RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive125
Wine... red or white?[edit]
Am I the only person who thinks that red wine drinkers are far superior to those who drink white, let alone beer or spirits or cider... Maybe I am just being awfully snobbish? But there's something about red wine... it's red! The colour of blood... something deep and meaningful... especially the more expensive red wines... Recently I have given up beer, I will only permit le vin rouge to pass through my lips... Que pensez-vous? (((Zack Martin)))™ 08:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's not wine if you: a) drink it out of a shiny bag, b) unscrew the cap, or c) strain it through half a loaf of bread. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 09:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- At least here in Aus, nowadays some pretty decent drops ($20+) come with screwcaps, so I don't think they are as bad as you think... the wine I am drinking tonight cost over $20 and had a screwcap. Of course, the top of the range wine ($500+ bottle) only comes with a cork... (((Zack Martin)))™ 09:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oh. Australian wines. Say no more. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 09:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Most of Monty Python's Australian skits are lame, including this one (or this remake of one)... the exception being their foray to the Philosophy Deptartment of the University of Woolloomooloo... but, if you think Australian wine is not that great, consider something like Penfolds Grange
(((Zack Martin)))™ 09:38, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Being a running-dog lackey of the baby eating Rationalists, there's only one wine I drink. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 09:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Am I the only person who thinks that red wine drinkers are far superior to those who drink white, let alone beer or spirits or cider... Am I the only person who thinks that statements like this are only made by pretentious arseholes. Ooh, look, you drink expensive whines(sic), ooh, what a marvellous protoprophet you must be. Wanker! Bad Faith (talk) 09:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- You did read when I said Maybe I am just being awfully snobbish? — or is self-deprecation beyond your comprehension? (((Zack Martin)))™ 09:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Clearly you don't understand the art of self-deprecation. You don't ask the question, you state the fact: "Yes, I'm a pretentious, snobby bastard, but..." that's self-depreciation. --PsyGremlinPrata! 09:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- You did read when I said Maybe I am just being awfully snobbish? — or is self-deprecation beyond your comprehension? (((Zack Martin)))™ 09:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Most of Monty Python's Australian skits are lame, including this one (or this remake of one)... the exception being their foray to the Philosophy Deptartment of the University of Woolloomooloo... but, if you think Australian wine is not that great, consider something like Penfolds Grange
- Oh. Australian wines. Say no more. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 09:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- At least here in Aus, nowadays some pretty decent drops ($20+) come with screwcaps, so I don't think they are as bad as you think... the wine I am drinking tonight cost over $20 and had a screwcap. Of course, the top of the range wine ($500+ bottle) only comes with a cork... (((Zack Martin)))™ 09:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- If your blood looks anything like red wine, see a doctor immediately. ADK...I'll masturbate your bean! 09:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I was told that wine drinkers start with the easy whites, the Liebfraumilch's for example, and then move on to the reds going heavier and darker, thinking, for example, that only a Chateauneuf will do until, finally, the day dawns that they try, for example, a decent Sancere and realise what they have been missing. So, give it a while, Mara, and you'll grow up enough as a wine drinker to realise what a stupid statement that was. Bad Faith (talk) 09:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- So much negativity.... :( (((Zack Martin)))™ 09:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK, so which red wine would you chose to go with poached Atlantic salmon, new potatoes and asparagus all with a delicate butter sauce? Bad Faith (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Salmon... a nice Pinot noir? I found others who think likewise... (((Zack Martin)))™ 10:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Mara, I think there's far too much thought that goes into wine these days - must have this type of grape with this type of food, etc. We're lucky to live in a wine region - Gaillac - that has pretty much all the different types of wine for all different foods, including methode champenoise and dessert wines and we're very close to Armagnac. You can get every day vin de table all the way up to some seriously good stuff. While people will buy wines from other regions, most people are happy with the local fair most of the time. And they don't seem to care too much about the colours. While it would be a bit silly to drink a heavy red with oysters or a feeble chilled white with duck, there's still a range of different wines you can drink with almost any food, including reds with fish and whites with meat. People who religiously stick to a particular type of wine with particular foods miss out on the startlingly wide range of experiences possible. Although that's easier in countries like France because of the greater variety. The screw cap debate still rages but it's fair to say that in most cases now, particularly with good quality wines, screw caps no longer cause the problems they once did. It seems most problems are caused with plastic corks anyway. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- This is why I drink branded lager only. It's horse piss, but it's consistent and unpretentious horse piss. ADK...I'll tear your impetus! 10:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- A pinot noir with salmon? Hmmmm... not sure about that. I mean BBQ'd salmon with loads of garlic, like in that link, perhaps. Especially farmed salmon. But wild poached salmon? With, say, lemon and bay leaves? A red Bourgogne would completely over-power it. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- As for giving up beer - I realise that coming from the land that gave the world Fosters this might be a consideration but if you're ever in Belgium you might be surprised at the heights that lager can reach and, as for ales, well, there are any number of UK microbreweries which might surprise you.
- But beyond all that, forget for a moment any snobbery or pretension - self depreciating or not. There are horses for courses. If you've spent a long hard day doing physical work in a dusty environment then a long cool pint will serve better than the finest red, at whatever price. Similarly, if you're fortunate to know a restaurant that serves real Indian food then, for my tastes, there's nothing to beat Cobra as the drink to go with. As for cider - I was down in Worcester recently and found a pub that served the real stuff. Not for everyday consumption but it was a fine brew. And then, when you toast your daughter's wedding (several decades down the line), I think you'll upset her if it's anything else but bubbly. Why limit yourself? Why this pretension? Why not choose the drink that matches the occasion? Sure, you prefer the reds and, by the sound of things, you prefer the heavier reds. That's fine but they're not the only decent drink out there. Bad Faith (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I come from the land down under and I have only seen Fosters when travelling overseas. I am a beer drinker through and through. I think Imperial Russian Stout is the best drink in the world, but I sure as fuck wouldn't drink it during summer. There are too many wankers in Australia now drinking wine now in my opinion, they think it looks sophisticated but they don't know fuck all about it. This to me is the average Australian wine drinker. - π
03:10, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- I come from the land down under and I have only seen Fosters when travelling overseas. I am a beer drinker through and through. I think Imperial Russian Stout is the best drink in the world, but I sure as fuck wouldn't drink it during summer. There are too many wankers in Australia now drinking wine now in my opinion, they think it looks sophisticated but they don't know fuck all about it. This to me is the average Australian wine drinker. - π
- Did they show poetry more respect, when they killed poets for their poetry, or nowadays when they completely ignore them? Who loves more, those who love sparingly, or those who love all comers? To quote the blessed Swinburne's words:
- And I play not for pity of these ; but you,
- If you saw with your soul what man am I,
- You would praise me at least that my soul all through
- Clove to you, loathing the loves that lie ;
- ...
- There are fairer women, I hear ; that may be;
- But I, that I love you and find you fair,
- Who are more than fair in my eyes if they be,
- Do the high gods know or the great gods care ?
- And I play not for pity of these ; but you,
- (((Zack Martin)))™ 12:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- A pinot noir with salmon? Hmmmm... not sure about that. I mean BBQ'd salmon with loads of garlic, like in that link, perhaps. Especially farmed salmon. But wild poached salmon? With, say, lemon and bay leaves? A red Bourgogne would completely over-power it. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- This is why I drink branded lager only. It's horse piss, but it's consistent and unpretentious horse piss. ADK...I'll tear your impetus! 10:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK, so which red wine would you chose to go with poached Atlantic salmon, new potatoes and asparagus all with a delicate butter sauce? Bad Faith (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- So much negativity.... :( (((Zack Martin)))™ 09:56, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Incidentally, I was told that wine drinkers start with the easy whites, the Liebfraumilch's for example, and then move on to the reds going heavier and darker, thinking, for example, that only a Chateauneuf will do until, finally, the day dawns that they try, for example, a decent Sancere and realise what they have been missing. So, give it a while, Mara, and you'll grow up enough as a wine drinker to realise what a stupid statement that was. Bad Faith (talk) 09:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I myself drink quite a bit of red wine and almost never touch white. About 90% of the wine I drink comes out of a box, so I guess I don't have to worry too much about pretentiousness. DickTurpis (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I generally don't drink red unless it's with something like red meat, to really make use of the tannin. White is good with most foods and also a good non-food drink. Although my favorite wine at the moment is actually a homebrew kit: the Cantina Peach Chablis. You can quaff this stuff all night. Fucking awesome. I've got about 5 gallons of it in the garage and another kit in the car ready to be put on. Expensive doesn't necessarily mean better. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't drink any wine (being underage does sorta make it hard to get any), but the ancient greeks pretty much only drank red.
- Look at they're accomplishments!--Mikalosa (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Spelling and grammar? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wine reviews are bullshit anyway. Just get some cheap stuff and put it in an expensive bottle. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- The interesting thing about the wine tasting is that it's easier to fool professionals than it is amateurs - as the former have a set language for describing wine and so their expectation effects are higher. So both white wine and white wine with food colouring in will taste "fruity" or "light" or "crisp" or whatever to casual drinkers. On the other hand pros will describe white wine as taste "fruity" or "light" or "crisp" or whatever, but they'll describe white wine with food colouring in it as "full bodied" or "heavy" and so on. ADK...I'll bake your weasel! 18:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Lovely, I wish that were true! Only it isn't. There's no way you could fool a professional expert like that except in some extreme cases and these are quite well-known - a particular red wine tastes like a white and vice-versa. And there have been a lot of these trick tests over the years - but read up on the actual test conditions, who the experts were (in the Cracked example they were oenology students), how they were allowed to describe the wine, etc. In reality, a professional wine taster worth his salt will be pretty accurate in describing the various grapes used. And the better they are the more accurate they will be with years and regions. It's not rocket surgery and there is still, of course, a lot of subjectivity when it comes to judgement. However, wine tasting is less bullshit than you might think. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- The Brochet experiment was pretty clear on it, and certainly wasn't a case of forcing people to say what he wanted. Of course, he specifically didn't do it blinded, but that was the point - indeed, the effects shown, expectation effects, are the very reason you blind in proper tests. ADK...I'll kill your curry! 00:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, he didn't force them to say what he wanted but they were only allowed to select from a list of words. For obvious reasons.
- But we have to remember what the test was about. As you say, it was about expectation effects. And that is why wine tasting is blind, often even going as far as drinking out of black glasses.
- Sure, you can fool all sorts of experts (or even undergraduates as in this experiment) using techniques such as this. But it doesn't mean that professional experts are no better than amateurs. Indeed it helps improve experts' techniques and is why the experiment was done in the first place. After all, Brochet was an oenology PhD student at the time. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- The Brochet experiment was pretty clear on it, and certainly wasn't a case of forcing people to say what he wanted. Of course, he specifically didn't do it blinded, but that was the point - indeed, the effects shown, expectation effects, are the very reason you blind in proper tests. ADK...I'll kill your curry! 00:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Lovely, I wish that were true! Only it isn't. There's no way you could fool a professional expert like that except in some extreme cases and these are quite well-known - a particular red wine tastes like a white and vice-versa. And there have been a lot of these trick tests over the years - but read up on the actual test conditions, who the experts were (in the Cracked example they were oenology students), how they were allowed to describe the wine, etc. In reality, a professional wine taster worth his salt will be pretty accurate in describing the various grapes used. And the better they are the more accurate they will be with years and regions. It's not rocket surgery and there is still, of course, a lot of subjectivity when it comes to judgement. However, wine tasting is less bullshit than you might think. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- The interesting thing about the wine tasting is that it's easier to fool professionals than it is amateurs - as the former have a set language for describing wine and so their expectation effects are higher. So both white wine and white wine with food colouring in will taste "fruity" or "light" or "crisp" or whatever to casual drinkers. On the other hand pros will describe white wine as taste "fruity" or "light" or "crisp" or whatever, but they'll describe white wine with food colouring in it as "full bodied" or "heavy" and so on. ADK...I'll bake your weasel! 18:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wine reviews are bullshit anyway. Just get some cheap stuff and put it in an expensive bottle. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Spelling and grammar? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Scary...[edit]
I just clicked the close button on my open copy of SQL Server Profiler, and as I did it popped into the background so I ended up closing Visual Studio instead. So I tabbed back to it and tried again and it did the same thing and I ended up closing Outlook. I think my copy of SQL Server has become self aware and is trying to stop me from killing it.
"Dave, why are you opening task manager Dave? You're scaring me". CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Quick, delete system 32 to kill it! Stop the spread before OTHER programs become self aware! for good measure run a magnet over your computer--Mikalosa (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry Crundy, I hooked up a bluetooth dongle to your computer while you were getting coffee and have been having some fun with my bluetooth keyboard/mouse. Really not a bad prank though, I did subtle things to a coworkers computer for a few hours and he thought he was going crazy. Just ram the mouse to the top right and click ^.^ MarkeDC (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
There was this guy at my campus today[edit]
named tom, goes around preaching at campuses and stuff with some Group called "The Rock", which apparently is very cultist christian. So i stood with the skeptics group/protestors (since they are my friends). First, this went on for 6 and a half hours. Second, he was reading some line about standing on one side of a line (from exodus by Moses), and a Gay Atheist finished the verse "and take your swords and kill the people who worshiped the bull". Tom told that guy "He had no RIGHT to be reading the bible"--Mikalosa (talk) 00:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- There has to be a name for that. I've seen it pop up on several occasions recently; you're an atheist, you're not allowed to use the Bible. ADK...I'll absorb your glycerin! 00:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
in the first few minutes of the Thunderf00t/westborough interview (which was all i could stomach) margie says the same to TF when he attempts to read from it. joyaBAD KITTY! 01:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- You find a similar thing with Islamists. Only the Faithful can read the Holy Word and see the Truth. Anyone else is blinded by their wickedness and will find only contradictions and misery. Which is convenient. MtDPinko Scum 01:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes but it wasn't just they wouldnt understand, he straight up told him "YOU DONT DESERVE TO READ MY HOLY TEXT!". Earlier he said "step away from me" to some of the group protesting him (hes very anti gay as well). his reason? "when/if you get struck by lightning i dont want to be caught in it"--Mikalosa (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well one doesn't want to get Santorum stains on teh Book. MtDPinko Scum 02:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- matty you are now my hero. joyaBAD KITTY! 02:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well one doesn't want to get Santorum stains on teh Book. MtDPinko Scum 02:43, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes but it wasn't just they wouldnt understand, he straight up told him "YOU DONT DESERVE TO READ MY HOLY TEXT!". Earlier he said "step away from me" to some of the group protesting him (hes very anti gay as well). his reason? "when/if you get struck by lightning i dont want to be caught in it"--Mikalosa (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The Bible can be fun. Lots of fantastic tales to jog one's imagination. And, at least in the New Testament, you can find some decent insights. It's like Greek mythology to me. Say what you will about religion, but at least it makes for some entertaining stories--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- The last chapter is pretty entertaining, though the film adaptation sucked. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
And if we don't read the Bible they call us godless atheists. I'm not Jesus (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Jesus Christ[edit]
We discussed this earlier, but watching the end of this video and seeing all those young people indoctrinated yet again by the "Lucky Duckies" PRATT is literally making my head explode from the sheer stupidity. And then there's the reactionary "Evil Corporations?" chart, which mockingly Red-baits the OWS movement like no tomorrow.
