RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive128

This is an archive page, last updated 16 November 2011. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>

, (new)(back)

Homepage poll

Useless question. What is your browser's home page? I'm a BBC News man, myself. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 21:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

None. It's either speed-dial or last open tabs. ^gnostic 21:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

About:blank Тy^talk 21:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) Yahoo. Email plus news--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"Shut up, Brx."--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:44, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

IGoogle (includes email, Sciblogs, news etc) Scream!! (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Google Reader. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 21:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Google. I live on the edge, man. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Google Sam ^Tally-ho! 23:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

iGoogle. I'm trying to see how many RSS feeds I can add to it before Firefox's loading time for the page equals that of IE's loading time for a blank google.com.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

GOOGLE!--Dumpling (talk) 06:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

About:blank.--^talk 07:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Google, on Chrome. /Google shill. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Forty last open tabs. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 17:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

O FF, Yahoo/whatever i had last open, on Chrome: Google--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Skynet will be a moron

I could swear, this is how my parents would talk to each other if they had some education. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 23:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Most chatbots have been corrupted by anons--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Is the Artificial Intelligence book a subtle joke there? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

You have seen comments on YouTube, right? This mimics the general level of people's ability to comprehend quite admirably. ^sshole 23:57, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

on youtube and you speak of general ability? --★uːʤɱ heretic 00:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"Fuck all" ability is still ability. ^sshole 00:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What if Skynet originates as some sort of AI entity that learns purely from YouTube commentary? Blue (is useful) 05:16, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That would certainly explain why it hates humans--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

And then it travels back in time to found ED. Absolute evil indeed. --★uːʤɱ kant 11:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

UHM, if you love me, you love ED. It's a package.--User:Brxbrx/sig 15:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's a break-up then. --★uːʤɱ sinner 15:50, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's say, if Romney actually goes on to win the GOP nomination and beat Obama in 2012...

What will really happen to Obamacare? Or on any other policy, for that matter?

That's what worries me about this guy. We have no idea on what he might do to the US. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Aren't you Canadian? Anyway, he'll have lots of time to make his case and then follow through on doing what he promised in his campaign. Just like Obama did with Guantanamo. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 04:28, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you know that anything that the US does will have an effect internationally. My mother's American born too, so don't kill me. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how repealing a piece of legislation that's barely been implemented and reverting to a decades-old status quo will have grave effects north of the 49th. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 04:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I mean economically and everything else, not just the health care law. Just because yours truly lives on the northern side of Lake Ontario doesn't mean we should keep a blind eye to what's going on in the pale-coloured building we burned down in 1812.

One of the effects of crappy healthcare is an additional burden on countries with socialised medicine, particularly if they're neighbours. e.g. Lots of Americans live close enough to the Canadian border to hope for free treatment, and so the Canadians have to spend a bunch of resources on detecting and preventing this. Even in Europe we already see American health tourists. They show up at immigration with a huge bump (maternity care is of course free, and who's going to ask for proof you're British when you're going into labour?) or a bag full of pills and lotions, and somebody has to be paid to make sure they go on the next plane back. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

So anyone else, thoughts? Osaka Sun (talk) 04:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If Romney wins the nomination, a lot will depend on the subsequent campaign and the promises he makes. Right now he's just vowing to eliminate Obamacare, because he essentially has to do so to win the primary. But against Obama, he's going to face the challenge of being more specific. Obama can rightly point out that repealing Obamacare would cost a lot of money, and that trying to just repeal the unpopular things like the mandate would cost even more money. So he can't just repeal without a viable replacement, and there are very few viable replacements that aren't monstrous.

Realistically speaking, I expect Romney would make a lot of noise and a lot of flourish about some superficial changes, leaving the major structure essentially unchanged. If he makes a lot of cosmetic changes, it probably won't cost more than a few hundred billion, and his position as a Republican would make it easier to push through the state exchanges that current GOP state officials have been grandstanding against. A white Christian in charge calms down a lot of the hysteria and gets things moving.--^talk 06:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I would expect a campaign very much like 2008 just with the sides switched, and then if Romney wins, no changes at all because the Tea Party would still block everything they don't like on the other side the few social D/democrats would do the exact same thing as much as they could. I think the more interesting things would be what if the other candidates would win the nomination. Cain would be interesting to see how many silent racists would actually not vote for him or Obama but flee to other parties. Perry would be just funny to watch because the guy seems like a second Bush but just much more full of himself. Paul would be great fun, because he looks like the one guy in the field who isn't a complete hypocrite and actually despite being a politician is consistent in what he says — also his foreign policy would be great, ending the wars, furthering relationships to Palestine and keeping out of international conflicts; Europe, China, Russia and the AU would be forced to do more because the US won't do anything anymore (thereby giving away much weight in future negotiations and conflicts).

I think this election will be relatively unimportant. That might sound insane but seeing as there are two developing political grassroots (or something like that) movements in the United States that baiscally are each the outer 20% of their respective wings with enough voting power each to make the USA a lame duck and piss off the 60% moderates in the middle. One of those two movements will vanish first and as back in the 50s and 60s determine the further course of America, running a few years behind the rest of the world in social terms but trying to keep up and be modern or going against the grain basically becoming a Texas with too much firepower. It just sounds scaringly familiar.

Sorry, shouldn't have asked for thoughts. I have many of those…--★uːʤɱ constructivist 15:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

geocenterist site has proof or batshit crazy

the site www.fixedearth.com might be worth an article. I havent read much of it but it seems to propose a massive conspiricy starting with Galileo and including Nasa faked pictures. Hamster (talk) 06:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll get right on it, fixedearth.com, done. - π 06:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I've written a bit more. That site is... thorough. He's really thought about this, I'd guess if it wasn't for how offensively extremist Christian it is, a lot of people would be drawn in because they can't argue against it. e.g. I had to actually go check that yup, mostly people don't build retrograde satellites (it turns out the reason is fuel, it costs more fuel, so you need a specific reason to choose retrograde). Unusually for a site promising evidence in exchange for an implausible sum of money it actually spells out most of what the "evidence" is. I guess they're just holding back some "fake moon photo" type material.

A really nice thing to have here would be an ether disproof experiment done in space (ie not on the "fixed earth"). But since relativity is a done deal and space experiments are expensive, I won't be surprised if no-one has actually done it. Obviously this site would just argue the results were fake. But it'd still be nice to have to thwack them with. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 14:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

thanks Pi, that was quick work. I found the RW article after I posted this. Some people on a physics forum did the maths for a few of his claims and found him wrong as expected. Interesting read though. Hamster (talk) 14:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

It's simply fantastic how much detail these people will develop to promote what is essentially a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy to undermine Christianity. Even if that detail is a house of cards. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

For experiments in space, I recall w:Gravity Probe A and w:Gravity Probe B. Indirectly, they prove that the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment would be the same on a satellite as on Earth. --Tweenk (talk) 15:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

New logo

I like it, but it looks a bit lost and forlorn in that giant heading. So, I'm going out for a beer or three. I expect you wiki-fu wunderkiddies to have it fixed by the time I get back. Ktnxbai. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 10:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I preferred it as a central heading like so rather than a full width banner. Alternatively, the outer border could be removed altogether, so it's just the sign with the archive search box under it. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:53, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

We should randomize the placement of the WIGO buttons

Seriously, every time I visit, they seem to be flipped around and reordered. – Nick Heer 17:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Medically oriented RWians, I may have a problem and no doctors are open

I had an inguinal hernia repair, right side, in 2005. This morning around 8am I woke up and really had to pee. I had really bad severe pain in my right side again, about where the mesh would be. I thought maybe it re-herniated and strangulated, but the pain went away. I went back to sleep. Right now its still there, but dull and distracting. I don't have a bulge or anything. So now I'm thinking that all the exercises I have been doing for my herniated lumbar disc (I bend back over a chair) may have screwed up the mesh. I don't feel sick or ill, it just hurts and its constant. So basically, I'm wondering what the hell it could be, if it's worth it to go to an ER, or just wait until tomorrow to go a GP and see what they say. I'd rather not sit in the waiting room for 4 hours at the ER if I don't have to. Thanks in advance. Senator Harrison (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's a toss up between sitting in the ER for 4 hours to get checked out or sitting overnight for 9 hours in pain, you should consider the former. If it's something that's not entirely debilitating, then by all means wait it out but if the pain is constant then you want it seen to. It might be just a normal muscle spasm that's hurting so you might be able to rub it out with a few gentle stretches. ^moral 18:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll rub *you* out with some "gentle stretches," if you catch my drift...B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 18:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)being

being a woman, i know nothing about the particular pain you are feeling, but in *most* cases, if you can handle it with 2 advil/asprin/tylenol and wait for GP it's worth it. and if you are not in a country where health care is free, the cost is significant for you to wait it out. --GodotGet over it!. 18:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

So you herniated your spinal column and your gut? Damn, dude. Well, these meshes crap out all the time. Best to go to the ER. And Godot, women can still get inguinal hernias. It's less likely, but it can happen.--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Ok, I'll do that. I'm in the good old USA where people believe that if you don't have health insurance you should just die. By extreme luck, my mother is an NJ state worker and I'm under 26 so I have awesome health insurance. The pain is probably just below the threshold of ER visit though. I'll update if I go. Thanks all. Senator Harrison (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This is why I'm glad I live in the UK - although I gather France is better. Once you have free health care you never go back. Bad Faith (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Could be a kidney stone too. Really having to pee, and the severe pain later turning dull are clues. If the severe pain was flanking around to your lower back side that would be another indicator of a kidney stone. But you also want to rule out anything even more serious like complications from your past surgery, or appendicitis, and I'd be like headed for the ER right now unless doing so is going to break you financially. Whether or not to go to the ER is your call depending on how confident you are that it isn't a life threatening emergency. Secret Squirrel (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Still have the same pain, going to ER. Woo. Senator Harrison (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I hope all goes ok and it turns out to be nothing major - hugs - and best wishes. Refugee^{talk page} 02:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not dying. I think they didn't believe that it was as bad as I said it was because they gave me dilaudid and discharged me a couple hours later without asking how it worked (it really didn't and now I feel sick). They ruled out appendicitis, re-herniation, or infection, so it's likely scar tissue. They gave me percoset and I need to make an appt with the surgeon who did my repair. Yay surgery. Thanks again everyone. Senator Harrison (talk) 04:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

So i found a old copy of the Sims

im some old crap of mine and... its a decade old and still works. So, with the copy of Unleashed and Vacation I have, i have installed, partially to nostalgia over older memories then my sims 2 (various $5 from origin deals) nostalgiaing does and partially to make sure they work for a friend who wanted unleashed. Needless to say, the first sims is ungodly basic and user-unfriendly, especially compared to the sims 2 (fuck Sims 3). Oh and the two expansion packs asked me if I wanted to install AOL 7.0--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

How to abuse statistics

I'm doing a set of very basic statistical analyses (if they could even be called that at this level) on US census data for my research, and it's really helping me understand how one can draw ridiculous conclusions by ignoring key variables. One such example (out of data on around 300 US cities) is that regressing the murder rate on the number of baby boys, ages 0 to 1, tells me that if there were no baby boys between 0 and 1, there wouldn't any murders. None. Clearly babies are roaming the streets in between naps and wreaking havoc. No word yet on whether or not this only applies to cute babies. άλφα^Ταλκ 23:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Obligatory. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Neb, that might be the greatest thing I've ever seen. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

As a requirement before registering to vote, each citizen should be issued a copy of "How to Lie With Statistics" by Huff and locked into a room until they have finished reading it. The book is rather old now but the principles are as true as they ever were. Doctor Dark (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Whoa. We gotta add that to the global warming page. sterile^talk 03:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Has no one converted to Pastafarianism? @Doctor Dark: Agreed, though Joel Best's Damned Lies and Statistics is a pretty good update. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Spam

Is it just me or have we had more spambots than usual hitting us in the past few days? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that there is a greater number, but that there's no greater variety - just the same people, being more persistent. Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 01:03, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you think of the sexual assault laws in countries like Sweden?

