew there were so many forensics experts on the web (makes me wonder at my own outrage over Troy Davis' death). Personally, I'm not going to bother myself to look up the information myself. Here's what I see, though: the Americans are playing this blind solidarity thing, where she couldn't possibly be guilty. The Europeans seem to furiously masturbating to their anti-American sentiment.

And there's a major case of "blame the black guy!!!" going around.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect for your friend and what happened to her--there are what, thousands of murders every year in the "Western world," and thousands upon thousands more in Africa, Asia, etc. While I respect/understand your personal involvement in this case, I'm always amazed at how occasionally, one case will rise to the top of the media pile. Who was that little British girl who went missing a few years back--Madeliene something-or-other? There are kids that go missing every single day. Why does that one get global media attention and not those other ones? I rarely read up about crime cases, so I know nothing of the specifics of this one, but I am always curious about what murders matter to us and why. B♭maj7 (talk) Medical science has confirmed that this is the worst head cold that anyone has ever had. Nobody has ever been sicker than this. Ever. 02:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Missing white woman syndrome--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Kercher wasn't "white" that I'm aware of. I'm also curious as to what causes them to rise to the top of the pile. Some seem remarkable, others don't. A friend of mine died a few months ago and that made the local newspapers because he was only 20 - his mother mentioned that there were some press at the funeral, but they were the tactful and professional kind. Sometimes its a case of who looks the most cute and innocent for a front page, sometimes it's plain old fashioned PR spin. I think it was very much the latter in this case as it very quickly descended into the Cult of Knox once the initial trial was over and it became USA! USA! USA! vs Italy. ADK^{...I'll cogitate your heretic!} 02:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Knox is getting the coverage, not Kercher (btw, do you limies have a different meaning for white? I've seen pics, Kercher looks white to me)--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

And of course you've all seen the Fail's quality reporting[1] Doctor Dark (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, let me guess without looking: "It's the n******s fault! Therefore, we must kick out all immigrants out of Britain, especially the ones who have darker skin colour! Support the BNP!" Osaka Sun (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, no. Not that. But it was a good guess.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks Daily Fail, for being idiotic for more reasons other than racism. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

ADK - I don't understand why you can't believe that some people feel remarkably empathetic towards others. When something terrible happens to someone, a family grieves, an injustice is done, I feel bad for them, I would help them in any way I could.. but since I can't, all I can do is to let my thoughts be known, offer condolences and wishes that the family have strength to make it through this difficult time. I hope that by expressing my thoughts it will help the grieving family, to know that someone cares... It doesn't have to have happened to someone I know. When one of us hurts, I hurt. Without empathetic feelings for others, we people (the human race) could not survive. We would not care for our children, our elderly, the disabled, the poor, those in need. Posting condolences shows that people care, and serves as a reminder that we all are interconnected and life is fragile and too short. Refugee^{talk page} 02:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

...and: Diana, "no one benefited from her charity work" ? Ask the land mine victims and others who were helped by her charities. I think she had a big heart, as opposed to some of the celebrities that people idolize who are selfish people that do nothing for others and in fact are a negative presence. Refugee^{talk page} 02:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

bleah. Refugee^{talk page} 02:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think ADK meant "nobody in the classroom benefitted from her charity work," B♭maj7 (talk) I feel worse than the Cordova Jewish community after what happened to them in 1391 02:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd bang Knox. Ace^ace 02:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

From here to next Sunday. B♭maj7 (talk) I feel worse than the Cordova Jewish community after what happened to them in 1391 02:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind playing some kinky games with her, as long as my throat stays intact. Ace^ace 02:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

So does LessWrong feel vindicated? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

AMBIEN!!!

