RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive136

This is an archive page, last updated 13 January 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>

, (new)(back)

And here we can observe the American wingnut in its habitat.

Lulz. Osaka Sun (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I call Poe. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

What is your rebuttal of the points I made? All you can do is laugh rather than use rational arguments. On "Rational" Wiki. Heh. Liberals want to destroy our morals by legalizing marijuana (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

What is it with the whole "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! thing in the last week or two, I swear it's gone mad. ^bomination 10:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

That's why it's probably a Poe. Osaka Sun (talk) 10:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we're just that popular? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 10:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) @Liberals, how can I rationally respond to you when you haven't actually made any arguments, beyond "Hitler did X therefore X is bad". Nobody is ever completely evil; even the most evil person to have ever lived (whoever that is) will have done some good things. So just because an evil person did something, does not imply it is evil. Evil people are evil for doing evil things; things are not evil just because evil people happen to do them. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hitler owned a dog. Is dog ownership an example of evil liberalism? Hitler was an artist, a painter (even if never an especially good one). Is painting therefore evil? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

My point is that liberals/progressives have the same position as Hitler on almost all political, religious and social issues. Liberals want to destroy our morals by legalizing marijuana (talk) 10:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, to start with, Hitler was an ardent German nationalist and patriot. Liberals are generally opposed to nationalism, and tend to view patriotism with at least some degree of suspicion. So that's a fundamental ideological difference between Hitler and most "liberals" (of course you are using the term in the American sense of the word). (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Liberals are fine with nationalism and patriotism as long as it is a group they like (e.g. Muslims) who are being patriotic. They oppose it when people from countries liberals hate (mainly US and Israel) are doing it. Liberals want to destroy our morals by legalizing marijuana (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Patriotic Muslims? "Islam" is a religion, not a country. A patriotic Muslim would love whatever country they happen to belong to - a patriotic USA Muslim would love the USA, a Patriotic French Muslim would love France, etc. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:54, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC)Your point is untrue. Hitler hated people from races other than his own, allowed only Christianity to operate and used massive private companies to equip his war machine. Deny this and risk losing credibility. Rennie McGreet (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Like most liberals, Hitler was a hypocrite. Like Obama who is in bed with Wall Street supporting OWS. Hitler hated corporations but saw them as useful idiots. As for Christianity, Hitler HATED it and wanted to replace Christianity and Christmas with paganism. He persecuted Christians as well as Jews. He was an avid evolutionist and anti-clericalist. And how is it "right wing" to hate other races? Liberals want to destroy our morals by legalizing marijuana (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't everybody a hypocrite, at least about some things? I would think that hypocrisy is a universal human failing, common to both liberals and conservatives equally. Sure, we ought to try not to be hypocrites, and some succeed better than others, but no one is totally innocent. Can you give me an example of how Hitler "hated corporations"? I'm not aware he had anything against corporations in general, maybe certain ones (e.g. those perceived as being under Jewish control), but to my knowledge he never engaged in the sort of general anti-corporate rhetoric much of the modern left does. Do you have a source for the claim Hitler hated Christianity and wanted to replace it with paganism? Based on my own reading, I'd say that Hitler had mixed feelings about Christianity (sometimes he spoke unfavourably of it, other times more favourably); but while some in the Nazi leadership favoured a revival of paganism, they never managed to get Hitler on board. I don't think calling Hitler an "anti-clericalist" is really accurate either. A genuine anti-clericalist dislikes churches no matter what; Hitler, while he sometimes persecuted churches who resisted his policies, did nothing to harm those which were willing to tow the line. A true anti-clericalist would have struck at all churches irrespectively. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Right Wing? I didn't say that... Hitler said "I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."more here. Rennie McGreet (talk) 10:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure an atheist website would be SO neutral on this subject. Liberals want to destroy our morals by legalizing marijuana (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not this is an "atheist website", I'm definitely not an atheist, and I don't agree with you on this. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"Liberals are anti-Israel. So was Hitler." Don't US schools teach world history? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Another difference - despite some homosexual undercurrents, on the whole the Nazi regime was virulently homophobic. (And while parts of the SA may have had a homosexual subculture, there is no evidence Hitler was anything but heterosexual, and rather homophobically so.) By contrast, most "liberals" are very GLBT-positive. Another massive difference. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

But you admit that many Nazis were gay. And how does one view in which liberals and Hitler disagree begin to compare with the many views they share? Liberals want to destroy our morals by legalizing marijuana (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Some Nazis were gay, yes. Some communists were gay. As everyone well knows, some conservatives are gay too. Some of any group will be gay. "Many" is too strong. I don't think the fact that there was a small element of the Nazis that may have had a gay subculture changes the fact that on the whole they were virulently and even murderously homophobic. Anyway, one must remember, that the group most commonly suggested to have had a gay subculture, the SA, were eliminated rather early on in the Nazi regime. I don't know what the legal situation officially was, but in practice anyone found to have been engaging in homosexual activities in the later part of Nazi rule ran a very high risk of being killed. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact Nazis may or may not have been gay doesn't change the fact that on 90% of issues, they were leftist. Liberals want to destroy our morals by legalizing marijuana (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Tell me, how did you determine it was 90%? Why not 95% or 85%? Or 80%? Or 75%? Or 70%? Or 51%? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 11:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Considering that with your worldview about 80% to 90% of the world population are leftist wingnuts, you better should stop throwing around numbers you pulled out of your ass. --★uːʤɱ federalist 20:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll let the overwhelming majority of Jews that voted for Obama know that they're all secretly Hitler. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 10:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Can I ask one question? It's about fast food? Now, did hitler have a problem with all fast food, or just the Monarchy supporting Burger King. --GodotEn live 16:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Just remember - the Nazis invented Fanta. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 17:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hitler wore pants, and a shirt, and a hat. All right, off to the nudist colony then... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Didn't hitler speak that umm. danish, or dutch, or ... something deutche? I don't know. But we should find out and make sure no schools are teaching it. Imagine speaking the language hitler spoke. Shudders....GodotEn live 18:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Can't forget, Hitler ate sugar. Only Sweet 'n Low for me from now on. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hitler was male. Ergo, all men are Nazis! 192.148.117.90 (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Good thing that Hitler wasn't MtF trasngendered... F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 20:14, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Like most atheists, most Nazis were male. Therefore, Nazis lack machismo. Also, like most atheists, most members of CP, the military, and professional sports are male. They all lack machismo too. DickTurpis (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

He's baaaack.... Osaka Sun (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyways...

If someone does want to take time to actually debunk the rest of these, it would be perfect for our Godwin article. Osaka Sun (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It occurs to me that we should have a liberals and Jesus list to throw back at these wingnuts. Preferably with suitable refs for added emphasis. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the editing of other people's user pages a no-no? TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 14:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Damn Pint O Stout beat me from doing janitorial work for the first time. Fuck yall im going back to bed. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 14:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Anyone know?

Has there been a "where's the birth certificate?" movement for Romney or any of the other GOP candidates? Seems like a no-brainer to me. Apparently now a candidate is illegitimate until every US citizen has seen a copy of his long form birth certificate. I've seen 2 of Obama's, but not a single one Romney, Paul, Santorum, etc. What are they hiding? DickTurpis (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Obama has two birth certificates? Sounds suspicious to me.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

He was born twice. His real birth is shrouded in mystery, but the one in Honolulu was definitely faked. Just like the moon landing. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe he's a born-again Christian...--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

He went missing in a cave and was found three days later wondering around the city. --★uːʤɱ soviet 19:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

One of them was provided by Pharaohs daughter when she found him in the bull rushes.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to leave this here

There. --★uːʤɱ federalist 22:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

^sshole 22:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 22:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It's mocking the writing of the Twilight series--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose if I knew what a "Twilight series was," then....

Very well done. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Poetry ^pathetic 23:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you an overweight atheist Christian?

Then this is the place for you. "The question Christian weight loss programs often poses for scholars of both religion and of dieting culture is similar to the ambiguity in First Place’s purpose: is Christian weight loss essentially a secular venture, luring believers into its programs by adding a spiritual varnish to a worldly practice, or is it merely explicating, marking or making clear the religious concerns that are at the heart of weight loss projects both sacred and secular?" PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 23:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Pray the fat away? --GodotEn live 00:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Would work better for muslims, they move more while praying. --★uːʤɱ socialist 00:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Weigh Down Diet is a similar idea. Pray your fat away! Don't eat while you're at it, but it's definitely the prayer that does it. ^postate 00:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The guilt is more important than the praying in these things. Guilt & shame are already a pretty big factor in any Weight-Watchers style "weigh-in" based programme, but when you factor in the implication that you're letting God down & being a bad Christian if you fail to lose the required pounds, it really racks up the guilt factor a few notches. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I hated that about weight watchers, not to mention 10 bucks a week for a bunch of people to tell you things like "don't eat as much", "drink water more". Yeah, i can figure that out on my own. GodotEn live 16:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The pious are hamstrung when it comes to weight loss. Whats needed is some hardcore vanity. Thats why I have a six pack. (The drug habit helps, but i'm knocking that on the head) AMassiveGay (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Proof that being an atheist doesn't automatically make you smart

A guest post on The Friendly Atheist blog that does a fairly good job of rebutting an idiotic dismissal of sexism in the atheist 'community' has this as it's most 'liked' comment, with six seven likes (which is relatively a lot):

You people get way too worked up over nothing. You don't agree with Mallorie? Big deal. Get over it, crybaby.

