|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive132
Bill of Rights[edit]
On this other forum I go on, I noticed this article pop up. Everyone was going mental over it. Now, I couldn't find this on any other, more trustworthy news sources (like the Beeb), and something as major as this would get there, I think. Besides which, I really doubt something like this would actually happen, particularly given that the Senate is under Democrat control right now. So, I have a few questions concerning this:
1) Is Salem News a serious news site or a pretender to the throne of The Onion?
2) Is this story actually true or did someone pluck it out of thin air?
3) If the story is true, what the hell? --
20:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Minus all of the posturing, yes, the Senate did pass that bill, and yes, it threatens to repeal the Posse Comitatus Act and is an outrageous violation of civil rights. It's been picked up by most major news outlets, actually, but hasn't been made a very big story. Blue (is useful) 20:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- A more legit source (Wired) has more. COINTELPRO, anyone? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Also, from CSM, the administration for once actually seems to be on the side of not using the Constitution for toilet paper. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Vetoed or not, does it feel like everything is just crashing and burning here in the US? Senator Harrison (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- "God, this place has gone to hell." "So you tell me every year!" Blue (is useful) 04:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's always crashing and burning -- 2008 was just the Wile E. Coyote moment for people who didn't think it was. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- McCain is being a total retard again? Obama will probably veto it.
- It's always crashing and burning -- 2008 was just the Wile E. Coyote moment for people who didn't think it was. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- "God, this place has gone to hell." "So you tell me every year!" Blue (is useful) 04:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Vetoed or not, does it feel like everything is just crashing and burning here in the US? Senator Harrison (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Also, from CSM, the administration for once actually seems to be on the side of not using the Constitution for toilet paper. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- A more legit source (Wired) has more. COINTELPRO, anyone? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm more worried about SOPA. That thing could pass by Christmas - what a birthday present for you guys, eh? Osaka Sun (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- SOPA is something that will find it's impractical to police the internet (just like drug enforcement!). --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- By crashing and burning, I mean that the consequences of all the crashing and burning we have been doing prior are finally catching up. So maybe the crash happened, and now it's the burning.... Or maybe I'm delirious because I might be coming down with the flu. Senator Harrison (talk) 05:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Possibly all of them at once?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I saw a story about the Internet police once. Here it is. It's in 5 parts. -- 08:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I saw a story about the Internet police once. Here it is. It's in 5 parts. --
- Possibly all of them at once?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- By crashing and burning, I mean that the consequences of all the crashing and burning we have been doing prior are finally catching up. So maybe the crash happened, and now it's the burning.... Or maybe I'm delirious because I might be coming down with the flu. Senator Harrison (talk) 05:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- SOPA is something that will find it's impractical to police the internet (just like drug enforcement!). --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm more worried about SOPA. That thing could pass by Christmas - what a birthday present for you guys, eh? Osaka Sun (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Just a reminder[edit]
Merlinpeen is this Saturday, December 10th, just to remind all you Verdukians out there. --AmazingTechnicolorCheeseWedge (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
3D TVs[edit]
Anyone here know if this TV is a 3D TV? Does a Adaptive 3D Y / C Comb Filter mean that it is a 3D TV? http://emersonaudiovideo.com/products/product.php?id=30 — Unsigned, by: 67.159.36.24 / talk / contribs
- I don't want to assume bad faith but doesn't this look a little bit like spam from our IP editor?--BobSpring is sprung! 11:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- It looks like it, but the guy has contribs. It's not a bot. ONE / TALK 14:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
He has contribs? But it's an IP. How do you know he has contribs?--Bob- Sorry, I wasn't awake when I wrote that.--BobSpring is sprung! 11:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- It looks like it, but the guy has contribs. It's not a bot. ONE / TALK 14:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Spring is sprung! 08:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- (OCZ Stockholder) Does anyone know if this SSD from OCZ can actually sustain a 500MB/s read/write rate with only one drive?!? Wait it practically doubles to 1GB/s in raid 0?!?! I have a cold and I feel like shit... TheCheatI run on alcohol 15:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- What, people got tired of flat TVs already? --95.232.101.158 (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- (OCZ Stockholder) Does anyone know if this SSD from OCZ can actually sustain a 500MB/s read/write rate with only one drive?!? Wait it practically doubles to 1GB/s in raid 0?!?! I have a cold and I feel like shit... TheCheatI run on alcohol 15:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
How cute...[edit]
Facebook thing going around various people:
“”F.A.I.T.H. = Find Answers In The Heart - how honest and true!
|
Adorable, isn't it. 
bomination 00:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Aww.
- But no answers in the brain. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe it's a gender thing, but you do know the heart makes very good decisions, right?--
Godot Malaka 03:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe it's a gender thing, but you do know the heart makes very good decisions, right?--
Logic? Fuck that -- all you need is love! Love and irrational trust/belief. Those things will ensure that everything will turn out fine. Fluckedtalk to me :D 05:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- What's it like, not having a soul? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 05:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fairly standard, I assume. Flitzertalk to me :D 06:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've been thinking of selling mine on e-bay, but that's been done already. Maybe Craigslist... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- I would respond with this. TheCheatI run on alcohol 19:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Mine was faulty so I returned it to Microsoft for a refit. theist 20:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've been thinking of selling mine on e-bay, but that's been done already. Maybe Craigslist... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fairly standard, I assume. Flitzertalk to me :D 06:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Self projection as god[edit]
Came across this great quote on self projection as god by Marshall Sahlins:
“”When we were pastoral nomads, the Lord was our Shepherd. We were his flock and he made us lie down in green pastures...When we were serfs and nobles, the Lord was our king. Sat regnant on the throne of heaven, His shepherd's crook now a jeweled scepter...Finally, we are businessmen -- and the Lord is our accountant. He keeps a ledger on us all, enters our good deeds in black and debits our sins in red.
|
Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Beauty Pageants, red/blue state correlations, and whatnot.[edit]
Ok, we've all seen this little video and headdesked at it en masse. But is it just me or did every contestant from a Republican state push the nutjob position? Because it's not helping break stereotypes. Osaka Sun (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- ...Ugh. That video. And no. You're right. It really isn't helping break the stereotype.--Dumpling (talk) 08:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Touchscreen desktops[edit]
I now have one. What is the fucking point? It is more effort to reach accross and touch the screen than to operate the mouse next to hand. - π 
23:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- I was thinking the same thing when I read about them and saw them. It could just be the next tech fad, like 3D. Senator Harrison (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Touchscreen and voice-control are two things I can't see outright replacing the current input techniques. I guess maybe if we end up with star trek like computers where it's screens all over the place it might work, but otherwise it's just hassle for desktop stuff. X Stickman (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Try minimizing and maximizing a window as fast as you can with both a mouse and a touchscreen. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Look, if you can't do it from an 80x25 7bit ASCII character terminal then it's not computing. Bad Faith (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Damn straight. All those fancy-ass GUIs you kids use get in the way of doing real work. Doctor Dark (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Touchscreen? Most times I can't even be arsed reaching for F5. What we need is remote touchscreens. Rennie McGreet (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- It will seem kind of pointless and half assed until the operating systems are actually designed for it. I played with windows 8 on a tablet and could see using that at home on my desktop for certain things. But you will have to pry my gaming mouse out of my cold dead hands... TheCheatI run on alcohol 15:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have a tablet laptop. Sooo, it's useful for me whenever I have to write notes or doodle something. I just have to flip the screen over my keyboard. But, unless you can flip the desktop monitor over and just start drawing on it, I don't know the point of it either. Meh.--Dumpling (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- It will seem kind of pointless and half assed until the operating systems are actually designed for it. I played with windows 8 on a tablet and could see using that at home on my desktop for certain things. But you will have to pry my gaming mouse out of my cold dead hands... TheCheatI run on alcohol 15:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Touchscreen? Most times I can't even be arsed reaching for F5. What we need is remote touchscreens. Rennie McGreet (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Damn straight. All those fancy-ass GUIs you kids use get in the way of doing real work. Doctor Dark (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Look, if you can't do it from an 80x25 7bit ASCII character terminal then it's not computing. Bad Faith (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
UK friends[edit]
Dumb question, but there is a new show called "Desperate scousewives", and the wikipedia says it follows a bunch of scousers. Help! --
Godot Malaka 02:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- People from Liverpool and Merseyside. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- See Lily.
ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 07:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Kill it with fire. d hominem 09:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Drop from a great height onto The Only Way is Essex and hope they both break. Rennie McGreet (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Heh. Scousewives. Because there's a show called Desperate Housewives and Scouse rhymes with House! These TV producers, I tell ya. They just keep getting better and better. X Stickman (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- (EC) The Beeb have just started a series called The Manor Reborn with Penelope Keith, about the renovation of a 16th century manor house for the National Trust. Why PK? Solely because she starred in a sitcom called To The Manor Born thirty years ago. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 15:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Life imitating art... imitating life. I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue has an occasional round where they have to do elevator pitches for TV shows with names based on two existing series. But too often you can practically hear the whirring noise as somewhere a commissioner with Radio 4 on thinks "Yeah, that'd get a decent audience. Who do I call?". The scary thing about Charlie Brooker's fake TV guide wasn't the fact that the most repugnant made-up series in it ("Cunt" about the kind of people he saw in Shoreditch) was eventually produced (albeit under a different name and toned down for TV) but the fact that some of the other fictitious shows he described more or less came into being ("Touch the Truck" exists) without him having anything to do with them. TV has been a parody of itself for at least a decade. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 18:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- (EC) The Beeb have just started a series called The Manor Reborn with Penelope Keith, about the renovation of a 16th century manor house for the National Trust. Why PK? Solely because she starred in a sitcom called To The Manor Born thirty years ago.
- I saw and advert for that and got sick violently on my carpet. I'll admit I did watch the last season of wp:Made in Chelsea with my housemates, though only to laugh at how horribly scripted it was. Normally I fucking hate reality TV. SJ Debaser 15:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Heh. Scousewives. Because there's a show called Desperate Housewives and Scouse rhymes with House! These TV producers, I tell ya. They just keep getting better and better. X Stickman (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Drop from a great height onto The Only Way is Essex and hope they both break. Rennie McGreet (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Kill it with fire.
- See Lily.
Back on topic, the UK delights in stereotyping the inhabitants of certain cities complete with nicknames. The biggies:
- Cockneys - working class, come from east London - preferably docklands. Like nothing better than a pint down the old rub-a-dub while sitting round the joanna playing "Knees up Mother Brown". May well have criminal tendencies but are kind to their mothers.
- Scousers - working class, come from Liverpool, witty and passionate street poets who were all personal friends of all the Beatles. Definite criminal tendencies but, just lads, really, not bad at heart.
- Geordies - working class, come from Newcastle on Tyne. Kind and warm hearted. Hardy - they consider it 'nesh' (soft) to go out wearing a coat even in the most inclemant weather. On Friday night they descend on town and drink themselves stupid.
All these are as accurate as these sorts of stereotype always are. Bad Faith (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have never heard the word "nesh" in my entire life. moral 15:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ooops, you're sort of right. Nesh comes from the other side of the Pennines and is not Geordie. s/nesh/femmer/g Bad Faith (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I thought that was odd. In the Bigg Market you're more likely to hear something that overly-sensitive types would mistake for a homophobic slur instead. narchist 16:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I thought that was odd. In the Bigg Market you're more likely to hear something that overly-sensitive types would mistake for a homophobic slur instead.
- Ooops, you're sort of right. Nesh comes from the other side of the Pennines and is not Geordie. s/nesh/femmer/g Bad Faith (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Santorum on Science[edit]
Once again, dealing with absolutes. I realize this isn't a gigantic shock to anyone here but I think it's worth mentioning. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's quite astonishing to this poor Brit that you Americans have anyone like that with even a sniff at becoming president. It's frightening.
- There's a very good SF novel (except the ending - jury's still out) by Stephen Baxter called Titan that deals with a fundamentalist Christian becoming president who proceeds to shut down any science that disagreed with scripture, censoring any media that mentioned more than so many light years, more than 6,000 years, etc, introducing re-scripted moon landing epiphanies, and even refusing to admit that they had a manned mission approaching Saturn and abandoning them to their fate. Ending, of course, with isolationism and a military exchange with China resulting in the annihilation of the human race. So well written that even from the mid-90s it could have been written about the crazy fundies so visible today. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Huh, I thought that was called The Handmaid's Tale. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is why I can't imagine Obama losing. Sam Tally-ho! 20:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's been on my must-read list for about four years. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Santorum doesn't have a sniff at being President. However, the current alternative to Romney pretends to believe bacially the same things even though he knows better. This is worse, actually. I don't think even Newt is much of a threat to Mitt's nomination though. Godspeed (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's a funny country where the sanest presidential hopeful the opposition can field is one who wears magic underwear. I suppose everyone should be grateful most of the really crazies seem to have been weeded out of the running. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Both Newt and Romney are still pretty crazy, I might say. And oh yeah, didn't I hear Donald "Casino" Trump is going to be moderating a GOP debate? Osaka Sun (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Are they though? Or are they simply pandering to the crazies to get their vote? Ajkgordon (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Given that the media and the debates have more-or-less snubbed the three
most reasonableleast unreasonable candidates (in order of reasonable-ness: Jon Huntsman, Buddy Roemer, Ron Paul), and given their past predilection to entertain individuals like Trump and Palin, I would say the current GOP (and I mean by-and-large the nominee electors and not the general populace) is incapable of nominating anyone who isn't a comical characticture. It's also interesting to note that most of the non-teabagger candidates all have the words "Former" in their titles (even Cain was a "Former" CEO). -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)- Comical caricature, perhaps. Raving asshat, more than likely. But here's the scary bit. It's a two party system, you don't so much need to win as make your rival lose. With two wars still going, the economy going tits up, employment high, the government risking going bankrupt (even if it is because the Republican side of it is fucking useless) then the incumbent is at a serious disadvantage. It's always the case with elections. Do you think the UK actually wanted a Tory government in 2010? Fuck no! Everyone just got pig-sick of Labour and that was it. moral 20:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think I'm with Sam on this one. In this case, it's not about "Obama was horrible" because anyone with half a brain can assert/speculate/realize that McCain/Palin would have been an absolute disaster. Obama himself entertained the notion that instead of having to create anything for political ads next year, he would probably just play highlights from the debates of (whatever nominee wins) talking out of his (not likely her) ass. Obama doesn't have to make them look foolish at all. It worked for GHWB (anyone remember Dukakis looking absolutely ridiculous in a tank?) -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comical caricature, perhaps. Raving asshat, more than likely. But here's the scary bit. It's a two party system, you don't so much need to win as make your rival lose. With two wars still going, the economy going tits up, employment high, the government risking going bankrupt (even if it is because the Republican side of it is fucking useless) then the incumbent is at a serious disadvantage. It's always the case with elections. Do you think the UK actually wanted a Tory government in 2010? Fuck no! Everyone just got pig-sick of Labour and that was it.