The most famous scenario having been with all the extradition stuff with Julian Assange recently. You can go to jail for rape if you don't wear a condom?

I'm as feminist as any guy could be (oooh, evil!), but don't you think it's a little too harsh? Osaka Sun (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

It's if the condom bursts and you keep going without notifying your partner, I believe. If your partner only wanted sex with a condom, consent ceases as it becomes compromised. And this is kind of a big deal, seeing as how the condom is meant to prevent STD's and pregnancy. Would you want to carry Julian Assange's baby? Also, he is being extradited for having sex with another woman while she was asleep, even though she consented to sex beforehand. But did she consent to sex while she was sleeping? No.

It does seem harsh, but on the other hand it seems entirely justified. Perhaps if these weren't such casual sexual encounters the women would have been more understanding, but when you're dealing with strangers, you must always be courteous and respectful. You don't know them, you don't know what they're okay with.--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Or whether they are on CIA payroll. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The "sex by surprise" thing, that he only didn't wear a condom was made up by Assange's publicist. It is actual, factual held-her-down-while-she-screamed rape that he's apparently accused of. ^postate 12:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

He's being accused of multiple things, including a rape, but there are two women involved. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that's correct, ADK. I checked the TOW article on the case and it seems whatever he's been accused of has been lost in translation. Understandably the details of the case are not public.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

The accusations are hush enough, which is an oddity - you'd expect the right-wing press who want Assange's blood to have all the juicy details in unprecedented detail, but turns out not so. But that it's "only" for not wearing a condom is just spin, relating to an odd translation of some Swedish slang. ^postate 21:33, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Though to be honest I don't think anyone knows what the fuck is going on. ^gnostic 21:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad the details are kept private. It's important that we not drag the victims out into the spotlight. They didn't ask for this. A funny addendum: on ED, surprise sex is a euphemism for rape. Not that ED has much use for euphemisms.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good thing. But it is surprising because a) it's a story involving sex and b) it's a story involving a celebrity. Normally the media are all over this sort of thing. ^moral 21:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sweden has the harshest rape laws in the world, if I remember correctly, but they're not unreasonable by any means. They take consent much more seriously than in other countries. HolyKatana (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Except when it comes to sheep (apparently). Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 17:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Do not lay eyes upon the Ewe, nor the Ram, for both are but false prophets and messengers of the Infernal Jerboa. They speak nary a truth, only lies exude from their wretched baaahing. Only the True Goats shall be protected, yea, you shall no longer look upon a Sheep for it is only sacrilege and perversion for which they stand. HollowWorld (talk) 07:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Quick question

Well, possibly not so quick. Doing an old exam paper for AS-Maths as practice and have run across:

… deduce the least value of 1/-x²+6x+30.

Given that (b²-4ac) of -x²+6x+30 is >0, so the curve crosses the x-axis, surely the least possible value of 1/-x²+6x+30 is -∞?-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks impossible to me... Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 00:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think there are some missing brackets. If it's the least value of 1/(-x²+6x+30) then it's easy (3). Bad Faith (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly why I'm a journalism/communications major. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Just plotting the expression, there are 0 values and goes from pos to neg, so you would seem to be correct. sterile^talk 02:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Had time to plot it out as well, and it's definitely f(x)=0 at two points, so badly written question.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 11:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Drinking smileys

Boo. Why must you guys make everything so booooooring? sterile^talk 00:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

First they came for Human,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't Human.

Then they came for the drinking smiley,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a drinking smiley.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.sterile^talk 00:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Nah, you're cool. Тy^talk 01:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll speak out for the drinking smilies - where did they go. Or is there a discussion somewhere I missed?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:Bartop#Condense -- Nx / talk 09:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Boring. sterile^talk 11:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Vote for their return, when the overwhelming masses rise up .... and so on. Pimobile (talk) 12:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Clever lyrics

Dinosaurs were invented by god as a test, indeed. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Darwin Award candidate

May dies trying to rid house of 60,000 bees. What a gruesome way to go, you say! Except the bees didn't get him, he just fell off a chair. Blue (is useful) 05:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

But remember, he started swatting as a reaction to the their collective attack abilities. The bees are evolving into human death machines! Osaka Sun (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Obligatory. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, there was a really good picture of a shark-bee mutation from Jon Stewart's Earth (The Book) and I can't find it now. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

We do all know that the Darwin awards are not really real, don't we?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The Russians who stare at goats

Here is a rather credulous/sensationalistic Russian documentary about UFOs and Russian military "research" into "UFO hypnotic weapons", remote viewing and other related silliness. On the Russian space agency's YouTube channel, blergh. :( Though I love the footage of uniformed officers placing hands over photos of battleships.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sitting on my bookshelf is a 1970 copy of Psychic Discoveries behind the Iron Curtain, so they've been at it for quite a while (perhaps). Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't that the stuff that caused the creation of Project Stargate? The datestamp of one video was from 1992. Anyway, the amusing parts for this one is the general credulous tone (FFS, it even had Nazi flying saucers and medical experiments and an encephalogram-"verified" contactee seanse) combined with the fact that it is aired by the Russian equivalent of NASA TV.--ZooGuard (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ready to have your mind fucked?

Osaka Sun (talk) 11:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for finally introducing me to something more trippy than Cat Soup. ^bomination 11:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

άλφα^Ταλκ 13:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

--Dumpling (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I now officially hate the world. ^gnostic 15:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Aforementioned Cat Soup if anyone has the time. Do not, under any circumstances, read the explanation before watching, that would be cheating and would seriously spoil it. ^sshole 15:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh god! I REMEMBER THIS! O____O...I watched it a while ago not knowing what it was. So trippy, but I loved it.--Dumpling (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The only thing trippier than Cat Soup is Cat Soup on a trip. Highly recommended. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

OuO...OOOooH~ WILL DO.--Dumpling (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Watched. O____O...I was only half-mentally prepared.--Dumpling (talk) 20:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

While we're plugging weird-ass Japanese stuff

--PsyGremlinParla! 16:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, if this is "humor" it's no fucking wonder that japanese horror is fucking mindblowing horrific. wow.GodotGet over it!. 20:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Funky Forest. Watch it.--Dumpling (talk) 20:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Also a great band name. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 21:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Very True.--Dumpling (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The Civil War still isn't over

A great column by Civil War historian David Blight, just a bit too old to put in WIGO. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The commentary after is a little weird though. Just because the federal government can't get its act right doesn't mean you should leave it all to the states. That's insanity. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, look at Mississippi. HollowWorld (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Can somebody who knows something more than I about nukes issues....

....keep an eye on Tweek's edits and make sure his stuff checks out? Thanks. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 00:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Mostly does that I can tell. ^sshole 11:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Well he does know his stuff, that is the thing, he is unabashedly pro-nuke energy about it. - π 11:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate if people sometimes check my writing, because it can be unnecessarily over the top. Constructive criticism is always welcome (e.g. not of the "you are obviously a shill" type). --Tweenk (talk) 16:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It's like Wikipedia for CRAZY PEOPLE

I discovered the Keylontic Dictionary while far, far down the rabbit hole of scalar waves. http://www.keylonticdictionary.org/

It's like Markov chain woo word salad generator output. Crazy people: [1] Full index: [2]

Could be a rich seam of insane bullshit for new articles. Anyone know what the fuck this actually is? - David Gerard (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be tied into this which looks like a fairly typical new-age bullshit setup, pay us $$$ and we'll give you the secrets of the universe, eventually, at stage 78, after you've paid for stage 1, stage 2 etc. Worm (talk) 13:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I note they start at the UFOs. Where do they go from there? - David Gerard (talk) 14:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It's an RPG source book I tell you! ^gnostic 15:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Keep telling yourself that, dear - David Gerard (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It's like someone put Kabbalah, ufology, Atlantean guff, and Deepak Chopra in a blender. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

White House responds to aliens petitions

Of course they would say that. Blue (is useful) 21:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not even "that they asked it", but the way they stated "It's time for you to acknowledge the long witheld knowledge about governmental interaction with aliens". And I find the US response to legal marijuana to be rather disengenous..." We also recognize that legalizing marijuana would not provide the answer to any of the health, social, youth education, criminal justice, and community quality of life challenges associated with drug use," he wrote. --- but legalized alcohol and ciggis which have a similar if not worse problem with those areas is perfectly fine to be legal.... please let grownups be grownups.--GodotGet over it!. 01:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that all the Yanks among us sign this petition. At least it's a step up from the Downing Street petitions site which I guess the US cadged the idea from. That petition simply wouldn't have been published. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The response to the marijuana petition, if you believe some people, is that it's their way of giving a 'wink' to pharmaceutical companies trying to figure out how to put marijuana into a nice pill form to profit off of... except it wouldn't give you any of the high that weed does. And probably come with a host of other health problems. And probably be addictive. Or something like that. I think that's what they mean at least, since BIG PHARAMA CONTROLS EVERYTHING OMGGG!!!1111 HollowWorld (talk) 03:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

My signature is now on the list for the vapid condescending meaningless politically safe response petition. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 14:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Randomness from me again!

tiel se vi poto traduki kio mi paroli kaj did ne uzi a translator misimila mi havi vi gajni an cookie--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Cookie? Yes? Share!--Dumpling (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Gotta translate it first :P--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there more than one language to translate? Sam ^Tally-ho! 02:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

No, it's all one language, besides the words still in english--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm just going to keep guessing. 'To anyone that can translate this without using a translator gets a cookie."--Dumpling (talk) 02:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Close enough: "So.... if you can translate what I'm saying (and didn't use a translator like I did) you win a cookie!". --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

FUCK YEAAAAH~ ;D ...That means I get a cookie, yes?--Dumpling (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually... No. I said you win a cookie, not that you GET a cookie ;3--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I demand my prize! (ಠ㉨ರೃ)--Dumpling (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a frog? In which bidet? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Jeeves: It's a lizard Scream!! (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The language is Esperanto, right? Either that or my language recognition skills are way off. --★uːʤɱ digital native 10:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Musical denial

Tired of hearing those same old denialist talking points? Spice 'em up by setting them to some tango! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

WIGO it! Osaka Sun (talk) 08:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Question the second

Okay. Binomials are making me bang my head against the wall. I can expand them, no problem. But I've now been given the question:

Given that the coefficient of x⁵ us 8.4 times the coefficient of x⁷ in the expansion of (1+ax)¹⁰, find the possible values of a.