AMBIEN!!!AMBIEN!!! (etc x46)... B♭maj7 (talk) Medical science has confirmed that this is the worst head cold that anyone has ever had. Nobody has ever been sicker than this. Ever. 03:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hurtin, huh? When you get it, take it with some liquor. It'll act faster. Also, you may want to check in to your local hospital, just in case you have meningitis (in pathology class, it was described to us as the worst headache ever).--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Be careful with the shit dude and, Brx you fucking douche, mixing Ambien with alcohol is an extremely stupid idea. I have Tramadol and OxyContin at home - that's the good stuff. Ace^ace 03:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Woops. Confused Ambien with opiods. Good thing I'm not a pharmacist. But I was serious about that meningitis thing, though. Not to mention it's contagious. Do you want the same to happen to your family?--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

He has the sleeping pills and I have the opiates. Ace^ace

As long as he gets his head checked out, I don't care if you're all sipping absinthe with crushed amphetamines instead of sugar (actually, I do sorta care, that sounds like a bad idea)--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Oxy? lol...I guess they have dumbass rednecks in NZ, too, huh? Occasionaluse (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Feel better!‎(ó㉨ò)ﾉ♡ --Dumpling (talk) 03:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Seroquel is the shit. Just don't take too many. Damo^Hi 03:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've said it before, but the best thing you can do with Ambien (Stilnoct here in the UK) is throw it in the bin, unless you want to end up with no friends and sitting in a police cell with no memory of why you're there. If you do insist on using it then make it's short term (no more than 5 days), don't drink any alcohol at all before taking it, and take it literally just as you're getting into bed. Probably best to disconnect the phone and get your OH to hide the car keys as well. Nasty nasty stuff. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree. If you can't sleep figure out what is causing it and eliminate it. Don't mask the symptoms with this shit. On the other hand if you need a bit of a hand every now and again, get your doctor to prescribe seroquel, it is much less harmful, gives you a better sleep and is not addictive. The only issue is that its soporific qualities are just a side effect, not sure if it is standard practice to prescribe it for insomnia. Damo^Hi 09:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

STILNOX!!!STILNOX!!!STILNOX!!!STILNOX!!!STILNOX!!! you heard about people doing really crazy things on it? like sleep-driving? It seems to work fine on me, not that I've ever used it much, but it made my ex-girlfriend hyperactive (and she was ADHD, so I mean much more hyperactive than was normal for her...) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Phantom of the Opera 25th Year Anniversary

Did anyone watch the Live Cinema on Oct.2nd? My friend told me they streamed it from London to the Cinemas in US and Canada. I can't believe I missed it! They're only doing 3 more showings in the Theaters. Just from one Opera Musical fanatic to...well...others. Haha. --Dumpling (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Phantom is a musical, I think, not an opera. My mother listened to that CD basically continuously for years, which soured me on it. Too bad - Sarah Brightman's renditions of her songs from it are pretty amazing (as I understand it, the range is crazy and she's really the only one who can do it).--^talk 08:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah. :3 Musical it is~ AND YES! Her range is amazing! --Dumpling (talk) 08:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

My son and I went to see Phantom in London a few weeks ago. Great show although I wish I'd seen it with Crawford and Brightman. And I also wish they'd change the theatre. The seats and view are shit in the gods. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

REALLY!? I'm so jealous. --Dumpling (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I have seen many shows and Phantom in London was fucking amazing. Ace^ace 09:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ughhh! Was it really!? Now I feel like I missed out! Dammit. I have 3 chances left! I'm determined to go now!--Dumpling (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw it 2006/07 down on the West End. We had great seats and it was spectacular. Seriously good. Ace^ace 09:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Where do you live? It's on Broadway too. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunatly...no where near Broadway...or London anymore. This place doesn't have much...So the closest I get to watching this would be on the dates they're coming to the Cinema. I won't be able to watch it Live. BUT ONE DAY I WILL!--Dumpling (talk) 09:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw the Phantom in London on a school trip a few years ago. Loved it. Of course the idiot I was with thought Covent Garden was a botanical garden, but what can you say? @Dumpling The Shaw Center, the Manship, and Swine Palace try, they really do. Dial M for Murder at the Manship was pretty good if a long drive. Ty^talk 22:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Grr...No fair. Well, haven't been to the Shaw Center in ages. Never heard of the Manship. And Where the hell is Swine Palace? Are they the places downtown where the hold the concertos?--Dumpling (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Manship is the Shaw Center, I got it confused with the BR Little Theatre, which is where I saw Dial M. BRLT is way out past airline. Swine Palace is on campus, It's the building with the big blue pig outside. Theres a small theatre somewhere in the Garden District, and the Black Box in Coates hall. Sadly the Manship these days varies between Hair and Going to Jackson on the good side, and Click Clack Moo on the poor side.Ty^talk 02:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