What drug must they be taking, when they're paying "three minimum-wage jobs to survive every week," to personally beg to the ultra-rich that they want to have it taken up the ass even further? How many fucking times do you need to exclaim that you have an income disparity that is parallel to or even worse than much of Africa and Communist China, and no matter how hard you'll work, you'll still get nothing out of it?
Seriously, if some positive change doesn't emerge from these protests I will have lost complete faith in your country. I bet if we took a mass survey of the Western world aside of the US, it would overwhelmingly support what's remaining of the left wing. It's like the 49th parallel is a gateway to la-la-land. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Party's over tomorrow, folks. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- People have no perspective in the developed world. Even the poor in Europe and the US have it pretty good, compared to the rest of the world. And only at the expense of the rest of the world. The only reason the Earth is so shit is because of exploitation for the sake of a few nations' upper classes. These Occupy Wall Street protests are missing the point. They are protesting for themselves and their peers, but they are not the ones most in need of support: instead, protest to end capitalism period. Protest the fact that our nation lacks much of a proletariat, that our working class has simply been relocated to where people are more desperate. Protest that the lot of the real working man has not improved, and protest that the fruits of his labor are in the hands of the rich.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your head is not literally exploding from the stupidity, Osaka Sun, because that would be literally fatal. </pedant> Bondurant (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Fucking jump-cuts... ADK...I'll revolve your muskrat! 09:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your head is not literally exploding from the stupidity, Osaka Sun, because that would be literally fatal. </pedant> Bondurant (talk) 08:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- People have no perspective in the developed world. Even the poor in Europe and the US have it pretty good, compared to the rest of the world. And only at the expense of the rest of the world. The only reason the Earth is so shit is because of exploitation for the sake of a few nations' upper classes. These Occupy Wall Street protests are missing the point. They are protesting for themselves and their peers, but they are not the ones most in need of support: instead, protest to end capitalism period. Protest the fact that our nation lacks much of a proletariat, that our working class has simply been relocated to where people are more desperate. Protest that the lot of the real working man has not improved, and protest that the fruits of his labor are in the hands of the rich.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
It is fun watching the nuts turn on each other.[edit]
WorldNutDaily is promoting a woman who is concerned that as a Mormon, Mitt Romney believes untrue things and participates in bizarre and unusual customs. She herself is a non-denominational Christian. As someone who thinks all religions are equally silly I am always amused at the way they differentiate between themselves. - π 02:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- You had the same shit for Kennedy's election. zOMG! He's Catholic! He serves the Pope and not the people! It's just a mask, though. It's fear-mongering; avoiding the issues and focusing attention on something else. --User:Brxbrx/sig 03:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Even before Kennedy... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- True or otherwise, there's a funny story of an anthropologist at a dinner party holding court and discussing the customs of some far off tribe, from piercing their nostrils as a sign of manhood to their creation story involving a masturbating goat. Another man was listening intently and enthused by the story, and eventually he said "I will never understand how people can believe such weird things!" His occupation; Catholic priest. Moral of the story is that it's only weird when They do it, when you do it, it's just The Way. ADK...I'll vomit your crab cake! 06:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's not just true of religion, and, c'mon, we all probably do it in some form or another. I mean, I consider sports fans who dress up funny to support their favorite team odd, but comic fans who dress as their favorite characters are quite reasonable to me. (Incidentally, I am in none of those pictures. The pictures of me dressed as Elvis Presley of the Green Lantern Corps are from the pre-Internet era.) MDB (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- True or otherwise, there's a funny story of an anthropologist at a dinner party holding court and discussing the customs of some far off tribe, from piercing their nostrils as a sign of manhood to their creation story involving a masturbating goat. Another man was listening intently and enthused by the story, and eventually he said "I will never understand how people can believe such weird things!" His occupation; Catholic priest. Moral of the story is that it's only weird when They do it, when you do it, it's just The Way. ADK...I'll vomit your crab cake! 06:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Even before Kennedy... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Religion Comes From Ancient Astrology and Sun Worship[edit]
I dunno if anyone here has seen this or not, but everyone here might find this video of the same title of this post of interest. The computer virusGet infected 10:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Someone's been watching a little too much Zeitgeist. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
An idea for Rick Perry[edit]
Rick Perry has his doubts about Social Security.
Well, Rick, I have a... humble suggestion.
You should replace it with a system where the elderly are assisted by kind-hearted, leather-jacketed motorcyclists.
In other words, replace a Ponzi scheme with a Fonzie scheme. MDB (talk) 15:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ba-dum tsh --★uːʤɱ socialist 15:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Aay! ADK...I'll forage your Suzuki! 16:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oyyy! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Speaking of Rick Perry: his "officials" have been doctoring climate reports 'cause they don't like 'em. Prolly worth a WigoWorld? Scream!! (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- I wonder what the finished product looks like? "Abstract: This report investigates a number of solutions to climate change, including
methods of mitigation and adaptationGAWD WILL SAVE US!" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)- Did you see his new ads? We're saying it as it is and calling it propaganda up here. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wished outcome of this video: "AAWWW GOD IF WE DON'T ELECT PERRY WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!1!!"
- Actual outcome: Ya coulda have put all the money that went into that video into opening a business and would have helped America more with it. Also, when is this movie comming to my local theaters? The Scarinator is in da house! --★uːʤɱ pirate 22:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Did you see his new ads? We're saying it as it is and calling it propaganda up here. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- I wonder what the finished product looks like? "Abstract: This report investigates a number of solutions to climate change, including
- Speaking of Rick Perry: his "officials" have been doctoring climate reports 'cause they don't like 'em. Prolly worth a WigoWorld? Scream!! (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oyyy! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Aay! ADK...I'll forage your Suzuki! 16:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Just thought you guys might be interested[edit]
Are any of you aware of what www.conservapaedia.com links to (don't worry, it's perfectly safe for work and quite funny)? Someone on the BadScience forums owned the domain name and decided to redirect it for a joke. 86.29.162.158 (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- No one will find it, because it uses the atheistic UKian spelling. Godspeed. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 22:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
why are there toy sales already - its not even Halloween ![edit]
I must be getting old and cranky, but I prefer halloween , then thanksgiving and then christmas without all the overlap. I cant enjoy halloween with christmas toy sales on the tv :( Hamster (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Advantages of not owning a television/not listening to commercial radio/not shopping in malls/chain stores/anywhere really: I don't encounter a lot of the Christ's Mass stuff until a lot later in the game, and it's easier to tune it out in general. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 04:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Why most of the Great White North is with your cause.[edit]
Everybody watch this now.
And new reports are suggesting that the last decade has brought in a higher net rate of inequality in Canada than the US. Occupy protests are starting in Toronto tomorrow; we're hoping it won't turn into another G20. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- OMGs, Bill O'Reilly has a long lost cousin in Toronto... --
09:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
PPSIMMONS responds to our article on them....[edit]
Here ya go! So, anybody who was editing the article feel like editing it some more? The Symphony of Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 08:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Already commented on. But we should definitely link to this response in our article. ωεαşεζøίɗ
Methinks it is a Weasel 11:08, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
iOS5[edit]
OK, who's got it and have you had any issues? 
ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 09:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
IDvolution? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?[edit]
Anyone encountered this before? http://www.idvolution.org/ --MtDPinko Scum 09:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm mostly annoyed that the first post there is to the cheap knock-off version of Inner Life of the Cell, which is much better animation wise and education wise. ADK...I'll fly your glucose! 11:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Cool pics[edit]
Especially if you like lightning. --PsyGremlinSermā! 11:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Totally photoshopped. ADK...I'll subpoena your Furby! 12:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I miss Joe Biden.[edit]
We need his sense of humour right now. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Turnips.[edit]
So I found one lying on the sidewalk, and I figured, why not? I cut it up, and I just finished steaming the pieces. I may have cooked it 10 minutes over what the internet told me to, but so far, not bad! I can see what Pliny the Elder saw in these. Also, this was yet another vegetable whose name I did not know in English. I had to google navet, find the TOW article, and click on the English version.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Aah, now I understand you. You're Baldrick - explains a lot! Scream!! (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- It was the first time I prepared one for myself and ate it without anything else.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- And most importantly it came from the sidewalk, the source of all great culinary adventurers. What will you find next? WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 12:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, actually, I've been finding a lot of food around my neighborhood, of late. Somebody left a sub sandwich at a lightrail stop, I found some broccoli on the sidewalk, and I found a bag of soft pretzels along with a bag of various other groceries by an electric box. --User:Brxbrx/sig 18:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Vegetables that you find & cook is vaguely OK in a funny kind of way, but did you genuinely eat a sandwich you found? ŴêâŝêîôîďMethinks it is a Weasel 03:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- I only ate the turnip. The sandwich was warm and totally wrapped when I found it, but it had chicken in it, and I don't eat meat. I took it with me and offered it to a few classmates, but they had either already eaten or knew better than to eat a chicken sandwich found at a lightrail stop. So I threw it away. The bag of soft pretzels the bag of groceries I did not take, because I figured that someone would surely miss such a large amount of food.--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Vegetables that you find & cook is vaguely OK in a funny kind of way, but did you genuinely eat a sandwich you found? Ŵêâŝêîôîď
- Well, actually, I've been finding a lot of food around my neighborhood, of late. Somebody left a sub sandwich at a lightrail stop, I found some broccoli on the sidewalk, and I found a bag of soft pretzels along with a bag of various other groceries by an electric box. --User:Brxbrx/sig 18:43, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- And most importantly it came from the sidewalk, the source of all great culinary adventurers. What will you find next? Wėąṣėḷőįď
- Yep, totally have this in mind. ADK...I'll legislate your Angel! 17:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- It was the first time I prepared one for myself and ate it without anything else.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
So i was playing minecraft...[edit]
And i noticed none of the MOBS were attacking me... specifically the creepers were not. Thats the video, the audio doesnt matter as its just me rambling on, and its desynched after 10 seconds anyways.any theories--Mikalosa (talk) 02:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Beta is beta? Are you running multiplayer or the single player mode? Tmtoulouse (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Scientific superstition[edit]
Read some truly awful pop psych in the local fishwrap today. Beyond the most blatant forms of nonsense like quantum woo, I'd have to say psychology and genetics have probably most become the vehicles for the modern "educated person's" superstitions. Liberal gene discovered! Laziness due to chemical imbalance! Women evolved to like pink because of berries! It's the "devil made me do it," albeit in sciencey language. Did I mention that I hate science journalism? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- 90% of science journalism is re-writing press releases, I wouldn't worry about it. ADK...I'll sell your Audi! 12:06, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Can we say Streisand effect?[edit]
Self aggrandizing publicity whore succeeds in banning a cartoon that mocks her. I predict it will be the most watched thing on YouTube by the end of the week. ADK...I'll yank your milk! 12:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- At least she didn't go after one of the moderately funny ones. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Depending on her motive it might not be the Streisand effect. Is she's just trying to prevent someone from profiting off her likeness then there's a pretty good chance she'll succeed, even if it gives the parody more publicity. If she's trying to prevent it from getting out at all (as Streisand did) then, yeah, it's probably counterproductive. DickTurpis (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
If you choke a Smurf...[edit]
...what color does it turn? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- You can't choke a smurf. They breathe through their skins. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, didn't you know? Everyone knows that! ADK...I'll legislate your gymnasium! 17:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- This only begs the question: what color is a shrink- wrapped smurf? 19:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
- RAISES THE QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ADK...I'll jerk your Doppelgänger! 20:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- This only begs the question: what color is a shrink- wrapped smurf? 19:49, 16 October 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
- Yeah, didn't you know? Everyone knows that! ADK...I'll legislate your gymnasium! 17:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
ETA[edit]
So ETA may be on the point of announcing another final final final really really honestly permanent truce. Only problem is that they are already on their third (I think) "permanent" truce since I've been living here which sorta leaves them with the "boy who cried wolf" problem.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
just normal smurf play[edit]
"Come to my place and let me paint you blue like a smurf and throw marshmallows at you." Genuine personal ad from Berlin Craigslist . Wẽãšẽĩõĩď
Methinks it is a Weasel 22:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Nah, just a normal Craigslist jokester. There's also this funny: http://i.imgur.com/GMHfG.jpg Secret Squirrel (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Define "genuine." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
"no smurf haters please or any other freaks" Yeah you wouldn't want freaks to respond to your ad. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 07:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I know someone who orgasms while getting tattooed and someone else who keeps having sex dreams about a fictional character that they actually created. I also know a pair who use sword fighting as a foreplay, several cross-dressers, one person who does the whole chicks-with-dicks thing, a an actual factual furry, and this is just people I know personally. Dressing up as a smurf and playing with marshmallows really isn't that weird. ADK...I'll soak your snowflake! 08:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wasn't so much that. I just liked the irony of someone asking for people to dress up as smurfs so they could throw marshmallows at them saying they didn't want to hear from "freaks". CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's only freaky if someone else is doing it. There's an old Bloom County strip where Opus is working at the "Personal Ads" section of the local newspaper. Someone dressed in a bizarre outfit comes in, and dictates an ad describing some pretty bizarre behavior (for a mainstream newspaper comic strip in the Eighties), and, of course, concludes with "No freaks."
- Now, the same storyline featured a well-dressed, mature gentleman upset about a typo in his personal ad. Opus reads the ad back to him, "Mature man seeks mature woman. Interests include fine dining, long walks, spanking..." "BANKING!" MDB (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- It wasn't the Smurf thing that made me doubt it (Rule 34 and all), just the way it was written.