So ¹⁰C₅(ax)⁵ = 252a⁵x⁵ and ¹⁰C₇(ax)⁷ = 120a⁷x⁷;

: (30a⁵)/b * 8.4bx⁵ ≡ (120a⁷)/b * bx⁷

And that's as far as I can get before my brain implodes. Can anyone help me with this?

Thanks.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 13:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Where does the "b" come from? ^{d hominem} 14:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it just 252a⁵ = 8.4 * 120a⁷ solve for a? ^postate 14:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, that makes a sense that is kind of obvious when spelt out. Couldn't spot it though. Thanks for that.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 14:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It's because it just asks you to compare coefficients. So the x values are red herrings, providing you've expanded it properly. It's basically a question in two parts; can you expand this properly, and can you solve this equation. You might have missed it and got tangled up with thinking those two were intimately connected. ^moral 16:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That pretty much summed it up, yep. I was thinking of the coefficient of xⁿ being a real number, just didn't occur to me that the coefficient would include an a within the term.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If CiF users are any indication of the European populace...

It makes total sense on how the Nazis rose to power in the 1930s. Just read the comments.

The political polarization of these idiots make the Tea Party/Occupy movement fighting look like nothing has happened. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment threads on news sites are no gauge of anything besides people's abilities to troll comment sites. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 20:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

What Bb said and keep in mind that for every one of those extemist much much more people that are openly socialist, pro-immigration, multiculturalist and pro-European. In the class of 21 I graduated with, 2 of the 18 German born students didn't consider themselves Germans, but Europeans and only Europeans. In that class we didn't had a single right-winger. Around that time there was a demonstration of neo-Nazis in town with around 50 people in that demo, the response was a counter demo of over 500 young students. This is the average reaction these demonstration get, about ten times a protest bigger against them. --★uːʤɱ pirate 20:42, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

That's laudable, UHM, but the fact that you still have neo-Nazi demonstrations in Germany especially given Germany's history remains unbelievable to many of us. Sure we get the odd skin-head march in the UK and the BNP are a regular but localised blight on the landscape. But there are truly massive far-right movements on the Continent in the Netherlands, France, Austria and other places that scare the living shit out of many of us. And I'm afraid technocratic elitist non-democratic EU institutions and their client state governments are not doing enough to enfranchise the people. It's shit and the EU is not helping far-right reactionary sentiments go away. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not like they are allowed to swing around swastikas and scream "Heil Hitler", they post as nationalists and you can't silence nationalist because you fancy it, in a democratic society that just not how it works. Concerning those neo-Nazis it's the same cocktail that gives you YECs and religious findamentalists: Delusions, anger, contact with the wrong people and false pride. Sure nobody in Germany can really believe that these people are still out there, but FFS there are neo-Nazis in Israel too… I mean if that somehow "works"...

Most Austrians and Dutch with whom I have spoken over the years make it quite clear that these groups don't have that big of chance to actually change something, and if you look at these parties politics and election results it almost always looks the same way: results somewhere between 15 and 30% as soon as you have some kind of charmant leader figure, while the rest of the country makes a hop in the other direction. Because of that these parties aren't much more than "protest parties", parties that simply don't have a chance of getting into government if the centre-right parties don't cooperate. I get that it scares the living bajeezus out of you, but most of those "uuhh! they are electing the outa right-wing again!"-news items are overblown. Not only have many of them virtually no chance of getting into a government, nor to bring any laws in force that other parties don't agree with, but also would there be massive demonstrations/rioting/civil war because the left-wing is just as militant as the Teabaggers. Writting that, I remember a question asked in my old ethics course: "If neo-Nazis would try to take over control the government democratically, what would you do?" (e.g. change the constittution to suppress freedom and laws into a fascist state) about 15 of the 30 or so course responded with "going underground" another 10 — including myself — were, back then, willing to resist violently (attacks on police and military, assassinations and what not). Even if that were to happen in the next years, you can't control a society in which roughly 10 to 30% of the people are willing to resist violently and another few persent points really really don't like you. But again, I don't think that could actually happen.

The way these things get overblown reminds of the Thatcher/Mitterand problem after the Wall fell, "well, it's Germany. They did it twice how should we know they won't do it another time?". It's like we think the win of the Ennahda in the Tunisian elections is a bad thing because they are "Islamists". Well, in that case and the one of Turkey what would describe what they want would be much better described "Islamic Democracy", you know like these guys. Calm down, nothing is going to happen, the media just wanted to scare the bejeezus out of you. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 23:23, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you under-estimate the problem. Take France, for example. Not least because I am an immigrant living there. The last but one presidential election final run-off was between Chirac and Jean-Marie Le Pen. His daughter came second in a recent poll asking who should be the next president. In Austria Jorg Haider's (sp?) party was a member of the ruling coalition until its break-up. In Denmark the DPP was also a coalition government partner and held the cabinet position for immigration. In Italy it's the same story with the Northern League. There are plenty of other examples if you look especially in the eastern half of the EU.

While none of these parties and politicians are the same as the Nazis or Hitler, it is not true that these far-right parties stand no chance of getting into government as some of the example above show.

Europe's overly bureaucratic and exclusive institutions risk alienating European people. Their reaction to that can be complex and unpredictable. But the existence and relative popularity of these far-right groups is a danger and a possible attraction to disaffected voters particularly in these uncertain times of economic crisis. Ignoring it and wishfully thinking it away while our (un)representatives in Brussels and Strasbourg manage their expense accounts and their gold-plated pensions is no longer an option. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Offering one's college class as evidence of progressive thinking is hardly a representative population given that students have historically favoured the left. Electorates generally don't divide along clear party lines on all issues. I hesitate to apply the term 'far right' because often these extremists espouse 'socialist' ideas but want to limit their application to the indigenes, especially if they come from the lower end of the social spectrum. Not every racist is a potential gas-chamber architect but there is often a much-wider acceptance of anti-immigrant/ethnic minority views among the populace at large than is transformed into votes for the ultra-nationalist parties. In the UK you only need to see how many people read the Daily Mail or Express to realise that there is a great deal of concern about immigration or dilution of national culture and even in the Netherlands there was a widespread perception amongst my colleagues that they are losing their traditional Dutch values to Islamic immigration. If political and economic conditions worsen then we may see more people changing their voting allegiance and you can bet that if they extreme right parties start to pick up a significant number of votes then some of the mainstream centre-right parties will tend to accommodate those views to preserve their own power base. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

@Ajkgordon: Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that ignoring it will make it go away. The problem shouldn't be ignored and those parties heavily attacked, but at the same time if the centre-right parties don't cooperate (and I said that in the previous post) they won't get into power. In all the examples you said, except France, exactly that happend is that centre-right parties cooperated with these people. And I agree with you; one way to make these movements shrink is a reform of the EU into a more direct democracy. Actually it's Jörg Haider, although nobody will cut your head off for not fishing out the ö.

@Khant: It actually was a school and not a college class. Also I said 15 of 30 (50%) and then talked about 10 to 30%, so I allready half-arsed adjusted for that. On the other point you are right, but we can find the same patterns all over the world. The homophobia in the US, nationalism in East Asia, anti-immigration in Australia, and socialism mixed with nationalist ideas in Latin America. In all crisis people resort to overgeneralization of issues and with that extreme views arise and if the rest of society doesn't go with that they simply disappear again as soon as the crisis is over (the general crisis in this being international terrorism and the backlash of a heavy muslim immigration into Europe). --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 13:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

"...one way to make these movements shrink is a reform of the EU into a more direct democracy."

Or not. The other option is to shrink the EU back towards a common market. With the possible (albeit unlikely) break-up of the single currency, that is what a lot of populist opinion says. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually increasing the importance of the EU would be more likely to help. In the UK at least, votes for extremists in European elections are seen as a harmless opportunity to "protest" national government policy. So if Britain's EU reps include the odd fascist it's because a few million idiots said "That'll show the Tories / Labour/ whoever" so these voters are actually acting against their own best interests in a fit of pique. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You know, reducing the size of the EU by stoping to cooperate with each other might help, but it is the wrong way of making it work. So you have a bunch of nationalists with racist undertones and to stop them you … give them something they want? Erm, yeah, that'll shut 'em up...

Also, I simply can't support that. That's because I am European. I don't see myself as German and haven't for at least a decade, and I'm not the only one that thinks that way. As you feel about Britain, England, Scottland, Wales or werever you are from, that's the way I feel about Europe. Hell, if I could get a European citizenship instead of German, I'd throw the latter away in a heartbeat.

As the BoN said many people are protesting against their local governments by electing nationalists, they protest that things don't go the way they want to, that they don't have a say in all of it, that, once again, the bosses of the 27 countries made a decision behind closed doors again. I don't know about the UK, but that's what annoys people over here. It's not that we have a supranational body that put's us into a greater framework of laws, it's that most don't have damn say in what those laws say. We love our freedom to travel and work whereever in the Union we want to, we love that we can sue our own state in a court it is also subject too, we love that if these nationalists ever would take over again, it would be process of years and years of getting out of treaties until you can stick a gun in your neighbours countries face - I don't really think many continental Europeans would give these things up anymore. --★uːʤɱ atheist 11:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

What you think as a European is neither here nor there. The vast majority of EU citizens are state nationals first, Europeans a very distant second. If the EU institutions and its impotent parliament refuse to become more accountable to the people, then the wide-spread feeling that the EU is simply a lumbering bureaucracy that does nothing but spend vast sums of money on vanity projects and lining the pockets of its army of functionaries will become more and more prevalent.

The problem is that most EU institutions are not accountable to the people. They are accountable to their client states. That leaves the EU parliament - seen by popular opinion as nothing more than an approval shop for the EU Commission. And most people don't even vote for its MPs.

The EU has been and continues to be constructed by technocrats - elites schooled in the great administration schools. It has little or no connection with the wide variety of European culture and history and therefore remains largely faceless to the people.

Unless and until there are fundamental structural changes to the relationship between the EU and its citizens, it will do nothing to curb any increases in nationalism. The EU as it stands is part of the problem, not the solution. To think otherwise is naive. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You know, I could respond in kind and call you a cynic, but I won't do that because such arguments that the other side is lacking something is not really furthering any kind of discussion (except, of course, if the discussion is simply their to make one side feel awesome, then a goal is reached). If you speak of the "vast majority of people", you speak as much as I did before from what you know. You said you're a Brit living in France, but travel to Spain or Germany and other opinions will pop up (remember that?), not necessarily about being nation state first, but the beauracratic monster you seem to be perceiving is seen in a different light. I get it, you're a Euro-sceptic that wants all the econmical- candy and non of identity-loss vegetables, I just don't think only candy is on the menu and neither is it very healthy. While you may perceive these nationalist movements as an defence mechanism against the impending virus EU, I see them as a defence mechanism against the cold weather of an long ongoing economical crisis — and I see history books agreeing with me on those points ([3] [4]). If you have a simliar well documented, academically agreed on reasoning, please do not hold back. I would really like to see and learn from it.

I did not intent to plead that my sole opinion/identity outweights those of the other 450 something million of Europeans, I simply stated why I can't in good consciousness support your position. You might have noticed the two sentences "Also, I simply can't support that. That's because I am European." This time I bolded the I's as those are intended implicating the subjectiveness of the following statements. --★uːʤɱ digital native 18:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Jesus, way to miss the point.