A lot of other comments are similar, just toned down. I hate people. F_litzer^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 07:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

See also, though there are no such comments as yet (and no liking system). Peter ^{Urist for Mod!}(MW) 07:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

As "organized atheism" draws heavily on geek subculture, its attitude toward women can be summarized fairly succinctly in this song. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have mentioned before that there is no reason to expect anything from atheists other than a lack of belief in God.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read your essay, but that brief summary you just gave is brilliant. Ima quote ya in the future--User:Brxbrx/sig 14:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The supposed goal is to make a community "welcoming" for women. The approach taken is to hound a specific woman for her opinion. Maybe some of the people involved have mistaken Cirin for a role model? No, that's unfair, I'm sure they mean well, but this is a pretty horrible way to go about achieving their goals. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

As always it's probably a case of different people hearing different things in their heads. Person A hears sexism and their head presents the solution "gender equality". Person B hears sexism and their head presents the solution "women's rights". Person A then says they're synonymous, Person B doesn't recognise the synonymy. So if Mallorie Nasrallah says she doesn't want special treatment as a women it means exactly that, she doesn't want the special treatment - and then Megan Wells says "oh but we're not really asking for that because that would be stupid". So... you both actually agree with each other, then? Fucksake. ^{d hominem} 18:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

seems to me, it hangs on the words "special treatment". I suspect MW does want a level of special treatment, but it's not PC to say so. :-) Sometimes, you do need "special treatment" to begin to get some equality. I would say, for example, its' worth highlighting a woman's writing 1/4 of the time, even if there are better articles written by men, just cause it pushes women's voices to the front. But at the same time, if it is inferior, then your web page has one of 4 days of inferior writing, or only one woman's voice, cause she's the only one who can write. Always fun times. GodotEn live 18:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that's a good thing because you've actually suggested something that someone can do - if you run a blog, try to get a woman's writing on there as a conscious choice. That's simple. A lot of this shit rarely ever gets to such trivial things as what we can actually do. ^pathetic 19:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way... FUCKING STOP TWEETING. it will save you huge headaches. Take time to think about what you want to tell others. Us a form that lets you say more than an abbreviated synopsis of a partially thought out idea. so many people are using tweets, and it's just stunning how often they say "but i didn't mean it that way". (rant over, sorry).GodotEn live 19:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I don't use Twitter and most certainly never will. 140 characters my arse. ^{d hominem} 20:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I might be wrong about this, because I never tweet, but can't you go over the 140 character limit -- you just have to enlarge it to see the extra characters? F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 20:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Fallacy, I'm not sure about that, but to me it's the mindset. 140 or 1000 characters - if you are writing something to "blast out" into the vast world, "right now", you won't be carefully considering what you are saying, why you are saying it, and how you say it. Hell, how many of us here, on this kind of "chatty like forum" in the saloon bar come back and have to explain to others what they were TRYING to say. Just cause it's not a natural method of discourse. Add to that you are publishing it to 10, or 10,000,000 "followers' and you are just waiting to be Murdoch, with his wife saying "Delete Tweet Now!". GodotEn live 20:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but it is optimal for informing your subscribers as to what brand of breakfast cereal you ate and when you took a dump. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that 140 characters is the posting limit but by using URL shorteners you can end up with more than 140 in the final tweet. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Lawrence

His killers have finally been sent down. Somewhat questionable DNA (from the impression i get) so will have see how it pans out on appeal AMassiveGay (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Professor Hawking

I was listening to this today and was put in mind of user:JimJast with his "crank" theories. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:06, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

MOS issue - quotes at the start of articles

I find having a quote above the article slightly annoying and depending on its length visually unpleasant. Mostly it reminds me of Uncyclopedia. IMO I think if you have a relevant quote, that doesn't belong somewhere in the article place it down the right-side using {{quotebox2}} like a picture, or alternatively an new quote template could be created for this purpose. What says the mob? - π 03:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

What about {{rquote}}? Peter ^{Urist for Mod!}(MW) 03:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That is fine, maybe set the default to the right to make it easier to use. - π 04:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I like them -- they remind me of TvTropes. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 04:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I think either looks fine. My only problem with changing it is that we'd have to go through all the old articles and rearrange it to conform with the new format. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I like them because they're funny, and it's one of the best ways to work in a tidbit of pure snark. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I have nothing against the quotes themselves, I just don't think the should be before the article, but rather adjacent to it. - π 04:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

WHO GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR OPINION?!?!?!?! F_arter^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 04:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I actually really like the look of quotes at the beginning of articles - especially ones where the quotes are not just throw ins. Quotes by Sagan, or Adams catch your attention and draw you into the article, and make you think about the quote. my two cents.GodotEn live 05:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't have to go to Uncyclopedia's shenanigans, but I think it's a really good idea. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm with pi on this.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind them in moderation, but I think they're overused. They shouldn't be there in every article, & there shouldn't ever be more than one at the head of an article, as they just look awful when they're stacked. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the quotes before the articles. Though not more than one per section, unless they're the point of the section (e.g. in the Books section of WND) - David Gerard (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Context dependent. A short quote in {{cquote}} at the top is fine, a big text wall... less so, unless it's so directly relevant that the article would be literally naked without it. Definitely never more than two. {{rquote}} or {{quotebox2}} would be better inside the article itself, IMHO. ^narchist 19:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm a fan of the pagetop quotes. I think a good example of one done right is in the Galileo gambit article, where the quote really encapsulates the whole subject at hand. Balaam (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh joy! Transphobia and Bosom Buddies knock-offs!

This kind of nonsense is one of the (many) reasons I never bothered to buy my own TV. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:48, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't have a TV? Anyways, this will surely bomb and everyone will forget about it by halfway into the year. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Stuff White People Like: Not Having a TV. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The parental units have a Netflix account I can mooch off for the odd show I actually enjoy. Anyway, I agree that this will fortunately be a likely bomb. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You live with your parents? I assumed you were a thirty-something professional. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope. Netflix accounts can be used in more than one place. Plus I am a twenty-something grad student. If I am indeed telling the truth.^{Do You Believe That?} Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I imagine that the transvestites on Little Britain would be funnier. ^sshole 14:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

No TV since the early months of the century, here. It's great. Is Law and Order still on? ER? NYPD Blue? The Simpsons? That lawyer show with Dylan McDermott? PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 15:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Law and Order has had about a thousand spinoffs, but including the original, only Law and Order: Special Victims Unit survives. ER is gone, ditto NYPD Blue. The Simpsons is better off dead, but still going. The Practice is gone, but Dylan McDermott was just on American Horror Story, an absurd serialized horror series that got picked up for a second season (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 15:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

We watched it last night, to see how bad it was. It's not really transphobia at all. Actually, it's worse problem is how it sterotypes women. we are, apparently, all purse obsessed, makeup obsessed, giggleing fools who work just cause we can, not cause you know, we actually have brains or something. We don't own a TV. I miss food planet, but that was like a radio in my house; background while you cooked/cleaned,etc. GodotEn live 15:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The two usually go hand-in-hand. After all, you're not a real woman unless you wear ten pounds of make-up and go squee over celebrity fashion. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

RecentChanges is empty???

Huh? DB problems, I guess. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it's back now? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The entire site seems to have been borked for about 20 minutes. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

IT LIVESSS!--Dumpling (talk) 07:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Something is still broken, every past edit is unpatrolled and bot edits are not marked as bot. -- Nx / talk 07:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The wiki itself has rebelled to protect my precious templates :-) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Now I see red exclamation marks all over!--Dumpling (talk) 08:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

RationalWiki has it's period! After two children we're back to normal! --★uːʤɱ soviet 10:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd hate to see Rationalwiki during its menopausal time.--Dumpling (talk) 11:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

See here. Peter ^{Urist for Mod!}(MW) 08:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably protesting yet another ad hoc decision. sterile^talk 12:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's those damn MUSLIM terrorists, supported by Barack HUSSEIN Obama. They hate your freedom and need to attack this site thus. Recklessly Noise Punk ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 15:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Related to this, my watchlist looks like a right clusterfuck at the moment. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 18:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

...Why ish Engrish so hard?

I know English isn't my native language...but dammit. After reading this out loud during a skype chat, I apparently made a handful of pronunciation mistakes. --Dumpling (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

English is a fucked up language. Every other language I've studied even in passing, except maybe Latin, makes more sense logically speaking than English. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

...So I am not the only one having a hard time with this? --Dumpling (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

English makes sense if you make up your own rules and words. F_lucked^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 08:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

To you, maybe, but that's not exactly the point of language... Peter ^{Urist for Mod!}(MW) 08:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Every language has easy bits and hard bits.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Enough. Through. Bough. Thorough. Thought. Cough. The prosecution rests.

Actually all foreign languages are difficult to pronounce. I've spoken Afrikaans and Zulu for most of my life, but there's no way I can pass myself off as a boer, and I still have to think if I'm using a !q or !x click. A foreigner has even more trouble with the gutteral sounds of an "ag" (which sounds like the start of "achtung") or the clipped sounds of a "kak". Even Japanese, which being based on a standard syllabary, should be easy to pronounce, isn't - especially for a foreigner, although there, intonation has a lot to do with it. --PsyGremlinParla! 09:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

After 17 years of speaking English, I can savely say (at least for myself) that the hard part in learning English is not the grammar (because English is an analytic language, rules are rules and will almost always be followed), but the writting of the language. Sure it helps to get the etymology, but it is a goddamn pain in the ass. German grammar is quite hard, even natives have to stop and think what is grammatically correct at times (How about a sentence with more than three dependent clauses? Those never appear? Well, in German they do. All the time.) Korean grammar is hard too, but Koreans don't care. Japanese grammar is easy as far as I know, but writting Japanese makes you suicidal. Spanish is relatively easy to write if you know the rules, the grammar isn't hard but all the verb forms (Irregulars! I hate you!) are a pain in the butt to learn. Trying to say something in Dutch or Afrikaans makes me think I'll soon spit blood because I sound like I'm death rattling. Trying to say something in a Ripuarian language/dialect makes me sound like a real bad singer. Also, Dumpling, accents are cute. --★uːʤɱ atheist 10:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the hardest of them all, especially when it comes to writing, is Chinese. Drawing mini-pictures of EVERY single character/word! In terms of grammar and vocabulary, it's probably among the hardest languages too.

English is hard because of its unique history and a couple of assholes in powdered wigs.

The roots of the language are pretty simple - just a rough sort of mongrel Celtic/Latin mess, not particularly remarkable. Successive waves of Germanic settlers (including those Angles and Saxons of Anglo-Saxon fame) swamped it, giving English its essential German underpinning. But just as important was the Norman invasion in 1066. The Normans spoke a variety of Old French, a Romance language with a strong Latin influence. After some years of segregation between the natives and invaders, the low language of Old English morphed into the recognizably English of our time, although this antique version was Middle English and still looks a little strange.

None of this made English really hard, though, because this isn't so outlandish, linguistically. It actually bears a lot of resemblance to the evolution of Korean, with waves of invaders melding their terminology with the indigenous one (giving Koreans the two number systems, as you well know - or three systems, for some of the eldest). No, what made English hard was the eighteenth century.