- Given that the media and the debates have more-or-less snubbed the three
- Are they though? Or are they simply pandering to the crazies to get their vote? Ajkgordon (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Both Newt and Romney are still pretty crazy, I might say. And oh yeah, didn't I hear Donald "Casino" Trump is going to be moderating a GOP debate? Osaka Sun (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's a funny country where the sanest presidential hopeful the opposition can field is one who wears magic underwear. I suppose everyone should be grateful most of the really crazies seem to have been weeded out of the running. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Santorum doesn't have a sniff at being President. However, the current alternative to Romney pretends to believe bacially the same things even though he knows better. This is worse, actually. I don't think even Newt is much of a threat to Mitt's nomination though. Godspeed (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's been on my must-read list for about four years. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is why I can't imagine Obama losing. Sam Tally-ho! 20:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Huh, I thought that was called The Handmaid's Tale. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
@ADK: Elections often boil down to "Anyone but that guy in office (or that man in the White House, except he got re-elected)!" It's always fun to watch the punditocracy spin some kind of lofty narrative, but upsets in US elections often boil down to being able to build a large enough Coalition of Pissed Off Voters. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Luckily, they actually don't, Neb. Statistically speaking, even if you had a shitty term in office, there is always a "better the devil you know" that helps in incumbent. Historically and in recent sentate/house elections this has held. Generally, to beat an incumbent, you have to have an extremely strong, personal, charismatic guy that actually seems to have answers, not just complaints. Godot Malaka 21:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- The "charismatic" element is why Clinton was elected AND re-elected (that and the "It's the economy, stupid!" tactic that Clinton used to help create and eventually sustain a growth period). The uncharismatic element, and the complaints-before-plans bit, is why
GWB was re-electedJohn Kerry lost in 2004 (it still stings). If this holds out as Godot suggests, Obama's a shoe-in, as there are no GOP candidates that possess both charisma AND plans (and I have a hard time seeing any charisma from any of them anyway). -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)- I'd argue that Newt Gingrich has kind of an odd form of charisma -- his ability to put his foot in his mouth at least makes him watchable. Romney, though, is about as exciting as watching paint dry. He's the Republican version of Gore or Kerry -- smart, experienced, but it's hard to get fired up about him. MDB (talk) 13:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- The "charismatic" element is why Clinton was elected AND re-elected (that and the "It's the economy, stupid!" tactic that Clinton used to help create and eventually sustain a growth period). The uncharismatic element, and the complaints-before-plans bit, is why
- Luckily, they actually don't, Neb. Statistically speaking, even if you had a shitty term in office, there is always a "better the devil you know" that helps in incumbent. Historically and in recent sentate/house elections this has held. Generally, to beat an incumbent, you have to have an extremely strong, personal, charismatic guy that actually seems to have answers, not just complaints.
Atheophobia[edit]
Apparently someone did an entire dissertation on it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Wow. Do we know if she ever got her MA? Osaka Sun (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- For a Brit this is fascinating in as much as, for me, it's hard to understand such discrimination. I find it more than slightly shocking - as was the poll that showed Atheists as the most despised group in the US. That is really hard to comprehend. Bad Faith (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's a de Tocqueville-ian thing. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- For a Brit this is fascinating in as much as, for me, it's hard to understand such discrimination. I find it more than slightly shocking - as was the poll that showed Atheists as the most despised group in the US. That is really hard to comprehend. Bad Faith (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's a good read so far, to be honest. Quite quotable in places too. pathetic 20:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The Hype increases…[edit]
…only a week to go folks. Have they spotted the Higgs Boson?--
Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 13:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's about time we had another paradigm shift. Reading the comments from various physicists is very interesting though.-- Seth Peck (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Just in from Newsnight. They're claiming that scientists will reveal on Tuesday that they have evidence of what appears to be Higgs Bosons.-- Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 22:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Just in from Newsnight. They're claiming that scientists will reveal on Tuesday that they have evidence of what appears to be Higgs Bosons.--
whither RWW?[edit]
Why she so broken? Seems to fall over at the drop of a hat these days (i.e. in the middle of voting). --PsyGremlinFale! 16:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think it is because over the last few years, the American-Right has moved to Conservapedia-infested waters. I know when I think of the the likes of the Tea party and Fox News, I kinda forget about one a bunch of idiots in their online club house and reach for a Heineken. Plus Beck lost his show.--Thanatos (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- @Psy working for me, too many people vote botting = crash. @Thanatos: WTF? Тytalk 20:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Wait, are we talking about RationalWikiWiki or something else? Sorry for my n00bness, I thought that was a joke site. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Its srs bzns. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 21:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- @Osaka, it is Serious Business, if you want jokes go to RWWW or the burger joint. Тytalk 21:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- You people are awfully reliant on 4chan memes to communicate--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- @Osaka, it is Serious Business, if you want jokes go to RWWW or the burger joint. Тytalk 21:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Its srs bzns. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 21:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Wait, are we talking about RationalWikiWiki or something else? Sorry for my n00bness, I thought that was a joke site. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- @Psy working for me, too many people vote botting = crash. @Thanatos: WTF? Тytalk 20:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
And the Great White North has gone retarded[edit]
After years of doing absolutely nothing on Kyoto, we're pulling a Cheney.
And read the comments for a laugh (or facepalm, either/or) - apparently the new excuse of going la-la-la, I can't hear you! on the "bunk" science is that the funds will be distributed to African warlords. Say wha? I thought we were fucking better than this. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Canada is pulling a Cheney? Do we in the US need to worry you're going to accidentally shoot us? MDB (talk) 13:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
It's the English nationalist movement[edit]
THIS IS SPAR... er, ENGLAAAAAAND! Balaam (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have enough issues with social conservatives wanting to put us back several decades... guys wanting to send us back several centuries is something else entirely. d hominem 14:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- And I thought the Lost Causers dressing up like Robert E. Lee were bad. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- There didn't seem to be a large enough crowd to warrant shouting so loudly. I bet he had a sore throat the rest of the dayAMassiveGay (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- And I thought the Lost Causers dressing up like Robert E. Lee were bad. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
The end result of libertarianism[edit]
Tennessee family's home burns to the ground as firefighters watch onover the family's failure to pay protection money a $75 fee. Lord of Reckless Noise Hooray! I'm helping! 14:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hasn't that story gone around before?--BobSpring is sprung! 14:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's a policy, so obviously it's going to happen more than once. gnostic 14:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yup, even the story said that this isn't the first time they've run this story, but it's a different family this time. Lord of Reckless Noise Hooray! I'm helping! 14:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I blame the unions.Do You Believe That?-- Seth Peck (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- And the liberal media. Or is it "lamestream media" now? MDB (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Blaming the unions and the media? Typical LIEberal claptrap. None of thie would've happened if we would've elminated the Death Tax. If we had eliminated the Death Tax and cut the taxes on the wealthy to about 1%, there'd be plenty of government money to hire firefighters. Instead, you LIEberals insist on blaming others for your ills. How typical. Conservative Punk (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Don't you mean 9%? postate 14:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Don't you mean 9%?
- Blaming the unions and the media? Typical LIEberal claptrap. None of thie would've happened if we would've elminated the Death Tax. If we had eliminated the Death Tax and cut the taxes on the wealthy to about 1%, there'd be plenty of government money to hire firefighters. Instead, you LIEberals insist on blaming others for your ills. How typical. Conservative Punk (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- And the liberal media. Or is it "lamestream media" now? MDB (talk) 14:27, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I blame the unions.Do You Believe That?-- Seth Peck (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yup, even the story said that this isn't the first time they've run this story, but it's a different family this time. Lord of Reckless Noise Hooray! I'm helping! 14:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's a policy, so obviously it's going to happen more than once.
- Osaka Sun (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- What typical leftist drivel, riddled with economic fallacies as usual. The fire department is a government monopoly -- that's not libertarian, it's crony capitalism! This wouldn't happen if the fire department were totally privatized to allow for efficient competition. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Osaka Sun (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
A few facts
- The local town have a firebrigade which is fully taxpayer funded and free to town citizens.
- The town are prepared, as a favour, to offer a firebrigade service to rural dwellers - who they have no duty to cover - for a nominal $75 pa.
- The people whose house burnt down opted not to pay the $75
- Therefore the firebrigade were under no obligation to assist.
- It was clearly stated that, if life had been in danger, then they would, of course, have assisted. However, as these particular people hadn't paid for the service there was no compunction for them to act. Indeed, were they to have acted it would have been seen as an incentive not to pay. After all, why pay for the service when you can get it free.
- The arguement over whether the firebrigade should be a paid for service is completely seperate.
Well, that's how I read it. Bad Faith (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I submit that the solution is not a "you don't pay the fire department, you get to watch your house burn" policy, but the solution is "you don't pay the fire department, you get a bill if you need their services". After all, what if the fire department had mis-filed the paperwork and the victim really did have coverage? If they put out the fire and then checked, it would cover their asses in that case.
- Also, I remember from video of this story -- the house in question was a trailer. Believe me when I tell you that if you're living in a trailer in rural Tennessee, which is where this took place, the $75 this cost is probably not a trivial sum. It's probably a question of "do I pay the fire department, or do I feed the kids this week?". At the very least, they should have some kind of indigency protection.
- And I'm sorry, but the fire department did have an obligation to assist. Not a legal one, admittedly, but dammit, they have a moral one. They stood there with the capability to help and did nothing. MDB (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- There's no morality save for the dictates of the market. Them's the breaks, looter. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- They often will stand by just to prevent it spreading and control the situation if there's no one involved and the risk of tackling the fire is too great. But that applies to big-ass fires in things like chemical depots where you have shit that could go boom any moment, not someone's trailer. sshole 15:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- There is a problem with the "put out the fire and then invoice the owner" solution. It would also encourage more people to not pay. As a rule your house doesn't catch fire and you don't really expect it to. So some would feel it was better taking the risk of not paying on the understanding that their fire would be put out anyway - though at a greater ultimate cost. The end result would be higher prices for all.--BobSpring is sprung! 16:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is why such a libertarianism pisses me off: Of course in philosophy-only it makes total sense that you have to pay for the fire department, that you have to pay your fair share and that you can opt out of that service. But in practice and the real world some people will opt out to fill basic and fundamental needs like feeding your children. While at the same time rich people have all the extras, the poor can't afford them and if shit goes down/capitalism works its usual way more and more people will become poor. After a few decades you end up in an olirgarchy with a massive load of proles most of them will be angry at the rich for being rich. And it doesn't help if you make up a justification for this by pulling a clearly unfactual story out your ass. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 16:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Dammit, there has to be a better solution than a "let it burn" policy. We're human beings; we take care of each other. MDB (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- For me the root of this problem is deeply ingrained in the American way. The idea that some services - like health care - are so fundamental that they should be provided free at the point of delivery and paid for by the whole community via taxation - it simply doesn't compute. For us Europeans, of course the firebrigade ought to be a free service - along with all the other 911 services. Bad Faith (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I can't see the article or anything...was it an isolated trailer? Did it impose a danger to other properties? -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that was mentioned. From my limited fire training I know that's usually a massive factor in whether they tackle a fire or not, but it doesn't mention it. I think that if there was a risk of it spreading they would have tackled it payment or otherwise, as that's just what they're there for. But again, the "let it burn" policy usually applies when it's too dangerous or too big to tackle directly and so they're there as control and containment. pathetic 16:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think tax payer funded fire services are even the core issue here. I almost end up agreeing with the mayor as far as that goes. In the UK, the fire service would definitely come, and they'd try to put out the fire. But if in the process of doing so they make your home unsuitable to live in, that's not their problem. Your insurance is supposed to cover that, if you don't have insurance it'll come out of your pocket.
- No, for me the core issue kicks in if you're genuinely so poor that insurance or paying for it yourself aren't an option. There has to be a safety net, there still ought to be a safe roof for that family to sleep under, somewhere they can get a shower or take a leak and so on. Regardless of whether the fire fighters put the fire out or not, or whether your home blew away in a hurricane, or was blown up by terrorist, or whatever reason. And if providing the safety net is a lot of trouble to go to, well then that is an incentive to make sure less people's homes burn down. The part where this is "the end result of libertarianism" is when the kids end up homeless because nobody provided that safety net. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 19:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
sshole 20:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think that was mentioned. From my limited fire training I know that's usually a massive factor in whether they tackle a fire or not, but it doesn't mention it. I think that if there was a risk of it spreading they would have tackled it payment or otherwise, as that's just what they're there for. But again, the "let it burn" policy usually applies when it's too dangerous or too big to tackle directly and so they're there as control and containment.
- I can't see the article or anything...was it an isolated trailer? Did it impose a danger to other properties? -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- For me the root of this problem is deeply ingrained in the American way. The idea that some services - like health care - are so fundamental that they should be provided free at the point of delivery and paid for by the whole community via taxation - it simply doesn't compute. For us Europeans, of course the firebrigade ought to be a free service - along with all the other 911 services. Bad Faith (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Dammit, there has to be a better solution than a "let it burn" policy. We're human beings; we take care of each other. MDB (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is why such a libertarianism pisses me off: Of course in philosophy-only it makes total sense that you have to pay for the fire department, that you have to pay your fair share and that you can opt out of that service. But in practice and the real world some people will opt out to fill basic and fundamental needs like feeding your children. While at the same time rich people have all the extras, the poor can't afford them and if shit goes down/capitalism works its usual way more and more people will become poor. After a few decades you end up in an olirgarchy with a massive load of proles most of them will be angry at the rich for being rich. And it doesn't help if you make up a justification for this by pulling a clearly unfactual story out your ass. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 16:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- There is a problem with the "put out the fire and then invoice the owner" solution. It would also encourage more people to not pay. As a rule your house doesn't catch fire and you don't really expect it to. So some would feel it was better taking the risk of not paying on the understanding that their fire would be put out anyway - though at a greater ultimate cost. The end result would be higher prices for all.--BobSpring is sprung! 16:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- They often will stand by just to prevent it spreading and control the situation if there's no one involved and the risk of tackling the fire is too great. But that applies to big-ass fires in things like chemical depots where you have shit that could go boom any moment, not someone's trailer.
- There's no morality save for the dictates of the market. Them's the breaks, looter. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Skeptoid[edit]
I have just been catching up with some podcasts and listened to Skeptoid's November 08 episode: Top 10 Worst Anti-Science Websites. Conservapedia ranks ninth. 
ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 16:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Conservapedia is your Number One resource to get the wrong answer." Best. Description. Ever. pathetic 16:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- At least they got a top ten award. But only ninth? Aren't they slipping?--BobSpring is sprung! 16:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Articles in Titles[edit]
a million years ago, when working for the university library, we would catalog articles and books by title. The library of congress system was to remove any articles (the, a, le, la, les, los, ein, etc.) I assume that was because you didn't want a card catalog with 100000 A something titles. On the internet, where key words are doing the searches, that seems less a problem. I wrote two articles on books, with "the" as the first word. My question is, do we have a "best practices" on how to list titles in our articles here at RW? Godot I hate sluts 22:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I usually just do {{DEFAULTSORT: Good Book, The}} Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- And the title of the article stays "The Good Book"?Godot I hate sluts 23:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yup. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- And the title of the article stays "The Good Book"?
How big is the universe?[edit]
Big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is.
And people explain this whole "God" thing to me and wonder why I'm not massively impressed. pathetic 22:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- That didn't do it for me. Maybe cause it wasn't really relative enough. For me, this was the oen I first went... "wow". http://scaleofuniverse.com/ Godot I hate sluts 22:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, you need terrifying music with it! Osaka Sun (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- OH, i actually like that, OS. if you mute the damn thing. Thanks.Godot I hate sluts 23:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I can't believe you dissed the soundtrack to The Black Hole.