These are not my opinions. I am not a Euro-sceptic. And even if I was the point you seem to be struggling with would not be invalidated. I deal with lots of Europeans both on business and for pleasure and I'm familiar with a wide-variety of opinions of many people across the EU. Largely irrelevant except to counter your assumption I know nothing outside the UK and France.

My point, if you stop taking everything I say so personally, is that the EU (that is the EU institutions) is not well-connected enough with its citizens and there is a dangerous lack of awareness of this within these very institutions in these difficult times. Just when Europe needs the EU the most.

Whether or not you think the EU is the dog's bollocks is completely and utterly irrelevant. It's what the EU's population think generally that counts. And all the recent polls point to devastatingly low confidence and plunging popularity.

Some within the EU's various bodes are evidently aware of these popular perceptions. Indeed Barosso talked about it quite recently... and of course blamed member states politicians. Because of this there have been and continue to be various PR campaigns emanating from Brussels trying to persuade people that the EU is "a good thing". Even some structural changes have happened in recent years.

But until that perception changes dramatically - and I would argue that the EU needs revolutionary reform to make it more accountable before that can happen (helpful "personal opinion flag") - the danger is that the EU can be a cause of the rise in nationalist sentiment rather than a brake.

OK? Ajkgordon (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That's what I meant with "more direct democracy". What did you think I meant? --★uːʤɱ pirate 19:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you meant. And you weren't being a dick when you said it.

But when someone suggests that there is another possibility, i.e. a regression to the common market, or that there are structural problems with the EU meaning it is difficult for it to be accountable to the very people who are succumbing to nationalist ideas, or that the nature of the EU is technocratic and elitist, I would kindly ask that you don't get your knickers in a twist and start throwing around all sorts of assumptions about Euro-scepticism and lack of European experience. It is precisely that tactic that the most vociferous and starry-eyed defenders of the EU project often employ when some aspect of the EU is being criticised - "you dare criticise XYZ about the EU means you must be anti-European". It stifles constructive discussion in much the same way as criticism of Israeli politics is often shrilly lambasted as anti-Semitic.

I mean, it's not like any of those things are particularly contentious. These are general criticisms that are widespread and valid. But some people can be so precious about their grand projects that they can't abide any criticism. You'll have to forgive me for mistaking you for one of them. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

So you fell victim to a straw man? Well, that happens to the best of us. Sadly, the "X is what the people want" argument often goes along with, erm, extremist fucktards using something of reverse straw man (so I straw man-ed a reverse straw man, ah mindfuck). I, a staunch pro-European federationalist/unionist, do not see "Euro-sceptic" as something bad. Actually I think of it as something rather good, it's people stepping back for a minute and thinking "Wait a minute, does this that we are doing here make any sense?". It's review and feedback and that's never a bad thing. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 00:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

WTF? You might at least try to stay on topic. But you know, whatever. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting documentary on Chernobyl's nature

Chernobyl's Radioactive Wolves. Watch it before someone DMCA's it away.

I was in the Chernobyl exclusion zone this summer, and the viewpoint presented in the movie generally agrees with what the people at the Chernobyl Eco-Center told us: there are more abnormalities in individual animals than normal, but the populations are strong. We spent most of the time in "tourist" areas, so I only saw the giant catfish shown in the movie, some birds and insects, and a lot of greenery, but the nature there does seem to be thriving. --Tweenk (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The lesson of Chernobyl is that mankind is far more dangerous than radiation.--^talk 20:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The Symphony of Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 15:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Fractional Reserve Banking

Wow. Just wow. I'm no economist, financier, banker or moneyman, but during my reading up on the financial crisis (I like to know a little bit about what's going on in the world around me) I discovered Fractional Reserve Banking. It lets banks create money out of thin air. Literally. Just write it as a loan on their balance sheet and BANG it becomes part of the money supply. Just like that. I know I must sound awfully naive, but fuck me this shit is mental. This video (and the second part) just staggered me. How the fuck is this allowed to happen, and how on earth can it be sustainable indefinitely? I am flabbergasted. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, videos like that are how Paulbots are created to fight against the Jooish international bankstahs because much of it is correct, but also misleading and conspiratorial. Money is indeed debt, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Read Mosler's 7 Deadly Frauds for a more sane take on that point. See the RW Federal Reserve page for why the Fed is not the bogeyman (apparently the monetary cranks' solution to ending the bankstahs control of the money supply through the Fed is by giving them even more control of the money supply through a totally private banking system, that makes sense). FRB is not the problem itself, but a deregulated/unregulated financial sector in which hucksters and crooks roam free. Start with Econned by Yves Smith or Plunder and Blunder by Dean Baker for a more realistic overview. As Henry Ford said: "It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

First rule about money: it's not real. Not in the sense that it has value in and of itself. It's only value is in relation to something else. That's why bankers and economists can make money jump through hoops. It's also why letting private markets get involved with the buying and selling of sovereign debt was a really bad idea. Of course, it also means that somebody with balls of steel, and in a position to make it happen, could turn around tomorrow and say, 'Right, as of now all sovereign debt held by non-sovereign entities has a value of 0.' It's never going to happen, of course, unless China takes over the world, but hey, it's a theoretical possibility.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I should point out that the last post was made under the influence of a bottle of decent red wine and a very fine Co-op 15-year old single malt. Make of it what you will.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Fractional reserve is actually better than what we had before. Here's how that goes: A long time ago some men in London (a lot of whom were Jews, as it turns out) with very fine old buildings and decent security because of their work smithing gold, suggested to their patrons, who also owned nice buildings, but maybe didn't have such great security, that gold which wasn't being actively worn by the misses or oneself could be kept safely in their vaults. It became widely known that these fine gentlemen did a good job of holding onto your gold, and always gave it back, while in the same period the King had been known to rock up to the Royal Mint and leave with a few wagons of gold to fund wars. As a result, paper receipts for gold at a goldsmith were seen as a better investment than legal coinage and soon began to trade hands as settlement for debts. The goldsmiths weren't stupid, they realised they could issue receipts even for gold they didn't really have, so long as they were cautious, and no-one would call it all in at once. But none of this was under government regulation. One goldsmith might issue receipts for twice the gold he had, while another issued three times. If one of them cut it too fine, the whole system could collapse on everybody's heads. Fraction reserve banking is the same system but regulated, so that there must be "tier one capital" behind a certain proportion of the money, and thus (on its own) it's not dangerous and instead helps keep the economy liquid, which results in a net benefit to everyone in the economy (in the worst case you'd otherwise be stuck with barter, which if you've tried it, completely sucks). 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Schlafly beer

So, I went to a David Bazan concert last night and the bar had Schlafly beer on tap. They only had the APA (American Pale Ale), which I suspected I wouldn't like, but I felt like throwing a few bucks at the sane side of the family. I'm no beer connoisseur, but to me it tasted just like chewing on grapefruit peels. But I buckled down and finished it. Hooray? Incidentally, some of their beer ads are fun--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I've had one of the pumpkin ales and it wasn't too bad. But I can only have one of those fancy ass beers before I have to go back to a nice light pils. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I must try this beer (any Schlafly's will do). It is not sold anywhere near me. I'm also looking for the new DogfishHead Pearl Jam 20th Anniversary beer that was just released. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 19:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Name that fallacy?

Well, I don't know if it's a fallacy or not, but it really gets my goat when people say "we are (one of) the last group(s) it's acceptable to openly hate." I think we've talked about this recently. Is their mistaken belief that humans will eventually stop "othering" and there will be no one left to hate? And do they expect, as it seems, that this point is rapidly approaching? Blue (is useful) 23:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I made a topic on that called something like "The Last Minority" recently, barchive it (I'm too lazy). I don't think it would fall under a common logical fallacy per se, but it could be a form of overgeneralization or teleological thinking/historical determinism, i.e. it has become increasingly less acceptable to discriminate against certain groups in recent history, therefore discrimination will eventually end. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm a pessimist, but i think our ablity to find groups to hate is unlimited. Until or unless our brains evolve out of "othering". Yesterday it was gays, now it's obsese people, tomorrow it will be the socialists, the next day it will be teh "want to go to marz"ers vs teh "stay home and improve Earth"ers. And for what it's worth, i think "national idenity" is bound into having someone to be against. Russians aren't it, anymore, so it's islam/terrorists. --GodotGet over it!. 23:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

One of Reagan's few pearls of wisdom. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

So, who's up for faking an alien invasion to bring about world peace? ^{d hominem} 01:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Adrian Veidt? Is that you? MDB (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Now, I'm not saying that I was thinking the same thing and had just watched the film... ^sshole 13:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If we're replicating Watchmen, I want to be Doctor Manhattan. MDB (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

[Insert something vaguely witty, referencing his CG cock, here] ^{d hominem} 14:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll be the not-at-all-veiled Question knock-off Rorschach then. Remember, if you don't kill me I'll ruin everything, and if you do kill me you're just buying into my philosophy and proving me right. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Over at Slactivist, that particular sort of whining is usually referred to as a "Persecuted Hegemon", since it's usually people who simultaneously believe that "WHAAH EVERYONE HAETS US" and "We deserve to run everything!". --Gulik (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Both versions of Slacktivist suck. The "real" one sucks particularly because Fred insists on writing topics he knows nothing about like finance or politics, rather than sticking to topics where he has insightful stuff to say like American evangelical Christianity or Christian theology. If I make the mistake of visiting I'll start nodding along with a paragraph about how Hell is largely a modern invention, and then suddenly I'm reading silly things like claims inflation isn't possible during high unemployment or that the US government could generate wealth by buying its own bonds. Anyway, the problem with this "persecuted hegemon" is that it's conflating two things. You've got a bunch of people with power, who are manipulative scumbags, and then you've got a bunch of people they've brainwashed who don't have any power and feel persecuted. When you conflate them, the first group are laughing and the second group just feel even more persecuted. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The Cemetery of Prague

(New book by Umberto Eco). I guess the English version has been released -- anybody picked up/read it yet? Sounds like it ties in to numerous historical conspiracy theories, so maybe of interest to RW types (even if not Eco fans already). --Benod (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read it yet (there's a backlog that's getting bigger everyday), but apparently it reads like it had been translated by a translator, rather than a writer. It also should be pointed out that there is some argument to be made that it cheapens and underplays just how nasty humankind as a species can be by having the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion written by one man who is patently and obviously an out and out bigot. On the other hand, there's meant to be some nice play on the idea that certainty itself must be considered uncertain in the whole narrator setup. Almost certainly worth reading once, if only to form your own opinion on it really.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 02:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I really want this, but it's not here in the library yet.--^talk 02:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I sort of stopped reading Eco when I realized each book I read was worse than the one before (though I might need a larger sample size before I draw too many conclusions). This also sort of happened with Sinclair Lewis. DickTurpis (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey now...--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Foucault's Pendulum is pretty much impossible to follow up. Having read the actual history of the conspiracy theories he's writing about, the description makes it sound like he just rewrote them and rammed a fictional protagonist into the story. I'm not especially excited, but I might get around to it at some point. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The Name of the Rose is amazing. So is Baudolino.--^talk 19:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Intelligence Squared

Should be a good show. ^gnostic 18:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Decided to review this here. ^bomination 23:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Even the Democrats don't want an atheist to be President