The phenomenon of modern Education had arisen the previous century, as well as modern Science, and so classifying and systematizing was very much in vogue, as shown in Carollus Linnaeus, who saddled us with the unwieldy Linnaean classification system for plants and animals (although it was only replacing other rival systems that were even worse, in fairness). And so as things were published like the first dictionaries of English (Samuel Johnson's 1755 dictionary being the ur-version), those scholars tried to develop a way to sort out the formal rules of English.

Until this point, spelling had become stabilized thanks to the efforts of printers (not of writers) but grammar was still rather unformalized and fluid. But this wasn't satisfactory for the systemetizers. They needed rules. So they turned to the classic languages of Greek and (especially) Latin to source their rules.

Latin is a very easy language for rules. You memorize a thousand declensions (puella puellae etc) and the principles of use and a dozen exceptions, and call it a day. Greek is less easy, but still workable. English, however, being a mongrel combination of Germanic and Romance languages, doesn't work that way. They forced it, and created a bunch of rules about modals and participles and everything else. Unfortunately, to make it accommodate with how people actually spoke, they had to make all kinds of exceptions. Even more unfortunately, their efforts at codification spurred confusion and even more changes.

So the reason English is so hard is because it's a very fluid hybrid of other languages, forced into a set of rules like a child into a formal coat. It's squirmy and cramped and doesn't like it, and so it makes sure no one else likes it either. Thankfully, it makes up for this by being the best language on the globe. My bias as an English teacher might be coming into play on that last bit, though.--^talk 11:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Good post, very interesting. I like the child-in-a-formal-coat analogy. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. Just one thing though: best language for what? --★uːʤɱ socialist 11:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Everything. I'm just kidding about that bit, of course - many languages are great. I just happen to love English the most, for its power and diversity of expression, embrace of idioms and neologisms, and so on.--^talk 11:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You and Andrew Schlafly both :) Good post though, nice summation of what we call English has been pummelled through the ages. (Of course, if it wasn't for the Romans, chances are you'd all be reading/writing this in Welsh :) ) --PsyGremlinSprich! 12:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I seem to have a blind spot for sarcasm today... But yes, English is great. If I wouldn't think that, I'd probably not be able write this anymore. --★uːʤɱ heretic 12:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

English: Where the pronunciations are made up and the letters don't matter. Blue (is useful) 12:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at French? Rule #1: You can use every letter to form a sound — just not the one normally used to form that sound. --★uːʤɱ atheist 12:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, these whiny sissy English speakers are always talking about how English is hard. English is easy. I'm a native and I still haven't mastered French grammar (when writing) and orthography.--User:Brxbrx/sig 12:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Psy-oppa! YOU CAN SPEAK ZULU AND AFRIKAAN!? THAT'S AWESOME. One of my friends speaks Ebo, but my pronunciation with that is already challenging as it is. Its all the clicking and guttural sounds. Which also makes it difficult for me to pronounce German words. Chinese is hard to speak, mostly for all the intonations (Actually, a lot of Asian languages do that, now that I think about it.) Apparently, it's really hard for foreigners to get that. "It's like your singing, but with words."---Eh. I guess?

UHM---Yeah. The grammar part wasn't so hard (LIES.LIES. I remember head-desking my poor table every night when I was little) Just the pronunciation still catches me on certain words. German Grammar is pretty hard. I'm still learning. Korean---Eh. Can't say. Spanish. Also can't say (But yes. The irregulars are a pain in arse. AND the dialects depending on which Spanish-speaking country your in.) Writing Japanese/Chinese is a bitch! D:< But the grammar is easy. Haha. But...thanks on the accent comment...I guess? Though, I don't...think I have an accent? (The only ones that have heard/seen me talk is Ty and Hollow. I suppose I'd have to ask them. Well, once Hollow doesn't threaten to poke and 'AWWW~' at me whenever I say something.)

AD-Oppa. You're awesome! I learn something new every day. Now I know why it's so crazy! Goodness. And I really do like the analogy. Very nicely put! And eloquently written. As to expect from an English Teacher.--Dumpling (talk) 12:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You may be being hard on yourself. I am a native English speaker and there were a few words in that text that I wasn't sure how to pronounce and at least one seemed to be a trick (the writer intends a pronunciation which I understand but would never use). I know that people who are excellent users of their native language often find ESL frustrating. They're used to being fluent, to seeing mistakes quickly, to being praised for clarity of expression and then in this alien tongue they find they struggle to understand and to be understood at all. I can only tell you to immerse yourself, the process of (spoken) language acquisition is largely unconscious, so a 5 minute conversation about some random topic you care about with an actual native English speaker will probably be more helpful than an hour's formal instruction. This way you unconsciously pick up idioms, cultural reference points, and subtle grammatical rules that nobody would have taught in class (e.g. what are the rules for which vehicles are metaphorical containers and which are surfaces in English?). Also don't sweat the crazy spelling too much. In a meeting with a dozen native English speakers, probably someone else in the room also isn't sure how to spell tricky words like "beautiful" or whether to write "there" or "their" or "they're" in some context. Read about the "Great vowel shift" if you care why the spelling is silly, since AD didn't really mention that. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Blue, you have seen Welsh, right? When you go to Wales, the police stop you at the border and confiscate all your vowels. ^narchist 14:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, it's not just the weird spelling or the homophones. For example

• Why is inflammable not the opposite of flammable?
• Why is something that is 'fast' moving, unless of course it's stuck fast?
• If you can be inept why can't you be ept?
• If English is so rich in shades of meaning why do we use the word 'set' in so many ways?
• etc, etc.

Bad Faith (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's true that english is not logical, but it's a beautifully precise language, and it adapts other words so easily into its structure. French, spanish, latin and italian are so easy in comparison. German tosses me cause it's agglutinating. That just confuses me. But I have to agree that these are all pretty basic for us, as (with the exception of dumpling) we all learned an indo-european language as our native tongue. The people who impress me are those who are bi lingual in two vastly different languages. (like Psy... that's impressive! or of course dumpling). Chinese is tonal, japanese is topical, lakota is verb first... these all get really wakado for us IE speakers. :-) GodotEn live 15:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Alien writing systems are where I lose it. Any language written in the Latin system, and at a stretch the Greek and Cyrillic systems, I can at least tell one squiggle from another and have a hope of recognising the street name I was looking for, the name of a company, and so on. The signs don't necessarily make sense to me, and I can't pronounce anything recognisably - but I can copy them down well enough to make sense to a local. I may not know why my hotel is called "Flijoga" but I know FLIJOGA and flijoga are the same name. But in China, the forest of squiggles mean nothing, it's like being illiterate. To a native, using one squiggle pronounced as the first tone of 'Gan' instead of another is no big deal, it's obvious what was meant (before Coca-Cola chose an official way to name its product in Han characters there were several popular alternatives, no-one was confused as to what was for sale), but to an outsider it's now impossible to recognise because it looks different. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

English is "beautifully precise"? Wait, wut? Please elaborate.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

@ADK: lol.

@Bad Faith:

• inflammable is derived from Latin were in- has a different meaning than in Germanic languages. To quote Wikitionary: "The in- prefix is dropped to avoid confusion with non-flammable." In other words: you've brought this shit on yourselves, you shoulda use unflammable or uninflammable as the antonym of inflammable — but NO, you folks have to think simple and dumb everything down.
• stuck fast is not used commonly used anymore. Point of whining becomes null.
• inept comes from Latin through French meaning is it's original ineptus "unsuitable, impertinent, improper, tasteless, senseless, silly, pedantic or absurd", while the antonym in English is adept again from Latin through French meaning in it's original adeptus from adipisci ("to attain") "overtaken" or "obtained". Lesson fromt this: don't just copy from the guy next to you, they might get it wrong.
• It's just 19, stop whining. But seriously "set" is one that at least makes sense most of time. Also it's often used as an expression only making sense with the object.

It ain't that hard cowboy. Wait, you aren't deformed like a cow right?

@WfG: German isn't agglutinating, it's fusional. Although we do agglutinate a lot.

@ZooGuard: Compared to other languages, yes. Through it's birth history it didn't just pick up a lot of stuff and words, those words stopped being synonyms and their meaning became different → preciseness. For example: You people have three words for "Schwein" ("pig", "swine", "pork"). --★uːʤɱ socialist 17:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

@Dumpling: What? No, honorific for me? I'm… I'm… *whaaaa* --★uːʤɱ libertarian 17:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Tech weirdness

any reason why entries to the patrol log started showing up on my watchlist this morning? And how to get rid of them? PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 14:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Some database weirdness happend around 4:00 last night (server time), and the software has hiccups ever since. But AFAIK our mechanics are on it. --★uːʤɱ digital native 14:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

*Mechanic, singular, now that Nx no longer has server access. Blue (pester) 00:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

E-petitions, revisited

So I just signed this Amnesty International petition to close Guantanamo and Guantanamo-like facilities, as well as urging for fair trials and whatnot to detainees of such places. But I'm wondering, I basically just e-signed this letter, which surely many others have done likewise. So what would an official say to having received thousands of identical emails? Wouldn't they be likelier to dismiss it?--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Though nice young "facebook activist" like to think that they are doing something by signing mass produced petitions, they are really of little value to actually getting anything done. The do give an idea of how many people care about an issue, but there is no real threat to people in power if "all you can be bothered to do is click a link". If you do want to get an issue changed, and you are trying to contact US people in power, FAX AND PHONE. call, clog up their message machine, send faxes, again and again. It effects how they do business, so they end up having to respond. I'm personally cynical enough to think that it is the disruption of their day, and not what you say that matters. Also, as much as they are seen as "old style", getting an op-ed in your local paper about your issue, then CUTTING IT OUT and faxing or mailing or hand delivering it to your person in power works really well. Papers still have lots of power. or perceived power, anyhow. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 23:13, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

What she said. Slacktivism is actually worse than nothing because at least when you've done nothing, the nagging feeling that you should have done something might make you actually do something next time. All you've done is nothing, and you're pleased with your efforts. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 23:21, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. If you want action, then you have to show you're serious. Put simply: the types of people who write real letters are the types who go out and vote, so those letters actually matter. It's easy to sign an e-petition, and they're ignored equally easily.--^talk 23:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Are there any documented cases of e-petitions being credited by people in power as the key factor in their decision to do something? PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 23:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure they have been the key factor in many politicians' decision to click "move to recycle bin." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Call IT, i want a different email for real people from what's posted on the web. (and yes, every elected official I know has 3 or 4 official addresses.) power to the people? ah, "barriers from teh people, barriers from teh people, rock on."GodotDear god, fucking grow up 23:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not faxes. Anything but faxes. Or wandering in to the office saying "Can I speak to the Congressman?" (The answer is no and the urge to call security is subconsciously elevated by 50%.) Physical mail is the most effective, followed by phone calls. If you're in the US, it's a good idea to get both your representatives' campaign and non-campaign contact information. Blue (pester) 00:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Faxes work great (at least in Colorado politics, i've not really dealt with Federal level, and surely not international level). They have to deal with them because they disrupt their business. And going in person is one of your strongest chances to be heard, if you really want to be heard. You will never be thrown out (at least, again, in Colorado) cause they are not allowed to throw you out. Act respectful, have some signs but do not cheer, yell, or chant, and you will get heard. Might take you several weeks, but you walk in each morning, put your name on the list, and the list goes down. You may not see the congress person himself, but you can often get face time with their policy makers, with their attorneys, with their cabinet secretries, etc. I've never managed to get face time with a Govonor, but I've had sit downs with my representatives and senators, and my state reps. It does work, you just have to be very persistent. I've never had any success with letters of course, cause they are by and large, handled by low staff, and are tallied at the end of the day along with phone calls. At least if it's for a major issue. But that' doesn't mean they aren't good, i've just not seen much out of them.GodotDear god, fucking grow up 00:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I was being a little facetious with the faxes. I dread them because I grew up in an age where I didn't learn how to use a fax machine and it always seems like a poor man's email. That, and our office fax machines are utterly bonkers pieces of unusable, constantly broken obsolescence.