-blank stare-...Obviously I have no idea what you're talking about. I need to pay more attention when I'm on campus...or just go out more. BR is a strange place. I'm actually more interested in seeing the blue pig now than seeing the building itself. Haha. Just show me on Thursday then.--Dumpling (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever had the opera vs musical debate with professional opera singers? That's a million hours of my life I'm not getting back. ADK^{...I'll swim your flan!} 11:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Not with professional opera singers themselves but certainly with opera aficionados. I love going to Covent Garden - I saw La Traviata recently - but don't like the attitude shown by some of the regulars. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

That's time I'd rather not waste and drama I'd rather avoid. I go to musical/operas because I enjoy them. That is all.--Dumpling (talk) 12:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, adding in 'A Little Priest' from Sweeney Todd into a program of trad opera (well, after having the finale of Dialogues of the Carmelites, you fucking well need the light relief that not even the fugly sisters from Cendrillon are going to provide) will spark that whether you like it or not, even if you do try to cover it by exclusively calling the composer by his middle name. Apparently the distinction that "musicals have dancing, opera does not" isn't right... who knew! ADK^{...I'll vote your lava!} 14:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Salome? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, dancing in a more extradiegetic way. ADK^{...I'll toast your plastic!} 15:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I saw Phantom at the Kennedy Center years ago. What I'm looking forward to is that I, after years of wanting to do so, am going to see Les Miserables live this Saturday (again at the Kennedy Center.) I've listened to te Les Mis soundtrack hundreds of times. I have two favorite quotes from it. The first is one I want used if I ever get married: "To love another person is to see the face of God." The second wouldn't be appropriate for a wedding: "The blood of the martyrs will water the meadows of France!" Incidentally, I'd submit that Les Mis is an opera, or at least as close as a Broadway show can come to being an opera. MDB (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it is pretty awesome. I think more of the recent protests should be using 'Do You Hear the People Sing?', as that would be fantastic, and far more tuneful than the usual harsh and unimaginative chanting that goes on. Only seen it live once, though. Which is good enough, I think. I really prefer being behind the stage rather than in the seats looking at it. ADK^{...I'll vitiate your Cadillac!} 17:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The one problem with using Do You Hear the People Sing? as the theme for your protest is that the protest does not end happily in Les Mis.

The Kennedy Center run I'm attending is significant in that the Kennedy Center was where the show had it's out of town try-outs twenty five years before going on to Broadway. MDB (talk) 17:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Shhh, they don't need to know the ending! ADK^{...I'll earn your spork!} 17:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

RIGHT! DON'T TELL ME THE ENDING! --Dumpling (talk) 02:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The ending is French people singing. MDB (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Blue (is useful) 19:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hahahaha. That works. :3--Dumpling (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Herman Cain

So what do people think of Herman Cain? He may be totally inexperienced but at least he hasn't uttered any far-right evangelical nonsense. So say you, the mob? Ace^ace 09:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, Obama has shown that the US wasn't ready for a black President. The GOP sure as fuck isn't ready for a black Republican President, especially all those good ol' boys south of the Mason-Dixon line. Besides, the GOP has lurched so far to the right that he's too sane to be their candidate. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 09:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Latest polls him in the top echelons (though those polls heave and moan, spitting out all types of numb-nuts in line with the fickle voting blocs). Curious about what people think of him given his lack of religious rhetoric. Ace^ace 09:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