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC) - Mind you, I'm easily wowed, but WP says it would take light roughly 8 hours to cross the diameter of the largest sun in that vid, "Canis majoris". fuck. Godot I hate sluts 23:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- If you're interested, install and explore Celestia for a bit. Find the sun and view it from 1 AU away. Then find VY Canis Majoris and zoom until it's about the same size as the sun was... then check your distance. theist 23:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- If you're interested, install and explore Celestia for a bit. Find the sun and view it from 1 AU away. Then find VY Canis Majoris and zoom until it's about the same size as the sun was... then check your distance.
- I can't believe you dissed the soundtrack to The Black Hole.
- OH, i actually like that, OS. if you mute the damn thing. Thanks.
- No, you need terrifying music with it! Osaka Sun (talk) 23:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Ninja request[edit]
Can someone give me Ninja user rights so I can bot myself? Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Done. Have fun. Blue (pester) 01:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks! Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks!
The space people have arrived.[edit]
We are not alone. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 03:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- With an obvious cloaking device, non the less --GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 03:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Coronal mass ejection." Heh heh.
Penn Jillette: An Atheist's Guide to the 2012 Election[edit]
Penn Jillette discusses the 2012 elections and makes some very good points about all the candidates' religious beliefs or lack thereof. Conservative Punk (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- Genuinely great video. theist 11:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- He conflates the stats on secular/non-religious with "atheist." His point about the use of the word "Christian" in politics is really good, though, and often overlooked. I'd go even further with that with the coinage of the term Judeo-Christian. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Grouping people up on "your side" is at least as old as Islam with its "people of the book" who aren't to be treated as badly as other infidels. If you've got minority Islamic and Christian populations (say, 30% each) you can unite them against a group who are say, Hindus by pretending that the important thing is the recognition that Allah is the one and only supreme deity. Once you've beaten the Hindus to pulp you can get back to squabbling over whether Jesus was the Messiah, then whether it's blasphemy to pray to Mary and so on until you're in an Emo Philips bit. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Should we do more to group, atheists, agnostics, rationalists, freethinkers etc together. I'm not Jesus (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, I group the world into two: You either follow another group's prescribed bullshit, or you follow your own bullshit. That at least splits it by what people tend to do, rather than what they label themselves as because that causes its own problems. Are you really a "free thinker" or are you just parroting what Richard Dawkins says? Certainly I didn't see much "free" about some of the people asking questions towards the end of the Fry-Hitchens show a few weeks ago. On the other hand there are believers who do genuinely pick and choose and assemble their own belief systems in a (relatively) intelligent way. They're far more free thinking than some explicit atheists I've seen. So while I don't think grouping is a solution, if we were forced to (by human nature) then we should at least do it in a way that means something. postate 00:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who group the world into two kinds of people and those who don't. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Literally. postate 15:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- There are two kinds of people in the world: Those who group the world into two kinds of people and those who don't. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Personally, I group the world into two: You either follow another group's prescribed bullshit, or you follow your own bullshit. That at least splits it by what people tend to do, rather than what they label themselves as because that causes its own problems. Are you really a "free thinker" or are you just parroting what Richard Dawkins says? Certainly I didn't see much "free" about some of the people asking questions towards the end of the Fry-Hitchens show a few weeks ago. On the other hand there are believers who do genuinely pick and choose and assemble their own belief systems in a (relatively) intelligent way. They're far more free thinking than some explicit atheists I've seen. So while I don't think grouping is a solution, if we were forced to (by human nature) then we should at least do it in a way that means something.
- Should we do more to group, atheists, agnostics, rationalists, freethinkers etc together. I'm not Jesus (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Grouping people up on "your side" is at least as old as Islam with its "people of the book" who aren't to be treated as badly as other infidels. If you've got minority Islamic and Christian populations (say, 30% each) you can unite them against a group who are say, Hindus by pretending that the important thing is the recognition that Allah is the one and only supreme deity. Once you've beaten the Hindus to pulp you can get back to squabbling over whether Jesus was the Messiah, then whether it's blasphemy to pray to Mary and so on until you're in an Emo Philips bit. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- He conflates the stats on secular/non-religious with "atheist." His point about the use of the word "Christian" in politics is really good, though, and often overlooked. I'd go even further with that with the coinage of the term Judeo-Christian. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
What stops some Atheists from being serenely happy?[edit]
Atheists are unhappy? Really? Atheists are OK provided we belong to a group. I'm not Jesus (talk) 08:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I would say I'm happy (I don't call myself an atheist, in the same way I'm not an athorist or an asantaist), and I don't need to belong to a group, except here I am offering comments and snark. So, for the sake of the argument, screw you assholes ;) -- Seth Peck (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I wonder what stops some Theists from being serenely happy?--BobSpring is sprung! 15:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I have a straight friend, and he's alright but...[edit]
This guy actually says this. Not sure what to make of it... perhaps I'll just copy the comment that I find I like the most:
| Comment collapsed for convenience. | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||
postate 00:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- The whole thing is asinine, of course, but I'm wondering how this could even be enforced practically. Bisexuals pose a serious problem there. 05:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Or, as pointed out in the comments, how do gay people who don't dress like... well, don't dress gay get involved in this? Are people getting thrown out because their dress sense doesn't match up? I know straight men who take so much pride in their appearance that people outright refuse to believe they're straight (one's even married and remarkably camp) - do they get admitted? The entire thing is a clusterfuck of labelling, I'm starting to see that sort of thing everywhere now. They guy who wrote this has in his mind exactly what people he likes hanging around with - but uses the terms "gay" and "straight" to describe it, rather than keeping those words strictly within the confines of just sexuality. Hence people get confused and there's some controversy. What he seems to want are clubs exclusively for camp-as-Christmas men who like to wear tight tops, varnish their eyebrows and get hot and sweaty to YMCA (i.e., a stereotype, but it only becomes a stereotype when you use the label as a lazy mental short-cut). Fair enough the Venn Diagram of that and "homosexual" has quite an overlap, you have to admit, but you can't use the label belonging to one side to describe the other side. That's where the labelling clusterfuck comes in and muddies your entire point. pathetic 14:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Or, as pointed out in the comments, how do gay people who don't dress like... well, don't dress gay get involved in this? Are people getting thrown out because their dress sense doesn't match up? I know straight men who take so much pride in their appearance that people outright refuse to believe they're straight (one's even married and remarkably camp) - do they get admitted? The entire thing is a clusterfuck of labelling, I'm starting to see that sort of thing everywhere now. They guy who wrote this has in his mind exactly what people he likes hanging around with - but uses the terms "gay" and "straight" to describe it, rather than keeping those words strictly within the confines of just sexuality. Hence people get confused and there's some controversy. What he seems to want are clubs exclusively for camp-as-Christmas men who like to wear tight tops, varnish their eyebrows and get hot and sweaty to YMCA (i.e., a stereotype, but it only becomes a stereotype when you use the label as a lazy mental short-cut). Fair enough the Venn Diagram of that and "homosexual" has quite an overlap, you have to admit, but you can't use the label belonging to one side to describe the other side. That's where the labelling clusterfuck comes in and muddies your entire point.
Is any one else fed up with the right-wing lies about Islam and liberalism?[edit]
The right wing Jew imperialist media is always trying to claim that even though Muslims and Liberals are in an evil alliance, Islam is a violent anti-gay war-like religion that is against what the left stands for. They claim that Muslims are sexist, racist, homophobic and use the death penalty and other barbaric methods to punish crime, and hence the left are hypocrites for supporting them. This is all christian teabagger nonsense. Islam is the most peaceful, loving religion on earth, unlike barbaric christianity. Everything wrong with the world is due to America and Israel, not any Muslim country or any other peaceful country in Europe or Africa. Muslim "terrorists" are really freedom fighters who are attacking fascist USA because they deserve it since they are a racist imperialist country. Most Muslims are far ahead of barbaric cowboy america where gays can't even get married in most states because it is a bunch of Fundie scum. Muslims are so wonderful and progressive. I am sick of the right. Howard McWashington (talk) 00:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, we got hit with trolls today. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh great, he's back. Sam Tally-ho! 00:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Islam is the most peaceful, loving religion on earth" Well I've just spent two years in Afghanistan, and I'm here to tell you that you're talking shit. Islam is just like judaism and christianity: the more closely you follow its teachings, the more of an obnoxious bigoted cunt you become. --Longbow (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Obnoxious bigot who closely followed Christianity's teachings. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 01:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- You guys, he's just here to annoy us. Don't even bother with him. (and it's been like ten years in Afghanistan). Sam Tally-ho! 01:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'd like to nominate it for this place we've not put anything there for a while.--BobSpring is sprung! 12:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- You guys, he's just here to annoy us. Don't even bother with him. (and it's been like ten years in Afghanistan). Sam Tally-ho! 01:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Obnoxious bigot who closely followed Christianity's teachings. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 01:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Islam is the most peaceful, loving religion on earth" Well I've just spent two years in Afghanistan, and I'm here to tell you that you're talking shit. Islam is just like judaism and christianity: the more closely you follow its teachings, the more of an obnoxious bigoted cunt you become. --Longbow (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh great, he's back. Sam Tally-ho! 00:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
McWashington, you are forgetting about the Sufis... especially the one's who smoke hashish... and don't mind a bit of male-male love... and get drunk on wine and write poems about love... Man, that's my kind of Islam (((Zack Martin)))™ 12:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
MEN SUCK[edit]
The think differently, act differently, and put personal value into stupid things. Now I know why crazy cat ladies exist. They killed their husbands and used the cats to eat the evidence.--GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 04:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Argument with the Mr? Hollow (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Does that mean you're single?! :D Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Is the initial post supposed to be some kind of send-up of the more pathetic variety of misogyny?
ListenerXTalkerX 04:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Problem? D:--Dumpling (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Nah, teh initial post is just my own inability to use the english language when I'm contemplating murder. No major problems, i just don't understand the Y chromosome. It's ... um.... strange to me.--GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 04:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ah. Haha. Its okay. I'm sure the feeling is mutual.--Dumpling (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Clearly evolution is a fraud. if it were selecting the best chance for survival, it would be homosexuality as teh norm. we kill off our partners too easily, otherwise. (actually, the smart plan would have been one gender. or three, that might work better)GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 04:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I was just wondering, because in the abstract it read a lot like Fall down's essay. ListenerXTalkerX 04:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- San Francisco sex cults, here we come! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Nah, LIstner. It's just the mundane reality of having lived with someone for 5 years, and saying "Why did you DO THAT, and not this?" As Dumpling said, I'm more than sure he sits there every day and says "huh?" to the things I do. :-) GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 05:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have learned to stop agonizing over things I do not understand. I am not, after all, trying to obtain a YHVH Omniscience Award. ListenerXTalkerX 05:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- But omniscience is such a worthy aspiration! Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- It sure as hell would help lessen the blood shed in our house. Hubby is worried, now. wondering if the reason I gave him a tuna sandwhich for dinner was to put my evil cat lady plot into action. muwhahahahah...GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 05:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- OHOHOHO~ Goodness. Thankfully, I'm no where near the age of marriage. I'll just stick to where I am now.--Dumpling (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Marriage is lovely. cept when it is a pain in your ass. *wide grin* GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 05:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ahahaha. I'll keep that in mind. --Dumpling (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I thought marriage usually meant the end of anal? bomination 15:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Only the boring ones. (no name, intentionally - not that you couldn't just look at the edit history... but it's pretense, you know. muwhahahah)
- I thought marriage usually meant the end of anal?
- Ahahaha. I'll keep that in mind. --Dumpling (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Marriage is lovely. cept when it is a pain in your ass. *wide grin*
- OHOHOHO~ Goodness. Thankfully, I'm no where near the age of marriage. I'll just stick to where I am now.--Dumpling (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- It sure as hell would help lessen the blood shed in our house. Hubby is worried, now. wondering if the reason I gave him a tuna sandwhich for dinner was to put my evil cat lady plot into action. muwhahahahah...
- But omniscience is such a worthy aspiration!
- I have learned to stop agonizing over things I do not understand. I am not, after all, trying to obtain a YHVH Omniscience Award.
- Nah, LIstner. It's just the mundane reality of having lived with someone for 5 years, and saying "Why did you DO THAT, and not this?" As Dumpling said, I'm more than sure he sits there every day and says "huh?" to the things I do. :-)
- San Francisco sex cults, here we come! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I was just wondering, because in the abstract it read a lot like Fall down's essay.
- Clearly evolution is a fraud. if it were selecting the best chance for survival, it would be homosexuality as teh norm. we kill off our partners too easily, otherwise. (actually, the smart plan would have been one gender. or three, that might work better)
- Ah. Haha. Its okay. I'm sure the feeling is mutual.--Dumpling (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Problem? D:--Dumpling (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Is the initial post supposed to be some kind of send-up of the more pathetic variety of misogyny?
- Does that mean you're single?! :D
I think one of the disadvantages of heterosexual relationships is people are so quick to blame their relationship's problems on their partner's gender rather than on their partner themselves. Whatever their other difficulties may be, homosexual relations are thankfully free of that nonsense. That's not to say that the problems necessarily have nothing to do with gender, just I think heterosexuals too often find in gender differences a convenient crutch to blame their relationship problems on (hello, but gay/lesbian relationships can have just as many problems, without any difference in gender... could it be that your relationship problems have not much to do with gender at all???) (((Zack Martin)))™ 09:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Having had a bisexual best friend I can tell you the reasoning "it's gender that produces all these fights, I'd be better off with one of my own" is bullshit. There are just as many fights, problems, complains and whining calls to your friends (ggrrrr). The only thing that comes from a straight girl being with another girl is that it makes a hoter picture. --★uːʤɱ secularist 12:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- UHM, will you marry me? (((Zack Martin)))™ 12:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- That would be because changing your gender or inventing a new one just changes the label, not the substance below it. Labels are nice and convenient and all... but let's face it, a douche is a douche, whether it be a he, she eir or ey or whatever you want to make up. It's just making up a term to cover for the fact you don't have the ability to change the substance behind it. I'd call such things "shallow", but it's a very human reaction to make; "I'm sick of Us vs Them, so I'm going to make a new Us!" This is pretty much the same thing. gnostic 13:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Heh, I was actually thinking of this, except replace "math" with "relationships." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- That would be because changing your gender or inventing a new one just changes the label, not the substance below it. Labels are nice and convenient and all... but let's face it, a douche is a douche, whether it be a he, she eir or ey or whatever you want to make up. It's just making up a term to cover for the fact you don't have the ability to change the substance behind it. I'd call such things "shallow", but it's a very human reaction to make; "I'm sick of Us vs Them, so I'm going to make a new Us!" This is pretty much the same thing.