The people who walk in and expect a meeting right away with someone who a) schedules everything months in advance and b) is only ever present in the office to do actual work and meetings are a bit out of touch, however high their electoral participation. One-on-one meetings are possible and definitely effective if you know your stuff inside and out, I agree, if you can get one. For those who can't, attending his or her public events, from fundraisers to town halls, and talking to them then, or sending a letter or call - it's true they are usually just tallied, but that's still better than nothing - is all good. Blue (pester) 00:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

LOL sorry. and you are very right. my fax finally (after like 5 years of begging) is part of some service, so it goes directly to my computer - no printing involved. i also never sign faxes when i use them to blast politicians. I just use them like placcards. I also agree that "town halls" have never worked above the level of, well, towns. I can get lots done at town meetings for the commissioners, but that's cause there are 4 other people at the public meeting. ;-) And like everything in politics, US, UK, or otehrwise, the higher the position, they less they care what "J.P. Public" has to say. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 01:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The official ePetitions of the UK government have occasionally gotten things done, albeit they need to be very popular to get anywhere and 95% of the time it just elicits a response for why the petition request isn't actually possible. Usually online petitions work just the same way as any other; the organisation intends to set up a face-to-face meeting and dump a list of names on them to say "this is how many people are behind us". If the organisation setting up the petition have no intention of doing that step or don't have the connections, don't bother signing as it's not worth even the time it takes the electronic signal to go from your computer to the server. ^{d hominem} 02:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Rationalwiki's Iowa Poll

Who is going to win the Iowa Caucuses?

Michelle Bachmann	0	Vote
Newt Gingrich	1	Vote
John Huntsman	0	Vote
Ron Paul	11	Vote
Rick Perry	0	Vote
Mitt Romney	26	Vote
Rick Santorum	4	Vote

^{— Unsigned, by: PintOfStout / talk / contribs}

Iowa2008? Peter ^{Urist for Mod!}(MW) 02:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Romney. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The pundits were saying that a forecast of bad weather would be good for Ron Paul. The idea is that the older voters who support some of the other candidates might not be able to get around or simply might not want to go out in bad weather, while Paul's supporters tend to be young and highly energized. According to the National Weather Service tomorrow's forecast for Des Moines is clear skies with a low of 11 Fahrenheit and a high of 38 Fahrenheit (that's about -7 Celsius and +3 Celsius to you heathen non-Americans). So with no snow in the forecast and temperatures probably around normal for Iowa in the dead of winter I'm betting on Romney. Doctor Dark (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"UPDATE: The latest Iowa poll shows a dead heat between You Can Not Be Serious, No Way In Hell, and You Have Got To Be Fucking Kidding Me." [1] Where are these options on the poll? Peter ^{Urist for Mod!}(MW) 03:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Commentary from a foreign observer. Doctor Dark (talk) 05:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that we can take that joke seriously is proof that the US is in a moral and intellectual decline like we've never seen before. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, as opposed to when we kept black people as slaves and women as domestic and sexual servants. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

And if one of those ignoramuses gets a hold of the nuclear football all that progress will disappear, you know that. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean nuclear soccer ball. Thanks. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I enjoyed Daily Kos' take on Bachmann's 'expect a miracle!' crap - tune in on Tuesday at 8pm to watch God forsake Michele Bachmann. PsyGremlinZungumza! 08:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

What, no option to vote for Jimmy McMillan, formerly of the Rent is Too Damn High Party? MDB (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Jeb Bush through sheer vacillating indecision. Or possibly Nicolae Carpathia. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Turning into a sick joke...

Santorum is tied with Romney, and Paul trailing (60% of the votes counted). Osaka Sun (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Frothy mixture. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 03:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Can imagine the attack ads already. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

How come it kept being a case of dead even → one guy winning by a thousand → dead even again? How does that work? Peter ^{Urist for Mod!}(MW) 04:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Recounts, probably. Osaka Sun (talk)

The odds of them staying so close (11 votes last I heard, 99%) with more than a hundred thousand people voting must be staggering. Peter ^{Urist for Mod!}(MW) 05:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

5 now. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Santorum is on a roll! Er, wait a minute, that wasn't very pleasant of me to mention just before breakfast. Secret Squirrel (talk) 10:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

For the benefit of us furriners

The fact that Santorum has done so well - how good an indicator is it of how crazy the GOP has become? It's comforting to see Bachmann coming last and Perry lagging. But Santorum beating Paul and Newt? --PsyGremlinParla! 10:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It is purely a result of timing. In another week or two, Santorum would have been crushed out like a bug. He hasn't been vetted because no one took him seriously - no one even bothered to attack him. He was just the latest Not Romney to pop up, and benefited from timing. Look for him to crash soon, and crash hard. Romney has NH locked up, and Gingrich has SC locked up. But there's actually a lot of play right now, and things can still change a lot.

The GOP has become crazy, but this is not an example of that. Specific policies and beliefs are examples of that. These caucuses are fairly unremarkable, really, and mostly just signify that the field of candidates is very weak. The majority conservative vote hates Romney, and he's spent 5 years and millions of dollars and only managed to achieve the same vote count he lost with four years ago, signifying how the majority was just split four ways among the perceived "conservatives." If any of them had been less deeply flawed and embarrassing, then Romney would be gone. If someone like Rubio had a term under his belt (or even just a couple of years) he could run and win. Or if one of the old hands like Christie had run, they would also win. But they didn't run because they know that this is actually going to be a tough race.

They're crazy, but that's not why Santorum won. He won because of lucky timing.--^talk 11:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's mostly a function of how well the religious right is organized in Iowa. Huckabee winning there four years ago is another example; didn't help him win the nomination. I don't see him continuing to do well. Romney will easily win New Hampshire where the religious right is much less of a factor, and Gingrich could easily make a comeback once the southern primaries happen. Secret Squirrel (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There's increasing opinion amongst the the people who spend time thinking about these things that Iowa is becoming less and less relevant in the Presidential selection process, because it's so heavily dominated by the Christian right.

I think Santorum and Paul both did well simply because they were the remaining "not Mitt Romney" candidates who hadn't peaked yet. MDB (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Wisdom Tooth Extraction

Had my 3 remaining wisdom teeth removed yesterday. While I have little or no pain thanks to the awesome pills provided by my very generous dentist, the light bleeding is really irritating and I can't survive on mashed potatoes with gravy for much longer. God damn I am fucking hungry and desperate for a belt of scotch and a cigarette. I guess what I am trying to say is I am wasted on pills but want some bacon on eggs with a side of dark ale. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 19:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You can just put your bacon and eggs into a blender. (euu...) I don't like egggs, but apparently light scrambled eggs are good when your teeth are pulled. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 20:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Three wisdom teeth? I hope that there really isn't a link between them and intellectual capacity or you're well and truly fucked. On a more positive note, get well soon, mate. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Had one taken out last year but couldn't afford to get them all done at once and they weren't causing me any issues until recently so was no need to remove the rest. I am trying to be careful to avoid a dry socket infection so being careful with nicotine, food and booze. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 21:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Having evolved to a higher level, I have only ever had 28 teeth so never needed the removal of the excess. However, I've had four premolars removed and implants over the last three years- it must have cost me the price of a small car. Anyway, I hope you're using a lot of saline mouthwashes. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Will be doing my first wash soon, had to wait 24 hours. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 21:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I remember getting my last baby teeth pulled when I was a kid so I could have braces put on. I remember the anaesthetic keeping my mouth numb for several hours afterwards and trying to drink a milkshake which poured out the side of my mouth onto my clothes so I looked, for lack of a more pc-word, retarded. The girls in my class laughed. Ah, memories. SJ ^Debaser 23:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to put the idea into your head, my mom had six wisdom teeth because she's some kind of mutant. She had four removed then two more grew in. X Stickman (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Foodies

Salad dressing help, please. I've been to some greek and italian restaurants where the dressing is worth going back for. I go on line to try to find decent recipies and they either taste too oily or too sharp with vinaigrette. Anyone have a "tried and true" vinaigrette they just love? GodotDear god, fucking grow up 20:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I do the zesty Kraft :) 64.28.247.217 (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you ask the chef when you find something you like. It's a compliment and the worst that they can do is say 'sorry it's a secret'. Commercial dressings often taste good because they have additives that you might not want to add if you were doing it yourself. I haven't got a recipe to hand as I'm slumped over the kitchen table with a coupl of empty wine bottles in front of me, but always use the best olive oil you an find and use a flavoursome wine vinegar. Modena balsamic would be my choice but it can be a bit heavy for some people (e.g. Mrs K.). I was recently working in the Black Sea with an Italian who brought his own olive oil and balsamic vinegar (not the sort of thing that I would trust in my checked baggage) and although it was pretty standard 'coop' produce the two tasted good without any additional ingredients. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

sorry, je ne vinaigrette rien. Rennie McGreet (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Tell me that's from Andy Zaltzman. Blue (pester) 22:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Heh! I also got some pink Hawaiian salt for xmas. need to find something yummy to put it on. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 21:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it is in the US, but over here asking the chef (or the waitress, as the chef is hardly ever coming to you) for the recipe is an insult. As in "I like your food, but I'm not willing to pay money for it and neither is it so good that you need to keep it back." --★uːʤɱ federalist 23:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

There's not really a social protocol for it in the States, either for or against. As I understand it, restaurants can either oblige or politely decline. Almost universally they either decline or simply don't know, because nice restaurants have their secrets and chain restaurants have most things shipped in bulk (Red Lobster cheddar biscuits are prepared in monstrous vats somewhere).