Here. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 21:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes...Democrats are liberals... Osaka Sun (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

He he nope. Most atheists I know are libertarians or independents.Тy^talk 21:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If only there were some truth in the wingnut narrative that Democrats and the liberal media were waging an all-out assault on Christianity, eh? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

But don't you see? The 70% that answered that way are lying and the other 30% are too dumb to get that they are supposed to lie! Now let's pray for America to be saved from the lying, fraudulant Marxist bankers and socialists and tell the people the truth about how much free speech is censored in America! --★uːʤɱ soviet 22:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, last persecuted minority... ^sshole 02:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Starting to think that merits an article. Blue (is useful) 04:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

A quick poll for the boys

Would you rather have:

A nose like a cock	21	Vote
A cock like a nose	6	Vote

DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 03:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

May I ask...why? Osaka Sun (talk) 03:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there's something I'm unable to understand here, but what the fuck? Blue (is useful) 03:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I feel like I'm missing something here.o_______O????--Dumpling (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

my thoughts exactly. Blue (is useful) 03:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I found it particularly ironic because I've got a thingy shaped like a turnip. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Echoing general WTF? Тy^talk 12:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

If I had a dong shaped like a nose, would I be able to blow it myself? PSY 82.145.211.19 (talk) 06:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify: if I had a nose like a cock, would I still have my actual cock? And would my cocknose be functional as both a nose and a cock and, if so, are they functional at the same time? Will I be sniffing during sex (using my potentially functional cocknose for new positions) or ejaculating while sneezing? Also, what are the decency laws on my cocknose? Will I be arrested for indecent exposure if I go out without a mask? I need these questions answered before I commit any answer to permanent record. X Stickman (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of being overly vulgar - if I had a nose shaped like a penis then the possibilities for fun and games with Mrs Faith are... interesting. Bad Faith (talk) 14:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

You know, I was going to say "I know exactly what you're thinking, it's already been thought of, here's the link..." then I realised I was on a work internet connection and frankly I'm not doing that here. ^bomination 18:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, allow me to clarify somewhat. This is merely a hypothetical question, a thought experiment if you will - A more mature version of "would you rather be deaf or blind?". A nose like a cock would be a normally functioning nose, it would merely be shaped like a cock, thus causing people to double-take and possibly remark "fucking hell, that bloke's got a nose like a cock!" Likewise, the reverse is also true; a cock like a nose would be a fully functioning penis, it would simply be shaped liked a nose (and thus rather small), possibly causing intimate ladyfriends to remark "hahahaha!" I hope this clears the issue up enough for more people to state their preference. Thanks. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

So, people would rather be under constant abuse of "dear GOD what is that on your face!!" than only occasional abuse at the hands of anyone who might actually get into your pants. I mean, it's far easier to work around the latter, right? ^postate 16:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course the issue of size (for either option) needs to be considered as well. I remember that back in the 80s Spitting Image in the UK gave the proprietor of the soft-core porn newspaper the Sunday Sport a nose like a cock. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 20:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather have a ridiculous cock shaped nose than a less face it, a useless nose shaped cock. The shape would make it useless, unless the nose in question was Pinochio. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

But you can easily solve that issue. But speaking of Pinocchio, what would happen if he were to say "my nose will now grow"? ^gnostic 16:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to put up a "neither" option?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

....is my cocknose erect? My thinking is that if it's a flaccid cocknose I could hide it under a fake normalnose. X Stickman (talk) 08:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

To quote "Roxanne", "He can please two women at once!" --Sethpeck (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Kinda sad...

So I saw a post from Arianna Huffington on FB (is it just me, or is she seriously hawt?) congratulating some young girls who were honoured at the Glamour Awards. These included:

• A 19-year old who patented a device to eliminate phantom limb pain for amputees.
• A 19-year old who is making the production of solar power moreefficient and cheaper.
• And a 10-year old who is the youngest person ever to discover a supernova

Wow, I thought, this looks interesting, let me search Google to see who else won.

Oh dear.

Google tells me:

• OMG! Jennifer Lopez Stuns, Nearly Cries at Glamour Awards
• Red carpet report: Aniston fetes Handler at 'Glamour' Awards
• Glamour Awards 2011: Alexandra Burke leads fashion disasters
• Emma Stone is gorgeous in a Grecian gown at Glamour Awards

and so on. In desperation, I searched for "Glamour Awards supernova" thinking that would turn up the 10-year-old. Well it did... in a way. She earned a passing reference, as everybody was gushing over Josh Stone's "glam jerwelry"

Way to go media. That's the way to encourage girls to enter science - focus on the fucking airheads.

/rant over --PsyGremlin講話 08:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It's just you. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that 10-year old discovering a supernova was mentioned a while back on CP. And if my memory serves it was more along the lines of a girl who engaged in astronomy with her father and a friend of his, and as they had both already discovered supernovas they decided to credit her with this particular one. As far as I understand it (and I don't wish to take anything away from her) but she was not doing this all by herself. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I remember her (Arianna Stassanopulous?) from 40 years ago (she must be 60+ now) when she was with Bernard Levin. I think she was pres of Cambridge U Union.She was on t'telly quite a bit back then Scream!! (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

All I'm going to say about the media focusing on airheads is that I'm currently and for the first time watching Beverly Hills, 90210 and for some of those lines I seriously want to slap the living crap out authors, the actors and the characters for making it sometimes look like grades are secondary for women it's much more important that you look nice! Seriously, this were the 90s not the 60s... --★uːʤɱ libertarian 13:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it too much, the UK version of Glamour just has the celeb crap in their version. ^gnostic 13:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"Entrepreneur of the Year: Kim Kardashian". FFS. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Psy, that's just life. The world in general doesn't care about scientific and other academic achievement. For instance, I joke that I got my bachelor's degree from a football team that runs a university on the side. That aside, the school has an amazingly good forensic anthropology department. (If you've read Patricia Cornwell's books, that's the "body farm.") One of my EE profs did some of the work that led to plasma TV's. Another did work that led to red light cameras. We've produced astronauts, Alex Haley taught there for a while, etc etc etc. And what do people nationwide think of when they hear "University of Tennessee"? The damn football team. MDB (talk) 13:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

And Davina McCall is the best TV presenter? Fuck off, everyone knows Claudia Winkleman is where it's at. ^postate 14:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Er, hello?? Claudia Winkleman's entire act is stolen from Davina!--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 15:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Bitchfight in 3... 2... 1... --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 15:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't want to encourage crazy things like science, now, it's bad for the uterus! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Totally ^pathetic 16:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Where you folk expecting something more from a magazine called 'Galmour'?AMassiveGay (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, at least a full frontal. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I know, tits or GTFO, plurleeeeze. But seriously, the US version does a decent job of awarding on non-fashion and non-celeb merit, whereas the UK version seemed to be a joke by comparison. I suppose you're right, "what else do you expect?", but I'm not convinced that makes it okay. It's the same logic as looking at a backwards fundamentalist culture and watching them executing children and saying "what else to you expect?" Saying that something happens, therefore it's acceptable is a massive leap of logic (I recently saw something else along the same lines but with bullying, as if kids committing suicide because they were gay was perfectly acceptable!). On the risk of becoming too seriously, I'll just repeat the phrase "tits or GTFO". ^sshole 14:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

A magazine titled 'Glamour', whose content is mainly celebrities, gossip and fashion, targetted to people who enjoy such things, giving awards to Celebrities and not to Scientists is not in anyway comparable to condoning suicides of bullying victiims or executing children. If you want to read about awards for scientists, there are more appropriate titles that are available. It might surprise you to know that some people have interests that differ to your own. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Aside about Arianna Huffington

Every time I hear Arianna Huffington speak, I expect her to offer to make "Oleever" some "hotscakes". MDB (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you know how many years I spent in therapy trying to forget that horrible show? I was just a child then! How did they live with themselves knowing children could possibly be watching that... The nightmares have started again... 'Green acres is the place to be' NOooOOooOOooOOooOOoo... TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 14:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Foodies

I am going to a Thanksgiving dinner/potluck. I have decided to bring potatoes. I want to bring EPIC potatoes. I want to bring a potato dish that, years from now, whenever people who were at this dinner eat potatoes, they will say "These potatoes are good, but they're not as good as those potatoes that Paul brought to Thanksgiving that one year. Now THOSE were some EPIC potatoes." Any suggestions? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 16:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Question that might help generate ideas. Do you want mashed, or some kind of scalloped/au gratin type casserole?GodotGet over it!. 16:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Potato bake. Cream, mushrooms, bacon, cheese - guaranteed winner and easy to make. Seriously, I've gotten laid because of my potato bake. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 16:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

sweet potato csserole with marshmallows and brown sugar is a holiday standard. I prefer mashed potatoes , mashed with a little cream and perhaps a touch of butter and garlic. Hamster (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

@ Godot--prolly come sort of baked/casserole thing...B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 17:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Make a thanksgiving potato kugel with whatever other vegetables you want. It's sort of like a gratin but some parts are prepared in a different dish and mixed together. Slice potatoes thinly, maybe some parsnips (they cook longer than potates), carrots, cauliflower, and roast in a large casserole or gratin dish until they're just done. You can boil the potatoes until they're half done if you don't want the cauliflower or other veges to fall apart. In a separate pan sauté some white onion until just translucent in bacon or chicken fat, remove the onion, then sauté some mushrooms (chantarelles are perfect for savory food) until they absorb some fat and start getting shiny but haven't started cooking down. Add the onions back in and savory seasoning like a blend of celery seed, marjoram, rosemary, sage, thyme, etc. grocery store stuffing seasoning in a jar is fine. Add enough heavy cream to the onions/mushrooms to half cover the potatoes/veges in their gratin dish and fold all ingredients together without break up the potatoes/veges. This is the part that's more like a gratin. Bake at 350/375 until the potatoes/veges completely absorb the cream and fat. You can also add some sparely shredded parmesan or gruyere or finely crushed breadcrumbs to the top of the kugel at the end of cooking and then stick it under the broiler to get a little color. Oded Borstein (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I've got an epic crushed (not mashed) potato dish, but it has to go pretty much straight from the oven to the table, or else the texture (which is the great part) suffers; it's not nearly as good after an hour or so. This may not fit with your situation, though.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

This is similar to an alsace take on "potatoes gratin", and it's killer. http://www.cuisine-france.com/recipes/gratin_dauphinois.htm - it's the heavy cream, and cheese that send it over the moon. The alsace recipe that I can't find, adds lardon (thick bacon cuts) to it. Dauphinois - there's several recipies out there. GodotGet over it!. 17:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's somewhat similar to a traditional French gratin, but intended to be a take on the superior kugel with only some minor changes that are hardly so great they're the exclusive province of Frenchy food snobs! With the exception of the heavy cream, cheese, and bacon, breadcrumbs (make matzahcrumbs) you could serve this at Passover in Israel, where we eschew very much that's typically "French." Oded Borstein (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

TO THE RECIPE PAGE AHOY! Haha. I feel like there should be a contest now. XD But all this potatoe talk makes me hungry. --Dumpling (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Make sure you pick the right potatoes for the job too. There are a few sites outlining some "theory" behind them that are well worth reading. Generally, if you pick the right one for the recipe, you're 90% of the way there to something awesome. ^{d hominem} 18:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Boy are you right about that. Never try to mash red potatoes or make potato salads out of golden fingers, etc. They are all different starches, or so said the god of food science, Alton Brown. I tried to make an apple pie, once, and ended up with basically baked apple sauce. Alton explained that I suck at picking apples. ;-) GodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 18:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC) [5]

I should have said use fresh russets with no green for this recipe. But you can make really nice red potatoes if you do the Julia Child way of boiling just until you can break them with the twist of a knife, coarsely smashing them, and leaving them in the pan to evaporate as moisture off as possible. If you overcook them, whatever the method, they start getting sticky and gummy. You can get a ton of air in them to fluff them up after the moisture level is down. The same goes for russets in spades. Oded Borstein (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Whats wrong with a hearty shephards pie?AMassiveGay (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That's it's not really a suitable side-dish for a turkey roast. 22:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all the fabulous suggestions. I'll pick something and be in touch w/ questions,pictures, reviews, etc. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 22:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, the irony...