He's easily the most charismatic candidate in the race, and he's got the most awesome voice of any politician I've ever heard. That said, he may not be one of the religious nutjobs, but he's following the pure Tea Party line on economic policy, as seen in his WND columns. Since he's not a career politician, he might actually believe this stuff, unlike some of the more cynical party leaders who just don't want to anger a substantial contingent of their base voters. And while he may be surging in the polls right now, he doesn't stand a chance in the long run - not enough money, no organization to speak of, no establishment support, not to mention racism among the GOP base. The fact that he must know that he can't win allows him to pander to the Tea Party much more than candidates like Romney or Perry, who need to keep an eye on the general election, so he gets their support at the moment, but that will change once things get serious. Röstigraben (talk) 09:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

He's black. There's no way in hell he's going to go against Obama. Osaka Sun (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I give Cain one of the best shots in the field. He's not outwardly insane, but insane people like him for some reason. He is always at the top in WND polls and on The Blaze and shit. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I still think it's going to be Romney. The Republicans have a tendency to nominate whoever's "turn" it is (Bush the Lesser being a notable exception) and I think Romney clearly fits that standard.

Admittedly, that could be wishful thinking on my part -- I am a die-hard Democrat, but if I had to pick a Republican from the current field, it would be Romney. MDB (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

One of my non-rasict family members has endorsed Cain. Everyone else is Romney or BachmannTy^talk 18:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Wait, Herman "no Mooslimz in the White House" Cain hasn't uttered any far-right evangelical nonsense? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hadn't seen that...Still, doesn't seem nearly as crazy as some of the others. Ace^ace 03:03, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Wait, Herman "I'm a goldbug" Cain? You're really looking for something that isn't there. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If you ask me, Jon Huntsman would be the least of many evils. SoCal ²¹² 03:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘AKA the only Gooper candidate who doesn't believe in the Evil Liberal Science Conspiracy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hunstman is OK, actually. Ace^ace 03:12, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Huntsman is easily the most sane of the GOP candidates, followed at some distance by Romney. If I had to chose I would pick Romney, he seems to be smarter and more pragmatic than the crazy stuff he's said in his last two campaigns. Blue (is useful) 19:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

N0|tA11 here, I have some knowledge being all things conservative. He has Gospel albums and is a preacher on Sundays. If I am not mistaken, much like the church's in Blues Bros. He is awesome, he is a patriot. I would love a match up. Almost have to support Cain--liberals pushed him on us.--193.200.150.137 (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure "awesome" is the right term to describe an intolerant Islamophobe... SoCal ²¹² 04:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Category name suggestion?

No one seems to read the forums, so I'll ask here. We have a bunch of articles about being an "ex -religious" person. ex muslims groups, ex-Scientology groups. I'd like to make a category for them, but I suck at names. "Ex-religion organisations?" See, that's just bad. any ideas?GodotThe Peyote God awaits 15:29, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Apostate organisations. ADK^{...I'll forsake your alcohol!} 15:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yah beat me to it. I was going to just suggest Apostasy as a catch-all. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool. we already have cat:apostasy, so i'll stick them there. thanks guys. GodotThe Peyote God awaits 16:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

More specifically "apostate support organisations", but let's keep some semblance of elegance here! ADK^{...I'll refill your kumquat!} 16:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Too bad, it already got named. category:Apostate organisations.GodotThe Peyote God awaits 16:05, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I just mean there's a distinction between supporting apostates and encouraging apostasy. But I think it's a subtle difference for our purposes. ADK^{...I'll confuse your cob!} 17:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I know, dear. :-) I was just "messin'" with you. I'm all for using existing categories, or "sorta mostly ok" cats if they fit, until or unless someone says "wow, big cat, let's make it more specific."GodotThe Peyote God awaits 17:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

What about a category for ex-atheists? There's been a few... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Given that people are born without beliefs in gods, anyone with such a belief is an ex-athiest. (Why do I get the feeling I'm inviting a wall of marabollocks with my comment?) ^{ONE / TALK} 10:34, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Only if you accept that definition of atheist... in my view, implicit atheism isn't atheism — but then, you and me adopt different definitions of atheism (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly the sort of trolling behaviour that annoys people about you. WfG asked for suggestions for a suitable name for a category then you jump into the thread with something completely unrelated probably for the sake of "balance" which is neither required nor wanted. If you feel the need to start a category for ex-atheists (how about Lunatics?) then start you own thread. You're forever like some bloody parasite hanging around for something to pass by so that you can jump onto and suck the lifeblood out of. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If going on tangents is trolling, we are a community of trolls. --★uːʤɱ heretic 11:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

If it was only going off at a tangent it would be tolerable. In M's case it always tends to go off in the same direction. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Boys v. Girls - it's still cutting off parts of their happy places....