As to WfG's question about dressing, my wife makes this astonishingly good miso dressing. I'll ask her if she's willing to let me put up the recipe.--^talk 23:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Balsamic vinegar, olive oil, prepared mustard, honey, minced garlic, oregano, basil, salt. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 22:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but what is the ratio of oil to vin. I think that's where I'm failing. I tried equal portions? GodotDear god, fucking grow up 22:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I would tend to use between 4 and 6 parts oil to vinegar. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 22:50, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much, though maybe a skosh less vinegar because there's some in the prepared mustard. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 22:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure I'll catch flak for this, but the salad dressing at Olive Garden always inspires me to eat more salad, which I suppose is good for me. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Pint and Khant pretty much nailed it there. I add castor sugar sometimes if it's too sharp. And sometimes a bit of lemon juice if it isn't. Oh, and only the best olive oil. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Worth an article?

Goop. Paltrow is easy on the eye and all, but this screams "SCAM!." PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 22:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess you'd have to look at each of the components. "Insulin regulator" seems suspicious.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Worth a mention in our colonic article, but I doubt there's enough material for an article. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Site needs some quick support

Hey guys, we were scheduled for a fund raiser about a month ago but we put it on the back burner as we work through some of the amazingly tedious bureaucracy dealing with our status as a non-profit and charity. We are solidifying and advancing our status with several different government agencies. Most of this is all behind the scenes stuff that won't matter for your day to day experience on RW. Some of it is important in preparing the way for future collaboration with other non-profit groups that share our goals, and also alternative funding sources.

In the immediacy though we need to shore up our current financial assets to deal with some fees as well as covering some hosting costs till we can get instigate a more wide spread fundraiser. So if some of you can afford to toss some donations our way in the next few days it would be really awesome. Tmtoulouse (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

So what kind of money would be considered a meaningful contribution here? How much is needed, roughly? Or alternatively, where's the line between insulting peanut and modest but inoffensive? I've asked you this before, you declined to give a meaningful answer, I paypalled you guys 40 bucks just out of spite and then I felt bad about it for a week. 85.187.128.76 (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Easy, there's no such thing as "insulting peanut", but if you'd like to spite the site with another $40, I doubt anyone would object. ADK^{...I'll coach your mouth!} 17:18, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Ideally I would like to get close to $400 from this which would cover most of the additional fees we are facing that weren't budgeted in for this year. But even just a couple hundred should be enough to avoid an potential cash crunch before we can do a more widely advertised fund raiser. As far as how much? Whatever you think you can afford to give that you think is worth it. We have people that have given everything from $1 to $1000 and everything in between. Every little bit is greatly appreciated. The median donation is probably around the $20 mark. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I pledge $20 but it'll have to be in a month. Spent all my discretionary income on the World Cup. Damo^Hi 08:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll throw another $20 in, but can't until I get paid, as it's the middle of the month and as usual I'm broke again. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Can this be unstuck yet or are we still in need of urgent funds? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 22:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

So then what would happen if nobody donated? DMorris2 (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You would no longer be able to troll here. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 22:20, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

As always, I am willing to plunge into the depths of my coffer when you are willing to cede to my demands. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Fracking and earthquakes

Fear-mongering, or a legit concern? PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 14:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

"Cause" is probably a very loose word here. Considering that earthquakes release the energy of multiple nuclear devices, I don't think we could even produce a 4.0 quake wholly artificially just by drilling a few holes and pumping in some fluid. You could trigger one to happen sooner rather than later, or you might alter the natural frequency, in theory, but people shouldn't think we can flip a switch a generate a quake. If you stretch an elastic band, and then "artificially" cut it, then what causes it to ping into your eye is the stretching, not the cutting. Same with quakes, it's the tectonic activity that builds up stress over a period of time that "causes" the quake. ^bomination 14:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

In accident investigation they talk about proximate and more distant causes. For example, the proximate cause of a particular old lady being hit by a specific train may be that she was standing on the level crossing when the train passed through it; while a very distant cause might be the deletion of a short phrase or sentence from a rulebook eighteen years previously. We can be certain that fracking is not the ultimate cause of earthquakes, obviously. But it may be the proximate cause of a specific earthquake at a specific time, and it could make sense (I don't know, haven't looked into it) to forbid fracking for that reason. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I look at stresses in the Earth's crust in a similar way to imbalances in the economy, sometimes it's better that they are balanced sooner. The greater the build up of stress then the greater the damage when it is released. But of course it's so much more convenient to be able to blame it on someone and sue for compensation rather than put it down to forces of nature. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Legit, according to USGS. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

the biggest risk is contamination of groundwater. I suppose if you are mucking about near fault lines then earthquakes would not surprise me. Hamster (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This. I am worried a lot less about earthquakes than I am about heavy metal contamination of groundwater.--^talk 23:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

And GHG emissions. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It's too late we're already dead. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 20:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Motivational tactics

Via Facebook, a friend of mine has started a procrastination competition; basically, to see who can come up with the most impressive activity to avoid doing work. This includes writing, drawing or learning something - anything but real work. However, because it's a competition, it has reversed the entire thing. The procrastination activity becomes the work, work becomes the procrastination. So instead of writing an RW essay, or breaking out the oil paints again, I'm going to actually do some work-related writing! ^{d hominem} 12:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Or alternatively I do nothing except refresh RW's recent changes log because it's so windy outside I fear I may take off... ^theist 12:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Procrastination is a terrible disease. I've been off work this week with nothing much to do (because of some unused annual leave from 2011 which I could carry over to the beginning of 2012 but no further) & had planned to get various things in my home & life organised, but have barely accomplished any of them & instead lapsed into bad time-wasting habits, sleeping in late, the usual stuff. I sometimes blame the internet, but it was pretty much the same in my university days when I didn't have a home internet connection & still found all sorts of ways to avoid getting stuff done. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

From dictionary.com

OK, for reasons of my own I was looking up abiogenesis on www.dictionary.com and got this. What is the first thing you notice in the definition? Bad Faith (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

oh, just perfect. wait for the next creationists to cite this in an argument. "but but dict.com says so!" --GodotDear god, fucking grow up 16:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

You've really always got to treat on-line dictionaries with a bit of caution.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:06, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Except that this entry is from Random House, a mainstream American dictionary. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Worse, the on-line (therefor, short) version from the OED says virtually the same. My long version does talk a *bit* about it being a modern theory on how life might have arisen, but that definition is #5, after "discounted theories of spontaneous generation", type listings. Pouts, i expected so much more of the OED. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 18:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there a lexicographer in the house? -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The definition is archaic, calling back to the days when people thought that maggots spontaneously formed in meat. See WP:Spontaneous generation. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason to use regular dictionaries to look up scholarly terms of art. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Stuff like this is why I usually use Wikipedia (or just Google) before a dictionary. You're much more likely to get the most common/current definition or explanation. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

While you both (neb and Weasel) make a point for us, one of my problems is that the knuckleheads of the world will and do run to dictionaries. They should at least be a bit more "updated" than this. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 19:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Two thoughts. 1) Dictionaries vary as to how they order definitions. e.g. some lexicographers think the oldest meanings should go first, some try to sort by the most common usage at the time of writing. Check the introduction to the dictionary. 2) The experiment where a thin mesh prevents decaying meat from spawning maggots is literally the first thing I think of when someone says "abiogenesis". The second thing I think of is urea and the demolition of vitalism. Unless it was the topic of conversation already the actual mechanism by which life arises on Earth would be way down the list in my head. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

People arguing by dictionary definition need shot. ^postate 12:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Or possibly shooting. Bad Faith (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No, they need actual lead shot. A couple of bags to weigh them down so they can't run should do it. ^narchist 13:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

But if we didn't refer to dictionaries, how would we know that MACHISMO is "an exhilarating sense of power or strength"? Olé! Olé! Olé! ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Plug for RW !

Many of you know my own bias to make RW grow far beyond it's "Make fun of CP roots". (not that we shouldn't keep making fun of them, they are funny. they NEED it). But I was just emailing NCSE for some information and permission to use parts of their book here at RW. "Dear Ms. XXX, Thanks for your e-mail. It's good to hear from you -- I'm familiar with RationalWiki already, primarily because it has some very useful material on the creationism/evolution controversy." SEE! we do good! ;-) GodotDear god, fucking grow up 18:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Good stuff, WfG! Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 19:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

+1 Scream!! (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice to know. Thanks Godot. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And of course that person (i didn't name him, didn't think it was proper) gave us permission to use their images if we are referencing back to them.)GodotDear god, fucking grow up 19:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That's awesome!--Dumpling (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

So we can use their Creation/Evolution Continuum etc? Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 01:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe so. Congrats Godot! Osaka Sun (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Very good. They have some great resources. sterile^talk 01:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Like! Rennie McGreet (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That's great. And you are awesome in every way, Godot. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I had a very brief Facebook-based chat with Eugenie Scott a while back about it, and I know Trent wants to plug us with NCSE too with the eventual aim of sending representatives to things like TAM. Which would be kinda cool. ^bomination 12:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

And the Goat is on Twitter!

Everything is set up and ready to go. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Who is manning it? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

He is, apparently. Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 01:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I had thought about automating the RSS feeds to auto-tweet via Yahoo! pipes, but I never god to it. The links were a problem as well as the 140-character limit. sterile^talk 01:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

He can do it manually, I'm sure. How do you do those pipes by the way? Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 02:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yahoo pipes is here. You can view the source of WIGO world here (and I can post the other ones if you wish). It takes awhile to discern what yahoo pipes does. sterile^talk 02:11, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm--despite that it's "published," you can't see the source. Let me look into that. Add: I guess you need a yahoo! account. sterile^talk 02:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Congrats, Osaka Sun. You'll make RW one of the Twitterati. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't count your chickens yet. ;)

Also, should we put one of these on the main site? Osaka Sun (talk) 08:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Why not? also, perhaps share the password with other (trusworthy) RWers? Rennie McGreet (talk) 11:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

We have a find-us-on-facebook thing, Twitter can probably go there too. And the main page certainly needs more live content in line with how the internet works these days. ^bomination 12:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If anybody can find this for me

Farrell CL. The relationship of osteopathy to medicine. (Discussion of the Cline Report.) American Medical Association, June 23, 1954.