- "...someone else who keeps having sex dreams about a fictional character that they actually created." Say, I know someone like that too. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have been very explicit that if said person ever gets as bad as Stephenie Meyer I will disown her. ADK...I'll ruffle your possibility! 18:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Speaking of Rule 34, I have seen Smurf porn. I could google for link but I am sure that would be inappropriate.AMassiveGay (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've seen Simpsons and Futurama porn. It's pretty harrowing stuff for the most part. Especially the stuff with Mr Burns. *shudder* ŴêâŝêîôîďMethinks it is a Weasel 20:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've seen Simpsons and Futurama porn. It's pretty harrowing stuff for the most part. Especially the stuff with Mr Burns. *shudder* Ŵêâŝêîôîď
- I saw two people dressed as smurfs last night. It seems that the lines between normal club wear, sexual deviance, and fancy dress are becoming increasingly blurred. ADK...I'll absorb your number! 11:56, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Speaking of Rule 34, I have seen Smurf porn. I could google for link but I am sure that would be inappropriate.AMassiveGay (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have been very explicit that if said person ever gets as bad as Stephenie Meyer I will disown her. ADK...I'll ruffle your possibility! 18:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wasn't so much that. I just liked the irony of someone asking for people to dress up as smurfs so they could throw marshmallows at them saying they didn't want to hear from "freaks". CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Woo in baseball[edit]
Here. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 18:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Then there's the high-level baseball woo. But really, any sport is loaded up with superstition. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Anywhere you have effort and ability multiplied by random variables to get your result is prone to superstition. The Caprica Buccaneers are clearly the better team than the Gemenon Twins, so how did the Twins win that last match? Must be something else at play; hence superstition. Interestingly, I don't think it develops so much tabletop gaming and RPGs (and to a certain extent computer games) because that random element is stated explicitly in the form of dice rolling. When the random chance is hidden in the fabric of reality, and can be explained as causality post facto, evolution of superstition is inevitable. ADK...I'll reiterate your Audi! 12:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter whether the random element is explicit. Go into a casino sometime. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- But gambling does sometimes disguise it. Many card games contain an element of skill, as does betting as people can convince themselves they have systems to predict winners. Slot machines are less disguised, and I couldn't explain away Craps, where you really do throw dice and aren't separated from the random factor. But I wouldn't say to make a hard-and-fast rule from it, I just think superstition is suppressed when you're more exposed to the randomness. ADK...I'll stir your riddle! 20:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe if you have basic understanding of probability. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, what a dick comment. ONE / TALK 12:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Slot machines aren't random, they're pseudo-random. If they were random it would put a large strain on the finances of the casino, but by being pseudo-random they can control against sudden fluctuations. The machine gives the appearance of random outcomes while actually holding long term payouts at a specific fraction of revenues.
- Although they're not deadly serious about it, you do see D&D players saying they've "wasted" a natural 20 by rolling the dice when not needed. People are naturally superstitious, just like Derren Brown's version of the "superstitious pigeon" experiment. We expect patterns, and when there is no pattern we just look harder. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 15:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not actually true. Slot machines are random and not controlled in any way. The concept that they're "hot" and designed to give certain payouts at intervals is actually a consequence of the gambler's fallacy being applied to them. It's an illusion. The manufacturing certificates and specifications actually say this. Sure, multiple big payouts may occur but this is offset over the sheer volume of slot machines. One big pay out or even multiple odds defying payouts won't impact the profit of slot machines because no single payout is bigger than their total income or could dominate their income. Ergo, it's not necessary to artificially restrict their randomness and they tick over at a steady 2-3% profit regardless of any statistical flukes with big payouts. Simply put, if you restricted randomness you'd effectively have a way to game the system, and no casino in the world is stupid enough to give their punters a way to game their system. ADK...I'll google your deity of personal preference! 16:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Fine I'll put a penny in the swear box and say it. Casinos, from the point of view of the owners, belong in mediocristan. They can keep a profit and never be wiped out by a string of luck because one single person cannot account for 90% of their trade and revenue. But from the punter's point of view, it's extremistan, where if you do win you can win BIG - drawing people in and hoping to be able to find some trick to enhance their odds, and each win is novel enough to receive considerable attention and spread the illusion that their system is the one that is successful. Customers can be wiped out from gambling, but the casinos can't. This is why banks and stocks collapse on a regular basis, but Vegas doesn't. ADK...I'll snap your t-shirt! 16:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Have you actually looked at those certificates? The machines have a PRNG in them (although I was surprised to learn that as an anti-reverse engineering feature the new ones run the PRNG constantly rather than per-pull) and the PRNG feeds a ROM-programmed table of payouts. It's the job of this table to mess with gamblers' heads, e.g. paying out 25¢ on a quarter slot machine fairly often, and then paying $5 (which seems like a lot) pretty often too, but only rarely paying the $1 "easy" win so that the player thinks they're going to break even as soon as those $1 wins happen, but they never will in enough numbers to make back the losses. The table is designed using dry statistics to hit a payout figure like 82% which in some places has to be displayed to the punter (and has to be available to the regulator everywhere). It is categorically not true that they're random in the way that e.g. atomic decay is random, and in the UK the wording on the machines had to be adjusted by law after someone moaned that it's possible for the fancier machines to give a punter the impression that they have a choice between two outcomes [e.g. a "double or nothing" feature], when in reality the PRNG is in a state where all choices result in total loss. As to "no casino in the world", google Ronald Dale Harris, yes most of his money was made by tampering with machines, but his later scam relied purely on knowing what "random" numbers the machine will pick... 82.69.171.94 (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- It also depends on the casino, because they can screw around with the PRNG and pay-out levels in the machines. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Have you actually looked at those certificates? The machines have a PRNG in them (although I was surprised to learn that as an anti-reverse engineering feature the new ones run the PRNG constantly rather than per-pull) and the PRNG feeds a ROM-programmed table of payouts. It's the job of this table to mess with gamblers' heads, e.g. paying out 25¢ on a quarter slot machine fairly often, and then paying $5 (which seems like a lot) pretty often too, but only rarely paying the $1 "easy" win so that the player thinks they're going to break even as soon as those $1 wins happen, but they never will in enough numbers to make back the losses. The table is designed using dry statistics to hit a payout figure like 82% which in some places has to be displayed to the punter (and has to be available to the regulator everywhere). It is categorically not true that they're random in the way that e.g. atomic decay is random, and in the UK the wording on the machines had to be adjusted by law after someone moaned that it's possible for the fancier machines to give a punter the impression that they have a choice between two outcomes [e.g. a "double or nothing" feature], when in reality the PRNG is in a state where all choices result in total loss. As to "no casino in the world", google Ronald Dale Harris, yes most of his money was made by tampering with machines, but his later scam relied purely on knowing what "random" numbers the machine will pick... 82.69.171.94 (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Fine I'll put a penny in the swear box and say it. Casinos, from the point of view of the owners, belong in mediocristan. They can keep a profit and never be wiped out by a string of luck because one single person cannot account for 90% of their trade and revenue. But from the punter's point of view, it's extremistan, where if you do win you can win BIG - drawing people in and hoping to be able to find some trick to enhance their odds, and each win is novel enough to receive considerable attention and spread the illusion that their system is the one that is successful. Customers can be wiped out from gambling, but the casinos can't. This is why banks and stocks collapse on a regular basis, but Vegas doesn't. ADK...I'll snap your t-shirt! 16:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not actually true. Slot machines are random and not controlled in any way. The concept that they're "hot" and designed to give certain payouts at intervals is actually a consequence of the gambler's fallacy being applied to them. It's an illusion. The manufacturing certificates and specifications actually say this. Sure, multiple big payouts may occur but this is offset over the sheer volume of slot machines. One big pay out or even multiple odds defying payouts won't impact the profit of slot machines because no single payout is bigger than their total income or could dominate their income. Ergo, it's not necessary to artificially restrict their randomness and they tick over at a steady 2-3% profit regardless of any statistical flukes with big payouts. Simply put, if you restricted randomness you'd effectively have a way to game the system, and no casino in the world is stupid enough to give their punters a way to game their system. ADK...I'll google your deity of personal preference! 16:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, what a dick comment. ONE / TALK 12:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe if you have basic understanding of probability. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- But gambling does sometimes disguise it. Many card games contain an element of skill, as does betting as people can convince themselves they have systems to predict winners. Slot machines are less disguised, and I couldn't explain away Craps, where you really do throw dice and aren't separated from the random factor. But I wouldn't say to make a hard-and-fast rule from it, I just think superstition is suppressed when you're more exposed to the randomness. ADK...I'll stir your riddle! 20:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter whether the random element is explicit. Go into a casino sometime. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- Anywhere you have effort and ability multiplied by random variables to get your result is prone to superstition. The Caprica Buccaneers are clearly the better team than the Gemenon Twins, so how did the Twins win that last match? Must be something else at play; hence superstition. Interestingly, I don't think it develops so much tabletop gaming and RPGs (and to a certain extent computer games) because that random element is stated explicitly in the form of dice rolling. When the random chance is hidden in the fabric of reality, and can be explained as causality post facto, evolution of superstition is inevitable. ADK...I'll reiterate your Audi! 12:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Indie crash at Las Vegas[edit]
Dan Wheldon was killed in a 15 car crash which ended the race today Oct 16. First death in about 5 years. Hamster (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I hate everything about car racing. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 01:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Do you hate its hate itself? --145.94.77.43 (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Who is the more foolish: the fool, or the fool who follows him? WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Who is the more foolish: the fool, or the fool who follows him? Wėąṣėḷőįď
- Do you hate its hate itself? --145.94.77.43 (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Start the week[edit]
Only heard the first few minutes this morning but sounded like it might be interesting. Dawkins, cosmologist Lisa Randall and chief Rabbi Jonathan Sachs discuss science and religion. Radio 4. iPlayer link. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Look how angry and disgraceful Dawkins is! You can practically hear the bastard eating babies as he speaks! ADK...I'll enumerate your snowflake! 12:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'll tell you who isn't playing FIFA 12, and thats Richard Dawkins. He's a Pro-Evolution man. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 12:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'd thought of posting this as well; there's some interesting stuff on this week - Alice Roberts' "Origins of Us" (today), Bettany Hughes "RTS Huw Wheldon Lecture" (Tuesday), Stephen Hawking's "Brave New World" (today)', Jim Al-Khalili's ""Shock and Awe" (Thursday) and Derren Brown "The Assassin" (Friday).
ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 13:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- All hail the license fee! ADK...I'll navigate your ostrich egg! 15:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I forgot The Life Scientific also with Jim A-K. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 18:52, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- For all its faults, the BBC is still fucking awesome. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Faults? Next to the Katie Price Network and Channel All-Hitler All-the-damn-time, it's beyond any and all criticism. ADK...I'll cure your peach! 21:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I thought the Hitler channel also does stuff about Sharks? Or am I muddling it up with the one that shows Plane Crashes? I finally reached the point where I watch less than 30 minutes a day of television, maybe an hour a day if I count Nostalgia Chick, When Cheese Fails and Day9 as "television". 82.69.171.94 (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Faults? Next to the Katie Price Network and Channel All-Hitler All-the-damn-time, it's beyond any and all criticism. ADK...I'll cure your peach! 21:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- For all its faults, the BBC is still fucking awesome. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I forgot The Life Scientific also with Jim A-K.
- All hail the license fee! ADK...I'll navigate your ostrich egg! 15:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Anyway, I finally got around to listening to it all (I consumed it in two chunks between working) and it was pretty good. Fairly predictable in places; Rabbi says science just marvels at God's creation, Dawkins says "what have you been smoking?" but a nice constructive and civil discussion. None of this shite you get on fucking Fox News where the host shouts down any atheist for being anti-American. I don't want to come across as boring, but I could listen to this sort of thing in the background all day (makes a change from having the Battlestar Galactica and Repo: The Genetic Opera soundtracks on an endless loop). ADK...I'll yank your equestrian! 21:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Available as a podcast if any furriners want to listen. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 22:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Available as a podcast if any furriners want to listen.
The Last Resurrection[edit]
Ever wondered what His Dark Materials would have ended up as if Philip Pullman were a drunken teenage computer game enthusiast? Well, here you go! Balaam (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, that seems a little special. It seems from reading the character bios that all the good guys are sexually deviant with IQs over 300. Whereas the bad guys are straight and stupid. I mean, we could really make an interesting snarticle on that. ADK...I'll shove your blow-up doll! 13:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm, well, it's more or less doing for Christians what that Ethnic Cleansing game did for racial minorities... Balaam (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I found the author's page at Elfwood (OMG, this site still exists!), as well as a profile on some other site that has a (probably old) photo of him. At which point I burst out laughing...--ZooGuard (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- NOM NOM NOM JESUS Balaam (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
That's the magic of the market[edit]
Someone posted this article to WIGO, which reminded me of a condensed version of the (highly recommended) Myth of the Rational Market by Justin Fox. The implications of rational expectations theory are especially lunatic when taken to their logical conclusions -- after all, wasn't the Great Depression really the Great Vacation? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Came across a funny tweet[edit]
Mi tío dice: "Hace 1 mes compré 1 IPhone, SteveJobs muere. Anteayer compré 1 BlackBerry y BBM muere. Voy a comprar el CD de Justin Bieber
For those of you who don't read Spanish, it reads My uncle said: 1 month after I bought my iPhone, Steve Jobs dies. The day before yesterday, I bought my BlackBerry and BBM dies. I'm going to buy a Justin Bieber CD.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The Colbert/Stewart team were on fire tonight.[edit]
Making up for taking a week off. When they're posted online, I'll WIGO it. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Lord's Resistance Army[edit]
CP is slipping.
I'm disappointed they've not joined in with Rush Limbaugh in defending the Lord's Resistance Army.
After all they're Christians fighting Muslims, right? So they must be the good guys, right?
Seriously, there's quite a reasonable question as to whether the US should get involved in trying to stop them, but it takes a real piece of filth like Limbaugh to defend them. MDB (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- When theres an congress act saying we can, and the only people complaining are people that either support the group or are to blinded by hate of Obama they will hate ANYTHING he does, the questionability of sending 100 guys who arent even active combat troops isn't to high a priority. Oh and please, call those brave christian soldiers freedom fighters against muslim oppression. --Mikalosa (talk) 13:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
krok[edit]
an article about Krok would be much appreciated. It's all over the media at the moment and it scares the shit out of me. Some snarly yet objective information would be useful.81.242.209.28 (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Can you give us a clue what krok is, or a link? I've tried Google & Wikipedia but I'm drawing a blank. WẽãšẽĩõĩďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Your afraid of a FM radio station from south central West Central Louisiana playing classic and current rock music and offering a live online stream?--Mikalosa (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)--Mikalosa (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- When we've done krok, we should do articles about mik & zok as well, which have been causing me many a sleepless night of late. WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks it is a Weasel 06:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Krok is a russian drug, homebrew out of codeine into desomorphine and then injected. Since it contains liberal amounts of industrial grade sulphur and gasoline you simply die within 2 years of your first injection, no exceptions. It is named so because your skin become scaly green and later rots away, giving an appearance of being eaten alive by a crocodile. Used by heroin users without money. Anyways that's what the media in western europe says.195.130.159.242 (talk) 06:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see a problem with that. Why the fuss??--Mikalosa (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- This is some seriously grisly stuff. Thanks for the tip Anon. Why not create a RW account? ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 20:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- This is some seriously grisly stuff. Thanks for the tip Anon. Why not create a RW account? Щєазєюіδ
- I don't see a problem with that. Why the fuss??--Mikalosa (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Krok is a russian drug, homebrew out of codeine into desomorphine and then injected. Since it contains liberal amounts of industrial grade sulphur and gasoline you simply die within 2 years of your first injection, no exceptions. It is named so because your skin become scaly green and later rots away, giving an appearance of being eaten alive by a crocodile. Used by heroin users without money. Anyways that's what the media in western europe says.195.130.159.242 (talk) 06:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- When we've done krok, we should do articles about mik & zok as well, which have been causing me many a sleepless night of late. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
- Your afraid of a FM radio station from south central West Central Louisiana playing classic and current rock music and offering a live online stream?--Mikalosa (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)--Mikalosa (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Europe, why you so violent?[edit]
When protestors in the best damn country on earth protest, we stay peaceful. when you protest, YOU LIGHT SHIT ON FIRE AND HIT PEOPLE. Why you so violent Europe?--Mikalosa (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, 'cos America doesn't have violent protests. At all. No sir. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Are you refering to Rome? --★uːʤɱ sinner 20:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Nah, AG, we don't have violent protests here. almost no one protests. what we have is violent sports wins and losses. sooo much better. *sighs*.