- UHM, will you marry me? (((Zack Martin)))™ 12:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Godot, it's at times like these that I'm reminded of something my mother told me once, after a particularly disastrous breakup: "The myth that for every person there is a perfect match is a pretty hard pill to swallow. How many people will you ever really get to know, let alone meet, in your lifetime, in a world of seven billion, many of whom are either too young, too old or the wrong gender to be your perfect match in the effort to find someone who will complement you completely? I think the ultimate goal is to be with someone who agrees that, together, they can respect and take care of each other while not having to be completely integrated into each other's lives. And it's not just in romance, but in raising a family, being successful, finding fun things to fill your time and making enough money not so that you can have everything you want but so you can get by without worry. I know we pressured you to get all A's in school, but you can do pretty well in life with a B+ average." -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- LOL. I'm not worried about finding mr. perfect. I've been quite happy finding mr. "Sure, i'll put up with your insanity and baggage if you'll tollerate mine". Thats worked pretty well, aside from the views about how often to shower and change socks. (or maybe that's just cause he's french) GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 17:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I kinda figured, I just thought I'd share. And I get it--the worst part of getting divorced is deciding who gets the cats. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- If I didn't have you... I'd probably have someone else. Of the 9 point 9 hundred thousand other loves, statistically some of them would be equally nice.sshole 22:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- If I didn't have you... I'd probably have someone else. Of the 9 point 9 hundred thousand other loves, statistically some of them would be equally nice.
- I kinda figured, I just thought I'd share. And I get it--the worst part of getting divorced is deciding who gets the cats. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- LOL. I'm not worried about finding mr. perfect. I've been quite happy finding mr. "Sure, i'll put up with your insanity and baggage if you'll tollerate mine". Thats worked pretty well, aside from the views about how often to shower and change socks. (or maybe that's just cause he's french)
Those communist muppets.[edit]
the commie Muppets are communists, and the leftist media has been indoctrinating our kids, damint! --GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 05:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I heard about this, and my response was, "Huh?" Comically villainous tycoons have been a staple of movies since the business got started. ListenerXTalkerX 05:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Comically villainous tycoons have been a historically marginalized people. Only when a film can show their true plight will equality finally be achieved. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- The irony there is, some neo-conservatives say that and actually mean it. ListenerXTalkerX 05:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's a dejá rant for me. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 12:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, the type who consider Mr. Potter to be the hero of It's a Wonderful Life.
- Seriously, though, I'm trying to think of a movie where a wealthy businessman was portrayed as the hero, and his business was a primary focus of the movie. (Not, say, a romantic comedy where one of the leads just happens to be wealthy). Schindler's List springs to mind, but that's not quite the same.
- But the libertarian Randroid crowd won't be happy till they have one where the great businessman smashes the unions and dirty hippie protesters on his front yard... and is protrayed as the hero. MDB (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's got almost nothing to do with "liberal media" and virtually everything to do with the nature of a movie. I mean, we don't go to happy movies - what's the point? But, there have been a number of rich entrepreneurial business owners in romantic comedies, cause women (or at least so the sterotype goes) want to see rich men sweep them off their feet and not be asses. Everything from Pretty Woman, to Cinderella's Shoes, to "Waitress" have rich male leads. There was a movie about Facebook and getting rich; and I suppose the TV movie about Jobs v. Gates; but it's about interest. And anything dramatic needs suspense, and suspense is not going to come from rich companies being nice. GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 14:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- @LX: Not just neo-cons. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's got almost nothing to do with "liberal media" and virtually everything to do with the nature of a movie. I mean, we don't go to happy movies - what's the point? But, there have been a number of rich entrepreneurial business owners in romantic comedies, cause women (or at least so the sterotype goes) want to see rich men sweep them off their feet and not be asses. Everything from Pretty Woman, to Cinderella's Shoes, to "Waitress" have rich male leads. There was a movie about Facebook and getting rich; and I suppose the TV movie about Jobs v. Gates; but it's about interest. And anything dramatic needs suspense, and suspense is not going to come from rich companies being nice.
- That's a dejá rant for me. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 12:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- The irony there is, some neo-conservatives say that and actually mean it.
- Comically villainous tycoons have been a historically marginalized people. Only when a film can show their true plight will equality finally be achieved. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Treason is cool[edit]
This one time, at my old job, this "Anti-Corruption Trainer" came to work, to give us all a presentation on how to not be corrupt. He was a lawyer; I wonder how much he was being paid for his skills with PowerPoint? Anyway, part of his presentation was listing all the different ways in which we could be corrupt, and he was very thorough. He started with the obvious things — bribery, kickbacks, favouritism, nepotism, etc. But he ended up by telling us how we shouldn't counterfeit currency at work, we shouldn't engage in drug trafficking at work, we shouldn't engage in rape or murder at work, we shouldn't engage in war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide at work, and finally we shouldn't engage in treason at work. (We found it funny he forgot to mention not having sex with corpses; the local medical school had just been through a corpse-sex scandal... albeit, unlike medical school, in our office there were no corpses to have sex with) This last point got me thinking — how could I, in my lowly role as a corporate drone, with no access to any secrets (of military/defence/intelligence/etc.), commit treason? There must be some way, surely. I mean, most crimes I would not commit, whether from ethical objections to doing so, or from the thought that the risk of negative consequences is not worth the potential benefit, or both of the above... but treason... I think if there is one crime I am to commit, treason must be the crime for me. I mean, it sounds kind of cool... "What are you in here for?" "Fraud..." "Well, I'm in here for treason". Fail or succeed, treason seems a pretty certain way to become notable enough to become a Wikipedia article. So I've decided I'd like to commit the crime of treason, somehow or another. I'm particularly interested in exploring extra-constitutional means of overthrowing governments, although I'd prefer that no one got hurt. I was thinking if we can infiltrate enough of the police and military, then the government could be overthrown rather bloodlessly. So I'd like to establish a secret society, devoted to overthrow of the government, and invite police officers, military personnel and government officials to take the oath of membership. Once we execute our plan, any young scruffy protesters can surely be dispensed of with free booze and free weed and free iPhones and unlimited zero-cost DRM-free music and movie downloads for all. Bunch of stoned Apple-weeny Pirate-Party members won't be stopping any revolution of mine. I have no particular plans for the new regime, just that the existing one tires me and it's cool to shake things up every now and again; and sticking to the established legal/constitutional processes of doing so is rather BORING... armed revolution is so much more fun... there's something about music, it makes me want to overthrow the state, and establish a new one in it's place... I was thinking of founding a "TREASON CLUB", where all those who share an interest in committing the crime of treason could band together and discuss ways of doing it... Treason, the kind of word I'd like to have on my resume... Anyone want to join? TREASON IS FUN!!!! (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ooh! Ooh! A club! Yayayayayayay! Will it be in a treehouse? Will it have secret passwords? Can we keep gurls out, cos they've got cooties? In other words, don't call us, we'll call you. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 13:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Why would I want to keep "gurls" out? They are welcome to join... Where else do you think I plan on picking up? TREASON IS FUN!!!! (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh and I haven't told you about the plans for the porn movie either... I want to become the first ever producer of treasonous porn... imagine what that must involve (RULE 34) TREASON IS FUN!!!! (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Treason doth never prosper." --Edgerunner76Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 13:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Nowwhat? 13:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Am I the only one unable to read long posts without paragraph breaks?--BobSpring is sprung! 18:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Treason doth never prosper." --Edgerunner76Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 13:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh and I haven't told you about the plans for the porn movie either... I want to become the first ever producer of treasonous porn... imagine what that must involve (RULE 34) TREASON IS FUN!!!! (talk) 13:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Why would I want to keep "gurls" out? They are welcome to join... Where else do you think I plan on picking up? TREASON IS FUN!!!! (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey I know, let's create a sci-fi anthology[edit]
It's HollowWorld. Creative? Like to write stories? Well boy do I have an idea! I was thinking we could get some of us here who like to write fiction together and write a book of science fiction together. A bunch of shorter or longer stories wrapped up in the same galaxy and bound in the same book. Now I'm not expecting everyone here to have a PhD in physics, theoretical, crowbar-y, or otherwise, but it seems like a fun idea and I like it. We can have FtL, aliens, hot green skinned babes, colony worlds, independent republics, space dogfights, punches, mercenaries, joke Captain Adama expies, philosophical questioning wrapped deep within a story, critique of certain government types and ideas, hypothesize about invented fuel sources and how they would work, and so on! How will we publish this? I have no fucking clue! The important thing is to have fun. So, who is in? Hollow (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- +1 Blue (pester) 04:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds fun~ Ohoho.--Dumpling (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- The Romantics were right about at least one thing: A lot of the best literature has come from geniuses working in splendid isolation. ListenerXTalkerX 04:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I doubt we'd be trying to write "the best literature," and "a lot" certainly isn't "all." Blue (is useful) 04:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- As far as my personal opinion goes, I was being generous with "a lot." Also, as far as my personal opinion goes, if one is not trying for the best, one should not try at all. ListenerXTalkerX 05:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I took a creative writing course once. The one thing I learned is that I shouldn't be allowed anywhere near fiction, among other things. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I took several creative-writing courses, mainly because tuition was free back when I was a research assistant. The instructors seemed to take a high view of my work, but those opinions were of dubious provenance, since when they set a poetry assignment I would bash out some prose too disjointed to be called a story, go through it randomly inserting carriage returns, turn it in, and receive an "A." In my spare time, I coped with the broadside of stupid by bashing out jeremiads against the English department. ListenerXTalkerX 05:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm actually going to side with ListenerX on this (on both of his last two posts). Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's more about having fun and creating something beautiful together, atleast to us. I never said you had to be Douglas Adams or Isaac Asimov. Hell, I've been writing for eight years and Dan Brown would probably still kick my ass! Hollow (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- If people want to do it, why not? But is the idea to do it on-site? I'm not so sure about that - do we really want a SF epic clogging up recent changes? But if a bunch of people want to get together somewhere to create it it could be fun. I might join in. But I don't think that it could a "RW" work though.--BobSpring is sprung! 12:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- There is nothing which says 'HAY GAIZ LETS DO EET ON SIIIIGTEHFJDD'. At least, I am very certain my OP contained nothing on that. So I don't know where you are reading that from, Bob. I'm just poking around trying to see if anyone is interested, ok? Don't worry, a flurry of fiction stories are not about to suddenly clog RWs tube. Think of this sort of like a sign up sheet. Maybe when we get interested people together, we can go on Skype together or something and talk further about this so we don't annoy the other RWikians. Okay? Hollow (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- (EC)Far larger collective works has been something I've wanted to try for a while, but getting people to agree on where it should go and what to do with it is... let's say difficult. Now, I've taken part in some epic forum RPG stuff before and it's fun, but never wiki-based where you could potentially edit someone else's stuff. Keeping track of it would be difficult - as what if someone changes an important plot point in their edit and no one realises how important it is until later. It would be, more than anything, a communication exercise because you'd have to continually convey not just what you're written but also the intent behind why you wrote it. Imagine trying to set up a Chekov's Gun type situation and then for someone to come along and erase the original mention because they saw it as irrelevant, or for the story to evolve in a different direction rendering it superfluous. Fiction is arguably more difficult to do collectively because of this. Non-fiction or semi-fiction would be easier to do collectively because you're all more guided as to where it needs to go. Imagine the controversies we have on some existing RW articles but blown up even more - precisely because there would be no fact to run to, or unifying idea of "it must be skeptical and snarky" to run to either.
- But if you can get passed that, you're just left with practical issues such as who gets finaly editorial say-so and then getting enough of an outline down in the very first instance to give others something to work with. theist 15:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hell, let's be frank here, I've been helping a friend write something of her's for a while now, with editing, ideas and some writing but generally just giving help where needed. Communicating ideas just in that fairly lop-sided dynamic is still a pain in the fucking arse. But it's not impossible. I just think the hard part is in the planning and making sure everyone is excited enough by the first idea to continue it. You'd have to seriously luck out on that part to get it anywhere. There's no point if the first paragraph that gets written isn't interesting to anyone, they'll just drop out immediately rather than be inspired and want to contribute. Say, I was interesting in a character-driven naturalistic sci-fi and the first thing people came up with was all about vast evil empires and Vlador of Holbad IV and his robot armies... well, I'd just be content to sit back and see where it went rather than add anything or comment on it. postate 15:36, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- But I never said ANYTHING about it being wiki based! Hollow (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ok - but posting it on the wiki makes people think you want to do it on the wiki. In fact you made no comment at all about how it might work. However, it seems to me that a wiki-based SF creation could be an interesting experiment. Perhaps it could be done on one of the wiki-farms or something like that.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- (WHOOPS SORRY GOT A LITTLE HISSY HERE) You've seen the Star Wars fanfiction wikia right? It doesn't work. You know, I don't think most people thought it was going to be on a wiki, I think most thought of using something like google documents or something of the like. Anyway I don't want it on a fucking wikia. I'd rather get on a skype call and discuss what kind of universe we're making first rather than bash my face into a wiki template and assume everyone is going to agree with it. Where would we get the hosting? What about money? How will we maintain a wiki with 4-7 people? Hollow (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ok. Just trying to come up with some ideas. Obviously you don't like them so that's cool. I wish you well with the project and and encouraging collaborators.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Do not worry sir, all is well. Please do not take my hostility as a detriment to your enjoyment of anything, my thoughts are just of the idea that most people did not actually assume it was to be in a wiki format, and you had simply jumped to conclusions which offended my assuming young self that people will automatically know what my intentions are! Please forgive me for that mistake my senior comrade. Hollow (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sure. No problem.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Do not worry sir, all is well. Please do not take my hostility as a detriment to your enjoyment of anything, my thoughts are just of the idea that most people did not actually assume it was to be in a wiki format, and you had simply jumped to conclusions which offended my assuming young self that people will automatically know what my intentions are! Please forgive me for that mistake my senior comrade. Hollow (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ok. Just trying to come up with some ideas. Obviously you don't like them so that's cool. I wish you well with the project and and encouraging collaborators.--BobSpring is sprung! 19:31, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- (WHOOPS SORRY GOT A LITTLE HISSY HERE) You've seen the Star Wars fanfiction wikia right? It doesn't work. You know, I don't think most people thought it was going to be on a wiki, I think most thought of using something like google documents or something of the like. Anyway I don't want it on a fucking wikia. I'd rather get on a skype call and discuss what kind of universe we're making first rather than bash my face into a wiki template and assume everyone is going to agree with it. Where would we get the hosting? What about money? How will we maintain a wiki with 4-7 people? Hollow (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ok - but posting it on the wiki makes people think you want to do it on the wiki. In fact you made no comment at all about how it might work. However, it seems to me that a wiki-based SF creation could be an interesting experiment. Perhaps it could be done on one of the wiki-farms or something like that.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- But I never said ANYTHING about it being wiki based! Hollow (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hell, let's be frank here, I've been helping a friend write something of her's for a while now, with editing, ideas and some writing but generally just giving help where needed. Communicating ideas just in that fairly lop-sided dynamic is still a pain in the fucking arse. But it's not impossible. I just think the hard part is in the planning and making sure everyone is excited enough by the first idea to continue it. You'd have to seriously luck out on that part to get it anywhere. There's no point if the first paragraph that gets written isn't interesting to anyone, they'll just drop out immediately rather than be inspired and want to contribute. Say, I was interesting in a character-driven naturalistic sci-fi and the first thing people came up with was all about vast evil empires and Vlador of Holbad IV and his robot armies... well, I'd just be content to sit back and see where it went rather than add anything or comment on it.