So, I'm editing the Female Genital Mutilation page, and reading things like the World Health Org docs - and I'm struck by the sheer duality in how they deal with FGM vs. MGM (oh, sorry, it's not mutilation it's circumcision). By world health orgs, even "cutting" which is a practice where the fleshy parts of the woman are "nicked" to leave a scar as a mark of tribal identity is still "mutilation". But cutting off part of the little boy's weewee is "healthy" and "normal" and never to be associated with the word mutilation. Hell, they even advocate the use of circumcision for AIDS prevention (grrrr... that's as BS as not vaccinating your child). Why such a distinction? is it really ok to cut up a little boy? GodotThe Peyote God awaits 18:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Circumcision has been normalised by religious use in the US. Elsewhere it's considered an obscure ritualistic practice, or a medical procedure to correct for abnormalities. But I'm glad this disparity between male and female forms isn't just in my imagination. I know it seems to be the one thing Rebecca Watson is called out on all the time - anyone saying otherwise is trolling because ITS NOT THE SAME THING BECAUSE IT ISN'T! Fine, I accept they're different procedures and come in "varieties" but that's no reason to treat them differently and back them up with wording that separates them. ADK^{...I'll mystify your mycobacterium!} 18:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There was a Saloon Bar debate about male circumcision a few months back (here). The arguments which came up in favour of it were mostly along the lines of "it's standard practice in the USA & the chicks prefer it", which doesn't really weigh well against the option of letting your child grow up to decide for himself whether he wants a part of his body permanently removed. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Though the blatantly obvious part about "and the chicks prefer it" would be whether that is still the case if it wasn't standard practice in the US. Everywhere in Europe doesn't give a hoot about it either way, and this is the world where sharing a towel gets you pregnant. ADK^{...I'll detect your xenomorph!} 18:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that any "chick that prefers it", has ever even been with a non-circumcised guy. I mean, other than oral, there is no difference what so ever when he's all nice and hard. And if your guy is at all aware of basic hygine, it's no different oral, either. It's just, as you said, what they "expect". It does kinda look strange all curled up in its sleeping bag, if you're not used to that... but it's not like it's "different", sheesh.GodotThe Peyote God awaits 18:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I dont think that circumcision for guys is the same as removing the clitoris, or removing the inner labia which I understand are common practises in some places. I do believe there is a prectise of removing the clitoral hood which might be similar Hamster (talk) 18:45, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

To me that woman is full of it. While I am against FGM, and think it's a horror show, so is male mutilation especially in Africa, Indonesia, etc., where it's not done in a doctor's office, it's done in the field, and boys die ALL THE TIME. I used to be this Rebecca person, thinking that nothing you boys get is at all like what is done to women -- and in the right set of circumstances, its not. The most extreme cases of FMG are so horrific it's not even fathomable. They cut everything off and out, and stitch you back up. BUT - that's like less than 5% of the FMG that's out there. Most is cutting off the fleshy parts (sick and wrong, but probably won't kill you), or pulling off the hood of the clit. What makes it a horror show is not the procedure itself, but the way it's done. without any anesthetic, without sanitation, and with glass, tin cans, rusty knives. But what Rebecca is not addressing is that this is how the boys are circumcised too... Her mind is talking about the nice Moyle (sp?) with his sharp tool that *almost never* (ehm) goes wrong, and the nice doctor who performs the surgery in the States. But both practices are equally ugly when done in the field. GodotThe Peyote God awaits 18:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC) (edit con)_