Jerry Sandusky, the Penn State defensive coordinator accused of child sexual abuse, wrote an autobiography about a decade ago.

The title? Touched. MDB (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm an undergrad there; it's a clusterfuck on campus. It's one of those controversies where everyone has an opinion and they want to say it as loud as possible. Plus, most PSU students only know how to do one thing when faced with important news: riot. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It's about as ironic as that Alanis Morissette song. /pedant snark Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go off on a rant here...

Shit like this is why I despise college sports. The bastards who hid this were doing it because they thought the football program was more important than a ten year old boy literally being fucked by an adult he trusted. They ignored what's widely considered to be one of the most horrific crimes imaginable.

Now, Paterno apparently fulfilled his legal responsibility. But he failed in his moral responsibility. At the least, he should have seen that the allegations were being pursued. But what's his "punishment"? He gets to retire at the end of the season. Feh. What a horrible fate for a man who probably contemplates that every year anyway. They should have fired his ass immediately.

The NCAA needs to come down on Penn State like they did on SMU during the Eighties. MDB (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

@MDB: Agreed. His actions are inexcusable. The President should also step down immediately (a lot of people are saying he will do so by the end of the day); IMO his actions are even worse: He's stated he knew that what was going on was "sexual in nature" since 2002, but today he released a statement saying he didn't know the "full detail" until a month ago (as if that makes it better!). And, of course, he vouched for Curley and Schultz's "character" when they were indicted.

Of course, a lot of people here steadfastly refuse to point the finger at Paterno. The hero-worship and rationalization is staggering. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Update: Spanier (the President) and Paterno both fired by the Board of Trustees as of several minutes ago. Unsurprisingly, the riots are already starting. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I heard. Stay safe. MDB (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It ended up being a lot less destructive than I thought it would be. The police used mace and tear gas, as I expected, but I figured there would be a lot more property damage committed by students. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Schadenfreude

I know this term is taking pleasure in other's misery, but what would the similarly fun "Taking pleasure in other's stupidity" be? Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 19:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"Dämlichkeitsfreude"? --★uːʤɱ constructivist 20:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

...Dammit. Everything it just turning into Avenue Q songs. Actually, everything turns into different songs whenever I hear phrases. --Dumpling (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If he hurts himself by his stupidity, it's still "Schadenfreude"... BTW, the is a fairly new German word "Fremdschämen" which describes quite the opposite of "Schadenfreude": being ashamed because someone else has done something he should be ashamed of, but isn't, as he is to stupid or dishonest. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 20:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I work with a complete nitwit. The other guy in my work area and I share accounts of his nincompoopery, and we wanted a catchy name to go with it. I'm not sure if Damlichkeitsfreude (I can't be bothered to find the umlaut) really rolls off the tongue, but we can make it work. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 20:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Just so were clear here, I completely made that word up. --★uːʤɱ pirate 20:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I know, but it works just as well as any, I suppose. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 21:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Schaden means injury or pain.Freude obviously means joy.Dummheit means stupidity.So I would go with Dummheitfreude.--Dumpling (talk) 03:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I suggest "watching a Sarah Palin speech". #rimshot# MDB (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I prefer a "good" Michele Bachmann speech, but, hey, who's counting! Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 16:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Everyone on DailyTech is terrible

Oh. My. God. There is nothing the commenters over there won't accuse of giving a "free ride to lazy people". It's like they sit around all day and stew in their own hatred of poor people. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder if blog commenters are fully human. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. But put it this way; these people see that spending their time posting comments on news articles as a productive use of their time. Now just roll that around in your noggin for a while and it all becomes clear. ^sshole 13:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That actually gives me a great idea: What we do is make an Ayn Rand action figure. When you pull the string on its back, it delivers one of its numerous Randroid Action Phrases(TM): "Fuck the looters...back to work, moocher...I'll show you what it means to go Galt...A is A!" Going by the comment thread, there is obviously a large market for this. Now that's what I call capitalism! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Conservapaedia now has a DISQUS account

...and has started to infiltrate forums across the internets. I can't be certain who it belongs to, but they are definitely using the logo. They appeared on Raw Story over the weekend, spouting some sort of neocon BS. I posted a response to the effect "And it begins!" --Sethpeck (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

And apparently I can't spell --Sethpeck (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that will be the end of the world as we know it then.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:31, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably Ken. Also why is this not on TWIGO:CP? -- Nx / talk 17:42, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Because I'm new and don't know any better. --Sethpeck (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd suspect JPratt, if he's calling himself Conservapedia and is using the logo. Same as his twitter account. He's also functionally illiterate. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

try tea for upset stomach

So this is the most ironic posting i'll likely make - given that we are "rational" here; but on the otherhand, most meds are found in the natural world... I've been nauseous for a week now (due to a new dose of thyroid...) Doc that I trust said "try tea - it works for pregnant women". Any idea what it is about tea that might help? Just curious if it's the caffine, or if herbal teas will work, or it's the hot water, etc. Or - it's all in your head, and we don't want to give you more drugs, so we'll tell you this in the hopes that you don't run off and prove us wrong! ;-) GodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 17:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the ginger the part that's good for upset stomachs? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I assume it's a combination of the soothing warmth and familiarity of it, the caffeine, and the placebo effect. Try herbal tea, I bet it works.--^talk 20:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's the laryngoscope, or possibly the quatuorvirate. --79.40.20.98 (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you forgetting that everything is better after a cup of teaAMassiveGay (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you forgetting a predicate. --79.40.20.98 (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you don't know what a predicate is. GodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 20:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It's like a palamate, but with shorter legs. --79.40.20.98 (talk) 20:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Medicinal thyroxine, and thyroxine produced by your own body for that matter, when present in too large a quantity can cause nausea, whereas caffeine seems to impede the intestinal absorption of thyroxine. If your dose of thyroxine is oral and daily then a cup of tea certainly could help, because the absorption of the thyroxine could be slowed to a point where you can cope with it without nausea. Given that morning sickness can also be triggered by an overproduction of thyroxine, there does seem to be some kind of link there. Otherwise, it's all probably just down to the comfort of warmth, routine, and relaxing with a cuppa.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

To be perfectly British, stir some Cheddar cheese and some Marmite into it. Delicious! --87.5.101.224 (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Pr0n poll

Regular user here, feeling a little too shy to attach my name to this...

I was looking at a blog run by a guy who produces a zine that I sometimes read. The zine reviews classic and cult horror/sci-fi/post-apocalyptic/"adult" movies and print culture. He is very open about his love for particular forms of pornography ("classic" stuff from the 70s, mostly) and is married to a woman who appears to have no problem with this whatsoever. As I was out jogging this morning, I got to wondering how typical this arrangement was, so here are some questions. This poll assumes "pornography" means nothing illegal, involving consenting adults in all cases, and, to keep things simple is limited to images/video, not "erotic" literature, phone sex, webcam-sex-for-hire, etc.

Questions

What counts as "pornography" to you?

Images/video of people with no clothes on (think "Playboy")	10	Vote
Images/video of people with no clothes on posing in blatantly suggestive ways	17	Vote
Images/video of people engaging in sexual activity	40	Vote
I can't say, but know it when I see it	13	Vote

Pornography....

Is always degrading to women	4	Vote
Is always degrading to people of either gender	1	Vote
May or not be degrading, depending on the nature of the product	64	Vote
Is not in and of itself degrading	11	Vote

Assume you are in a committed relationship. You catch your partner consuming porn. You...

Excuse yourself and close the door	7	Vote
Sit down and watch with them, this could be fun	58	Vote
Get angry/hurt	8	Vote

Assume you are in a committed relationship. Your partner catches you consuming porn. You...

Are in serous trouble.	18	Vote
Invite them to sit down and watch with you	34	Vote
Would have invited them to watch with you anyway	20	Vote

Discussion

The internet is for porn. The Internet is for porn. So grab your dick and double click...--Dumpling (talk) 22:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that anything could be porn (see rule 34), so a totally accurate definition can never be given. A foot fetishist could get off on a shoe catalog. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sicko. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 23:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

A foot fetishist could get off on a shoe catalog. - oh my god, that explains everything! I've never understood why some people get so upset over a partner likeing porn. I mean, as long as your own sex life is healthy, then why do you care if they also like to look? I get if they are turning to porn instead of you... that would be more than "annoying". ^{— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs}

Glasses ads in the paper. Тy^talk 01:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well if they're getting off at the porn mags more than you, then...yeah. It would be pretty 'annoying'.--Dumpling (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the "degrading" question is a bit of a no-brainer. It can be and it might not be, and tarring it all with that one brush is, frankly, retarded. It can even look like it is, when it's not. And there's also a recent trend towards "ethical" pornography too, and the thinking behind it makes for interesting reading across third-wave feminist blogs (if you're into that sort of thing, of course). ^sshole 12:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) The question about what counts as pornography is not phrased very well. For me, the more sensible classification is based on intent. If the primary intent of a work is to arouse, then and only then it is pornography. Thus, "Shortbus" would not be porn, while a video of a girl stripping in front of a webcam would be, even though the former is far more explicit. Other classifications pose the risk or running into absurdities, such as classifying "The Ascent of Man" series as porn because a few episodes show penises of babies. --Tweenk (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

See above regarding a shoe catalogue. Although you can argue that isn't "porn" as such - say, because you want to limit the definition of pornography to "intent only", "perceived as erotic" then becomes something similar, but different. Let's just go full out and turn it into a philosophical construct for a moment, and like all good philosophical constructs make a "strong" and "weak" version of it. "Strong pornography" is therefore anything intended as explicit; Pirates, Up and Cummers 10, Please Cum Inside Me and so on - and "weak pornography" is therefore anything that is received as explicit; footwear catalogues, every bondage scene in Walker: Texas Ranger and so on. And then we can have endless arguments over which is which and whether artistic nude furries on DeviantART are "strong" or "weak" pornography. ^moral 16:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Lots of "nudge and wink" situations too. It's obviously not legal to sell photographs of pornography featuring underage people in most places. But plenty of web sites want to sell "artistic" posed photographs of underage people. They'd (very sensibly considering the prison time involved) argue to the end that this isn't what Armondikov has called "strong pornography", but of course they couldn't make much money selling pictures if the customers didn't treat these photos as porn. I am reminded of Donald McGill and the classic British "saucy" seaside postcards which featured sexual innuendo. He supposedly didn't see anything untoward about these postcards, claiming to be unaware of the innuendo. The censors (at the time) disagreed and he received a large fine and the postcards disappeared until the 1960s or something. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of teh pr0n

Mommy, a nice lady came and read to us at school today! B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 04:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If RW wants to publicise itself...