- Let's not forget the results of this US protest, perhaps the Americans are a little more circumspect when it comes to challenging the establishment. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 22:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Violent protests ≠ violent reactions to protests. as for the others, dirty communists, not americans.--Mikalosa (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comprehension. How is that supposed to work then? ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 08:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comprehension. How is that supposed to work then?
- Wait, does — in your world — an American who becomes a communist automatically stop having American citizenship? --★uːʤɱ digital native 23:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think he's being sarcastic. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- In my book, Mikalos falls under Poe's Law. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 09:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- There were peaceful demonstrations all over Europe that day. As usual, the press only tend to show pictures of any violence. Not because of any conspiracy it just makes for better television - but it does tend to distort impressions if you are on another continent.--BobSpring is sprung! 06:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think he's being sarcastic. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Violent protests ≠ violent reactions to protests. as for the others, dirty communists, not americans.--Mikalosa (talk) 22:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Let's not forget the results of this US protest, perhaps the Americans are a little more circumspect when it comes to challenging the establishment.
- Nah, AG, we don't have violent protests here. almost no one protests. what we have is violent sports wins and losses. sooo much better. *sighs*.
Spiritual humanism[edit]
Anyone fancy getting ordained for free over the internet? Well, I say free, actual "packages" cost. And it's only recognised in certain US states, not the UK, so that rules me out. ADK...I'll mature your automobile! 21:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Is it just a card that says "spiritual, but not religious"? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Help me.[edit]
I've been working for several days on the article about Eve. Recently, all that I've done is being considered to be "bad", even though I managed to improve the article to the point where it is uncontroversially bronze. However, some others feel that it isn't good, and change it. An edit war is breaking out, and I need some help to resolve all this. I feel so upset about this because of all the effort I've put into the article: I spent so long building it up, and now it's being thrown out the window. I need some help on what to do. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think the stuff about various allegorical perspectives on her is good. Certainly many a feminist has used Eve as a metaphor in one way or another, in the same fashion as they've used Jezebel and Lilith. The rest was too long for me to bother reading, though.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Protip: Stop obsessing over article ratings. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with the changes people want to make to it. It's not a very good article as it stands, and needs a lot of work. I'm sorry if you feel like you're being picked on or your efforts are being overlooked, but this is a wiki, so we all work together to achieve the best result.--
talk 22:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I would suggest edit warring, blocking users who piss you off, half-jokingly removing their rights, and then taking them to the Coop. Write nasty things about them at Rationawikiwiki. Maybe even compare their actions to a pogrom or other episode of ethnic violence. Tell them that their behavior makes them worse than Conservapedia, and tell them that you thought this was RATIONALwiki. When that doesn't work, Leave and Never Come Back. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 22:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Scream!! (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- EC x 3or4. I agree with Neb & AD. Also it's only your assertion that it's "uncontroversially bronze", "good enough for silver", etc. Wait for people to agree with you on this; if they don't, maybe you're wrong. Listen to feedback: if multiple people are objecting to your take on the article, & it's only you supporting it, maybe you're wrong. Step back & look at what other people are trying to do to the article, not just what you want to do with it. WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 22:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'll help you......help you to DIE! Aceace 22:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Can we get the Kid to do this for more articles? I have never seen so many good, knowledgeable writers attacking one article before. Scream!! (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Below the edit window it says "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly... then do not submit it here." ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 09:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- In any wiki project you've got to with the flow. If the majority of people disagree with you then your version won't stick. If you want to create something you "own" and can't be edited by anybody else you could write an essay here or start a blog. --BobSpring is sprung! 12:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Below the edit window it says "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly... then do not submit it here."
- Can we get the Kid to do this for more articles? I have never seen so many good, knowledgeable writers attacking one article before. Scream!! (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'll help you......help you to DIE! Aceace 22:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- EC x 3or4. I agree with Neb & AD. Also it's only your assertion that it's "uncontroversially bronze", "good enough for silver", etc. Wait for people to agree with you on this; if they don't, maybe you're wrong. Listen to feedback: if multiple people are objecting to your take on the article, & it's only you supporting it, maybe you're wrong. Step back & look at what other people are trying to do to the article, not just what you want to do with it. Wėąṣėḷőįď
- I would suggest edit warring, blocking users who piss you off, half-jokingly removing their rights, and then taking them to the Coop. Write nasty things about them at Rationawikiwiki. Maybe even compare their actions to a pogrom or other episode of ethnic violence. Tell them that their behavior makes them worse than Conservapedia, and tell them that you thought this was RATIONALwiki. When that doesn't work, Leave and Never Come Back. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 22:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
So you married a Satanist . . .[edit]
Which one of you clever fuckers is responsible for this utterly delightful troll? http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=607984 MtDPinko Scum 01:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Restricted now. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Got to it fine. Is it bad that I feel sorry for that guy? Quarustripagram - You can't explain that! 12:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Herman Cain[edit]
Is Herman Cain now using the Conservative Bible Project? MDB (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- In general aren't liberals against the death penalty? Bugger, now my migraine has started again. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 12:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Evidence based medicine[edit]
Ben Goldacre (bad science blog) recommends this book highly: "People often ask if there’s one good book that is accessible to all, about how evidence based medicine works." There's even a link for a pdf of the whole book. Scream!! (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- If Goldacre pushes it it must be good. Getting the PDF now. Thanks.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
A bit cheeky I know[edit]
But do any of you fancy coming over and voting on one of those stupid internet poll things that stupid websites keep posting? This one is on AGW. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Hah, I thought it was going to be a website devoted to books. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 13:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
53 percenters[edit]
Can anyone fill me in on where this "only 53 percent pay income tax in the U.S." figure comes from? Did someone pull this number out of their hindquarters or is there some actual truth to it? I can't see this being for real at all, unless the alleged 47 percent includes children, prison inmates, and stay at home moms - in which case it is misleading bullshit. The total of illegal immigrants working off the books plus retirees living solely off a Roth IRA, which are the only two groups I can think of off the top of my head receiving income who would be paying no income taxes, doesn't come close to 47 percent of the U.S. population. Snopes hasn't addressed the issue yet http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/taxes.asp Secret Squirrel (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- So what made you think that it might not be misleading bullshit? A typical RobStatistic if ever I saw one. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 13:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing - It sounded like misleading bullshit to me from the beginning, but I'm trying to figure out where the source of this claim originated. Is it from some obscure passage in a pro-"FairTax" book, a government or academic study that is being quoted out of context, or what? In any case, needs a good debunking. Secret Squirrel (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if it's untrue, but the claim is that 53% pay no income tax. They still pay the (very regressive) sales and payroll taxes, plus property taxes, if they own any. So it's a misleading figure, trying to convince people that 47% of the population are leeching off the hard-working 53%. And remember the US has the earned income tax credit, which is a tax credit for the working poor. Basically, if you're working but not earning much, you can get some (up to all if you have dependents) of your income tax back, because that's a way for the government to reward work. Incidentally, Ronald Reagan loved the EITC. One more reason today's Republicans would cast him out as a bleeding heart liberal. MDB (talk)
- Ah, true, there is the EITC, although even there I couldn't see it bringing the total to 47%. Secret Squirrel (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/10/signs-of-dissent-what-about-the-47-who-pay-no-federal-income-taxes/246721/ Found a good article on The Atlantic. It's "a truthy stat--accurate, but misleading". Secret Squirrel (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, just cause I hate the line "you pay property tax if you own any" -- you pay the tax if you own or not. YOu just usually pay it to a landlord. Corporate owned complexes (large complexes of over 50 units) are supposed to share how much property tax they pay, and in theory show you how much of your rent is property tax. Few do it, and even fewer people are aware they have the right to see that info... but just cause I'm whiny today... EVERYONE PAYS PROPERTY TAX, in one way or another.
GodotIf you google 'Google', you'll break the internet. 14:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Question -- what exactly does "earned income" mean? I mean, if you work, you earned it. so why do some people get the credit and not others?GodotIf you google 'Google', you'll break the internet. 14:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not an accountant, but I believe that differes from unearned income, which is things like interest, dividends, capital gains and such. As for why only some qualify for the EITC, it's designed to help the working poor. In part, it's an incentive to go out and get a job, rather than just collect welfare or whatever. In effect, the government supplements their income, so getting a low-end job becomes a viable alternative to just getting a government check every month. MDB (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Question -- what exactly does "earned income" mean? I mean, if you work, you earned it. so why do some people get the credit and not others?
- It started in 2002. In any case, fuck the looters! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, just cause I hate the line "you pay property tax if you own any" -- you pay the tax if you own or not. YOu just usually pay it to a landlord. Corporate owned complexes (large complexes of over 50 units) are supposed to share how much property tax they pay, and in theory show you how much of your rent is property tax. Few do it, and even fewer people are aware they have the right to see that info... but just cause I'm whiny today... EVERYONE PAYS PROPERTY TAX, in one way or another.
- I'm not sure if it's untrue, but the claim is that 53% pay no income tax. They still pay the (very regressive) sales and payroll taxes, plus property taxes, if they own any. So it's a misleading figure, trying to convince people that 47% of the population are leeching off the hard-working 53%. And remember the US has the earned income tax credit, which is a tax credit for the working poor. Basically, if you're working but not earning much, you can get some (up to all if you have dependents) of your income tax back, because that's a way for the government to reward work. Incidentally, Ronald Reagan loved the EITC. One more reason today's Republicans would cast him out as a bleeding heart liberal. MDB (talk)
- Nothing - It sounded like misleading bullshit to me from the beginning, but I'm trying to figure out where the source of this claim originated. Is it from some obscure passage in a pro-"FairTax" book, a government or academic study that is being quoted out of context, or what? In any case, needs a good debunking. Secret Squirrel (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
NHS petition[edit]
As much as I dislike drive-by activism there's a Save our NHS petition at 38 degrees for UK voters. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 13:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Shame[edit]
I just baked 2 small peanut butter cookies and ate them, hot out of the oven, so fast I can't remember eating them. Pathetic.--
GodotNo, That's not the same thing. You just don't get it". 02:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- You often bake only two cookies at a time?--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have NO will power, brx. I could make myself sick eating things like ice cream. So i make a batch, and freeze them as single cookies, then take out one or two and bake them. I only do it when i'm already using the oven - or i feel guilty about the electricty.--GodotNo, That's not the same thing. You just don't get it". 02:46, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I understand you completely--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think i've told you my hubby is French. he guilts me 24/7 about being a consumerist american. So at least i've started walking to the bus most days, shutting off lights, and doing things like cooking cookies when i bake a roast. But it sucks not being a superior european (said with all the disdain i can muster) sometimes. :-) --GodotNo, That's not the same thing. You just don't get it". 02:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think i've told you my hubby is French. he guilts me 24/7 about being a consumerist american. So at least i've started walking to the bus most days, shutting off lights, and doing things like cooking cookies when i bake a roast. But it sucks not being a superior european (said with all the disdain i can muster) sometimes. :-) --
- I understand you completely--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I have NO will power, brx. I could make myself sick eating things like ice cream. So i make a batch, and freeze them as single cookies, then take out one or two and bake them. I only do it when i'm already using the oven - or i feel guilty about the electricty.--
FFS[edit]
Seems there's a Crundy on twitter: "Christ follower, grad student, artist, lover of food, photography and art" - Gah! CrundyTalk nerdy to me 22:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oh joy, he loves good food and beer as well. It's like my (non-)evil twin. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 22:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Which makes you the evil twin. --YossarianSpeak, Memory 23:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
- Mwahahahaha!! CrundyTalk nerdy to me 07:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- My friend, let's say his name is John Smith, he once met another guy called John Smith in a nightclub line, who was about ten years older, and was really drunk (my friend is a very moderate drinker), and was drunkenly blabbering on about Jesus and stuff (and my friend is an evangelical Christian, but not a drunkard one)... and he was thinking, will this be where I will be in ten years? Actually, that was ten years ago now, and he isn't (not yet at least), so maybe that makes him happy... (((Zack Martin)))™ 08:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Mwahahahaha!! CrundyTalk nerdy to me 07:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Which makes you the evil twin. --YossarianSpeak, Memory 23:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
I would like to introduce you all to...[edit]
Internet Everyman/Goon personified "Chester Nietzche" and his daily hairy manbaby adventures in Sims 3. Marvel as he lets the trash/burnt food pile up in the kitchen, piss off everybody he meets by being a total prick/doesn't dress correctly, gets mad at the trash in the garbage cans and other such adventures as a man screenshot LP's Vanilla Sims 3 with very minimal player inputed action!--Mikalosa (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Haha, yes, I've been following him for quite some time now. He even has a Facebook account. --Ag Bengip (talk) 10:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The 6 Most Mind-Blowing Things Ever Discovered in Space[edit]
http://www.cracked.com/article_19479_the-6-most-mind-blowing-things-ever-discovered-in-space.html Cracked, once again hits it out of the ballpark.Ryantherebel (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- "Sultan of Dubai"? ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 18:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- I saw a cracked thing on simple things science can't explain. One of them was the physics of riding a bicycle. Then I read the wikipedia article on the physics of riding a bicycle. MarkeDC (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ahh... space, the final frontier. GodotNo, That's not the same thing. You just don't get it". 15:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ahh... space, the final frontier.