- There is nothing which says 'HAY GAIZ LETS DO EET ON SIIIIGTEHFJDD'. At least, I am very certain my OP contained nothing on that. So I don't know where you are reading that from, Bob. I'm just poking around trying to see if anyone is interested, ok? Don't worry, a flurry of fiction stories are not about to suddenly clog RWs tube. Think of this sort of like a sign up sheet. Maybe when we get interested people together, we can go on Skype together or something and talk further about this so we don't annoy the other RWikians. Okay? Hollow (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- If people want to do it, why not? But is the idea to do it on-site? I'm not so sure about that - do we really want a SF epic clogging up recent changes? But if a bunch of people want to get together somewhere to create it it could be fun. I might join in. But I don't think that it could a "RW" work though.--BobSpring is sprung! 12:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's more about having fun and creating something beautiful together, atleast to us. I never said you had to be Douglas Adams or Isaac Asimov. Hell, I've been writing for eight years and Dan Brown would probably still kick my ass! Hollow (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm actually going to side with ListenerX on this (on both of his last two posts).
- I took several creative-writing courses, mainly because tuition was free back when I was a research assistant. The instructors seemed to take a high view of my work, but those opinions were of dubious provenance, since when they set a poetry assignment I would bash out some prose too disjointed to be called a story, go through it randomly inserting carriage returns, turn it in, and receive an "A." In my spare time, I coped with the broadside of stupid by bashing out jeremiads against the English department.
- I took a creative writing course once. The one thing I learned is that I shouldn't be allowed anywhere near fiction, among other things. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- As far as my personal opinion goes, I was being generous with "a lot." Also, as far as my personal opinion goes, if one is not trying for the best, one should not try at all.
- I doubt we'd be trying to write "the best literature," and "a lot" certainly isn't "all." Blue (is useful) 04:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- The Romantics were right about at least one thing: A lot of the best literature has come from geniuses working in splendid isolation.
- Sounds fun~ Ohoho.--Dumpling (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
An aside[edit]
Whilst all the sci-fi geeks are gathered here like moths to a flame.
Ok, here's the question: How "un-sciency" can sci-fi be? I suppose I'm asking is how retro can something be, and yet still be science fiction - think Gibson's "The Difference Engine" for example - Victorian England, but with Babbage's Thinking Machine working. Sci fi doesn't have to be all spaceships and aliens.
Likewise, how "modern" can fantasy be and still be fantasy? Can if be fantasy with automatic weapons and no swords, or magic? --PsyGremlinSermā! 16:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Are we doing this again? -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm probably an outlier on this site, but most of the stuff I can still enjoy is pretty soft and un-sciencey. Favorites, some of which are barely SF, are Orwell, Asimov, Vonnegut, Adams, Bradbury, Dick, and Pynchon (hey, he got nominated for a Nebula, so I'll shoehorn him in here). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's actually the choice of the editor in the end what label gets applied, but it is really up to the author or the reader to judge for themselves in the end. Hollow (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- The least "sciencey" SF by your metric, Psy, will tend to be alternate histories, read "Custer's Last Jump" for example, in which Custer has paratroops for his ill-fated skirmish. No technology that doesn't exist in that story, no aliens, no spaceships, no AI. Just a 19th century where things went a little differently.
- For fantasy, the sky's the limit. Indiana Jones is pretty recognisably fantasy, and that's WWII era, with Nazis firing machine guns, propeller planes, and so on. But it's not difficult at all to make the argument that Star Wars laser swords, cities hanging in the clouds, religious orders fighting each other through robot proxy wars etc. is fantasy too.
- And since nobody else mentioned it yet (I thought it was inevitable) you can write something like Iain M Banks' Inversions, where the setting looks like pseudo-medieval fantasy with courtly intrigue and so on, but your fans are in on the joke that this is all happening on some backwater planet in your existing SF setting, so that apparently "magical" objects are just ordinary technology from that SF setting. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's actually the choice of the editor in the end what label gets applied, but it is really up to the author or the reader to judge for themselves in the end. Hollow (talk) 04:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm probably an outlier on this site, but most of the stuff I can still enjoy is pretty soft and un-sciencey. Favorites, some of which are barely SF, are Orwell, Asimov, Vonnegut, Adams, Bradbury, Dick, and Pynchon (hey, he got nominated for a Nebula, so I'll shoehorn him in here). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
The FEMA concentration camp nuts were right[edit]
Discuss. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Nothing to do with FEMA. I haven't looked into it much, but apparently the clause that potentially allows for indefinite detention is just a small part of the annual defense bill which get passed all the time, which is why it passed 93-7. Unless I'm overlooking something it should take the Supreme Court about 5 minutes to strike down the part about detention without due process. Anyway that's my take. DickTurpis (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- The FEMA thing was a joke (I hope). It's not that the bill passed so much as it is that the clause was being enthusiastically defended. It doesn't surprise me that much, but it's still scary. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Nerds, I need your help![edit]
So, I need to make a very important credit application (is that the right term?), problem is the thing is only available digitally through filling out a form on the banks website (seriously FFS what happend to personal relationships to businesses that gangrape you?). I was told that would be 3 steps. Step 1: Fill out the online form. Step 2: Print the thing. Step 3: Bring the thing to a "distribution partner" and sign it. Step 4: Profit Watch your debt grow as you are able to eat again.
But I never got to step 2. After I click the button that should generate the pdf-file I get a 408 error (request timeout). I tried this several times and with several browsers. Everytime the same darn thing. I've checked in all those browsers and JavaScript is turned on. Now the question is if it is something I did, or if that server is just shit.
Happily I got an XML-y file to download, so I can load up the application again and again. I will probably just go to that "distribution partner" tomorrow and ask them to print it (if that is at all possible). Still it would be better if this was somehow my fault and I could actually do something about it. Anybody? --★uːʤɱ pervert 22:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Nope, 408 probably means something doesn't work, it's taking far longer than it should and most likely that's because it's just broken, not because it would have worked if you could somehow wait long enough (you can't). Think of it as the equivalent of an actual human saying "This looks fine, let me just get it OK'd with Barry, won't take a second...." and then after a couple of minutes of nothing but the gentle sound of a ringing telephone, they say "Oh, well, I'm sure he's just at lunch of something. Could you pop by again later and try?" but when you come back later the exact same thing happens. Of course a human would have some fallback plan if Barry has in fact gone on holiday for two weeks. Or so you would hope.
- It's vanishingly unlikely that this is in any way your fault or something you can fix. Even in the extraordinary case where the 408 happens because you filled the form out "wrong" that's just terrible application design and somebody should be Clarkson'd. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Scrabble online discussion[edit]
Serious question. When you play scrabble online, do you use an online dictionary - or worse and online "add your letters here and see what we find" dictionary? I have a pretty decent vocab, but when I play online, I feel like I didn't even graduate. Surely all of these facebook housewives do not know what Mither is. (I had to look it up - to fuss, to pester or to annoy). GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 00:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Eh, there's some serious scrabble nerds out there. The sort of people that have all the 2 and 3 letter words memorised. It's just that any sort of unranked play, if it's popular enough, selects for the people who are insanely good and weeds out all the rest of us. It's the same reason playing chess online is probably a mistake. Stick to monopoly. Or snakes and ladders. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Words with Friends has been pretty popular lately. I've seen people make up some pretty weird words that they some how manage to fit in to the scrabble board. Sam Tally-ho! 07:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Mither is certainly a word that housewives of a certain age know. My mother used it constantly as we were growing up.-- Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 09:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- What are you mithering about WfG? common enuff raund 'ere. Scream!! (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, mither is a common north of England expression. However, Mrs K. was complaining only last night about the dictionary on her iPad Scrabble not allowing 'wa' nor even 'rape' although it does allow 'cunt'. I remember hearing on the radio about Thai (or possibly Taiwanese) Scrabble players who don't speak English but memorise the English OSWL. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 16:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- The introductory question "When you play scrabble online" seems to assume rather a lot.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, mither is a common north of England expression. However, Mrs K. was complaining only last night about the dictionary on her iPad Scrabble not allowing 'wa' nor even 'rape' although it does allow 'cunt'. I remember hearing on the radio about Thai (or possibly Taiwanese) Scrabble players who don't speak English but memorise the English OSWL.
- What are you mithering about WfG? common enuff raund 'ere. Scream!! (talk) 13:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Mither is certainly a word that housewives of a certain age know. My mother used it constantly as we were growing up.--
- Words with Friends has been pretty popular lately. I've seen people make up some pretty weird words that they some how manage to fit in to the scrabble board. Sam Tally-ho! 07:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Here's one for you internet sleuths (and/or conspiracy theorists)[edit]
The local Murdoch rag recently ran this story about an OWS protester being hired by the big bad bankstahs. However, if you look at her Facebook, she's actually a 9/11 conspiracy nut advancing the "space beams" argument. (Astute truther-watchers will recognize this as the Judy Wood theory, which even other truthers think is nuts.) Smells like an attempt at a PR move. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Apparently it got on CNN as well. We're delving into conspiracy theory here, but the fact that she's still going to the protests like nothing happened sounds a little funny. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- About: It is the theory of several researchers, including myself, that advanced weaponry of amazing power was used to destroy the World Trade Center. Yes, on 9/11 the power was used to destroy, but, like nuclear energy, it can be used for good. THAT we saw evidence of this technology on September 11, 2001, is evidence of its existence. We need to find the perpetrators and recover the technology and start using for ourselves.
- Relationship Status: Divorced.
- Surprising? bomination 19:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Crank magnetism in action (Creationism and climate denial)[edit]
Eugenie Scott on NCSE's new campaign to combat climate denial in schools. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I was wondering when the NCSE would start moving on to other things. pathetic 14:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Epic...Rap Battles of History![edit]
Second season. So funny. Osaka Sun (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- My roommate absolutely loves this (he's more of a history person than I am). Nice find. άλφαΤαλκ 18:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Filibustered nominee[edit]
Interesting irony here but not really news. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's so sad how amazingly obstructionist congressional Republicans are now. So full of disgust for others (*cough* Obama *cough*) and so unwilling to compromise on anything. I really do hope they suffer next November. Sam Tally-ho! 19:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear Apple, get fucked[edit]
I bought a MacBook Pro in April 2008 and immediately started experiencing issues with poor battery life. I also paid $300+ for Applecare. From June 2008 through April 2011 when my Applecare was set to expire, I made half a dozen or more calls and visits to Apple store "geniuses." It got to the point that I even stopped thinking of it as a portable computer. Never mind that it's always run unusually hot. Apple had me convinced it was normal for their laptop batteries to last 1.5 hours or less. The last straw was being unable to fully prepare for an emergency meeting because I wasn't near an outlet. Another call to Applecare, this time with a promise that I would be suing Apple for breach of express warranty for the replacement value of my useless computer if this issue didn't get sorted immediately. They try going through the same script as always. I say send me a fucking battery or you can explain to your boss why a dispute over $120 worth of overpriced shit has Apple hiring local counsel across the country. They do. It stops taking a charge when a cell blows out ~40 cycles later, which is months after my Applecare expired and years after my original warranty expired. I call Apple. Sorry sir, we can't open a ticket for you without a valid Applecare ID. OEM batteries for my older MBP cost ~$120 so I bought a fairly well-reviewed non-OEM battery for $35 on Amazon.com. Now I'm getting nearly 4 hours of battery life (more than my mom's new unibody 13" MBP) and the computer runs significantly cooler. Fuck you, Apple. Fuck you. 
17:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- you should be thankful for any polished turd apple decides to shit out. Any problem you have is your fault because apple are perfect. Thats what they tell their customer service folk isn't it? AMassiveGay (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry dude. No sympathy. You bought an Apple product, you got what you deserved. Next time you buy a laptop, realise that you can get cheaper, better products elsewhere. With warranties that don't involve endless arguments on the phone, and involve actual engineers coming to your house the next day to fix the problem for you. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Just so you know...[edit]
Brian Blessed is on twitter now. (@brianblessed)
Excuse me, that's wrong. It should be:
BRIAN BLESSED IS ON TWITTER NOW!
MDB (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- And we should care because ....?--BobSpring is sprung! 17:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Because its BRIAN fucking BLESSED AMassiveGay (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ahhh. Emmm ... And?--BobSpring is sprung! 17:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Is that not enough? you should be ashamed of your self AMassiveGay (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Err. No. And why should I? Why is he important? A serious answer would be cool.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- If you need to ask, it can't be explained to you. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- The man's a legend in his own lifetime. Boxed with the Dalai Lama, nearly made it to the top of Everest at the age of 55, oldest man to make it on foot to the North Pole and, far more important, knows that "GORDON'S ALIVE!"-- Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 19:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ah! Right. He must have some thing intelligent to say then.--BobSpring is sprung! 23:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- He doesn't need to say anything intelligent. He's BRIAN BLESSED. He could read the phone book and make it funny. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ah! Right. He must have some thing intelligent to say then.--BobSpring is sprung! 23:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- The man's a legend in his own lifetime. Boxed with the Dalai Lama, nearly made it to the top of Everest at the age of 55, oldest man to make it on foot to the North Pole and, far more important, knows that "GORDON'S ALIVE!"--
- If you need to ask, it can't be explained to you. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Err. No. And why should I? Why is he important? A serious answer would be cool.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Is that not enough? you should be ashamed of your self AMassiveGay (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ahhh. Emmm ... And?--BobSpring is sprung! 17:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Because its BRIAN fucking BLESSED AMassiveGay (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Historical revisionism[edit]
This term is often bandied about with a very negative connotation. I think, due to constant misuse by the media, revisionism has come to be popularly equated with denialism. Of course, it's not; historical revisionism is vital to the study of history and (usually) a completely legitimate practice. Blue (pester) 21:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Huh. I always assumed it only meant rewriting history to fit your own agenda. Flubbertalk to me :D 21:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Dammit, and I've even read that article, so I know I'm guilty of this. I'll change it as appropriate. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- ECEC Yes to Blue. Wrong to Fallacy. Blue, any particular reason this is on your mind at this moment? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 21:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- (ECx2) That's an accusation levied against most historians, not just the wingnuts. Unless you read Wikipedia (!) you're not going to ever read unbiased history. Blue (is useful) 21:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- EC. (Also, history is generally written with an agenda in mind, F.) PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 22:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I've seen it on a few recent WIGOs. Blue (is useful) 22:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- While history needs to be revised to take account of new discoveries or to move away from existing politically-motivated versions of history, it is certainly true that the idea of "revisionism" is strongly associated in the public mind with the idea of creating a new historical reality which fits some other political agenda. This needs to be clear in our article. However this discussion section also needs to be on the article's talk page and not here.--BobSpring is sprung! 23:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's more accurate to use the term "negationist" for denialist pseudohistory. (Or even just "pseudohistory.") Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 09:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- While history needs to be revised to take account of new discoveries or to move away from existing politically-motivated versions of history, it is certainly true that the idea of "revisionism" is strongly associated in the public mind with the idea of creating a new historical reality which fits some other political agenda. This needs to be clear in our article. However this discussion section also needs to be on the article's talk page and not here.--BobSpring is sprung! 23:00, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Modern Conservatism in the US as a "last stand"[edit]
As we all know, the right is getting crazier and crazier by the day. I have a theory for this. It is inevitable that as a society moves forward, it will become more and more liberal. The conservatives realize this, and since they know they are a dying race, they are pushing together as a last stand. This is a desperate attempt to make themselves appear powerful, as if that will stop the inevitable, so we shouldn't pay it any attention. We should only shed a tear or two in advance in memory of all the laughs these guys gave us. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have no way of knowing if it's true, but it makes some kind of sense. same with that more radicalization of xinaity against gays, and women, and abortion, and atheists. And that fear probably also motivates anti minority, and anti other religion attitudes. --GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 01:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. Is there any kind of example of that in US history? Didn't the Federalists become more radical (for lack of a better word) before dying out? I'm pretty sure the Democratic party got more and more pro-slavery until they got screwed over by the Civil War before coming around to the good side. Sam Tally-ho! 01:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe every several decades or so the conservatives get more reactionary as a reaction to the increasing liberalism, before an explosion happens and they catch up. Fuckertalk to me :D 01:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, I don't think this is true. It doesn't seem like American conservatism is becoming increasingly crazy because they're a shrinking band with only the hardest of hardcore ideologues left, it seems to me they're becoming more crazy because nobody is drawing a line in the sand and saying to them that the madness ends here.