...we should piss off Rebbecca Watson Seriously, I don't know whether to post this to WIGO:Blog or WIGO:Clog. Kinda tempted to do both and see what wins. But really, if we wanted to whore ourselves out, it wouldn't take much. She eats up troll bait like it's going out of fashion (whatever that idiom is supposed to mean). Not to say that Metzger's comments are justified, but throwing a wobbly over this and spending what appears to be her entire evening on it with constant tweets, a blog post (with screenshots) is just a plain old waste of fucking time (in both senses that the word "fucking" can be used there). ^pathetic 02:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

ಠ_ಠ Don't tell me you're siding with the "Rebecca Watson needs to shut up" people, too. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of this Metzger guy before, but man, is he a first-class asshole or what? B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 02:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Everyone should just shut the fuck up in my opinion. Ace^ace 02:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

And that's why your opinion is shit. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Goat almighty is that still going on? Hasn't it been over a month already? I think I'm on the "she needs to shut the fuck up" train now. Seems like she's causing drama out of all proportion with the original "injury", such as it was. Seems like for anyone else it would have been 5 minutes of acute embarrassment all round and that's the end of it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me Metzger poked it with a stick and asked for all of this. What a colossal dick. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 03:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

"Don't feed the troll" = "suffer in silence". What. The. Fuck? This is a bullshit accusation that's more typical of someone being fed by their persecution complex and not by some form of sense, can't quite figure out what she's thinking with this. "Don't Feed the Troll" is about not giving free publicity and validation to people who intentionally trying to provoke you - a troll takes 5 seconds to type a comment and you throw a wobbly for 24 hours, that's success and they'll feed on it (hasn't RW@s membership learned this yet?). That's all. No, I'm not simply saying "Watson needs to shut up", and no I'm not defending Metzger or saying he's not a dick (that's actually irrelevant to this) but simply that she needs to get a perspective on life before she rants and falls for bait like this. "OMFG, someone said something mean about you on the internet, that's totally suffering!! People starving in Africa don't know what fucking suffering means, women being beaten by their husbands have no clue, someone said something mean about me on Facebook and that's the worst!" ...This makes most First World Problems look perfectly legit by comparison. Now, I'm not saying she might not be hurt by it, as hurtful remarks are hurtful remarks - but the trick is to roll with the bloody punches and show how you're better (ever see Jon Stewart interviewed by Bill O'Reilly? That is how you deal with someone who is trying to get a rise out of you.) not stoop to their level by actually attacking people who support you. Because primarily, it's this whole attacking people who are telling her not to feed a troll that I find to be the worst aspect. Her biggest problem here (and this is something that crops up a lot) is that she ascribes motives to people's actions when she has no evidence of their motives or when she has no right or ability to do so. You simply can't tell why someone does a certain thing with certainty. People are telling her to do what is, at least in their opinion, the sensible thing and shrug it off, and she's then claiming that their actual motive is just "shut up, bitch!" or "go on, suffer in silence you whore!!". Not only is this very likely not the case, but she has no right to interpret people's motives for them and attack them on the grounds of "oh let me spell it out for you because you're an idiot". What she has done here is no more valid an accusation than for anyone else to describe her own motivation as "Watson hates all men and needs to get laid". People wouldn't accept that proposition as valid, so I don't see how her interpreting people's motivation and views for them is valid. ^bomination 13:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Seems like she's causing drama out of all proportion with the original "injury..." Actually, that would be the masses of sexist trolls, who flipped a collective shit over the most ball-breakin', man-hatin', feminazi line of all time: "Guys, don't do that." That said, I think I'd like to go a few years without hearing the word "elevator." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This article isn't about the "injury" as you put it (though she's never called the original incident that), it's about the virulent reaction in the skeptic community defending such behavior. As PZ Myers has rightly said, this whole thing has exposed a rather nasty undercurrent in the community that won't go away by ignoring it. So you have to keep poking to bring the vermin to light. But hey, maybe PZ should STFU too, right? --24.246.11.252 (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Undoubtedly it's molehill mountaineering on all sides, but you'd expect the one that self-defines as a skeptic to be the one with the sense to be able to spot a loop and break it. Leave it as a single comment of "you're a fucking idiot" and move on, not build an entire blog post about it that has no point except to drum up sympathy and then make this batshit connection that people saying "don't feed the troll" means "shut up bitch and suffer in silence". ^pathetic 18:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Internet harassment isn't suffering, but it can make life a bit of a living hell. Obviously enough, I don't think that Ms. Watson gets a lot of "credible" threats; the vast majority of hate mail that she is receiving is nothing more than what it is- hate mail. (It isn't being sent by people who have the ability or motive to do any real life harm to her.) I don't think that she is reacting inappropriately (although her post seems slightly defensive and sarcastic); she is merely acting like most human beings would in this situation, except her saga is being played out before the blogging masses.

In all seriousness, this would be best laid to rest.--Lefty (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Been meaning to ask about user rights

and Ty's thing made me decide... "(User rights log); 03:11 . . Ty (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Ty from Ninjas and Sysops to Ninjas, Sysops and Bots (More essay)" Eh?--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 03:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

If people are going to do a bunch of small changes, they'll often add themselves to the bots group so they're hidden by default in recent changes. Just prevents clutter. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I used it when I changed a bunch of the catigories in religion, and changed templates in the same group. When you are doing redundant things. But since an editor is not "seen" easily, it can be used to slip in changes after an edit war. Though I've not seen that any time in the last 3 or so months...--GodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 03:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm a deranged obsessive compulsive. Me enacting my insane desires on RW's category and template system and constant userpage fiddling do not need to fill RC. Тy^talk 03:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why I was promoted to simple user from Sysop a long time ago, and never demoted back ;-( --Editor at CP^{mały książe} 11:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Everyone was promoted/demoted/whatever You should have been remoted. Done it now. Scream!! (talk) 11:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been editing constructively please don't overlook me. God is Lord (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

We haven't. Proxima Centauri (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanksd. God is Lord (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

We need to make our Wikipedia article better

wp:RationalWiki Yeah, kind of sucks right now. Fallacy (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This again? ^sshole 15:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

...Yes? Fallacy (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Basically, if anyone from here tries to alter the article there'll be a massive cry of conflict of interest. There's already been enough notability based drama over it and redirects to the CP article were warred over for a long time. I really don't think it's worth the hassle of trying to tip-toe around WP's bureaucracy. ^narchist 15:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

This is my personal bias, but i hate that this site is so closely associated with CP. Literally the only thing wiki p says is "it's there to piss off CP users". My own hope is we make a site worthy on its own merits, and not just something that exits to fuck with CP. (And the article is bad, and it should be changed. Not in a major way, but one sentence and the link to CP is just bad).GodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 15:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of your views, I think we can all agree that it's better than this version. ^narchist 16:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

If notability criteria has been met and there won't be any bitching, then presumably this would be a more complete version to go back to. ^moral 16:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. The issue is not the WP article but the lack of notability which leads to the WP article.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Reading the talk page again (my that's depressing reading for an article so short) there also seems to be a manufactroversy over the BLP rules, and I believe Nobs was calling the LA Times article into question to try and destroy the notability. The talk page hasn't been touched in months, I really wouldn't want to contribute to kicking it off again. ^{d hominem} 16:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I added some of the content from one of the older revisions back in, so it's a bit more complete now. Fallacy (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we probably haven't met the notability requirements. Also, I wouldn't want any WP page on RationalWiki to be all "it satirises Conervapedia" except as an arbitrary footnote for the sake of completeness. Though here's a thought experiment, how big and popular (for whatever definition of "big" and "popular" you care to read in to that) is it possible to get without meeting WP:NOTE? ^postate 18:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

On the internet, very big & popular indeed. It's pretty rare that goings on in the blogosphere spill over into real world news. & There's so many websites out there that any media coverage will tend to focus on either the main players or else general trends, rather than little-known sites. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:49, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Trent could arrange to have himself caught in a menage à trois with Michele Bachmann and an underage goat. That would likely bring on adequate media coverage for Wikipedia's notability requirement. Doctor Dark (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

RW regulars editing is susceptible to COI, but talk page contributions are fine- David Gerard (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

To be subject to COI don't you have to get caught first? Just don't make it too blatant (like using the same handle as here, or saying over-the-top stuff) and you should be fine. Doctor Dark (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There isn't automatically a COI in editing at more than one wiki; it's only a COI if you are unable to write about RW truthfully & within WP's editing policies (especially WP:NOTE & WP:RS, which are the ones hampering any real coverage). Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I mean actual conflict of interest, not a jargon abbreviation, sorry. What I mean is don't look bad. But if we really want a proper article in WP, we need news coverage - David Gerard (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

And that is news coverage for current mission stuff rather than some historical deeds by erstwhile editors. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 16:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Endorsement Time?

In 2008, RW "endorsed" Mike Huckabee for the Republican nomination.

Considering the primaries are soon to be upon us, is it time we discussed which of the fine crop of Republican candidates we shall endorse this time? MDB (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Jimmy McMillan. Or Herman Cain when McMillan drops out. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Bachmann. Тy^talk 17:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Should we put it to a vote? I'd go with Bachmann, personally, my standard being "whomever would be funniest to watch lose". (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 17:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Forum page I guess. Тy^talk 17:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that is that this crop of "funniest to watch lose" is also the same as the "most horrifying to see win." Can you imagine a president Bachmann? President Perry? President (No, Mr. Bond! I expect you to die!) Cain? Scares the shit out of me. I hope they go with the dull one. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Since it's an entire crop of people who, as Jeeves points out, are equally horrifying, we should look outside the box and officially endorse an independent. Or perhaps be contrarian and officially endorse Obama. ^sshole 18:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

They all make me shudder. And shutter. --Sethpeck (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

So, Darth Nader it is then? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ How about two -- an ironic endorsement, like Huckabee last time, and a more serious, "if it has to be a Republican" choice? MDB (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't seriously endorse any of them. Even the least of the evils, Huntsman, would be ridiculously right-wing. The President's already far enough to the right.

Just endorse the funniest. Bachmann: she is the most obviously unfit and crazy.--^talk 20:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

McMillan, though Bach would be just as funny.

Put it to a vote! Osaka Sun (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Now on the Pointless Poll. ^moral 08:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Where's Gary Johnson, eh? Secret Squirrel (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Facebookers

http://www.facebook.com/georgehtakei?sk=wall - george Takei's page is a riot. you can practiclly hear his cadance. More importantly his jokes and links are a riot. "Tell me a holocaust joke, siri" "Holocaust jokes aren't funny, anne frankly I don't find them entertaining". hahahahahahh ok, seriously, even if you don't facebook.... GodotI smell roasted chestnuts. droollllllll. 04:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm linked to his page on my facebook. I always look forward to his status updates. Classy Man, that one. ;D--Dumpling (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I divide the world into two groups: those who follow George Takei's Facebook page, and those are going to follow George Takei's Facebook page. ^postate 08:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Before I clicked on the link: "Maybe this will be interesting." After 10 minutes of reading his status updates: "Wow." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The (Koch-funded) Keystone XL Pipeline

Just got pwned. This entire thing is a head-scratcher. The denialist shills are at their peak here with "Eyythical Oil" and environmentalist-punching (we're all loony hippie nutcases for listening to facts!), guess the Ogallala Aquifer is useless to them. And everyone's wondering why Harper wanted to have the bitumen sent to Texas for processing while the stuff could be refined here in the first place.