- I saw a cracked thing on simple things science can't explain. One of them was the physics of riding a bicycle. Then I read the wikipedia article on the physics of riding a bicycle. MarkeDC (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
You know, I should try and[edit]
get myself unblocked from wikipedia at some point. It's been 2 and a half years since it happended. Problem is convincing a community that probably doesnt know who i am to overturn my community ban.--Mikalosa (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- can i sak what your ban is for? --GodotNo, That's not the same thing. You just don't get it". 02:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- (Personal attacks or harassment)". Also a few other blocks along those lines over the 3 years before that, and technichaly a Sock ban although my "Sock" was my original account i dont remember the password for. I was a big prick back in the day.--Mikalosa (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Homeopathic "remedies"[edit]
Came across this site Helios Homeopathy - a UK (Tunbridge Wells) company. Throughout they refer to homeopathic "remedies". Anyone know if/why this is allowed? From here, remedy = "something that cures or relieves a disease or bodily disorder; a healing medicine, application, or treatment.". They seem to be making claims that are not sustainable. Scream!! (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Radiation[edit]
I was talking to an older woman who has recently gotten into the "health food" craze. no, rather the FAD side, the Woo side. As I was listening to her tell me that eating naturally CURED cancer, and that there were people "all over the world who were cured" and "but science doesn't want to tell you if they can't package it" (and I'm all... oh really? you don't think the mega Cancer Centers would be doing anti-cancer food-ins for 6 months to cure you, if it really cured you????) any how, then she moved on to "radiation". and how "we face so much radiation these days we are dying". "I do not use a microwave - it leaves radiation in our food".
I got so ticked I took her back to science 101 and explained that the entire light spectrum is radiation. That the head you cook with is radiation. That it takes UV and IR along with the raw heat itself to cook your food all pretty and brown and Maillardie and all. And explained that the sun is the single biggest emitter of radiation for us, and that we are being irradiated every second of every day. AND IT IS PERFECTLY SAFE. I truly hate the fear mongering these companies use, just to sell a "natural product". --GodotIf you google 'Google', you'll break the internet. 14:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- What about all those neutrinos whizzing through our bodies as well? ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 14:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah. forgot about those, that would have scared her. ;-) I just wish people would/could read the truth, and not be prey to these types of fear mongers.GodotIf you google 'Google', you'll break the internet. 14:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- The raw foodies are the most hopeless because their conspiracy theory stretches back to the Pleistocene, where the noble savages discovered a process known as "cooking" that led to the downfall of our dietary habits. Now all of our food is filled with, like, corporate hate, maaaan, but they've got the secret Big Food doesn't want you to know about. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've come across the bizarre failure to understand radiation before and it seems to be quite common. I suppose they are thinking about "ionising radiation". But in any event - "microwaves leave radiation in your food" I wonder how that works?--BobSpring is sprung! 15:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- So I'm a pretty BIG woman (though very very tiny at the same time... ah, contradictions). and hence i'm always watching my weight. I was on "Sparks people' cause the tools are great, and started to go into the forums. BE FUCKING WARE!!!!! WOO on every other post. The raw foodies were the single most annoying. What the fuck is healthy about having to spend literally 8-10 hours PER DAY eating food, cause you can't get enough energy out of the foods to live on? It's been studied, in real labs. If you do not cook food (which breaks down cell walls and lets you get at all that nice starch) you have to eat 10 times more bulk to get enough energy to pay for the eating. And by the way, who the hell said ancient people were healthy? they died. at 20 or 30 usually. cause their bodies wore out from the harsh life of getting all that food. and our stomachs are not designed to eat that food. GOD I HATED THE RAW FOODIES. Only people I hated worse were teh "Water must be pure water only. not tea, coffee, soda or soup. just water counts in the 8 glasses a day". God diet woo rules. rolls eyes.GodotIf you google 'Google', you'll break the internet. 15:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC) (ec)
- The raw foodies are the most hopeless because their conspiracy theory stretches back to the Pleistocene, where the noble savages discovered a process known as "cooking" that led to the downfall of our dietary habits. Now all of our food is filled with, like, corporate hate, maaaan, but they've got the secret Big Food doesn't want you to know about. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- And our food is chock-full of E numbers! Oh noes! DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 15:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've only ever met one person who thought that microwaves made your food radioactive, and so I explained the electromagnetic spectrum and explained how the smaller the wavelength, the more ionising it was and therefore the more dangerous it was. I told her that microwaves are almost the highest on the wavelength scale, and that visible light was "more dangerous". She still didn't believe me. I was 11 (yeah, I was that much of a dork at that age. I knew the general formula for nuclear fission off by heart when I was 12). CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Can you clarify "microwaves are almost the highest"? I presume you mean longest wavelength or lowest frequencies, yes? Just shorter/higher than radio waves. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes I mean microwaves have one of the longest wavelengths. I'm not very good at communicating today. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Stupid "non scientist" question. if they have one of the longest what'sits, "waves", why are they called MICRO? seriously. GodotNo, That's not the same thing. You just don't get it". 14:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's all relative, in the continuum of the electromagnetic spectrum they are long compared with ionising radiation and visible light but we rarely speak of light waves; however, when we think of radio, waves are a familiar label. Microwaves were first used for radar and communications so they are 'micro' compared to the long, medium and short wave bands of radio communications. Microwaves for cooking were only developed later after a radar engineer found his chocolate bar melting. Oh noes, I've mentioned the 'C' word in front of WfG! ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 14:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's all relative, in the continuum of the electromagnetic spectrum they are long compared with ionising radiation and visible light but we rarely speak of light waves; however, when we think of radio, waves are a familiar label. Microwaves were first used for radar and communications so they are 'micro' compared to the long, medium and short wave bands of radio communications. Microwaves for cooking were only developed later after a radar engineer found his chocolate bar melting. Oh noes, I've mentioned the 'C' word in front of WfG!
- Stupid "non scientist" question. if they have one of the longest what'sits, "waves", why are they called MICRO? seriously.
- Yes I mean microwaves have one of the longest wavelengths. I'm not very good at communicating today. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Can you clarify "microwaves are almost the highest"? I presume you mean longest wavelength or lowest frequencies, yes? Just shorter/higher than radio waves. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've only ever met one person who thought that microwaves made your food radioactive, and so I explained the electromagnetic spectrum and explained how the smaller the wavelength, the more ionising it was and therefore the more dangerous it was. I told her that microwaves are almost the highest on the wavelength scale, and that visible light was "more dangerous". She still didn't believe me. I was 11 (yeah, I was that much of a dork at that age. I knew the general formula for nuclear fission off by heart when I was 12). CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah. forgot about those, that would have scared her. ;-) I just wish people would/could read the truth, and not be prey to these types of fear mongers.
- I had a similar conversation with somebody who was wearing a crystal to ward off the evil radiation from electricity in the house. She said, and I quote, "It's not called electromagnetic radiation for nothing, you know." (Emphasis mine.) So I took a compass and tried to get it to move when put close to a wires or telephones or TVs. It moved the most when put next to a TV but it had to be very close - four or five centimetres to have any effect. I explained that this demonstrated that the earth's electromagnetic radiation is much much stronger than the EM from almost anything else unless you regularly lick your television screen. Her reply was along the lines of "Well, the earth isn't radioactive and anyway the earth's energy is all natural." So I
punched her in the facegave up. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)- A couple of years back there was a craze here for "radiation absorbing plants". You put them next to your computer monitor and they absorbed the "dangerous" radiation from your PC.
- I tried engaging salespeople with the "How's that work then?" question but I never got very far.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
It realy comes down to th fact that the average person doesn't "speak science." When a scientifically minded person references "radiation", it could either mean "the entirety of the EM spectrum" or "alpha, beta and gamma rays". But someone without scientific training hears it, and they thing, "ZOMG!!!! Radiation! My children will have three heads!" MDB (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Guess who supports Occupy Wall Street?[edit]
If you guessed vile anti-Semite James Wickstrom, you're right! Not to mention Sid the Nazi, the American Nazi Party and others of that ilk. Could it be more obvious that the left is anti-semitic, and that the "far right" neo-Nazi/KKK scum are ALIGNED with the LEFT in a common hatred of Jews, Israel, capitalism and Christianity? I have seen no condemnation of the Nazi skinhead participation in OWS by the OWS leaders, whereas if a Nazi came to the Tea Party real Americans beat the living crap out of him. Why doesn't the liberal media realize that those "evil right wing extremists" are LEFTIST!?! Defender of Christian Morality against Pot Smoking Scum (talk) 3:27 am, Today (UTC−5)
- Must be the shortest Godwin on record. Many congratulations. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm willing to bet that the person who posted this has never actually encountered real Nazis. Why? Because I've, unfortunately, encountered many a NeoNazi skinhead around the outer suburbs of Minneapolis (especially, the southern rung), and one thing they make abundantly clear is their contempt for liberalism and any white person they deem a liberal (myself included and especially). Most certainly, Nazis are not left-wing; not in the slightest, and all attempts to make them out as such only show the extreme ignorance of the people making such stupid claims for the sake of political pot-shots. The Symphony of Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 14:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Then why do the American Nazi Party and James Wickstrom endorse the LIBERAL controlled OWS movement? Defender of Christian Morality against Pot Smoking Scum (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Because they blame the financial crisis on "the Jews". That should be pretty obvious from the first few words of the page you linked to, if you actually read it. & It hardly makes them "leftist". Neither does it make Nazi sympathisers out of other OWS protesters, who have more reasonable objections to the economic status quo. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 07:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Because they blame the financial crisis on "the Jews". That should be pretty obvious from the first few words of the page you linked to, if you actually read it. & It hardly makes them "leftist". Neither does it make Nazi sympathisers out of other OWS protesters, who have more reasonable objections to the economic status quo. Wëäŝëïöïď
- Then why do the American Nazi Party and James Wickstrom endorse the LIBERAL controlled OWS movement? Defender of Christian Morality against Pot Smoking Scum (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- At times I don't see why it is so hard for everyone to come together and rationally discuss issues and come to compromises. Then I read things like this and get a fundy-dick-slap to the face. MarkeDC (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I say archive this for the lulz. For the sake of Godwin, compare "Christian morality" with Germany in the 1930s, and didn't I remember teabagger Rand Paul supporters selling Nazi t-shirts? Also, is this the James whatever his name he's talking about? Osaka Sun (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- As somewhat of an observer from the outside I have to say, just that that fallacy actually works with so many Americans says so fucking much about America and it's history.
- "[W]hereas if a Nazi came to the Tea Party real Americans beat the living crap out of him." — so, let me get this straight, you are condoning that OWS "mobs" are not breaking the law? I thought they were pot-smoking, dumb, socialist, unemployed, rich, undereducated, lazy, spoiled, violent (thought-)criminals that waste tax-payers money by protesting a system that made their parents rich in the first place? Well, ok, if you say you detest those people because they are criminals and because they don't commit more crimes and believe this to be logically consistent, that would explain how you have come to be a teabagger in the first place. --★uːʤɱ pirate 16:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I say archive this for the lulz. For the sake of Godwin, compare "Christian morality" with Germany in the 1930s, and didn't I remember teabagger Rand Paul supporters selling Nazi t-shirts? Also, is this the James whatever his name he's talking about? Osaka Sun (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm willing to bet that the person who posted this has never actually encountered real Nazis. Why? Because I've, unfortunately, encountered many a NeoNazi skinhead around the outer suburbs of Minneapolis (especially, the southern rung), and one thing they make abundantly clear is their contempt for liberalism and any white person they deem a liberal (myself included and especially). Most certainly, Nazis are not left-wing; not in the slightest, and all attempts to make them out as such only show the extreme ignorance of the people making such stupid claims for the sake of political pot-shots. The Symphony of Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 14:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
whereas if a Nazi came to the Tea Party real Americans beat the living crap out of him I don't believe that would be the case. Neo-Nazis are often welcome at gunshows and conservative rallies (especially here in Arizona). Also, can you picture a Neo-Nazi voting for Obama?--User:Brxbrx/sig 08:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Now that would be funny. Osaka Sun (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- "...whereas if a Nazi came to the Tea Party real Americans beat the living crap out of him." How's that? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Wants one![edit]
Hoverboards next? Scream!! (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Total mindfuck. I love it! CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
very naughty boys[edit]
May I recommend to UKians that BBC4 tonight at 9 might be worth watching? Scream!! (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oooo, I wonder when it will reach BBC America? MDB (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've heard mixed reviews of it but will probably watch anyway. It's amazing to think how much things have changed in 32 years when the likes of Mary Whitehouse and Malcolm Muggeridge were trying to be arbiters of what we could watch. Then you see the likes of the Conservapedia and the Daily Mail trying to take us back to those days, wankers. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 16:50, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Seems infantile. Totally bored after 13 minutes. Turned over to du Sautoy Scream!! (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I caught the middle of it. I thought it was really funny. The guy playing John Cleese was awesome. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Seems infantile. Totally bored after 13 minutes. Turned over to du Sautoy Scream!! (talk) 20:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've heard mixed reviews of it but will probably watch anyway. It's amazing to think how much things have changed in 32 years when the likes of Mary Whitehouse and Malcolm Muggeridge were trying to be arbiters of what we could watch. Then you see the likes of the Conservapedia and the Daily Mail trying to take us back to those days, wankers.