Well, she's a good enough skeptic, and when combined with feminism produces good points. But when the feminism gets in the way of the skepticism, yeah, she can be full of it. Oh noes! I've insulted Rebecca Watson, I'm therefore a chauvinist asshole troll!! I don't see how trying to bring male circumcision into the debate is making light of any of the types and forms of female circumcision (aren't there types of male mutilation too, e.g., castration?). After all, people do that sort of thing all the time when they lump "I was drunk and didn't say no" rape in with "I was taken down a back alley and gunpoint" rape - wouldn't calling the former "rape" make light of the latter, which is a crime on a different scale and even scope. ADK^{...I'll explicate your ad!} 18:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

And again, it's a very western "issue". To be frank, it goes along with a form of institutionalized racism. "those black people who don't know better do it, so it's bad". And it **is** bad. But I think the reason we are so against it, is not because we have ever asked someone who's gone through it, what it's like (read Color Purple's author, Alice Walker's interview with women who have been through various levels of the procedure(s), and you'll take something different away. not better, but different). In the west, we like to be all better than everyone. "We don't do that". But as you educate yourself, what you find is that the hype of FMG is far larger than the reality of what goes one. the uber yuckiest pictures are shown, and the gory details of the worst cases are exaggerated. But then you find that most women don't undergo this kind of physical trauma. yet they are still counted in the #s of FMG. I am NOT condoning this procedure - I just think that most women who are against it, are against it cause it's a thing to be against, not because they've ever really looked in depth (with skepticism) at what is really going on, vs., what the West wants to claim is going on. GodotThe Peyote God awaits 19:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm a half-way-houser having had an accidental frenulectomy during my 30s and can attest that you can be hygienic without having full removal of the foreskin but the tearing of the frenulum did result in a minor loss of sensation. You need to have experienced both while sexually mature before you can give a verdict on whether circumcision makes a difference or not and most men haven't had that experience. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm still trying to absorb "accidental frenulectomy" in this context and my eyes are beginning to water. ADK^{...I'll widen your oxygen!} 21:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Really, I've never seen so much blood. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 21:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Just. Stop. Talking! ^{...I'll ruminate your leukemia!} 22:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I for one wish I still had my foreskin. I don't stay up night worrying about it or nothing, but still. B♭maj7 (talk) I feel worse than the Cordova Jewish community after what happened to them in 1391 22:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked for one on eBay? Ajkgordon (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, anytime I go looking on the internet for a foreskin, it tends to still be attached to somebody. B♭maj7 (talk) I feel worse than the Cordova Jewish community after what happened to them in 1391 22:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

There is some really odd regrowth procedure, but I don't think the result nor the process is that desirable. And it won't really undo your calloused bell-end either. ^{...I'll roll your cowbell!} 22:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm glad my foreskin was removed. My parents had a great reason for doing it (seeing the downsides to forced circumcision when older) and quite frankly, I love them more for it. If anyone really wants a spare foreskin, you are welcome to go to Okinawa and ask the hospital if they kept it. SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 08:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the circumcision, of any gender, should be a criminal offence — with an exception for adults who genuinely voluntarily desire it, or in any cases where it is medically indicated. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What about tribal scarring, tattoos, ear piercing and other "mutilation"? Ajkgordon (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Tribal scarring, tattoos, ear piercing, mutilation.... Sounds like a typical party at my house to be honest. The Noisy Orchestra ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 08:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, if they are freely chosen by adults, I won't object. To make myself more clear, because I wasn't very clear to begin with, I am thinking here of things people do to children primarily. I must also say, that the genitalia are a particularly significant part of the body, and so such things involving them must be treated with a higher degree of seriousness. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course, we're talking about children. But how do you justify that snipping off a part of a child's genitals is any more significant than, say, tattooing or scarring a child's face? How do you draw your arbitrary lines that distinguishes one act as criminal and the other not? Ajkgordon (talk) 12:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