Anyways, fuck Glenn Beck Ezra Levant. Osaka Sun (talk) 11:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not environmentally destructive when we do it! Anyways, a pleasant surprise to see this get torpedoed. The wonders of low expectations. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Atleast you dont live in the one of the states its messing with... stupid aquifer,--il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 04:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

DC had a good post recently on the astroturf machine behind this as well. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting...

--Dumpling (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"Please forgive Johnny for being so stupid." Snerksnerksnerk. HollowWorld (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Social media director

Hey its a job posting! Well not really a job since there is no real exchange of money for services. Anyway, I am looking for someone that wants to take up the mantle to help push our foot print on social media a bit more. If anyone is a fan of twitter, facebook, social book marking and the like and wants help out send me an e-mail and I will outline some of my ideas and see who might be interested. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

What would it involve doing exactly? Just posting things and stuff?

I'm always up for more awesomeness on my resume. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Basically yes, I am looking to consolidate some of the social media we have setup and use it to help promote our main mission goals. For example, selecting a weekly gold/silver article to try and spread on digg or reddit. Twittering key community events, like for example when we decided to start answering the "question evolution" campaign. Doing some coordinated "official statements" on our Facebook/google+ groups. I mean nothing is set in stone but that's the idea. I have cleaned up our twitter account, we have a pretty good facebook presence, trying to figure out who setup our google+. Maybe setup some accounts on the major social bookmarking sites. That's the general overview. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I might go back to working on that animated version of the logo again. ^pathetic 01:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the things about G+ is that anyone can create a page of a given name. There are three "Wikimedia Foundation" pages, for instance. (The trademark problems are obvious.) They're planning something like Twitter-style verification. Some time. Maybe. When they find their arses. - David Gerard (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

They got beaten up over and over for not allowing pseudonyms in the Google+ people system, so here's your chance. As the Google+ page "Lucy Lupus" you can contribute to a community of House slash writers while keeping this away from your family, friends and colleagues who see your Google+ person account "Samantha Dogood" and have no reason to suspect Lucy is the same person.

Right now G+ Pages do seem to lack a way to give more than one person control over the page. Fine for our Lucy Lupus, but not so great for "BBC News" or "Canadian Tourist Board" and definitely inconvenient for RW. Hopefully Google will get onto that. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't one of the tech-savvy types do an automated WIGOs Twitter feed? No - I have no idea if it's even possible! Scream!! (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Might like to put the twitter @ on the front page too. Scream!! (talk) 07:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind doing the tweeting...does anyone know Trent's email? Osaka Sun (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I set up the G+ page, by the way. As soon as they start letting people add others to such things, I will immediately do so, like with the FB page.--^talk 12:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

That's it, YouTube has lost all sanity.

Don't watch it in public areas. I warn you. Osaka Sun (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yawn.... Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 16:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen worse. --Dumpling (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Muslims Against Crusades banned

Good riddance. They're literally terrible human beings. SJ ^Debaser 14:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's like the Muslim equivalent of Fred Phelps. Osaka Sun (talk) 15:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Except in the states we allow Phelps the right of free speech, no matter how annoying... TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 15:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

As TOW would say; Your Mileage May Vary on if this is good or not. HollowWorld (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, has Phelps ever made incitements to violence like this lot? Reportedly one of their old websites enouraged its readers to kill people who insult Mohammed, hence the original ban. Balaam (talk) 20:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

In related news:BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW Balaam (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"What sort of a quote is this? It's a known fact that the UK only got democracy by accident because we had a king that couldn't speak English who delegated the running of the country to his prime minister Robert Walpole." - I don't know whether this is the worst over-simplification of how progress actually works, or one of the wittiest and most brilliantly cynical observations ever. ^gnostic 21:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it not essentially wrong? Walpole received his authority from the King, not Parliament. Blue (is useful) 01:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

(UHM, don't bother reading this post - you wouldn't understand.) In amongst all the bombastic rhetoric there is a subtle point. That support for our troops in Afghanistan and previously Iraq can sometimes overshadow debate about the validity of those campaigns. The fear that if you object to the wars then somehow you are disrespecting the sacrifices of the soldiers. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey AJ, this isn't the topic you are looking for. HollowWorld (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

^ What she said. Also I do not only understand but I agree - except if you just wrote that whole paragraph sarcastically and actually are for blind support of the troops. --★uːʤɱ soviet 00:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, HW, it is.

UHM, nah, not sarcastic. It's a genuine point. Glad you agree :) Ajkgordon (talk) 09:07, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

A friend of mine has a white poppy as his Facebook profile picture. Someone came along to point out that soldiers consider it offensive. ^theist 19:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Fuck the cost of college

Seriously, fuck it. --il'Dictator Mikalosa (talk) 02:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Amen. Sam ^Tally-ho! 02:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No really. Blue (is useful) 02:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha scholarship! Тy^talk 02:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of my incredibly cheap community college. :) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

That's nothing, I go to college for free! Mwahahahaha! They even give me a $50.00 stipend sometimes. Тy^talk 02:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah? Well, well... your beard looks funny. So hah! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

That could've been how he got his scholarship. Sam ^Tally-ho! 02:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"WHY YOUR BEARD IS A GENIUS! SCHOLARSHIPS AND $50 STIPENDS ALL AROUND!"! Yep. That's how it happened.--Dumpling (talk) 03:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Your fault. You should have tried harder to come from a country that treats education as a public good, not a commodity. Serves you right. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 03:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the Toll Road of Academic Serfdom. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

College tuition is effectively free in Louisiana if you made a 3.5 or better in high school. One of this state's few redeeming qualities. Тy^talk 04:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"College men from LSU. Went in dumb, came out dumb, too." -Randy Newman, "Rednecks." B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 04:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the majority are complete dipshit, but there are a good handful of smart kids that I can actually hold an intelligent conversation. Thank goodness.--Dumpling (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Men in gorilla suits chasing men in banana suits. Deranged lunatics with megaphones shouting at other deranged lunatics wearing signs on whether or not pants-wearing causes a woman to go to hell. Football coaches paid as much as bank CEOs. Chicken cults. Cutting programs that turn profits. A vast underground tunnel system. The HMS intercourse. Coaches who eat astroturf. Anthropology classes were students walk out when the prof pronounces the Global Flood to be a silly idea. Other classes were teachers give a disclaimer that they aren't trying to change religious views with their history text books. An enormous building with no exits. Personal ads advertising the fact you loom like chewbacca. Googly eyes everywhere. Ice cream being sold by suspicious looking dairy science students. etc. Тy^talk 05:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah~LSU...The WTFery that happens. Though, I can't say I'm not one of the weird things that happen there. >>" -cough- Yeaaaaaah.--Dumpling (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Eh, not so much different than my school if you remove the fundy-ism aspect. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hehehe. The fundies at our school are so much fun to mess with though~ I usually get a couple of guy friends to act really touchy-feely with each other, or hold hands as we walk past them. Or one time a friend and I played 'Highway to Hell' on our iPods really loudly as we sat in front of them. We get mixed reactions, but it's fine.--Dumpling (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This is where I can brag that I'm from an actual first world country. Though university costs are slowly going batshit crazy right now. ^theist 18:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

A general reminder

Folks, stop replying to MC and his trolling. The community has decided that his posts should be deleted; engaging with him is simply feeding the troll. Thanks. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 14:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hangover

my fucking god, I don't how it fucking happened, but I am in a serious fucking state here. I am usually up and spry by 9am no matter what the circumstances but its nearly 1pm now and I can't get out of bed. Curtains drawn, phone off and vomit rising. Shit man, I don't even remember drinking that much. I remember playing Doom 3, trees, the airport and the taxi driver who cursed at me for spilling wine on his backseat. But now, fuck me, what the fuck? Jesus man, I have filled myself with caffeine and opiates yet the pain remains. Sorry for advising you all of this but I want to smear my pain on others and the wife ain't listening. Ace^ace 23:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I used to love Doom 3. B♭maj7 (talk) Anachronistically anachronistic 00:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Obligatory Trespasser pushing. Тy^talk 00:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Take a big dump and eat a few paracetamol. I went to med school. Alternatively, keep drinking. SJ ^Debaser 00:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I reckon more drinking. Ace^ace 00:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I reckon also a big dump sounds awesome. Ace^ace 00:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It is great fun. On the plus side to this awful day I got my marks back from my most recent assignment - fucking A mutha fucking minus. Nice, I feel better (even though I just mocked my wife because she thought Tuscany was in Italy. "Ha Ha" I said, "Tuscany is in France, idiot!"....Oops. A Rick Perry moment). Ace^ace 00:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

...aaaaaaaand that's why I'm happy I feel the need to vomit everytime I smell or taste alcohol. --★uːʤɱ pirate 00:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am pretty unhappy about needing to vomit everytime I see you post UHM. So, you know, fuck off. Heh. Ace^ace 00:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Good one. c'mon puke allready! --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 00:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Ace^ace 01:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

When I used to indulge in these puerile activities I found that some paracetamol with a large quantity of orange juice (vitamin C and hydration) and a Mars bar (to raise your blood sugar) seemed to do the trick. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Fuck you and your puerile talk. Jesus man, you sound like a dick. I know I aint much better but still - When I used to indulge in these puerile activities. What are you, spirtually enlightened? Ace^ace 12:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

FFS you thin-skinned git, do I have to put smiley every time I make a joke? If UHM or Brx had reacted the same you'd be posting penises all over their user page. And at some time in your life you will have to cut down on your excesses or face an early grave. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 17:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Go fuck yourself Genghis. Your elder statesman bullshit doesn't wash with me, asshole. Ace^ace 01:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ace, I deeply apologise if my humorous usage of a throw-away adjective caused you such pain. I hear your anguish and realise that it must have really struck a raw nerve; so I am glad that you were able to respond in a mature and adult way with both wit and erudition, rather than being a petulant, loutish boor as many of those ED exiles whom you decry might have done. "Hey Genghis, eat my syphilis" is so laden with litotes that it must be one of the most witty put-downs that I have come across and there is just no reply to the wonderfully comic asshole; truly a bon mot if ever there was one. I am deeply humbled and embarrassed by being exposed as an aged fuddy-duddy old enough to be your father. But please let me leave you with a little word of advice and encouragement; your command of the written word shows that if you ever decide to put your rock-star lifestyle behind you then, with just a modicum training, you could probably make a passable living in provincial journalism. Good luck, my lad. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 17:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Your apology has moved me to tears. Or is it urine? Ace^ace 19:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Luck? With muscular prose like this? He's like Hemingway and HST rolled up into one glorious literary übermensch. -Robledo (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh cool, a fan club! Ace^ace 22:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You take wine into taxis? Like... in a glass or in a bottle? X Stickman (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It was a bottle. Ace^ace 19:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)