- Maybe every several decades or so the conservatives get more reactionary as a reaction to the increasing liberalism, before an explosion happens and they catch up. Fuckertalk to me :D 01:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Makes sense to me. Is there any kind of example of that in US history? Didn't the Federalists become more radical (for lack of a better word) before dying out? I'm pretty sure the Democratic party got more and more pro-slavery until they got screwed over by the Civil War before coming around to the good side. Sam Tally-ho! 01:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- In America it seems like you can sell their brand of lunacy. Tax cuts for everyone, but mostly for the wealthy. Abolish certain types of taxes altogether. Abolish infrastructure investment and social programmes and transfer what little money the government does collect to private industry as a form of corporate welfare. Little by little they're inching forward with their agenda, and there's no effective resistance fighting back. The Democrats can't even let tax cuts passed as "emergency" provisions to avoid having to balance the budget expire, let alone make a reasonable case that perhaps the tax code that existed 30 years ago might have been a better thing. The bizarre US legislative procedures give the power to even a minority that doesn't mind acting in bad faith, so the Democrats can't legislate at all even when they're in power and they can't seem to wrap their head around the need to stoop to the same level if only to paralyse government enough to get legislative reform enacted.
- So, no. I don't think Conservatism in the USA is dying. I think it's winning, in the sense that you're all letting yourselves become insta-serfs by total inaction. Hell, Gingrich is even talking about reintroducing child labour. The 19th century is back, baby. Enjoy your 15 hour work days in cotton mills, kids. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- These days, I intend to agree with Jeeves. Even if the GOP loses the next election, the Republican race has already helped a particular brand of conservative agenda by making things like child labour, torture, and ending food stamps (see Santorum's blast yesterday) legitimate topics of political debate. They're winning, even by losing. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 02:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Eventually, though, people will have to start choosing between the liberal direction the country's going in (oh God I sound like the anti-Schlafly) or increasingly radical ultra-conservative principles. I think eventually we'll get over the hump and this far-right insanity will cease to be potent. Sam Tally-ho! 02:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- We'll see. I tell you think much though. If they ever start making serious noises about abolishing the capital gains tax, that's the time to pack your bags and get the hell out of Dodge. I reckon that's the next thing on their list after they get done "privatising" social security. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 02:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- It'd be very tempting to
fleeleave if someone like Perry were to ever get elected. Even if I wanted to, I couldn't leave for at least 3 and a half years anyway. Sam Tally-ho! 02:19, 10 December 2011 (UTC)- Well, don't worry about it quite yet. They've spend a couple of decades now trying to figure out the magic words to say that will sell people on the idea that privatising social security is a good idea. I suspect it'll take at least another 4 years for them to perfect the marketing campaign on that one. It's only after that that they run out of things they can sell as "free market solutions" and start on the naked, undisguised looting. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 02:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- It'd be very tempting to
- We'll see. I tell you think much though. If they ever start making serious noises about abolishing the capital gains tax, that's the time to pack your bags and get the hell out of Dodge. I reckon that's the next thing on their list after they get done "privatising" social security. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 02:12, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Eventually, though, people will have to start choosing between the liberal direction the country's going in (oh God I sound like the anti-Schlafly) or increasingly radical ultra-conservative principles. I think eventually we'll get over the hump and this far-right insanity will cease to be potent. Sam Tally-ho! 02:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- These days, I intend to agree with Jeeves. Even if the GOP loses the next election, the Republican race has already helped a particular brand of conservative agenda by making things like child labour, torture, and ending food stamps (see Santorum's blast yesterday) legitimate topics of political debate. They're winning, even by losing. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 02:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- So, no. I don't think Conservatism in the USA is dying. I think it's winning, in the sense that you're all letting yourselves become insta-serfs by total inaction. Hell, Gingrich is even talking about reintroducing child labour. The 19th century is back, baby. Enjoy your 15 hour work days in cotton mills, kids. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 01:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
You're straight-up wrong. The idea that there should be a publicly-funded social safety net has been totally eviscerated; the default position is that individuals and families, and not society or the state, bear the primary responsibility for ensuring basic well-being. Even the idea of universal health care in the United States is tied to for-profit corporations and not a public system. The conservatives aren't going away. They won. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 02:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's a bit premature to be declaring who's won.
- But yeah, if things don't look up soon, I might have to look for a new country to live in. Maybe I'll start my own. Fartertalk to me :D 02:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Jim Wallis, of Sojourners, said that a very large number of people vote for the conservatives with extreme reluctance due to certain pivotal issues, naming abortion as his chief example. If their opponents want to get more votes they will probably have to make some ideological compromises that they find somewhat unpleasant. ListenerXTalkerX 05:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- They did. They're called the Blue Dog Democrats. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- By "their opponents" I meant left-wingers, not Democrats in general. There used to be politicians with more left-wing economic views who were conservative on social issues; they struck a chord with the working-stiffs, or were at least able to drum them into the service of the urban political machines that used to get out the Democratic vote. ListenerXTalkerX 05:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Peak wingnut theory has been discredited. Seriously, though, having looked at demographic trends, political self-identification has remained relatively stable and the 'baggers, like the GOP in general, are drawing more from the old white fart demographic to state the obvious. The social conservative tactics like gay-baiting seem to me to be a product of two things: The civil rights movement (if you look at the biggest gay baiters like Robertson, the late Falwell, etc. and their political operations, you find that they switched to gay-baiting after black-baiting became unacceptable) and the religious right/Reagan Revolution alliance (making Barry Goldwater something of a minor prophet). Gay-baiting is bound to lose some of its political capital in the near future. The younger demographic seems to be more socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I think future wingnuts will look more like Grover Norquist than Joseph Farah. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- ...they switched to gay-baiting after black-baiting became unacceptable... I suspect that it was instead when Red-baiting became moot; if I recall, the anti-gay campaign began its real escalation in the early 1990s, forcing out people like Mel White. ListenerXTalkerX 06:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, probably some mix of both. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Almost forgot: (Insert obligatory Richard Hofstadter reference here.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, probably some mix of both. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- ...they switched to gay-baiting after black-baiting became unacceptable... I suspect that it was instead when Red-baiting became moot; if I recall, the anti-gay campaign began its real escalation in the early 1990s, forcing out people like Mel White.
- Peak wingnut theory has been discredited. Seriously, though, having looked at demographic trends, political self-identification has remained relatively stable and the 'baggers, like the GOP in general, are drawing more from the old white fart demographic to state the obvious. The social conservative tactics like gay-baiting seem to me to be a product of two things: The civil rights movement (if you look at the biggest gay baiters like Robertson, the late Falwell, etc. and their political operations, you find that they switched to gay-baiting after black-baiting became unacceptable) and the religious right/Reagan Revolution alliance (making Barry Goldwater something of a minor prophet). Gay-baiting is bound to lose some of its political capital in the near future. The younger demographic seems to be more socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I think future wingnuts will look more like Grover Norquist than Joseph Farah. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- By "their opponents" I meant left-wingers, not Democrats in general. There used to be politicians with more left-wing economic views who were conservative on social issues; they struck a chord with the working-stiffs, or were at least able to drum them into the service of the urban political machines that used to get out the Democratic vote.
- They did. They're called the Blue Dog Democrats.
- Jim Wallis, of Sojourners, said that a very large number of people vote for the conservatives with extreme reluctance due to certain pivotal issues, naming abortion as his chief example. If their opponents want to get more votes they will probably have to make some ideological compromises that they find somewhat unpleasant.
I think Mr. Anon is on to something there, but I think one should let go off the frames of "conservatives" and "America". There have been many instances in which previously mainstream thought became pushed out to a wing movement and then just batshit insane. From Neo-Confucianism in East Asia (first responding to buddhist and daoist influence, later for example in Korea being instutionalized against Western influences, labelling them as imoral), the counter-reformation (against the loss of control by the church) and witch hunts in Europe and North America (against the continuing and growing influence of rationalism and science), communism in and of it's own (as a radicalization and brutalization of left-wing forces declaring everything formed by economic circumstances), Racism of the early modern era in Europe (justified by science and prejudice against the contact of other cultures making culutural relativism more or less obvious) and later the japanocentrical racism (and racialism) of the Empire of Japan, the communist terror organization in Western Europe and Japan appearing in the early seventies (as a reaction against the normalization after the 68ers and hippies), some eastern bloc nations not reforming or beginning to be even more stalinist (as an answer to glaznost) to the whole existence of Al-Quaida (as a reaction to the adoption of some Western ideals in the Islamic world) and Christian fundemantalism as a whole. It just seems to be a pattern. But good for all of us is that these forces only seldomly get into power, because then people start to disappear, freedoms are cut and shit goes really down.
What we shouldn't do is thinking that great media presence of such forces makes them win. As they evolve into this they allready have lost and as crazier as they become as more they'll lose. There won't be a teabagger sitting in the White House any time soon, because if not the rest of the people (80%?) then at least the moderates and Democrats won't let it work (the same goes for a socialist sitting in the White House). Although they do have some influence that get's greatly exagregated by the two party system and the personal elections into offices, that's just "having influence" and not "winning [the game]". --★uːʤɱ secularist 18:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, the really important thing to look at is: What's changing in the attitudes of new generations? It's true that people do not vote on policy, neither literally (the US is a representative democracy, not a direct democracy, on almost all important issues) nor in the spirit (when asked most voters can't correctly tie a candidate to their policies). But despite that, their attitudes matter hugely. Because mostly what you face out in the real world is not actually government policy, it's the attitudes of other people. You couldn't have blocked the black vote with a few dozen old men passing laws. You need thousands maybe millions of ordinary white folk with the attitude that blacks shouldn't vote. In the long term, changing attitudes is what matters. The biggest attitude problem America has right now is the idea that raw chance is not a big factor, good or ill, that people "make their own luck". Get a generation of under 25s to believe that becoming president, getting rich, or losing your job, dying of cancer are mostly down to pure chance and you've got yourself a generation that will tax the rich and fix social safety nets. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 00:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Any cricket fans in the house?[edit]
I just saw this. Best movie I've seen in quite a while. Wondering what diehard fans of the sport (of which I'm not, but the movie is tangentially related to what I do...) think about it.... PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 05:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't seen it but I have heard very good things about it. That era was a bit before my time but all those players are legendary. --DamoHi 05:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Haven't seen it yet, but yes - any decent cricket lover would get misty eyed over that team. Fresh from having your head caved in by the likes of Holding, Roberts, Marshall, Garner, Clarke, Croft, you then get belted all over the field by Greenwich, Richards, Lloyd, Kallicharan, Rowe... Possibly the only team that was better was Bradman's '48 Aussies. (useless Claim to Fame info - I faced 1 ball from Sylvester Clarke in a club cricket match in Jo'burg in 1990. Came in as a very nervous no 11... left 1 ball later - retired hurt, broken thumb. Didn't even see the ball.) --PsyGremlinSermā! 12:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Psy, you might also be interested in the part of the film that deals with the Windies team re: the 83-84 trip to your home country. The whole bloody film is amazing, though. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 14:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Cool! That was a great series. I'm busy downl... I mean sourcing a copy at the moment... --PsyGremlinSiarad! 14:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Psy, you might also be interested in the part of the film that deals with the Windies team re: the 83-84 trip to your home country. The whole bloody film is amazing, though. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 14:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Haven't seen it yet, but yes - any decent cricket lover would get misty eyed over that team. Fresh from having your head caved in by the likes of Holding, Roberts, Marshall, Garner, Clarke, Croft, you then get belted all over the field by Greenwich, Richards, Lloyd, Kallicharan, Rowe... Possibly the only team that was better was Bradman's '48 Aussies. (useless Claim to Fame info - I faced 1 ball from Sylvester Clarke in a club cricket match in Jo'burg in 1990. Came in as a very nervous no 11... left 1 ball later - retired hurt, broken thumb. Didn't even see the ball.) --PsyGremlinSermā! 12:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I just got the best idea ever![edit]
What if we do What's going on on YouTube WIGO? -- DasRationalpersone 
(Annoy me!) 15:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Somewhere, a small fluffy puppy was run over, because you said that, destroying another innocent child's dream of Xmas. Shame on you! Shame! --PsyGremlinParla! 15:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh noez! You discovered my secret intentionz behind the suggestion! Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck! Now you know I intentionally destroyed child's puppy! Nooooooh! -- DasRationalpersone
(Annoy me!) 15:11, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh noez! You discovered my secret intentionz behind the suggestion! Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck! Now you know I intentionally destroyed child's puppy! Nooooooh! -- DasRationalpersone
Quadricopters[edit]
Wants!!!!! — Unsigned, by: Scream!! / talk / contribs
- I'd love to have a few, too, but I'll wait until they get out of beta. =P --Sid (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Shenanigans at WP[edit]
I see David Gerard gets a mention in this BBC report. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 22:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Gets a mention? Mo-fo was on Newsnight once to discuss Wikipedia. sshole 22:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Um... what BBC report? --PsyGremlinTala! 11:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- This one, obviously. I thought Ghengis made that pretty clear. ONE / TALK 15:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think so. But thanks for your link- I was wondering too.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- This one, obviously. I thought Ghengis made that pretty clear. ONE / TALK 15:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Um... what BBC report? --PsyGremlinTala! 11:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- 20-minute phone call compressed to a sentence. This story is the big news at the moment. The interesting bit is that Jimmy Wales has personally dived in - he basically never does that - David Gerard (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Pedantic rant[edit]