I've looked through JAMA, google scholar, but so far nothing. Anybody up to the challenge? It'll be quite useful for the imminent osteopathy article, thx.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Where'd you find the reference? Is it a book? I looked on Medline (although I'm not sure how far back it goes) and didn't find anything. sterile^talk 02:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I found the reference here, and I know it to be based upon this, which I was quite happy to find.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

And I got the initial chirobase page from good ole quackwatch.org--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

[2] It's a book. Not sure why it didn't show up in Google. sterile^talk 02:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

According to Worldcat, there is only one library in the world with a copy; the National Library of Medicine in Bethesda, MD. Good luck. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 02:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"Private communication from the author to the House of Delegates, American Medical Association." Probably amazing there's any record. sterile^talk 02:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Damn it, the original page said it was a paper. I'm tempted to call Maryland.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Again, I'm not sure what you were hoping to find in it, since it's from 1965, but you can cite the paper you have. If you are looking for quotes from the guy, (maybe he is a sorta "darwin" to osteopathy) you can probably find plenty of citations using just his name and google scholar. You can go to a library and do a science citation index as well. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 03:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It obviously holds the ancient secrets of osteopathy. Road trip to Maryland! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

RationalWiki: The Roadtrip: The Movie. F_litzer^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 03:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I doubt even one of you is old enough to get this, but "glidie glop gloopy, nibbie nabby noobie la la la lo lo... saba sibi saba, noobie naba waba le le lolo..." That's a road trip song. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 04:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The words that come to mind are something about Starshine? Scream!! (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That's just terrifying! yeah, it's from Hair, "good morning, Starshine, the Earth says hello, you twinkel above us..." etc. but they are supposedly in a car driving off to see the world! GodotDear god, fucking grow up 04:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

"Manchester, England, England across the Atlantic Sea" - that line from Hair always grated for me. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If there's an RW road trip to Maryland, I'll suggest the restaurants. No, you can't stay at my house. (Remember, the "MD" stands for "Maryland". "B" is for "Bear".) MDB (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I predict the consumption of many crabcakes. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

G&M. I used to work near there. If you like Italian, there's Pasta Plus. I live near there. Red Hot and Blue has the best barbecue that's not served in a place that has the health department running in fear. If you want Mexican, Toucan Taco (still known to us Laurelites as Tippy's) is great, but does have the health department running in fear. MDB (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Darwin Fish, Meet Lambert Dolphin!

Another "aquatically-named" Christian: http://ldolphin.org/URLres.shtml. Links to Conservapedia on evolution and atheism. But, it gets funnier: links to websites with both pre- and post-millenialist eschatological views (Rapture Ready and Gary North)! Hedging his bets much? As an added bonus, links to a few websites that promote Judaism, which specifically denies what the New Testament says about Jesus! Found the site when bored and Googling around: http://ldolphin.org/bumbulis/.

What to say about that essay on Christianity supposedly giving birth to modern science, and now, supposedly, science is under attack by "neo-pagans" ... it's near the end, I think he confuses ancient paganism, modern paganism, atheism, and extreme liberalism, to the point where they're all just congealed into a monolithic "enemy of Christianity." What to make of this guy and his veritable link farm?! 74.89.212.27 (talk) 08:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

More Crazy Stuff from teh Bowels of teh Internets

http://gaynazis.com/, blaming everything Nazi on gays. White nationalism meets Fred Phelps minus most or all specific religion? 74.89.212.27 (talk) 09:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Anti-Nazi white supremacists? Too parody to even be Poe. --Brendiggg (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Ed Poor is a fan. See CP:Homosexuality in Nazi Germany & CP:Homosexuals and the Holocaust + their edit histories & talk pages. The Pink Swastika is mentioned or cited quite a lot. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

We have an article on Scott Lively, author of The Pink Swastika. It's not clear what the link is between him & GayNazis.com, although obviously the site's author(s) wants to promote Lively's book. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Reminds me I've been meaning to read that for some time. I just haven't been in the mood to read a book's worth of utter bullshit recently, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The stupid...

Comment overheard: "Muslims, Jews and Christians have been going at it since King Solomon's Days nothing has been resolved."
Reply: "There were no Christians or Muslims in Solomon's time, you moron."

There might be hope for humanity after all. --PsyGremlinParlez! 13:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It was those damn Canaanites, Philistines, and Pharisees that were the problem. --User:Brxbrx/sig 13:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Those fucking Pharisees piss me off to no end. How dare they propone the concept of resurrecting the dead and practicing traditions of the Oral Torah! -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No, all hope is lost. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 22:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Reddit may be right with New Agers...

But when they face other inconvenient truths, it's-"LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU" Osaka Sun (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh, what? They're right, all of it is either unfalsifiable or actually falsified. The Austrians just claimed otherwise because they wanted a "scientific" a priori theory, and then later used that to cover their asses when called on their bullshit. While Hayek offered this rationalization as well, he often seemed to disobey it in his own writing and made a number of concessions to fact and pragmatism as well as making a number of pointed criticisms of the scientism of econometric models (until his followers ran with this and went around declaring all disconfirming evidence as...SCIENTISM!!11!!). Mises and his personality cult (Rothbard esp.) did not. Which is why I can find some value in Hayek, even if tends to be a case of "diamond in the rough," while I view Mises as a doddering old crank. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

That same commenter also claimed empirical economics was "cherry picking." Anyways, the link should have been phrased differently, I think that's what's causing the issue. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Key words: "most of." I'd agree when it comes to macro-econ "theory." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Rationalwiki's New Hampshah poll. Wicked Pissah.

Newt Gingrich	1	Vote
John Huntsman	4	Vote
Ron Paul	1	Vote
Rick Perry	1	Vote
Mitt Romney	20	Vote
Rick Santorum	0	Vote

PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 01:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, since I don't know how to do a poll that allows for multiple votes

Who will quit the race on Tuesday night, if anyone? PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 01:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If Huntsman doesn't show here, he'll go. Parry too. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Perry has already said he'll ride it out until South Carolina. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 02:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't NH being billed as almost certainly Romney's? I get the impression that many of the other candidates will discount a poor showing b/c of that. Don't know if that would apply to Huntsman though. I say that of the candidates that have already got big, the next to go will be Santorum - though not immediately after this one. Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 02:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

For your enjoyment

Santorum quotes put to New Yorker cartoons. One of those kind of surreal things that's funny in an inexplicable way. DickTurpis (talk) 02:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Some of those are classic. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hehe. When I saw the evolution one, though, I thought that caption would be awesome on Ascent of Man, with Perry added to the end looking back at the other hominids. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

15 Questions redux

I was wondering... if we put our collective heads together, I'm sure we could come up with "15 Questions Creationists Can't Answer Satisfactorily." Starting off with "If Adam & Eve and Cain and Able were the first humans, where did the people in the land of Nod come from, where Cain went?" --PsyGremlinSprich! 16:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

• if 8(?) people survived the Flood, and they were all related, wouldn't we have a common male ancestor (assuming the women were from different families) and not a mitochondrial "eve".
• If the floods are responsible for carving out the rock formations around the world, and if, as we know, the flood waters moved so fast they gouged out the Grand Canyon, how do they leave these rocks so precisely balanced on other rocks? [3] GodotEn live 16:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a non-starter when you want to debate people who can always fall back on "God did it." They're not playing by the same rules. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 16:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Define the boundary between antediluvian and flood sediments. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Yes, exactly. I think that asking them questions like these won't do do much -- they're, really, nitpicks when you consider that the entire premise is batshit insane and there's no proof for any of it. F_lucked^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 17:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

We do have a common male ancestor, the male MRCA or "Y-chromosomal Adam". He is currently thought to even pre-date (it so happens) Mitochondrial Eve by quite a while. Both "Adam" and "Eve" are purely statistical data points, like being the "Oldest living man" or whatever, their status can change as a result of better research or events in the real world (e.g. if everybody from Haplogroup A drops dead of a disease next week, the new Adam is way younger, but if we discover a new Haplotype Zero in some obscure African tribe that might push Adam back a few thousand more years). 82.69.171.94 (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't hold me to this, but i thought eve was about 150,000 years older than adam? GodotDear god, fucking grow up 20:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Right...because of early human breeding practices and other factors, the female MRCA (Mitochondrial Eve) would have lived long before male MRCA (Y-chromosomal Adam). Break it down by haplotype, it's even younger—something like 9% of all Asian males are descended from Genghis Khan (I read that somewhere, maybe it's higher?). -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I got that completely the wrong way around. Sorry. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

How did the Earth survive the nuclear holocaust that would have occurred if carbon dating were wrong? At the end of the day, POS is right, though. They have their own special rules. "Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -Scott D. Weitzenhoffer Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, though I say this is "according to QI" and haven't looked it up yet, simply doing so many nuclear tests has completely fucked with radiometric dating. So the dates are done as "before present", which is something like 1950, because anything from after that has been so heavily contaminated from nuclear tests to be unreliable in dating. Yet we've survived that "nuclear holocaust". Though I agree with the question there, what creationists are implying isn't quite the same as the problem caused by nuclear tests. ^postate 02:29, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Though on other comments, creationists can't or won't answer them - that's the point. ^postate 02:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the tests had increased the levels of ¹⁴C, which would make things look younger. The creationists need to explain how all the isotopes decayed quickly to make them look older without the radiation killing Noah & Sons, which is an entirely different problem. Peter ^{Urist for Mod!}(MW) 02:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• We're well aware that there are theories as to where the water for the flood came from - but where did it go?