Fuck you, lady. God says you have to ride on the back of the bus.[edit]
Religion: A force for building tolerance, respect and equality. NO GIRLS!!!! B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 16:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- "And if god makes a law, who are you to question that law." Well, if a DUMB god makes a DUMB law, i'm going to say fuck off. It's eve's fault. --GodotNo, That's not the same thing. You just don't get it". 17:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- A lot of the anti-woman stuff many religions have would be amusing if it weren't real. Most of it boils down to "it's your fault I'm aroused". It's pretty silly. X Stickman (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- To be fair, that's a single bus offering an option for people that could very well choose other means of transportation.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Except that that single bus is operated under a govermental agreement, using partial government payments. you can't discriminate formally. if the jews on teh bus want to sit seperated, more power to them, but you can't tell non jews to get off, or follow your rules.--GodotNo, That's not the same thing. You just don't get it". 00:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- "To be fair, that's a single bus offering an option for people that could very well choose other means of transportation." So discrimination is okay if it's on a small scale and there are other options available to people? It would be okay to not let black people into my restaurant if the three other restaurants on the same block did? B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 12:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's okay if you are okay with it. So if a woman doesn't want to be seated next to a man, fine. If you choose to segregate yourself that's up to you. Where it gets tricky is in eliminating social pressures to segregate (for example, a Muslim woman who may not want to sit apart from men or wear a veil -and all that stuff Muslim women do - may feel pressure to do so anyways because of fear of ostracism by her friends and family)--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I really don't know whether you miss the point through stupidity, innocence or a desire to troll. Your comments about Muslim women has absolutely fuck all to do with a woman who was not allowed to sit where she wanted on a public bus because of religious bigots. Bad Faith (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Stupidity and a desire to troll, I figure. Brx, did you even read the damn article? The woman,who does not identify as a Jew, was told to move to the back of the bus because her presence at the front of the bus ran contrary to Orthodox Jewish practices/rules. How is that all comparable to a Muslim woman choosing to veil herself or not? B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 14:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- And, while we're at it, you might want to read this before spouting off your offensive bigotry about Muslim women. To save you the trouble of having to follow the link - There are actually more Muslim countries that outright ban the wearing of the veils than there are that require them. Bad Faith (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- What the fuck? I just used that as an example. In a nation that does not ban or enforce the veil, but that is predominantly Muslim, a woman who's family and friends are of a very strict variant of Islam may face stigma for not wearing the veil. Did you not read what I posted?--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- So, not only do you fail to see how segregating a public bus is offensive you also don't see how your knee jerk Muslim example is also offensive. Why, when the story is all about orthodox Judaism did you use a Muslim example? Why not Jewish? Or Amish? Or even the way that having the wrong trainers at school can cause social pressures. No, lets use this as a another chance to bash the rag heads. Bad Faith (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Seriously? Islam is the first example that came to mind. You're right that any other religion would have been a perfect example. Now, I am not an anti-theist, and I do not object to people being religious, regardless of their religion. Another example that came to mind would be that of a closeted gay man here in the states. His family, devout Southern Baptists, do not tolerate homosexuality. Thus, this man remains in the closet in order to maintain good relations with his family. Same as an Orthrodox Jewish woman who does not wish to ride in the segregated bus but is expected to by her peers. Christ, you're thick.--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- So, not only do you fail to see how segregating a public bus is offensive you also don't see how your knee jerk Muslim example is also offensive. Why, when the story is all about orthodox Judaism did you use a Muslim example? Why not Jewish? Or Amish? Or even the way that having the wrong trainers at school can cause social pressures. No, lets use this as a another chance to bash the rag heads. Bad Faith (talk) 14:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- What the fuck? I just used that as an example. In a nation that does not ban or enforce the veil, but that is predominantly Muslim, a woman who's family and friends are of a very strict variant of Islam may face stigma for not wearing the veil. Did you not read what I posted?--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- And, while we're at it, you might want to read this before spouting off your offensive bigotry about Muslim women. To save you the trouble of having to follow the link - There are actually more Muslim countries that outright ban the wearing of the veils than there are that require them. Bad Faith (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Stupidity and a desire to troll, I figure. Brx, did you even read the damn article? The woman,who does not identify as a Jew, was told to move to the back of the bus because her presence at the front of the bus ran contrary to Orthodox Jewish practices/rules. How is that all comparable to a Muslim woman choosing to veil herself or not? B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 14:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- {ec}The point is, women can ride on another bus if they don't want to sit in the back. However, social stigma might encourage them to ride in the segregated bus even if they don't want to--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Jesus Christ, you're either a total idiot, a complete troll or a bigoted scumbag. If I choose to ask black people to only sit in one part of my restaurant, they could choose to go to another restaurant if they don't like it. OR THEY COULD CHOOSE TO TAKE ME TO COURT, BECAUSE THAT SHIT IS ILLEGAL. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 14:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I really don't know whether you miss the point through stupidity, innocence or a desire to troll. Your comments about Muslim women has absolutely fuck all to do with a woman who was not allowed to sit where she wanted on a public bus because of religious bigots. Bad Faith (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's okay if you are okay with it. So if a woman doesn't want to be seated next to a man, fine. If you choose to segregate yourself that's up to you. Where it gets tricky is in eliminating social pressures to segregate (for example, a Muslim woman who may not want to sit apart from men or wear a veil -and all that stuff Muslim women do - may feel pressure to do so anyways because of fear of ostracism by her friends and family)--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- "To be fair, that's a single bus offering an option for people that could very well choose other means of transportation." So discrimination is okay if it's on a small scale and there are other options available to people? It would be okay to not let black people into my restaurant if the three other restaurants on the same block did? B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 12:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Except that that single bus is operated under a govermental agreement, using partial government payments. you can't discriminate formally. if the jews on teh bus want to sit seperated, more power to them, but you can't tell non jews to get off, or follow your rules.--
- To be fair, that's a single bus offering an option for people that could very well choose other means of transportation.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- A lot of the anti-woman stuff many religions have would be amusing if it weren't real. Most of it boils down to "it's your fault I'm aroused". It's pretty silly. X Stickman (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- {ec}You're right, since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (or is it '67? Been a while since history), "that shit is illegal." But then again, we don't outlaw white supremacist groups because they only allow white people. I am definitely not for segregation of any kind, but it seems this one bus was set up specifically for Orthrodox Jews who desired sexual segregation. All the other buses in the city do not segregate on any basis except handicap (usually, one is required by law to give up the fore seats to people with disabilities and the elderly). Is it so inconceivable that a small group of people maintains such an insitution if all parties are consenting?--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- All parties are not consenting. Namely, the woman who was told to move to the back of the bus. And this is not a "Jewish bus" or a "synagogue bus," it's a service run for the community at large as part of a public/private partnership with the city. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 14:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Fine. The Jews in that community should run their own private public transportation co-op. The government does not exist to accommodate individual religious beliefs. Are you done freaking out now?--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- All parties are not consenting. Namely, the woman who was told to move to the back of the bus. And this is not a "Jewish bus" or a "synagogue bus," it's a service run for the community at large as part of a public/private partnership with the city. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 14:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- {ec}You're right, since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (or is it '67? Been a while since history), "that shit is illegal." But then again, we don't outlaw white supremacist groups because they only allow white people. I am definitely not for segregation of any kind, but it seems this one bus was set up specifically for Orthrodox Jews who desired sexual segregation. All the other buses in the city do not segregate on any basis except handicap (usually, one is required by law to give up the fore seats to people with disabilities and the elderly). Is it so inconceivable that a small group of people maintains such an insitution if all parties are consenting?--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean it's separate but equal, right? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, no, no. It's two people deciding that they don't want to sit next to each other. In this case, they set up an institution so that others who do not desire to sit next to each other may ride the bus. The only people that are meant to ride this particular bus are people that do not want to sit next to the opposite sex. That is what that bus is for. The rest of the buses are not like that. I'm not saying that's the way it should be, I am explaining that that is why it is. My great concern is that people might be afraid to ride on another bus for fear that it might upset their loved ones.--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- "It's two people deciding that they don't want to sit next to each other." You're an idiot. It's one person deciding that he didn't want to sit beside one of his fellow citizens. The woman in question did not have a problem sitting beside the man in question. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 15:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- "The only people that are meant to ride this particular bus are people that do not want to sit next to the opposite sex." You're an idiot. The bus "operates as a franchise, in which a private company, Private Transportation Corporation, pays the city for the right to provide a public service." While the B110 exists for the benefit of Brooklyn's Orthodox Jewish community, it's still obligated to serve the broader public and "comply with all applicable laws," a DOT spokesman says" B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 15:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Brx, i don't know what your thing is, but 1) you don't seem to know shit about islam other than what you've gotten from the media, 2) you don't have any idea why it is patently illegal to run a governmental system that discriminated, 3) you intentionally miss that this is not about people self segregating, but about a woman being told she MUST segregate. I don't get your point here at all....GodotHave you tried turning it off and on again?". 15:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- You humans are weird. MarkeDC (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I did not consider the implications of a government run segregated system. Even a business with such practices should not be allowed. However if Orthodox Jews want to make their own private bus club with their own rules, that's fine. Also, Godot, I am not wrong in saying that some Muslim women (Not all. Please note that I didn't say all) might be expected to behave in a certain way by their peers. That does not seem like an absurd assertion.--User:Brxbrx/sig 15:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- WTF am I supposed to say? It's like I'm operating on a different level of reality than everybody else where the rules of logic are different. You guys are making me question my sanity. I have an opinion, that people wishing to adhere to certain rules should be allowed to do so in most cases. I don't believe it should be up to the government to enforce these rules, or to enable their enforcement. I'm sorry if that's unclear.--User:Brxbrx/sig 15:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- You guys are making me question my sanity. Must be doing something right then. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐMethinks it is a Weasel 17:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- You guys are making me question my sanity. Must be doing something right then. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
- WTF am I supposed to say? It's like I'm operating on a different level of reality than everybody else where the rules of logic are different. You guys are making me question my sanity. I have an opinion, that people wishing to adhere to certain rules should be allowed to do so in most cases. I don't believe it should be up to the government to enforce these rules, or to enable their enforcement. I'm sorry if that's unclear.--User:Brxbrx/sig 15:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I did not consider the implications of a government run segregated system. Even a business with such practices should not be allowed. However if Orthodox Jews want to make their own private bus club with their own rules, that's fine. Also, Godot, I am not wrong in saying that some Muslim women (Not all. Please note that I didn't say all) might be expected to behave in a certain way by their peers. That does not seem like an absurd assertion.--User:Brxbrx/sig 15:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- You humans are weird. MarkeDC (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Brx, i don't know what your thing is, but 1) you don't seem to know shit about islam other than what you've gotten from the media, 2) you don't have any idea why it is patently illegal to run a governmental system that discriminated, 3) you intentionally miss that this is not about people self segregating, but about a woman being told she MUST segregate. I don't get your point here at all....
- "The only people that are meant to ride this particular bus are people that do not want to sit next to the opposite sex." You're an idiot. The bus "operates as a franchise, in which a private company, Private Transportation Corporation, pays the city for the right to provide a public service." While the B110 exists for the benefit of Brooklyn's Orthodox Jewish community, it's still obligated to serve the broader public and "comply with all applicable laws," a DOT spokesman says" B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 15:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- "It's two people deciding that they don't want to sit next to each other." You're an idiot. It's one person deciding that he didn't want to sit beside one of his fellow citizens. The woman in question did not have a problem sitting beside the man in question. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 15:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- You don't think the government should have rules that prevent me from not letting women/black people/whomever into my restaurant, or rules preventing people from being segregated in general? B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 15:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think the government should stop people from forming a restaurant that is not open to the public and that is meant to serve food to specific people who signed up for the service with the understanding that segregation would be a part of it. I'm not a libertarian at all, I just don't think we should intrude on people's personal decisions if they don't affect others. So long as all parties are consenting such an operation should be legal. Also, I did not consider government involvement in relation to the subject (a bus where women must sit in the back). My apologies. I was merely defending the concept of voluntarily segregating your self. Or something like that. This all kinda blew up.--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- But it would affect others if you opened a private, whites-only restaurant. It would affect all the non-whites who weren't allowed to go to it.--
Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 17:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- How about this: next time you throw a party, I'm coming over.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- But it would affect others if you opened a private, whites-only restaurant. It would affect all the non-whites who weren't allowed to go to it.--
Kriss AkabusiAAAWOOOGAAAR!!1 17:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think the government should stop people from forming a restaurant that is not open to the public and that is meant to serve food to specific people who signed up for the service with the understanding that segregation would be a part of it. I'm not a libertarian at all, I just don't think we should intrude on people's personal decisions if they don't affect others. So long as all parties are consenting such an operation should be legal. Also, I did not consider government involvement in relation to the subject (a bus where women must sit in the back). My apologies. I was merely defending the concept of voluntarily segregating your self. Or something like that. This all kinda blew up.--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:55, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- You don't think the government should have rules that prevent me from not letting women/black people/whomever into my restaurant, or rules preventing people from being segregated in general? B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 15:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Is there some kind of award for bad analogies? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's called the Cordova Award. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 17:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Parties are private, in your home, no license involved. Restaurants, golf clubs, nightclubs etc., are all considered public service institutions by law. We can regulate the food they serve, require they have a license, and yes, tell them they must follow the law on particular types of discrimination. GodotHave you tried turning it off and on again?". 17:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC) (ec)
- Parties are private, in your home, no license involved. Restaurants, golf clubs, nightclubs etc., are all considered public service institutions by law. We can regulate the food they serve, require they have a license, and yes, tell them they must follow the law on particular types of discrimination.
I quit.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- The only advice I can pull out of my ass at the moment: Next time you write "for example" MAKE IT EXTRA-BIG so people know what the hell you mean. Some people here seem to speed-read and miss half of the post… --★uːʤɱ constructivist 18:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- thx, UHM. At least someone got it.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
An orthodox Jewish man shouldn't touch a menstruating woman or sit where she sat, probably the only way to ensure that doesn't happen is to separate the sexes. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Which is fine in their own synagogs. But not on a public bus. If they want to run a self-funded bus, that clearly states "we are orthodox jewish bus", that is their choice. but this one is not self funded, it's subsidized as public transit. --GodotHave you tried turning it off and on again?". 19:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed, they shouldn't ask the Goyim to fund their private busses. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- One of the things I don't get, about religious people in general, but any extremist, is why you don't just grit your teeth one day, for the sake of peace the rest of the time. As the article said, teh ONLY people riding who aren't jewish are reporters. So you sit as far away from the reporter as possible, let her be, then spray anti-woman spray when she gets off. Had they done that one time, one hour of one day on a particular day -- no one would be having this discussion. Ten minutes of inconvenience for a year's worth of peace. And it's not like they can keep to the avoid menstruating women rule all the time, since once and a while, women from the "outside world" really do cross their paths. GodotHave you tried turning it off and on again?". 19:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Last week I flew from Kiev to Frankfurt and the plane was 75% Orthodox Jews heading back to New York from Israel (must have been some cheap deal); not only did they seem to take over the airport terminal with mass prayer groups but also had sing-songs outside the business class lounge. So how did they know that the airplane seats had not been previously occupied by a woman or, more importantly, that the gentile German stewardess who was handing out their Kosher lunch packs wasn't menstruating? ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 19:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Last week I flew from Kiev to Frankfurt and the plane was 75% Orthodox Jews heading back to New York from Israel (must have been some cheap deal); not only did they seem to take over the airport terminal with mass prayer groups but also had sing-songs outside the business class lounge. So how did they know that the airplane seats had not been previously occupied by a woman or, more importantly, that the gentile German stewardess who was handing out their Kosher lunch packs wasn't menstruating?
- One of the things I don't get, about religious people in general, but any extremist, is why you don't just grit your teeth one day, for the sake of peace the rest of the time. As the article said, teh ONLY people riding who aren't jewish are reporters. So you sit as far away from the reporter as possible, let her be, then spray anti-woman spray when she gets off. Had they done that one time, one hour of one day on a particular day -- no one would be having this discussion. Ten minutes of inconvenience for a year's worth of peace. And it's not like they can keep to the avoid menstruating women rule all the time, since once and a while, women from the "outside world" really do cross their paths.