Yet again I hear news reporters referring to the 'epicentre' of something; tonight the "epicentre of the Euro crisis". No it's not the epicentre, that is the point on the Earth's surface above the focus, if it is already on the surface then it is just the centre. </rant> ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 22:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm reminded of people who like to talk about things (whatever) being in "pristine" condition. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Those who complain about the (mis)use of the word 'pristine' to mean pure or unsullied are like those who complain about the (mis)use of enormity to mean vast size. yes, you're right, but the battle is lost. Language moves on and you're being left behind. Nice no longer means precise or accurate either. Bad Faith (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- BTW Genghis, try this with me...CENTER and EPICENTER (hehe...I'm a filthy Yankee) -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- irregardless, I use epicenter, pristine, and nice. so there. (shudders)--GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 00:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- My pet peeve is the your/you're thing. People get it wrong so much that when "you're" is used correctly it almost looks like a weird, archaic form of English. Sam Tally-ho! 00:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think we should define 'irregardless' to mean the opposite of 'regardless'. That would be really confusing, but awesome. Fuckertalk to me :D 00:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Figuring that by the time they are in college, they should know better, i actually did take points of my students' grades for irregardless. "so, since you said 'irregardless of the war, the natives died', you mean it only matters that the indians died in teh war, which is wrong, so you get no points on this questions." it actually worked. people stopped using it.GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 01:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- The one that drives me absolutely fucking bonkers is the misspelling of "lose" as "loose." In contrast "pouring over documents" just makes me giggle. Doctor Dark (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- OK, if we are moving on to more general pet peeves then huge 'proportions' to mean big, rather than 'dimensions'. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 09:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Any use of a word in a way different from how I learned it is a gross perversion of its meaning. However, whenever someone older than me complains about how I use a word, he is an old fogey who needs to get with the times. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 09:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- The loose/lose one is, unfortunately, all over the place in fanfiction. It drives me nuts, too. (Occasionally, the world of fanfiction spawns whole new typos. I read one fanfic that, over a six-year period, consistently misspelled "mused" as "mussed".) Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 09:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- My personal problem - well, my personal problem in this area, you don't want to hear about the others, although the cream is doing wonders - is that, whilst my brain knows the difference between it's/its lose/loose they're/there/their and further/farther my fingers don't always get the message and, as we've grown accustomed to using the wiggly red line to tell us when we're wrong, we don't always spot them. Oh, and another of my peeves - all you erotica writers - when a character achieves orgasm they 'come', they do not 'cum'. That really puts me off my stroke. Bad Faith (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Pet (of the moment - there's always a new one round the corner) is "like" when "as if" is meant. Scream!! (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- "At the end of the day..." Can't stand that expression. SJ Debaser 11:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- English would be a dreadful thing if all you pedants had your way. However, if you use the words 'guesstiimate' or 'chillax' in my presence, I will put a glass in your faceAMassiveGay (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- I now seem to be in a minority when pronouncing it "shedule" rather than "skedule". And yes, I've heard about learning it at "shool". Ajkgordon (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- As others have pointed out, the language is changing all the time. Being upset about the changes won't stop them happening.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Misuse of words like "majority" when what is meant is "the larger part" or "epicentre" instead of just plain centre doesn't really bother me, mainly because the intended meaning and the strict meaning usually have semantic similarity, but also because I probably commit a thousand of these offences every week and never realise it. The only one that really bothers me is misuse of "literally" because the function of the word is completely lost. A consequence of this is that you sometimes can't tell when a person is or isn't using figurative language, like when they say they "literally" cried for hours or there was "literally" thousands of people at a gig. Grumblejaws (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Similar to "virtually". Ajkgordon (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Wait, what? "the larger part" is a common definition of the word majority. It's defined that way in the OED, in the ordinary household dictionary I first picked up when I went "Wait, what?" and in Wiktionary. Are you another one of these crazy people who doesn't realise a word can have multiple definitions (as well as the possibility that two different words can be spelled the same, even when totally unrelated otherwise)? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Misuse of words like "majority" when what is meant is "the larger part" or "epicentre" instead of just plain centre doesn't really bother me, mainly because the intended meaning and the strict meaning usually have semantic similarity, but also because I probably commit a thousand of these offences every week and never realise it. The only one that really bothers me is misuse of "literally" because the function of the word is completely lost. A consequence of this is that you sometimes can't tell when a person is or isn't using figurative language, like when they say they "literally" cried for hours or there was "literally" thousands of people at a gig. Grumblejaws (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- As others have pointed out, the language is changing all the time. Being upset about the changes won't stop them happening.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:16, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- I now seem to be in a minority when pronouncing it "shedule" rather than "skedule". And yes, I've heard about learning it at "shool". Ajkgordon (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- English would be a dreadful thing if all you pedants had your way. However, if you use the words 'guesstiimate' or 'chillax' in my presence, I will put a glass in your faceAMassiveGay (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- "At the end of the day..." Can't stand that expression. SJ Debaser 11:21, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Pet (of the moment - there's always a new one round the corner) is "like" when "as if" is meant. Scream!! (talk) 11:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- My personal problem - well, my personal problem in this area, you don't want to hear about the others, although the cream is doing wonders - is that, whilst my brain knows the difference between it's/its lose/loose they're/there/their and further/farther my fingers don't always get the message and, as we've grown accustomed to using the wiggly red line to tell us when we're wrong, we don't always spot them. Oh, and another of my peeves - all you erotica writers - when a character achieves orgasm they 'come', they do not 'cum'. That really puts me off my stroke. Bad Faith (talk) 10:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- OK, if we are moving on to more general pet peeves then huge 'proportions' to mean big, rather than 'dimensions'.
- The one that drives me absolutely fucking bonkers is the misspelling of "lose" as "loose." In contrast "pouring over documents" just makes me giggle. Doctor Dark (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Figuring that by the time they are in college, they should know better, i actually did take points of my students' grades for irregardless. "so, since you said 'irregardless of the war, the natives died', you mean it only matters that the indians died in teh war, which is wrong, so you get no points on this questions." it actually worked. people stopped using it.
- irregardless, I use epicenter, pristine, and nice. so there. (shudders)--
- BTW Genghis, try this with me...CENTER and EPICENTER (hehe...I'm a filthy Yankee) -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Those who complain about the (mis)use of the word 'pristine' to mean pure or unsullied are like those who complain about the (mis)use of enormity to mean vast size. yes, you're right, but the battle is lost. Language moves on and you're being left behind. Nice no longer means precise or accurate either. Bad Faith (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- lol i no rite? j/k :-) :-) :-) - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- It makes me very angry when people write "to" instead of "too". And when something is referred to as a "full English breakfast" but does not include black pudding. Wēāŝēīōīď
Methinks it is a Weasel 22:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have to drive you people fucking crazy with all of my typos. What generally drives me nuts in any given language is inproper declension — Or, for that matter, if you just don't use declension at all because you're lazy like that and end up chaining up 5 nouns without giving anybody any goddamn explanation in what kind of relation they stand to one another. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 01:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what declension is, so I'm not sure if I am using it in a proper or improper fashion AMassiveGay (talk) 22:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have to drive you people fucking crazy with all of my typos. What generally drives me nuts in any given language is inproper declension — Or, for that matter, if you just don't use declension at all because you're lazy like that and end up chaining up 5 nouns without giving anybody any goddamn explanation in what kind of relation they stand to one another. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 01:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- It makes me very angry when people write "to" instead of "too". And when something is referred to as a "full English breakfast" but does not include black pudding. Wēāŝēīōīď
I'll just leave this here[edit]
Rick Perry's Unpopular Opinions. Blue (pester) 04:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's terribly unfunny. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 04:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- The blogger needs to learn a little Flash, I think. ListenerXTalkerX 05:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's become a meme now, so I guess people like it.
- The blogger needs to learn a little Flash, I think.
- Also, how did "George W. Bush was the greatest president ever" not get in there? Osaka Sun (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think this is one of those things only tumblr nerds find hilarious. Blue (is useful) 05:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Probably. I'm a much bigger fan of things like Actually You're the 47 Percent. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Love this site already. bomination 14:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- I remember Cenk from The Young Turks doing a similar thing a few months back. A guy was raving about how he didn't feel entitled to anything, because after getting injured he managed to retrain and get off welfare and find another job... and Cenk was like "EXACTLY! YOU WERE ON FREAKING WELFARE WHILE YOU SORTED YOUR LIFE OUT! THAT'S THE POINT!!" sshole 14:27, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Welfare opponents mostly go after those who view welfare as an alternative to work, rather than as something to live on between jobs. ListenerXTalkerX 23:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- In theory, yes. And on one level I agree with them. They happily point out to the odd case where people are living it up in big houses because they have like 18 billion kids or something - but that's nothing but selective reporting. The sad truth is that when it comes to the actual rhetoric and plans they have for "reform" they do tend to throw the proverbial baby out with the proverbial bathwater by attacking the welfare system itself, not those who abuse it. Yes, if pushed for some specifics they'll say how people abuse the system, but never when ranting about it generally will they make such a distinction. Everyone who has ever used it gets tarred with that brush. Which is why it always smacks of incredible hypocrisy when people say it's a terrible thing when they've received it themselves. Indeed, aren't we all receiving some form of socialised welfare? Albeit mostly in terms of infrastructure, police, law and regulation. bomination 03:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Those are public services, though, available to everyone; welfare is only available based on some standard of "need" that is subject to endless gaming and cheating. Personally, I think that "Universal Basic Income" is a better idea than traditional welfare; not only is it very difficult to cheat on it, it would also be very difficult to make an "other" group out of those who actually need it. ListenerXTalkerX 04:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Reverse taxation for the poor (your "Universal Basic Income") is still vulnerable to plenty of cheating. First of all, you claim for relatives you don't have, or who are dead, or gone elsewhere. Grandma? Bury her in the backyard and keep those cheques coming (this problem is endemic in some countries). Cousin Wim? He may have gone home to Africa, but nobody tell the government. And so what if nobody lives in the spare bedroom? Who will know if you say you've a twin brother who keeps to himself? More money in the pot. Then, you claim for yourself, conveniently keeping your real income "off the books". For small-timers, maybe they clean and do the laundry for a few people, £200 per week cash. Or they go on a lot of "holidays" where they bulk buy foreign goods "for personal consumption" and then sell them to friends for a nice profit, cash again. Bigger scammers may have a "consultancy" business which is really worked by two people, but only one of them appears on the books, the other collects benefits and keeps the difference, again in cash.
- I think a government guaranteed minimum income for adults would be a good thing, but let's not pretend it makes fraud detection easier. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- @ADK: See glibertarian. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Pardon me, BoN, but you get paid the same amount of basic income (not the same thing as "reverse taxation for the poor") whether you make 200 pounds a week in cash or not. And people collecting income for the dead could still be a problem, but it is harder to conceal that someone has died than to conceal that you are working for cash under the table. Not to mention that if the system were to use direct deposit into bank accounts rather than checks, it would be more difficult for one person to collect benefits meant for another. ListenerXTalkerX 18:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- None of the rest of the stuff (e.g. hypothesis that it's hard to conceal someone has died) has any bearing on a change in fraud, such deceits are responsible for some fraud now, they would still be under a new regime. But the "direct deposit" idea does help, which is no doubt why several UK governments have tried hard to make it happen. And no doubt part of the reason why it has met considerable resistance. The argument is always that some of the most vulnerable don't have such accounts, or can't make use of them, that the banks (or whoever got stuck with these unprofitable high fraud risk accounts) would conspire to steal the money, and so on. To get an ordinary bank account in the UK requires that you have photo ID with your name, a valid national security number, proof of address, and some financial history. The accounts for people on your "basic income" would have to either sidestep these requirements, or include a provision to grant such proof to every needy person who turns up at the government's doorstep. Otherwise you've created a new underclass, who don't even get your "basic income". But if you do sidestep these requirements (which are there to hamper organised crime) you encourage new types of fraud related to these untraceable accounts. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Pardon me, BoN, but you get paid the same amount of basic income (not the same thing as "reverse taxation for the poor") whether you make 200 pounds a week in cash or not. And people collecting income for the dead could still be a problem, but it is harder to conceal that someone has died than to conceal that you are working for cash under the table. Not to mention that if the system were to use direct deposit into bank accounts rather than checks, it would be more difficult for one person to collect benefits meant for another.
- @ADK: See glibertarian. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Those are public services, though, available to everyone; welfare is only available based on some standard of "need" that is subject to endless gaming and cheating. Personally, I think that "Universal Basic Income" is a better idea than traditional welfare; not only is it very difficult to cheat on it, it would also be very difficult to make an "other" group out of those who actually need it.
- In theory, yes. And on one level I agree with them. They happily point out to the odd case where people are living it up in big houses because they have like 18 billion kids or something - but that's nothing but selective reporting. The sad truth is that when it comes to the actual rhetoric and plans they have for "reform" they do tend to throw the proverbial baby out with the proverbial bathwater by attacking the welfare system itself, not those who abuse it. Yes, if pushed for some specifics they'll say how people abuse the system, but never when ranting about it generally will they make such a distinction. Everyone who has ever used it gets tarred with that brush. Which is why it always smacks of incredible hypocrisy when people say it's a terrible thing when they've received it themselves. Indeed, aren't we all receiving some form of socialised welfare? Albeit mostly in terms of infrastructure, police, law and regulation.
- Welfare opponents mostly go after those who view welfare as an alternative to work, rather than as something to live on between jobs.
- I remember Cenk from The Young Turks doing a similar thing a few months back. A guy was raving about how he didn't feel entitled to anything, because after getting injured he managed to retrain and get off welfare and find another job... and Cenk was like "EXACTLY! YOU WERE ON FREAKING WELFARE WHILE YOU SORTED YOUR LIFE OUT! THAT'S THE POINT!!"
- Love this site already.
- Probably. I'm a much bigger fan of things like Actually You're the 47 Percent.
RationalWiki Foundation[edit]
Isn't it time we kicked of the elections for the RationalWiki Foundation?--BobSpring is sprung! 15:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Has anybody heard from Trent lately? --PsyGremlinPraat! 15:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- I assume he's snowed under. He's been MIA for a month. Could call his mother and find out. moral 15:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'd hate to find out that he's kicked the bucket like TK and nobody knew. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 16:32, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Uh, I talk to him pretty often. He's fine. Just busy with school and other stuff. 16:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Uh, I talk to him pretty often. He's fine. Just busy with school and other stuff.
- I'd hate to find out that he's kicked the bucket like TK and nobody knew.
- I assume he's snowed under. He's been MIA for a month. Could call his mother and find out.
- Nominations should start today if we're repeating last year's procedure. Anyone from the Board want to bootstrap that? Blue (pester) 19:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Overwrite the old pages and start them back up again, I presume. d hominem 22:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- I guess by "overwriting" you mean create a new set of 2011 ones. Or am I missing something?--BobSpring is sprung! 08:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, there are new ones as I forgot they all had "2010" in the title. moral 13:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, there are new ones as I forgot they all had "2010" in the title.
- I guess by "overwriting" you mean create a new set of 2011 ones. Or am I missing something?--BobSpring is sprung! 08:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Overwrite the old pages and start them back up again, I presume.
Aliens and creationism[edit]
- This discussion was moved here from Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?.