Certainly this baffles me more, we're talking about going up to the height of Everest here. ^postate 02:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Created Essay:Question Creationism!‎ if anyone wants to take it up seriously. ^gnostic 02:45, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the radiation was enough to split it into hydrogen and oxygen, though that doesn't explain where the oxygen went. Peter ^{Urist for Mod!}(MW) 02:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Digression: the amount of radiation released in nuclear test fallout is really rather trivial when compared to the total radiation released from naturally occurring radioactive substances. The problems for dating result more from what is produced rather than how much is produced. ¹⁴C is rare and so even relatively small releases can significantly alter the ¹²C/¹⁴C ratio on the entire Earth. As another example, the total amount of natural tritium on Earth before nuclear tests was around 3-4 kg, compared to 225 kg produced artificially in the U.S. since 1955.

Now back to the point. The creationist problem is not the C-14 or tritium. It's the uranium, potassium and thorium. We know that uranium ores contain a lot of radiogenic lead. They need to explain how all this evident radioactive decay happened in 6000 years rather than over billions of years, and yet the entire planet did not melt from the release of heat. Relevant photo. --Tweenk (talk) 09:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I've decided to invent an acronym

CONSCAM: CONSpicuously Contrived AcronyM.
After seeing too many i decided the phenomenon needed a word (which of couse should be its own example). Reckon it'll catch on? ^{ONE / TALK} 12:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

NMR is a great field for these. WATERGATE is WATER suppression by GrAdient Tailored Excitation, and in PHIP there's PASADENA, ALTADENA, ROCHESTER and EBORARCUM, although only the first two have stuck and I can remember what they stand for. ^theist 12:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

ALICE and ATLAS were decided before they had a chance to figure out what the letters mean. ABC - another bittorrent client was again, decided on before they figured out what the letters were for. --GodotDear god, fucking grow up 13:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

wp:RAS syndrome is a favourite too. ^bomination 13:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This all falls under Fun With Acronyms (WARNING: TVTropes link), of course (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 14:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

My knowledge of this is pretty much "urban legend" (i once heard that...) but I heard pixar hides lots of stuff in their backgrounds, and when they need names for compaines, they are often injoke acronyms. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 18:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I've heard of SFLA, which is a fun one. It doesn't spell anything, but it comes out as Stupid Four Letter Acronym. It's even more fun when it's made up as a silly trivia question and you're trying to figure out what it means. Telnaior (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I've decided to be pedantic about what an acronym is. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Only slightly related trivia: a few years ago there was a telenovela on German TV called "Verliebt in Berlin". It's actual project name was "Alles nur aus Liebe", as it is usual to call a telenovela/soap opera by it's acronym, they went with another title... --★uːʤɱ atheist 20:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I think Congress spends much of its time thinking up CONSCAMS. (Cough) That is, when they're not having their palms greased by lobbyists and other movers and shakers. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"Presumably most of these two months were spent trying to work out a suitable backronym for USA PATRIOT." - I wasn't kidding when I added that! ^bomination 20:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

There are no words

A coathanger. With a "Choose Life" message on it. MDB (talk) 19:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

How tasteful. Have to link to this now. Garçon^coffee! 19:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Average response on Facebook, among my more conservative friends: "What? I don't get it." -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

They like to show pictures of aborted fetuses? Maybe we could start showing pictures of illegally aborted fetuses (with the mother in the background laying in a pool of blood). We could have a contest to see which is most shocking.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Remember that we also pull that stunt with {{abortion}}... ^{d hominem} 20:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Raking up old petty drama

Moved to TWIGOCP --PsyGremlinTala! 15:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Amused, hardly surprised

I'm jet lagged after a return to the US from Ireland, and surfing for hours through old bookmarks. I thought I'd amuse myself by seeing what's up with the Peak Oilers, and checked one of the prime 2007 Peak Oil sites (Thank you, Wayback Machine), only to discover it's basically parked, replaced by the author's latest fun POI, astrological predictions, including the astrological chart of the website itself. Ho Fucking Ho, call me Professor Unsurprised? I nearly snotted up my bottle of Lambrusco. Doggedpersistence 04:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright ain't all bad

This is doing the rounds right now. Comments are quite funny... Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 21:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

All of that looks very depressing. Blue (is useful) 22:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I will admit that I have an different definition of 'funny' to most people, yes. Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 22:13, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Was she trying to profit off the image? The website is completely down. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violation is not just a question of intent: it doesn't matter if you're not trying to profit off the image. If you're using intellectual property in a way not approved by its owner outside of the specific parameters of fair use, it's still a violation. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 03:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC)I'm not sure. Half the point, really, is her reaction to the whole thing, esp. in the comments below. I mean "Just wondering, do you do any thing beneficial to society in a major way?" Really? Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 03:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem, pos is that copyright law is not that simple. if you put something out on a mass consumption site like facebook, there is compelling argument in the law that you are knowingly doing so giving up your right to copyright, unless you state specifically that it is for FRIENDS ONLY. Facebook itself claims "ownership" of your items anyhow, which is also in dispute in current cases around the states (and I suspect, around the globe). Copyright may or may not end at the boundary of someone's country (lord knows who's). It may not exist where you have made an effort to disseminate it over bulk email and say "forward this if you like it", even though it's your work. Most all of this is in court right now, and little has any binding rulings, and none of it (in the US again) has gone to the Supreme Court. So you are always playing with a lit match either way. The single best thing a photographer or author can do is say "this image is mine, and i intentionally share it, but retain all copyright to it". with that, you will probably never lose your rights to sue for use. without... well, that's what courts are for. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 03:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC) sorry "state For friends only" should really be "set the privacy to friends only". my bad.

RE: "this image is mine, and i intentionally share it, but retain all copyright to it." That is effectively what Dr Wild does, though he sells them as well. From what I read there would have been a chance, had she asked, for her to use them free of charge due to the non-profit nature of the site, but instead she took a different route. Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 04:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep. I've asked so many people if I could use a copy of their pictures for web sites, or even professional documents (Images of Native American religious artifacts for example) and as long as I'm not making a profit, I credit them, and I don't alter the intent (using a NA image to show how ugly NA art is, for example) most people are happy to have others see their work. like you said, jsut ask.... even if you think it's fair use, now you know you have the right. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 04:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I need to watch out myself on this subject. I usually just use commons images, but I probably do take images I shouldn't here and there. At least now I know what not to do when challenged in this regard. Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 04:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

There are different licenses in commons so you do need to read the small print if you want to comply with the law. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Asking is absolutely the best policy. It has several benefits: Some creators are actually much happier to give permission than to forgive transgression. You can show a court that you were trying to obey the law - this can be a mitigating factor even when the law says there is strict liability. You have moral authority, because asking permission seems like the Right Thing to most people. You may also get a timely heads-up (e.g. you ask the apparent creator of some art for permission and get the response "Yeah, I just found it on the web anyway, so be my guest" now you know you haven't found the real creator and it's probably already illegally copied).

With lawyers and lots of time, asking and getting no answer may actually be enough to make certain things legal that wouldn't otherwise be OK. I worked on a project for a few years where the legal side was exactly that. Try, and fail, to trace possible copyright holders for a work (in this case, photographs of Alan Turing). Having shown due effort was made to contact copyright holders over a period of time, write that up, and then re-publish the work online. In theory the paper trail meant a court would never hold you liable, so long as you responded to take-down requests from any copyright holders who did belatedly refuse permission. You can even buy insurance on this basis that will pay your legal fees if you get sued.

But generally if you can't get permission, you are into dangerous legal territory. You should make an explicit decision balancing the danger against some perceived value. Maybe illegally copied photographs of Foo Corp drowning babies will get you sued, but letting the world know the truth about what they're doing is worth it. Only the illegal photos would achieve your purpose. On the other hand, if you want to illustrate the words "Oak tree" in your essay, why use someone's Flickr photo without permission when you could get a CC-BY picture from Wikimedia? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Using those Foo Corp photographs would undoubtedly constitute "fair use" - and Foo Corp, presuming this is a vaguely realistic scenario, would be insane to suppress it under copyright grounds because we know for a fact that shit doesn't work. More generally, as someone who does draw, write and occasionally indulge in photography copyright is something of a principle. It doesn't matter if the purpose is completely non-commercial, as an "artist" you want to know where your stuff is going and what it's being used for. At least you want to know who is using it and appreciating it rather than just stumbling on it randomly and feeling quite disheartened that people are seeing this one image but have no idea that it's you that made it. It takes 5 minutes to send an email at most, and literally seconds to at least link back to where you found the original. That someone isn't selling anything doesn't cushion the kick in the teeth that is seeing your own work effectively stolen for a use you didn't sanction - and dismissing a complaint as "a copyright crusade" makes you seem like a fucking douche. ^{d hominem} 15:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this healthy? (the Darth Vader burger)

France with its foie gras, now this. Osaka Sun (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a fuck load of food colour, harmless but weird. In the linked article people complained of it dying their shit. - π 08:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I am assuming that you really mean dyeing as in colouring, rather than dying as in shuffling off this mortal coil. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Meh, French McDonalds is awful anyway. Rémoulade as mayonaise? Yeah, eat that shit yourselves. --★uːʤɱ soviet 10:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with foie gras. And you certainly can't compare it to revolting fast food from the likes of Quick and McDonalds. Bill Bryson described Quick as short for "Quick, a bucket." Ajkgordon (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think the most disturbing part about that is how the lettuce looks in the Dark Burger. No earthly lettuce has ever looked like that. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I seriously doubt the actual thing looks anything like that. Perhaps simultaneously a good thing and a bad thing. ^narchist 15:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I hope it doesn't make a wheezy breathing sound when you bite it. Eugh! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Trumpet blowing time

Local guy comes good on the Tonight Show. --PsyGremlinTala! 13:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy Birthday Professor Hawking

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned somewhere but Stephen Hawking is 70 today. Not only has he been a brilliant physicist but he has defied all odds to live so long with his condition. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 22:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It is unfortunate though he missed his birthday due to illness. Ace^Moderator 22:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I read the article posted on FB's "rw" page, that he said "the greatest mystery in the universe: women". and he was "workign on it". ;-) Also that he was supposed to have a hell of a celebration after some big wig lecture? guess not.GodotDear god, fucking grow up 03:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling that his 'hell of a celebration' might be a bit different from the average RationalWikian's. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, duh. He's 70. But if you read the list of speakers for the conference, and the presenters specifically for his presentation, they would be up all night, doing what these people do. L. Krauss saying something about the event horizon doing something specific to light which does not work in his version of bremes, to which a spirited perlmutter says "that's cause bremems are not as logical as EH", and yadda yadda. That many minds in one room, you just know they are either talking about women or things we've never even heard of. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 15:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Steven Hawkins? He gave us the string theory right? ^bomination 15:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh god, I'm only 1 minute into it. "now, you know of Einstein, right?" questions like that always make me frightened of what's to follow. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 15:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so everyone, i need to explain why our eyes are so important to us. Energy = matter x teh **SPEED OF LIGHT**, and we all know that there is virtually no actual matter in the universe, so you can take that out of the equation. Energy = matter x the speed of light. so LIGHT is really important, therefore we have eyes!!!! (yes, she did just say that) ADK, where did you find this wooooooooooo. (it's beyond woo)GodotDear god, fucking grow up 16:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh man, I remember seeing that before somewhere -- maybe Orac? Classic. She makes Deepak Chopra look like an expert physicist. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hehehehe.... Anyway, I keep seeing that Stephen Hawking reached 70 today. That's one seriously fast wheelchair! ^bomination 15:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

[4] Blue (is useful) 17:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Pingu vs. The Thing.