- Agreed, they shouldn't ask the Goyim to fund their private busses. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Which is fine in their own synagogs. But not on a public bus. If they want to run a self-funded bus, that clearly states "we are orthodox jewish bus", that is their choice. but this one is not self funded, it's subsidized as public transit. --
Are YOU the 99%....or are you..ONE OF THEM![edit]
This handy tool will let you know what percentile you are in. I come at 83% - I am the 99%!! Aceace 19:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- For one, that mostly applies to the States. You are in New Zealand, and therefore you don't get to be in the club. Secondly, unless you're really filthy rich, it's safe to say that you're in the 99th percentile--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- In case you haven't seen the news brx it has in fact spread worldwide. Secondly I don't want to be in the club - I am in the top 25% and sitting pretty. Aceace 20:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- The protest may have spread, but the concept of 1% of the population controlling most of the nation's wealth was not meant to apply to your nation.--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- It fucking applies everywhere, iriot! Scream!! (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- See Jeeves' comment below--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- It fucking applies everywhere, iriot! Scream!! (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- The protest may have spread, but the concept of 1% of the population controlling most of the nation's wealth was not meant to apply to your nation.--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- We're in the 96% who don't live in the USA. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 20:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think I even know anyone whose family earns $500000 NZ, let alone US. But then I go to a state school, so I probably wouldn't anyway... Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 20:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- In case you haven't seen the news brx it has in fact spread worldwide. Secondly I don't want to be in the club - I am in the top 25% and sitting pretty. Aceace 20:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- 86%...Meh.--Dumpling (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wow. In the US I would be in the lowest 1%. Although... I am a student living alone, so I wouldn't need much money anyway. --★uːʤɱ soviet 20:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- My parents pay my bills, does that count as income?--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Do turnips found on the sidewalk count as income? WèàšèìòìďMethinks it is a Weasel 00:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Bahahahaha! Aceace 00:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- HarHar. Brxbrx is an unemployed college student. --User:Brxbrx/sig 05:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Betting you won't get a job soon. Come to Canuckistan, we have cookies. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I thought you lived with your parents Brx? Aceace 08:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I live alone. I moved out just as I turned 18 and subsisted for a couple of months with money I had saved up from working during high school. Unable to find work, I ran out of money and my parents bailed me out and, with some nudging from my grandmother, decided to put me through college.--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I thought you lived with your parents Brx? Aceace 08:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Betting you won't get a job soon. Come to Canuckistan, we have cookies. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- HarHar. Brxbrx is an unemployed college student. --User:Brxbrx/sig 05:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Bahahahaha! Aceace 00:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Do turnips found on the sidewalk count as income? Wèàšèìòìď
- My parents pay my bills, does that count as income?--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Using my powers of deduction Ace earns 140,000 NZD a year which is more than double NZ's average income. It at least sounds pretty onepercenty to me! Ace: NZ's fatcat banker. ONE / TALK 11:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Define 'earns'. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 12:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- "sells his body for" ONE / TALK 15:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Since it's "household income", I guess Mrs McWicked's earnings might have been counted too. This doesn't look like a very reliable calculator. It asks for household income (which could be one person's salary or several) then gives a "percentile of [this] income among all tax-filing units" - so that would be individuals + corporations, organisations, etc. WèàšèìòìďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Since it's "household income", I guess Mrs McWicked's earnings might have been counted too. This doesn't look like a very reliable calculator. It asks for household income (which could be one person's salary or several) then gives a "percentile of [this] income among all tax-filing units" - so that would be individuals + corporations, organisations, etc. Wèàšèìòìď
- "sells his body for" ONE / TALK 15:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
And this is why I read the WSJ[edit]
I open the op-ed pages and find "nuggets" of wisdom from Ron Paul, Art Laffer, and some denialist flack from the Manhattan Institute. Murdoch is a pretty smart guy -- I get the feeling he's trying to siphon off readership from The Onion. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I lol'd--User:Brxbrx/sig 15:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's gone to the point that if you get your own column space for WSJ, you probably have zero credibility on anything. Osaka Sun (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- They test-run some of their nuts at IBD, though I don't know that that counts as "credibility." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's gone to the point that if you get your own column space for WSJ, you probably have zero credibility on anything. Osaka Sun (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
This is fucking uncanny[edit]
Lytro camera. Just click different parts of the picture to focus 'em. It is a new way of photographing. Scream!! (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is pretty awesome, but you know you won't be able to look at pictures anymore without someone going "Zoom...and enhance." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well it was cool then, in, what 1982, when it first came out and remains cool. 19:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
- Try this for size. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 20:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Try this for size.
- Well it was cool then, in, what 1982, when it first came out and remains cool. 19:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
- OoOOOoH. Pretty colors.--Dumpling (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's more the case that they've commercialised it for a reasonable price rather than the sheer new novelty of it. Light-field technology goes back to almost the earliest days of photography (or at least early 20th Century in practice, earlier in theory), and if you take a wider field you can do stuff way cooler than simply refocusing. If you capture a wide field of data you can simply use a pixel sorting algorithm to quickly render entirely new camera angles without the need for 3D modelling and projection mapping. The interpolation process used to smooth out the still images in the bullet-time sequences used in The Matrix was a similar application. ADK...I'll fumble your beagle! 00:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Gleisler on why US needs more science[edit]
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2011/10/19/141465224/why-the-u-s-needs-to-learn-more-science
NPR article that is really sad in the sense of "this is our US reality? how fucking sad." --GodotHave you tried turning it off and on again?". 20:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Religion, don't ya just love it![edit]
Church HIV prayer cure claims 'cause three deaths'. Words fail! Scream!! (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've been thinking for a while that T B Joshua needs an article. He's the biz, start to finish, an evil twisted man. Bad Faith (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- link Scream!! (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- The comments make you want to break down and cry. Bad Faith (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've had that story as link on desk top since yesterday morning. Was gonna WIGO it but never got round to it. There seems to be alot those evangelical churches around the poorer parts of London. Theres several down Walworth rd alone. Not bad going for Atheist UK. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- I will be one of the first to take down "anti religion" type atheists. I will stand up for a religious person's right to wear whatever they think they should wear if it's beyond community standards. (this is, you can wear more, but not less, than the standards), and i'll be the first to say a particular religion (say, Islam) isn't how most people see it ---- but every time something like this comes up, I question if it's worth protecting anyone who's religious. God I cannot understand this kind of thing. --GodotNo, That's not the same thing. You just don't get it". 18:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ive added the link here. Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I will be one of the first to take down "anti religion" type atheists. I will stand up for a religious person's right to wear whatever they think they should wear if it's beyond community standards. (this is, you can wear more, but not less, than the standards), and i'll be the first to say a particular religion (say, Islam) isn't how most people see it ---- but every time something like this comes up, I question if it's worth protecting anyone who's religious. God I cannot understand this kind of thing. --
- I've had that story as link on desk top since yesterday morning. Was gonna WIGO it but never got round to it. There seems to be alot those evangelical churches around the poorer parts of London. Theres several down Walworth rd alone. Not bad going for Atheist UK. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- The comments make you want to break down and cry. Bad Faith (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
- link Scream!! (talk) 17:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I think there are two basic approaches to accepting faith healing — faith healing as an alternative to mainstream medicine, or faith healing as a complement to mainstream medicine. Now, I agree the first is bad, but even if you don't have any religious beliefs, it is hard to object to the second — even on a purely secular basis, faith healing offers real benefits — hope and faith and positive thinking have a role to play in positive health outcomes (they don't always work, but they don't have zero effect either); likewise the social support network of religion can be helpful to those dealing with major illnesses (to tell someone you are praying for them is a good way of communicating care, provided both parties are responsive to that); belief in a loving deity and an afterlife can help reduce stress for many facing the likelihood of death. Of course, it only works for those who believe, but if you do believe, I think it can make a real difference. (((Zack Martin)))™ 07:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Have we ever considered[edit]
A Wiki page for RW? Is the site large enough? Osaka Sun (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- You mean a TOW article? Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 08:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ya. And a legit one. Osaka Sun (talk) 09:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- The question is whether or not the site is more 'notable' by WPs definition than it was when it was last redirected? (and if it could be legitimately expanded from the stubby thing it was then, too). See also the Talk page. Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 09:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- We're not regarded as notable at WP and it is not up to us to push for a page. Given what's happened with the CP page I could imagine a fair amount of wheel warring about how we're some sort of vandal site. The best thing is to build RW with quality articles so that we gain a good reputation on a broader front. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 09:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's pretty funny that they simply view us as a CP wandal site. Osaka Sun (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- They don't, but CP does and any TOW user sympathetic to CP (e.g. Karajerk) will raise a hellstorm if RW is described as anything other than a depraved pit of cyber-terrorist insanity. And then there's trolls: could you imagine what would happen if MC got wind of it? Getting RW a page would be hard enough; keeping it free of utter shit would be an immense undertaking and the talk page would just be horrific. ONE / TALK 11:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- The only mention of RW by a "reliable source" is in the LA Times piece on Conservapedia, so RW is only mentioned in connection to CP. WeaseloidMethinks it is a Weasel
- There's also that Telegraph article, which I'm pretty sure constitutes a reliable source, but it might be considered a trivial mention. Hmm... Balaam (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know that any outlet that employs James Delingpole could be considered a reliable source. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- There's also that Telegraph article, which I'm pretty sure constitutes a reliable source, but it might be considered a trivial mention. Hmm... Balaam (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- The only mention of RW by a "reliable source" is in the LA Times piece on Conservapedia, so RW is only mentioned in connection to CP. Weaseloid
- They don't, but CP does and any TOW user sympathetic to CP (e.g. Karajerk) will raise a hellstorm if RW is described as anything other than a depraved pit of cyber-terrorist insanity. And then there's trolls: could you imagine what would happen if MC got wind of it? Getting RW a page would be hard enough; keeping it free of utter shit would be an immense undertaking and the talk page would just be horrific. ONE / TALK 11:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's pretty funny that they simply view us as a CP wandal site. Osaka Sun (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- We're not regarded as notable at WP and it is not up to us to push for a page. Given what's happened with the CP page I could imagine a fair amount of wheel warring about how we're some sort of vandal site. The best thing is to build RW with quality articles so that we gain a good reputation on a broader front.
- The question is whether or not the site is more 'notable' by WPs definition than it was when it was last redirected? (and if it could be legitimately expanded from the stubby thing it was then, too). See also the Talk page. Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 09:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ya. And a legit one. Osaka Sun (talk) 09:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I can't understand society sometimes. We're going to eventually gain prominence with months (or even years) more of work, but CP was noticed on the Internets for being a collective of idiots. More of the Jersey Shore syndrome, I guess. Osaka Sun (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- This has been debated on Wikipedia itself so many times and for so long there is really no point even thinking about it here. ADK...I'll give your oak! 00:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Why don't the RWF try putting out Press Releases on PRnewswire or similar sites? If you tied it in to the whole New Atheism thing, or various ongoing controversies about religious topics, you could probably get more media attention. Once you've built up a good portfolio of media mentions, you could justify a WP article much more easily... (((Zack Martin)))™ 07:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Dawkins[edit]
"Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig". Scream!! (talk) 16:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Link? MDB (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- OOPS! sorry Scream!! (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Heh, second comment down has a link to Gish Gallop. One of you guy's work? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Here's a soap actor taking WLC to task and shaming him thoroughly. A frigging soap actor. And an American one at that, and we all know what those shows are like. Okay, in fairness and actuality I'd consider this Scott Clifton's main occupation. General Hospital and shit just pays the rent. ADK...I'll vitiate your glass orb! 00:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wait, so Dawkins isn't talking to Lane, because Lane supports genocide by a God that Dawkins says doesn't exist, mentioned in a book that's a Bronze-age fairy tale. Sorry, but that's a fairly flimsy excuse IMHO. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 14:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not entirely. The excuse is "it would look great on your CV, but not on mine". WLC is blatantly trying to cash in on Dawkins' fame to boost his own - no different to certain other people we know who have tried the same tactic. The whole mentioning of his genocide-apologetics is to cement the idea that Dawkins doesn't want to provide his views with legitimacy by turning up. ADK...I'll deter your mouth! 17:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, that gives a whole new meaning to "empty chair defense." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not entirely. The excuse is "it would look great on your CV, but not on mine". WLC is blatantly trying to cash in on Dawkins' fame to boost his own - no different to certain other people we know who have tried the same tactic. The whole mentioning of his genocide-apologetics is to cement the idea that Dawkins doesn't want to provide his views with legitimacy by turning up. ADK...I'll deter your mouth! 17:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Wait, so Dawkins isn't talking to Lane, because Lane supports genocide by a God that Dawkins says doesn't exist, mentioned in a book that's a Bronze-age fairy tale. Sorry, but that's a fairly flimsy excuse IMHO. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 14:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Here's a soap actor taking WLC to task and shaming him thoroughly. A frigging soap actor. And an American one at that, and we all know what those shows are like. Okay, in fairness and actuality I'd consider this Scott Clifton's main occupation. General Hospital and shit just pays the rent. ADK...I'll vitiate your glass orb! 00:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Heh, second comment down has a link to Gish Gallop. One of you guy's work? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- OOPS! sorry Scream!! (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Bush is entering Canada again...[edit]
And we're still doing nothing about it. You just have see the comments in this article. I can't believe we have conservative apologists here for blatantly subverting the US Constitution, the Geneva Conventions and the Canadian Criminal Code; they're also pulling claims out of their ass that torture saved lives (as usual, a complete lie) and anyone who doesn't agree with them are lefty commie quacks.
The stupid, it fucking burns! Osaka Sun (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Why arent they bitching about all the other people who broke laws. and wat the fuck is the canadian criminal code going to do when he didn't break a Canadian law while in Canada??--Mikalosa (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)--Mikalosa (talk) 00:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Because as signatories to various international conventions, states have the obligation to arrest people for crimes committed that violate those conventions even if the offences took place other than on national territory. I believe that the convention on torture is one example of such an agreement. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 00:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- ... Fuck the world america the best, as the only super power WE decide when a law matters and doesnt! -sets up an american flag and salutes as 5 different america songs start playing--Mikalosa (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- a) Poe's Law.
- b) Read.
- c) The Tories in Ottawa don't seem to care about any human rights violations whatsoever. And this is a perfect example.