Have you guys seen this it is an affiliate site of Creation Ministries (the organization behind Question Evolution). I guess once you throw rationality out the window some strange shit creeps in to fill its place. I especially like the Bible floating next to the UFO in the left hand banner graphic. Infoseek (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh yes. If you ever poked aSoK with a sharp stick you'd know that was one of LowKey's little peccadilloes. It's why we called him Demons Bradley. The gist of it is that since evilution isn't true, there aren't really aliens so all flying saucers are in fact demons. No really. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 00:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- You'd think they'd come up with something better. Like… all those scientists are taking humans so they can do tests on them that would normally be illegal, this is guvermint financed (by social health care! that's why the system is ineffective!) to indoctrinate evolution better into the children of America. Reagon stopped this in the 80s, because Reagon's fucking awesome! --★uːʤɱ secularist 10:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Reminds me of Lloyd Pye. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- You'd think they'd come up with something better. Like… all those scientists are taking humans so they can do tests on them that would normally be illegal, this is guvermint financed (by social health care! that's why the system is ineffective!) to indoctrinate evolution better into the children of America. Reagon stopped this in the 80s, because Reagon's fucking awesome! --★uːʤɱ secularist 10:56, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Crap science journalism[edit]
Many of the pop psych articles I've worked on (e.g. hemispheric dominance, neuroplasticity) are actual legit science, but rampantly abused in pop culture. It doesn't seem right to file these kinds of articles under "pseudoscience" along with things like homeopathy, which are outright bullshit. Would it be useful to have a category along the lines of "Commonly abused scientific concepts"? A better name would be useful, but that's the general idea. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Would "science woo" suit? ListenerXTalkerX 06:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Possibly. I feel like I'm looking for a term in between "science woo" and "real science." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- How about: Abused science, scientific abuse, corrupted science, science mishandled, debased science, science misapplied - or some combination or rewording of them.--BobSpring is sprung! 07:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- I would go for "Abused science" or "Abuse of science." ListenerXTalkerX 07:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Like our Category:Assessing pseudoscience category, we could have "assessing science journalism" or "assessing pop science." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Science abuse? postate 13:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Science abuse?
- Like our Category:Assessing pseudoscience category, we could have "assessing science journalism" or "assessing pop science." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- I would go for "Abused science" or "Abuse of science."
- How about: Abused science, scientific abuse, corrupted science, science mishandled, debased science, science misapplied - or some combination or rewording of them.--BobSpring is sprung! 07:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Possibly. I feel like I'm looking for a term in between "science woo" and "real science." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Just rented out[edit]
Sunshine, one of the more underrated science fiction movies of the last decade, IMO. It's scientifically inaccurate (as usual) and turns into a slasher flick half-way through, but it's a total mindfuck.
Brian Cox also contributed, apparently. Osaka Sun (talk) 08:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's got to be better than "The Smurfs". :p Refugeetalk page 09:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- I actually really liked Sunshine. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 09:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- The best thing about Sunshine is the score. Get the album with just that, and not the one with the retarded dance music on it, and listen to What do you see? -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 10:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Also a really good critique of religious fundies in there too. Too bad it bombed. Osaka Sun (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Funny you should mention it because I was just about to watch it. postate 13:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Based on the above I've just tried to watch it. Gave up on it an half an hour before the end. Enough said?--BobSpring is sprung! 19:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Understandable; by the end a good chunk of realism goes down the drain. The cinematography makes up for it though. Watch this. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe. On my - not exactly small - TV it didn't impress me. But if we all had the same feelings about art then the world would be boring.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- I rather love this film. I mean, yeah, it's scientifically inaccurate (because if it was accurate it would have been boring) but, apart from the ridiculous slasher thing, I did like it and the inconsistencies with reality were kind of forgivable simply because it tried as hard as it could. For example, there are no action hero type people, it's actually six rather boring sciencey type people. Hard mistake to avoid - well done to them. (Brian Cox said that the main reason they had the WHOOSHing of the ship in the space shots, rather than leave it all silent like Firefly, was because it looked cheap without sound) And it's on Empire's (I think it's Empire, anyway) 500 Greatest Films of All Time, in the 300s somewhere. -- 20:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- I rather love this film. I mean, yeah, it's scientifically inaccurate (because if it was accurate it would have been boring) but, apart from the ridiculous slasher thing, I did like it and the inconsistencies with reality were kind of forgivable simply because it tried as hard as it could. For example, there are no action hero type people, it's actually six rather boring sciencey type people. Hard mistake to avoid - well done to them. (Brian Cox said that the main reason they had the WHOOSHing of the ship in the space shots, rather than leave it all silent like Firefly, was because it looked cheap without sound) And it's on Empire's (I think it's Empire, anyway) 500 Greatest Films of All Time, in the 300s somewhere. --
- Maybe. On my - not exactly small - TV it didn't impress me. But if we all had the same feelings about art then the world would be boring.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Understandable; by the end a good chunk of realism goes down the drain. The cinematography makes up for it though. Watch this. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Based on the above I've just tried to watch it. Gave up on it an half an hour before the end. Enough said?--BobSpring is sprung! 19:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Funny you should mention it because I was just about to watch it.
- Also a really good critique of religious fundies in there too. Too bad it bombed. Osaka Sun (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- The best thing about Sunshine is the score. Get the album with just that, and not the one with the retarded dance music on it, and listen to What do you see? -- Iscariot Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 10:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- I actually really liked Sunshine.
Cognitive liberty[edit]
I don't like the term all that much because of its association with Szaszian quackery, but this story fits the bill. Why don't they just be done with it and ban happiness itself...for the safety of the chillun of course. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Inferring that from this bill against synthetic dope is as much of a non-sequitur as Phyllis Schlafly's claim that the ERA would lead to unisex restrooms. ListenerXTalkerX 18:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, come on it's not that big of a leap to a psychiatric police state. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's struck me as odd that no one came up with this idea sooner. It's been a constant battle between drugs that get you high and the race for them to be banned - only for a new and legal variant to come along later. This is pretty much how mephedrone happened (forgetting the exaggerated media circus for the moment); it was found and people were like "wtf is this not illegal yet??!?" However, I think it's still a leap to say it's "banning a brain function". It simply bans it based on a chemical interaction - binding of an external neurotoxin to a specific protein - rather than a specific organic structure. It's still very much a structural definition, though, if a bit ad hoc in its way and I don't particularly like ad hoc laws. The major difference is that it's looking at the structural definition flipped inside-out, i.e., from the point of view of the receptor and not the substrate. bomination 02:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose it rests on how far you want to say that "don't fuck with this particular receptor" = "banning a particular brain function". It depends on whether you count prodding a receptor with an external stimulating chemical as a "brain function". theist 02:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose it rests on how far you want to say that "don't fuck with this particular receptor" = "banning a particular brain function". It depends on whether you count prodding a receptor with an external stimulating chemical as a "brain function".
- It's struck me as odd that no one came up with this idea sooner. It's been a constant battle between drugs that get you high and the race for them to be banned - only for a new and legal variant to come along later. This is pretty much how mephedrone happened (forgetting the exaggerated media circus for the moment); it was found and people were like "wtf is this not illegal yet??!?" However, I think it's still a leap to say it's "banning a brain function". It simply bans it based on a chemical interaction - binding of an external neurotoxin to a specific protein - rather than a specific organic structure. It's still very much a structural definition, though, if a bit ad hoc in its way and I don't particularly like ad hoc laws. The major difference is that it's looking at the structural definition flipped inside-out, i.e., from the point of view of the receptor and not the substrate.
- Oh, come on it's not that big of a leap to a psychiatric police state. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Nobody listen to anyone who says "The bottom 50% of Americans should pay something in taxes"[edit]
This is the wealth distribution in the United States. The bottom 50% holds less than 10% of the wealth. All taxing them will do is destroy the economy. Mr. Anon (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- It would have been more helpful, for this case, to see an income distribution. However, one need only be reminded that the whole idea of income taxes was to get more money from people with more income; the fabled "46%" already pay quite enough in the form of sales and property taxes. ListenerXTalkerX 18:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- That graph was income distribution. Mr. Anon (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, I can see that; the perils of not clicking on a link. ListenerXTalkerX 18:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Got to say that the idea of "average" always confuses me. What kind of average? There is more than one and unless you have specified that then "bottom 50%" doesn't mean a lot. Furthermore, of course, income distribution is going to follow a power law. And so, well so on --BobSpring is sprung! 21:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)...
- All this yammering about unequal income distribution makes me want to throw things across the room. In addition to the model being far too simplistic, some of these numbers show that the correlation between a high "income gap" and rotten conditions for ordinary people are spotty at best. ListenerXTalkerX 21:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- Also, I think you mean "median." ListenerXTalkerX 21:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- I thought the most simplistic was the "mean". But I'm no mathematician.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- In the case of a distribution of income, the median is the most useful because you can split it as the upper 50% and lower 50% and... Well, there are pages of Wikipedia that could explain it far better. moral 21:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- But the Kingfish wants you to share the wealth. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- So you enjoy having 1/5 of American children living under the poverty line, Lx? And I'd rather listen to Kennedy. (see 4:20) Osaka Sun (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- I might have an opinion about 1/5 of American children living under the poverty line, if it were clear what that meant. For example, if I met a child who was "living under the poverty line" how could I tell? Or would it come down to "investigate their parents income and compare it to this arbitrary chart" ? Is this "line" defined in a way that makes it possible for everybody, or nobody to be under the line? Or does it inherently define some proportion of the population as "under the poverty line" so that no possible policy intervention can change that?
- Out in the world where things suck a great deal more than they ever will for the fabled 99%, we worry about children with very tangible problems. Example: water security. They don't necessarily have clean water to drink. Or physical security - gunmen might arrive at any time and kill them or their parents for being from the wrong tribe, or voting for the wrong person. We can measure success on these statistics "Proportion of children with secure access to clean water increased 29% in this country" and we can have meaningful reach goals, like "eradicate child hunger by 2050". 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- So you enjoy having 1/5 of American children living under the poverty line, Lx? Red herring; this discussion is about relative figures, not absolute figures. ListenerXTalkerX 04:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- So you enjoy having 1/5 of American children living under the poverty line, Lx? Red herring; this discussion is about relative figures, not absolute figures.
- So you enjoy having 1/5 of American children living under the poverty line, Lx? And I'd rather listen to Kennedy. (see 4:20) Osaka Sun (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- But the Kingfish wants you to share the wealth. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- In the case of a distribution of income, the median is the most useful because you can split it as the upper 50% and lower 50% and... Well, there are pages of Wikipedia that could explain it far better.
- I thought the most simplistic was the "mean". But I'm no mathematician.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
- All this yammering about unequal income distribution makes me want to throw things across the room. In addition to the model being far too simplistic, some of these numbers show that the correlation between a high "income gap" and rotten conditions for ordinary people are spotty at best.
- Got to say that the idea of "average" always confuses me. What kind of average? There is more than one and unless you have specified that then "bottom 50%" doesn't mean a lot. Furthermore, of course, income distribution is going to follow a power law. And so, well so on --BobSpring is sprung! 21:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)...
- Ah, yes, I can see that; the perils of not clicking on a link.
- That graph was income distribution. Mr. Anon (talk) 18:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Anyone watching Black Mirror?[edit]
Charlie Brooker's new series. After getting addicted to his Newswipe/Screenwipe stuff on YouTube I checked out the first episode.
Puke-inducingly crazy. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Was pretty impressed with the first episode, not so much with the second one although it was quality stuff all the same. Shan't elaborate on my opinions for fear of causing spoilers/boredom, but will say the series has been a gigantic gust of fresh air after watching the stale rehash Gervais/Merchant offering that is Life's Too Short. Grumblejaws (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
!̙͗̈́ͪ͜?̡̓̊͑͋̔̓͑҉̻̝͓͖̝͖̳̘[edit]
Is anybody else seeing this or should I see my neurosurgeon? !̙͗̈́ͪ͜?̡̓̊͑͋̔̓͑҉̻̝͓͖̝͖̳̘ !̙͗̈́ͪ͜?̡̓̊͑͋̔̓͑҉̻̝͓͖̝͖̳̘--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- See a neurosurgeon, regardless. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Some sort of overlap trigger code? -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, Stabby. Didn't see that one coming. So, I'm not losing it? There's some sort of distortion, right?--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- I see it in IE8 (I know, I know, no comments), could it be a browser thing? The fact that it appears in the Summary box (when editing) is particularly telling. -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's annoying, whatever it is. Sam Tally-ho! 00:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- I can see it, and it copy/pastes into Facebook and Google nicely enough, the Google search leading to PeterL's talk page if you really want to see a clusterfuck. d hominem 00:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is in there somewhere. d hominem 00:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- ? Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 01:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Bah kids. Nowwhat? 01:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Herp! Though I don't give a shit about the meme itself, it's quite shit really, none of it answers what I want to know: How the fuck do you get unicode characters to do that? gnostic 01:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- The meme is boring, the text is cool though. Nowwhat? 01:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I see now, it's just an exploit of how wp:Unicode subscripts and superscripts work. postate 01:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Lol, cool b͇̝͓̙͈͇͇͈̣̹͍̺͉̬̯̄ͦ̾̒̓̄͒ͤ̋̐ͭ̊́͜͞͡úͬ̇̇̎ͤ́̋̚͢͏̸͟͏̪̤̖̥͙̮̠͖̼̪̩͕̳͕t̴̸͓͚͍̙̼̘͚̞ͧͬ̓ͩ̓̈ͦ̈́̆ͣ̄̓̔̕͞ͅţ̴̛͙͙̮̙͎̪̘͔͔͕̦ͩ̄̈́̿̋̑̍͋̏͛̈̐̈́̀ͬͧ́͠ş̵̞̞̜̤͙̻͓̖̲̙̖͔̱̪͚̯̘̼̊ͤͪͫͪͫͮ͠e̡̠͇͈̘̮͓̹̜̲͈̰̳ͣ͂͋̈̿̊̔̿ͤ̿͊͒ͥ̕͢͡͠ͅç̸̵̛͙̻̝̺͔ͭͯ́̓̓ͧ̆͗̈̂ͣ͑̏͐͋͡ḳ̘̲̻̬͙͓̦̫̮̮͎̏̅͂͊ͨ̐ͨ̊͐̉ͮ͘͘͟ṡ̵̨̡̘͍̞̠̫̤̣̤͉͉͎ͮ̊ͦ̂͒̿ͪ̆͛͛̅̍̽͛̎ͫ͟͡
- Oh, I see now, it's just an exploit of how wp:Unicode subscripts and superscripts work.
- The meme is boring, the text is cool though. Nowwhat? 01:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Herp! Though I don't give a shit about the meme itself, it's quite shit really, none of it answers what I want to know: How the fuck do you get unicode characters to do that?
- Bah kids. Nowwhat? 01:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- ? Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 01:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is in there somewhere.
- I can see it, and it copy/pastes into Facebook and Google nicely enough, the Google search leading to PeterL's talk page if you really want to see a clusterfuck.
- It's annoying, whatever it is. Sam Tally-ho! 00:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- I see it in IE8 (I know, I know, no comments), could it be a browser thing? The fact that it appears in the Summary box (when editing) is particularly telling. -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Wow, Stabby. Didn't see that one coming. So, I'm not losing it? There's some sort of distortion, right?--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Some sort of overlap trigger code? -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
̍͒̈͗̔͊̓͏͟͏̺͖̦͙̦̼̘̣ ̡̡̛̖̣͕͎͉͖̬̫͈̥͚ͩͬ͂̽̿̋̅͋̾́͌̓̾ͭ͘--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Shut up, Brx." ArchieGoodwin (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- Who the hell let Zalgo in here? EVDebs (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- As usual, you can just blame Brxbrx for that. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 05:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- As usual, you can just blame Brxbrx for that.