To me, it comes to permanent harm. I think it is or should be criminal to tatoo a child, to pierce his or her body, or cut them, tribally. It's not your body, it's your childs. Paint them, symbolically, then let the child decide at an age when he or she can (maybe 10 0r 12 for ear piercing, older for other things).... Why do parents think they own the body of their children?GodotThe Peyote God awaits 12:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Then there's the clusterfuck of "what is a child?" I'm sure a 12 year old could happily ask to get a tattoo or another body mod, but do they really know what it involves? Then I know 21 year-olds who jumped at the opportunity to get a tattoo because of the trendiness and then regretted it. Were they really mature enough to make that decision? Arbitrary seems to be the order of the day here. ^{...I'll neuter your kerfuffle!} 14:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

AGW denier lists.

Should we include a section on prominent scientists who've literally become demigods by conspiracy theorists?

ie. Antonino Zichichi, an Italian physicist who worked at CERN and has called climate change models "incoherent and invalid" (with just one little tidbit - he has always been involved with the Christian Democratic party there, and you know who's in charge of that)...and so on? Osaka Sun (talk) 04:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've just added the Nobel disease page, which includes Ivar Giaevar, the latest denialist darling. Freeman Dyson has also endorsed denialism. The actual denialist climate scientists (e.g., Roy Spencer) that I know of weren't prominent to begin with, but raised to prominence by the denialist machine. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What the...I didn't know it was that crazy. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What's how crazy? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I meant how many Nobel Prize winners turned to such quakery (you should have seen my face when I saw ESP). I haven't been doing enough research on these guys. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Makes me wonder if I'll be banging on about the wonders of colloidal silver at age 70. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not just the Nobel, people like Susan Greenfield (who has a peerage but not a Nobel) are the same. They stop doing actual research and so they skip the "I wonder" phase and the "Let's do an experiment / tell PhD student to do experiment" phase and go straight to "Here are my conclusions" which is not science any more, but the general public still believes they're scientists because they still sound like scientists to a layman, except now what's coming out of their mouths is bullshit (in the technical sense: ie they do not care whether it's true). 82.69.171.94 (talk) 07:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh f**king baron-fucking-ess Greenfield... and I believe that reaction says everything. She pops up on Bad Science on a fair more regular basis than she should. Including Facebook can rewire your brain. Just watch the fucking interview, she literally does pretty much say there's no real evidence for it, 82's observation of them "getting passed the 'let's do the experiment' stage" seems pretty spot on. ^{...I'll sell your candlestick!} 07:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"X can rewire your brain" is the psychological deepity that never dies. Of course, anything can "rewire" your brain in the strict sense, but that's not what the woo-peddlers mean when they say use the term. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, I don't think we should be too hard on people like Greenfield. She is essentially a politician with a science background. She champions science, she does her best to defend science budgets - that's her primary role. That she might have a few far out science views, is rather less important. The fact is here you have a proper scientist, someone who understands the scientific method, someone who understands the value of science but who has left most of it behind to champion it in high political circles. I'd rather that than having a presidential science advisor with a pension from Exxon. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yet still better than a total Exxon flack re-writing the science itself. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Voting standards

A thousand apologies for inflicting this upon the bar, but an intercom would be overkill. We are preparing to begin a set of (currently six) votes to decide upon some standards for voting on serious issues. The most recent draft of the entire proposal, including the introduction, can be found at the forum. If you have any further input, please go there. Blue (is useful) 20:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't really get too involved in RW internal politics, but this caught my eye. You're going to have a series of (six!) votes to determine the standards for voting? Well done, Mr. Sanger! </good-natured snark> Godspeed (talk) 20:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Science Good or Bad = When we want it, it's good!