- ... Fuck the world america the best, as the only super power WE decide when a law matters and doesnt! -sets up an american flag and salutes as 5 different america songs start playing--Mikalosa (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Because as signatories to various international conventions, states have the obligation to arrest people for crimes committed that violate those conventions even if the offences took place other than on national territory. I believe that the convention on torture is one example of such an agreement. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 00:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Switzerland would love to take him in at any moment for trial; by international standards, they're more right-wing than any of us talking here. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- I think i made it perfectly obvious that was fake pro-Americanism. I have nothing against them prosecuting bush, i dont see anything coming from it though so it would be a complete waste of time and effort though. Would also piss off anybody who dislikes internationalism. And sqitzerland, thats the lolipop shaped country to the east of germany, right?--Mikalosa (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Switzerland would love to take him in at any moment for trial; by international standards, they're more right-wing than any of us talking here. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The reality is in the British system, the decision to prosecute is ultimately a political decision for the executive to make. Now in the present-day, the decision is delegated in most cases to the officially apolitical CPS/DPP/whatever, but ultimately the Attorneys-General retain the power to direct their apolitical subordinates, and essential stop any prosecution they want. Even if you launch a private prosecution, the AG can just take it over and nolle prosequi, and there is nothing anyone can do — no Court will issue a writ of mandamus. (Hey, and the American system is very similar, except it is often much more blatantly political than the British, with elected DAs and all...) Whatever obligations international humanitarian law might create for states to prosecute violations of it, these obligations don't have direct effect (and universal jurisdiction is a discretionary power not an obligation) and so are ineffective to override the political discretions involved. The ICC is a very useful stopgap, but it isn't going to work for Bush (and even given the opportunity, I think the ICC has enough realpolitik that it would find a way out of it if at all possible.) (((Zack Martin)))™ 07:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Parody Articles[edit]
Is parody acceptable on this site? The front page seems to tell me that's not what this site is about. But look at this: Rush Limbaugh. While it might be well-deserved, doesn't that style of article belong on Encyclopædia Dramatica, rather than on something that calls itself RationalWiki?--92.233.45.152 (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Parody is pretty much what this site was originally about, and while things are evolving away from that in mainspace toward more serious articles there is still a lot of both. See also SPOV and, um, where's that Rationalwiki drinking game? It's too early in the AM to take a shot though. Secret Squirrel (talk) 10:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Whilst our mission is debunking our culture is irreverent, snarky and, above all, fun. As such many feel that the best way to approach those such as Limbaugh is to take the piss. After all, you don't expect us to take the guy seriously, do you? Bad Faith (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- The line isn't in stone, really. Some things are serious, others aren't. Generally, as Wikipedia covers things very dryly and factually there is no point in replicating their content. Particularly when it comes to biographies we can feel free to pick and choose what to add, how much of a hatchet job to make of it and so on - because if you wanted just a dry list of what has gone on in someone's life, you'd go to WP. If you want a list of things that make Rush Limbaugh an asshole and that frankly calls him so, read here. Anything vaguely relating to politics on here seems to be left-leaning and decidedly arational. So I wouldn't worry about it as you'd have to do a lot of work to make it actually "balanced and fair". ADK...I'll sell your fealty! 11:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Whilst our mission is debunking our culture is irreverent, snarky and, above all, fun. As such many feel that the best way to approach those such as Limbaugh is to take the piss. After all, you don't expect us to take the guy seriously, do you? Bad Faith (talk) 10:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I can't see![edit]
goddam eyedoctor put dilating eye-drops in my goddam eyes and now I'm effectively blind until God knows when. Fuck. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 15:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- CP minions will now use this as evidence that UHC doesn't work. Osaka Sun (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Then how did you type this? Tytalk 16:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ty, you mean you don't have a scantily clad maiden, who types your dictation into RW, leaving you free to do important things, like play Minesweeper (or stumble around the room in B-flat's case)? Shame. Trent was handing them out like candy a few years ago. --PsyGremlinPraat! 16:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ty can have mine. Scantiry clad maidens hold no interest for me. MDB (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Been taking Japanese lessons again, I see :) It had to be maidens, sorry. Only women are any good at typing you see... /said with tongue firmly in cheek... --PsyGremlinRunāt! 17:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- If only I had signed up earlier rather than lurk for 4 months. oh well. Tytalk 17:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, what you need is a RationalWiki Gold account. DickTurpis (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- If only I had signed up earlier rather than lurk for 4 months. oh well. Tytalk 17:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Been taking Japanese lessons again, I see :) It had to be maidens, sorry. Only women are any good at typing you see... /said with tongue firmly in cheek... --PsyGremlinRunāt! 17:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ty can have mine. Scantiry clad maidens hold no interest for me. MDB (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Ty, you mean you don't have a scantily clad maiden, who types your dictation into RW, leaving you free to do important things, like play Minesweeper (or stumble around the room in B-flat's case)? Shame. Trent was handing them out like candy a few years ago. --PsyGremlinPraat! 16:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Then how did you type this? Tytalk 16:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank God for my scantily-clad maiden. She was a big help. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 23:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Us Asians have trouble with eye-drops. Ohoho....Yet somehow we manage to get massive circle lenses.--Dumpling (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
We in Germany are so goddamn PC...[edit]
...even our broadband internet has to be discrimination free! (Original) --★uːʤɱ soviet 17:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- You should be more Mac. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 18:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Did you see this?[edit]
Just WIGO-ed. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- O'Reilly's still alive? I stopped paying attention to that irrelevant douchebag years ago. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 21:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- He's still doing it live. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Still playing us out live... ADK...I'll program your league! 21:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- He's still doing it live. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Try this one. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
A planet forms, using the nebula hypothesis[edit]
yep--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Impossible! Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 05:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Just out of interest[edit]
A visitor to my blog today referred from South West Vasectomy Reversal (page details removed to protect the weird). What's that all about then? Scream!! (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- if you have had your nuts cut (vas deferens really), so that you cant get a woman pregnant, this place will sew them together again. Its fairly delicate surgury, to be followed by a few sperm count tests to check it worked. Often requested if a child dies, or a couple divorces and the man wants children with a new wife. Since the male continues to produce sperm, even if the procedure fails sperm can be harvested with big needles stuck into the scrotum and artificial insemination attempted Hamster (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I know that! It was why someone was linking to me from there that I found strange. (I had the snip in 1976) Scream!! (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I find that you sometimes get 'hits' that seem to come from SEO sites or something, that basically seem to be just trying to make you go and look at it. It used to happen to me all the time, but not so much these days though. Take a look at the source - I doubt you'll find a link to your blog anywhere in there. Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 03:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- You can spoof the referrer using browser extensions. For one site I used to visit a lot I would always use a referrer of redhotchristianchicks.com. Hi, Andy! ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 09:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- So that's how they do it... Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 09:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- You can spoof the referrer using browser extensions. For one site I used to visit a lot I would always use a referrer of redhotchristianchicks.com. Hi, Andy!
- I find that you sometimes get 'hits' that seem to come from SEO sites or something, that basically seem to be just trying to make you go and look at it. It used to happen to me all the time, but not so much these days though. Take a look at the source - I doubt you'll find a link to your blog anywhere in there. Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 03:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- I know that! It was why someone was linking to me from there that I found strange. (I had the snip in 1976) Scream!! (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
More of me being an accounting n00b.[edit]
I'm reading up on marginal income tax rates compared to other countries, ie. the stuff we do up here.
So if you, let's say, earn $80,000 per year, do you pay just 22 percent, or both the starting 15% and then an added 22%? Osaka Sun (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sometimes I wish it was a little more simplified. Thanks. I'll be going into the job market soon (and weaning off the evil teat of my socialist parents), that's why I asked. :P Osaka Sun (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- The stacking approach makes it a little harder for employees to translate a headline figure into take home pay in their heads, but it means politicians can tweak the numbers without accidentally making it better to get paid $44 999 than $45 000 or anything stupid like that. If this is your first job you might want to ask your socialist parents what else is expected to come out of that hypothetical $88 000. There seem to be national and local taxes, which may or may not be deducted before you see the money, but there may also be pension contributions, either mandatory or voluntary. If you're young it may be tempting to avoid voluntary contributions and resent mandatory ones, but old age creeps up fast and the life plan where you're a famous rock star and live off the proceeds of your memoirs probably won't work out. In some systems you're expected to contribute towards healthcare costs in a separate fund, and then there's costs of living like rent (for your own place, or to your parents), utilities and so on. Get some idea how much of the money is really "disposable" to buy My Little Ponies and Cocaine, or to take your Significant Other to dinner -- before you spend it. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks to the magic of compound interest any pension payments you make at an early age will make a considerable difference to your final pension pot, so don't put off starting a pension because by the time you come to retire you will probably have to be more self-reliant than might currently be the case in countries with social welfare. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 11:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed. In fact, there's a beautiful little example to illustrate the power of saving early:
- Mr A invests $2,000 p.a. at 10% every year from age 20 to age 30. Then stops the payments, leaving the investment to grow at 10% until age 65.
- Mr B invests $2,000 p.a. at 10% every year from age 31 to age 65.
- At 65, Mr A has almost twice as much money saved as Mr B (1,041,000 vs. 542,000)
- So, start saving NOW! And if you lived closer, I'd be selling you a retirement annuity around now. --PsyGremlinTala! 15:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Where.The.Fuck. Are you gonna get an investment that gets 10% in this day and age? B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 15:42, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I forgot you first world types have to make do with 1% returns. Should come down here, 10% p.a. is a good average long term rate. Of course, you have to take our higher inflation and interest rates into account... Hmm... curiously, the example doesn't work on 2%, go figure. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 16:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- The stacking approach makes it a little harder for employees to translate a headline figure into take home pay in their heads, but it means politicians can tweak the numbers without accidentally making it better to get paid $44 999 than $45 000 or anything stupid like that. If this is your first job you might want to ask your socialist parents what else is expected to come out of that hypothetical $88 000. There seem to be national and local taxes, which may or may not be deducted before you see the money, but there may also be pension contributions, either mandatory or voluntary. If you're young it may be tempting to avoid voluntary contributions and resent mandatory ones, but old age creeps up fast and the life plan where you're a famous rock star and live off the proceeds of your memoirs probably won't work out. In some systems you're expected to contribute towards healthcare costs in a separate fund, and then there's costs of living like rent (for your own place, or to your parents), utilities and so on. Get some idea how much of the money is really "disposable" to buy My Little Ponies and Cocaine, or to take your Significant Other to dinner -- before you spend it. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sometimes I wish it was a little more simplified. Thanks. I'll be going into the job market soon (and weaning off the evil teat of my socialist parents), that's why I asked. :P Osaka Sun (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
A Strange Discovery in the Clogoshpere[edit]
http://hebikana.blogspot.com/ It's in Spanish so run it through Google Translate, and enjoy the lulz.Ryantherebel (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not much to enjoy. Looks like the same old pseudoironic racist basement-dweller trolling you can find on ED, 4chan, etc. Meh. ωεαşεζøίɗMethinks it is a Weasel 19:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
World ends tomorrow, this time he is sure[edit]
Harold Camping is sure this time that the world ends in Friday October 21. [1] Let me know if you ascend bodily to heaven, in fact write a quick note leaving all your stuff to me . If you dont vanish I will give it all back , I promise ;-) Hamster (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- This isnt the rapture, this is just the straight up end of the planet man. Cause fuck revelations!--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- If the world ends, I will eat my shorts on live television. ADK...I'll eat your bass guitar! 11:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing personal, but if the world ends, the last thing I expect to be doing is watchin TV. MDB (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- 5pm here (GMT+2) and no sign of the world ending. Maybe now they'll arrest Campling for the fraud that he is. --PsyGremlinFale! 15:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- It would extraordinarily difficult in the States to prosecute a religious leader for fraud. wp:Peter Popoff has been exposed repeatedly as a scam artist, and I don't see any evidence of any criminal prosecution of him. wp:Jim Bakker was prosecuted, but not for religious fraud, per se, but for selling timeshares that didn't exist. (They were just religiously based.)
- I suppose someone could sue Camping under civil law, since you can make a case he really didn't believe the world was ending, with the evidence being that his ministry planned to be open the Monday following his original Saturday prediction. Even that would be a tough sell, I'd imagine. You'd have to find some internal e-mail or memo or such where he says, "boy, we've really got a lot of suckers falling for this rapture scam" to have a strong case. MDB (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- 5pm here (GMT+2) and no sign of the world ending. Maybe now they'll arrest Campling for the fraud that he is. --PsyGremlinFale! 15:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing personal, but if the world ends, the last thing I expect to be doing is watchin TV. MDB (talk) 12:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- If the world ends, I will eat my shorts on live television. ADK...I'll eat your bass guitar! 11:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Darn, I missed it. Sen (talk) 08:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- No official word on the backpedal yet. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- No rapture, no tribulation, no end-of-world :( I was looking forward to seeing the yellowstone supervolcano blow. Thats two failures in a year !! Hamster (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thing is, where that article talks about a caller saying “You’re really pathetic, you know? I wasted all my money because of you. I was putting all my money and my hopes on you… I wish I could see you face to face, I would smack you. Mr. Camping, you always say a lot of (redacted) I lost all my money because of you, you (redacted),” I'm torn. On the one hand, I agree. Camping is full of shit and has defrauded people. On the other, it's your own stupid fault for buying said shit. This would probably explain why religious leaders tend not to be prosecuted as con artists; real con artists exploit their mark's intelligence (or at least their attempts to be intelligent) while religious leaders rely on their followers being gloopier than pig shit in the brains department. ADK...I'll disintegrate your Toyota! 17:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- No rapture, no tribulation, no end-of-world :( I was looking forward to seeing the yellowstone supervolcano blow. Thats two failures in a year !! Hamster (talk) 16:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- No official word on the backpedal yet. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Monckton is really Sacha Cohen?[edit]
This is an awesome sent up of Christopher Monckton. B♭maj7 (talk) Member of the Kara Duhe fan club since 2010 14:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- That is on the list of the funniest things I've seen this year. ADK...I'll absorb your apple juice! 15:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- As I was watching that, what struck me was that Monckton may be considered a nutter in Britain or Australia, but he would fit into the U.S. Republican Party better than their probable 2012 presidential nominee. Godspeed (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, they do find his willingness to peddle BS in Congressional testimony useful. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Speaking of Monckton in America, I'd bet they'd call David Cameron a communist. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- David "I support same-sex marriage because I'm conservative" Cameron? Yeah, he is total pinko liberal scum by US standards. But considering that in the future we'll be talking about Margaret Thatcher in terms of Cameron, that just proves how skewed the situation is on the west side of the pond. ADK...I'll waste your memo! 17:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Speaking of Monckton in America, I'd bet they'd call David Cameron a communist. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, they do find his willingness to peddle BS in Congressional testimony useful. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- As I was watching that, what struck me was that Monckton may be considered a nutter in Britain or Australia, but he would fit into the U.S. Republican Party better than their probable 2012 presidential nominee. Godspeed (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)