Gold.

Ace^Moderator 03:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

What the... Osaka Sun (talk) 03:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It's The Thing. But re-conceived as a Pingu episode. Especially like the blood test scene, you can't really preserve the tension of human actors pretending they don't know whether one of their number is human when everyone is plasticine, but the blood test scene still works. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thingu! Rennie McGreet (talk) 12:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Proud Dad moment

Eldest's report on his first week on the other side of the world. I'm not jealous. Really I'm not. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm jealous and I'm not his dad. Sounds like heaven. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice! He's studying to be a marine biologist? What a place to study! GodotDear god, fucking grow up 15:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup. And he'll be studying on Marlon Brando's atoll! Ajkgordon (talk) 16:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow. That's totally awesome. And I'm completely jealous. You have all the rights to be a super proud dad.--Dumpling (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

End of the world -- 2-4 billion years ago?

So this guy is making predictions about the long-long-long term effects of global warming. Basically, he sees the planet taking .5-1 billion years until it gets so hot that the oceans evaporate and every living thing dies. Okay, model it out and it makes sense, or at least seems plausible. But then he says that "... scientists believe the same thing happened on the planet Venus about two to four billion years ago." Really? do any "scientists" believe that oceanic evaporation killed Venusian life 2-4 billion years ago, or is this just a case of sloppy writing/editing making an argument totally unclear? P-Foster Talk "Go get Ace" 13:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

"Sloppy writting"/overintepretation on your part, I guess. --★uːʤɱ pirate 13:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess the guy is just referring to the runaway global warming theory rather than it specifically wiping out every living thing on Venus, although if there were any lifeforms then they would probably be wiped out. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

We simply have no idea whether there was life on Venus. But how Venus got that way has always been an interesting question with "life" popping up as an answer every now and then. ^bomination 14:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems everyone is in agreement, though, that global warming to one extreme, looks like Venus. Having said that, I don't think humans will be worse than a giant fucking asteroid slamming into Mexico. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 15:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed - Earth'll be fine for the most part (though a book I read - The Life and Death of Planet Earth - suggests we're in its declining years, which started 200mya). The real bummer though is we could be consigning future generations to living in an incredibly boring world, biodiversity-wise. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Not to make light of it, but considering most shite on television, we already have consigned future generations to living in an incredibly boring world (cf. Black Mirror: Fifteen Million Merits). ^bomination 15:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Do we, in fact, know there is no life on Venus?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I have personally checked every speck of dirt on Venus and give you my word that there is no life there. ^{ONE / TALK} 21:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

What life is on venus is the same sort on the other celestial bodies, it cant talk to us so0 we wont care--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, we all know what the problem with that assertion is. ^bomination 01:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Brave New Climate on "Venus syndrome." I'm not sure why we need to speculate about the effects of global warming that far into the future -- the near future is bad enough! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Christopher Hitchens is not an atheist... anymore!

[5]
There's not much to distinguish this from the countless other videos saying the same thing, except the fact that it's hosted by none other than God himself. Well, I'm converted. Balaam (talk) 17:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The funny thing is he would agree with them, and he's more content (I fell) because of it. Sagan said a similar thing. Paraphrase:I like knowing that my time is up. It's over. I can frame my last years the way I want them to be, for me, for my family - not for some life I will have after I die. I think i am more able to be at peace by contemplating what I've done, and who i've been rather than by worrying about what I will be. " or some such. The point is, for Atheists, we know it's "over" when its over, so we make sure NOW is fulfilling. and to me, that's a far better way to live. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 17:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

He's not really much of anything anymore, besides worm food or cremains. P-Foster Talk "Go get Ace" 17:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty nihilistic, isn't it? Surely he is still his articles, books, legacy and friends. Although, in the words of William J, "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is." ^sshole 17:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

While it may be nihilistic, it's better than "i am the sum of that which I've left behind". I heard all the time, "your mother is still alive in your memories". Well, no. her writings and poetry are with me, and memories of her are with me, but as they are but a shade of what she must have been, "she" is not in any sense, alive, and the things she left behind are not her. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 18:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As said, it depends what "is" is. What you leave behind is... what you leave behind. What your living self is, is... what your living self is. ^bomination 18:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like Sasha and Zamani to me. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The Conspirator

Anyone seen it or watched it? Seems poignant in light of NDAA/other recent actions... -- Seth Peck (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, was quite good. Then again, anybody caught up in that was on a hiding to nothing. PsyGremlin講話 04:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I love George Takei

After posting the old urban legend about a navy craft trying to tell a lighthouse to get out of the way (JFGI) to his Facebook page, Takei apologised in style:

“”Apologies to the fans for not checking first on the veracity of the naval incident. But honestly, lots of things that never happened are quite hilarious. Case and point: Michelle Bachman's bid for the whitehouse. Or her husband's conversion to heterosexuality.

Love him. ^narchist 20:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

He's pretty article-worthy, if you really think about it. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

"one day, when you least expect it,I will have sex with you! Ahahahahaha"--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Armondikov, for you. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

This is why I follow him. All he does is post funny pictures. I even provided a YouTube link to that exchange between the USS Montana and an Irish lighthouse (THEY MADE A FILM!!) -- 15:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I've said it once, I'll say it again: there are two types of people on Facebook, those who follow George Takei, and those who will soon be following George Takei. Dare I say he beats Stephen Fry hands down? ^pathetic 15:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know they were that close. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Just makes you want to scream sometimes

Beyonce and Jay-Z had a baby, and named her "Ivy Blue".

Okay, why post this at RW, right? The only time we comment on celebrities is when they say or do something irrational.

I mention this because there's a trending twitter topic that claims the name stands "Illuminati's Very Youngest Born Living Under Evil". And that "Eulb Yvi" (the name backwards) is name of Lucifer's daughter.

Really, where do people come up with this crap? MDB (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait... Beyonce is a member of the Illuminati. Dear Eye-in-the-Pyramid, they'll let anybody in these days. Jeeves! Bring the car, we're leaving. --PsyGremlinParla! 15:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Very good, sir. Shall I let the Trilateral Commission know you won't be available for taking over the world tonight? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"If you liked it, then you should have asked the global conspiracy to provide it to you." MDB (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

ROFLYSST ^gnostic 15:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Lucifer had a kid? PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 15:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Having seen my youngest niece when she's feeling feisty, I can believe it. (Her name isn't Eulb Yvi, though. BTW, all the Latin I know is three years in high school, and that's been YOU'RE NOT CLEARED FOR THAT INFORMATION years, but I don't think that's anything resembling Latin...) MDB (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I hear if you fold a dollar bill a certain way it looks just like Beyonce. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You know what's an awesome name? Lucifer. Too bad Christianity has hijacked it for their bad guy. F_lubber^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 20:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I was going to post this earlier but a girlfriend of mine was a primary schoolteacher and had a pupil whose "Christian" name was Lucifer. Apparently his parents were Satanists but as Lucifer just means 'bringer of light' there shouldn't be any negative connotations. But there again many people have abandoned the name Adolph. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, Adolph is a pretty shitty name even without the Hitler association. But yeah, I was thinking of having a character in my novel-thing be named 'Lucifer' and justify it by having his parents be Satanists. F_lint^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 21:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's fair to dump that on a child - but I have a friend whose Black Lab is called Satan. Walking across the park calling out "here, Satan, good boy!" raises a few eyebrows. Jack Hughes (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's the future though, and as such, society is far more secular, so not nearly as many people would make the association between the Judeo-Christian bad guy and the name 'Lucifer'. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 21:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Were you dropped on your head as a child? Or perhaps deprived of oxygen at birth? PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 21:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

What? F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 21:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

a) people will notice the allusion, and b) it's worth noting the various studies that have apparently shown that atheists have better religious general knowledge than the religious. Hence, PoS's comment. Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 22:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

a) I like to fuck with people's expectations. Besides, most of the time he would probably be called 'Luce' anyways. b) In a society satured with religion, yes. In an atheist-majority society, I doubt it. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 22:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

But your readers wouldn't be in an 'atheist majority society,' which means that they'll wonder why nobody is noticing. Suspension of disbalief, you know? Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 22:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Aw, damn, you're right. If only somebody had invented a thing called setting... F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 22:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Setting isn't perfect. It would be almost impossible to immerse your reader into the scene to such an extent that they won't notice the name. Now, fucking with your readers' expectations is all very well, but it has drawbacks of its own. Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 22:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I realize that, but they'll at least be able to know the resaon why most people don't go 'why is that your name?' when they meet him. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 22:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Fallacy Is a Terrible Writer, Part III. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Because I like the name Lucifer? F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 02:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Your insistence that using it is in any way clever or a good idea. Murder your children, Fallacy, murder you children. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I never said it was clever. I said I liked it and wanted to use as a name for a character. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 02:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

↓ I still want an answer, you know... Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 02:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

(EC)What about Lucien? Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 21:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hm... well, the nickname would be the same. Actually, it does sound pretty cool. F_lubber^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 02:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There you go then. And there will be other derivations as well. Peter^{Quasniki 2012!} 02:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Idea: mother was a satanist, father was not. Mother wanted to name him Lucifer, father thought Lucien would be a good alternative. Eventually they ended up choosing to call him 'Luce'. Now that he's an adult, he mostly goes by Luce, but when he gives his full name, he either uses Lucien or Lucifer, depending on how he's feeling and who he's addressing.

See, now I have a bit of backstory. F_arter^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 02:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Jay-Z just had a baby, he doesn't need any more stress. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)