I found this interesting: Conservative White Males & Climate Change Jimaginator (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

McCright and Dunlap have a number of other similar studies:

• http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/McCrightDunlap2000.pdf
• http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/McCrightDunlap2003.pdf
• http://tcs.sagepub.com/content/27/2-3/100.abstract
• http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/envs501/downloads/Jacques%20et%20al.%202008.pdf

Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

iPhone 5!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know a few fanboys and I've got to say this is a strange day. People waiting with bated breath for a phone with features that have already been on the market for months. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I've already got the iPhone 6. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I already have a phone and a fully functioning netbook for a fraction of the cost. Name one thing the iPhone can do that that combo can't do more effectively - except break more easily, be a bigger target for thieves and make me look like a hippy. ADK^{...I'll terrorize your electric toothbrush!} 13:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't stand netbooks. I'd rather have a goofy ass tablet. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

the iPhone 27 has the time travel app. Bad Faith (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, the temptation to write a Facebook app so you could update your status "via iPhone 27"... ADK^{...I'll break your rock!} 17:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I would have gotten an HTC with the fancy dual-core processor, good camera, great screen, super current Android OS, etc. if I could find evidence it can push Exchange Server email and handle OTA contacts and calendar (even then iPhone doesn't natively do tasks). Can they? 17:43, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. My Desire S does as did my Hero before that. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Err, the new iPhone looks the same. How will people know I am better than them? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Call me stupid, but... (Occupy Wall Street)

Why do I feel something's gonna happen with the Occupy Wall Street protests? Someone's going to get hurt/shot/whatever and this is going to explode into some uncontrollable mess?

It's been two weeks now and it's not stopping. Osaka Sun (talk) 13:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You're stupid. No seriously, I don't think this is The Revolution or anything, but yeah, these folks have made it clear they ain't going anywhere, and the cops proved on the weekend at the Brooklyn Bridge that they'e willing to play hardball. It'll prolly look a lot like Toronto at the G20 when it all goes down, and any of the more progressive political ideas that are driving this thing will get lost in images of violence and destruction. B♭maj7 (talk) Medical science has confirmed that this is the worst head cold that anyone has ever had. Nobody has ever been sicker than this. Ever. 14:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Problem is the societal implications are far worse than the Toronto G20. Also considering we're on recession warning almost every month. Osaka Sun (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"the societal implications are far worse than the Toronto G20." How so? B♭maj7 (talk) Medical science has confirmed that this is the worst head cold that anyone has ever had. Nobody has ever been sicker than this. Ever. 14:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

They've got no universal healthcare, no unions, employment is stagnant, their wages are plummeting and the income disparity is near Chinese levels? Sure, we've got more than enough issues to deal with here (Harper!), but it's nothing compared to the political crap in the US. Osaka Sun (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Like most protests coming from the left rather than right, the signs have better spelling, the cause is more noble, but at the end of the day the news cameras are going to be focused on the tits who think it's a good idea to get violent and silly. ADK^{...I'll incarcerate your bathtub!} 15:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

They're going to be focussed on the tits? What channel? Ajkgordon (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The wingnuts have already been on the look at the dirty hippies hurr kick since two weeks ago. Also, they have been infiltrated by LaRouchies. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The LaRouchies? Oh god. And calling for action against a group of bankers and traders that singlehandedly dragged the entire economy into the ground (and would have been charged for fraud almost everywhere else) is anti-capitalist? Feast, oh wingnuts, feast! Osaka Sun (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Yeah, some of the LaRouchie Obama = Hitler signs at 'bagger protests have been unfairly represented as 'baggers as well. Not that I don't think 'baggers deserve scorn, but even they don't deserve to be lumped in with LaRouchies. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

"and traders that singlehandedly dragged the entire economy into the ground" Try several. --★uːʤɱ pirate 11:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Osaka, I agree with you. I feel like the protesters are going to realize, or maybe they already have, that government won't listen. Maybe that's not even their agenda. I hope it doesn't get violent, but it probably will and that will kill any credibility the movement ever had. The only way to really rebuild the system would require a decapitation maneuver on all three branches of government and a fracturing of the military to support the decapitation. These things are very unlikely to succeed. I don't mean to be like Johnny Sedition, but the middle and lower class can only be pushed so far. Senator Harrison (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Telegraph engages in some predictable hippie-punching. Like the comparisons to David Icke conspiracy theories. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Herman Cain has spotted the conspiracy by butthurt Obama-backers. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)