# RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive137

This is an archive page, last updated 19 January 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

## 8 yards in the first quarter

Lord, why have you forsaken me? -- Tim Tebow. — Unsigned, by: PintOfStout / talk / contribs

That was short live, two passes and a TD. Pimobile (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Jesus. PintOfStout Talk BRONIES! 22:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Tip: Do not search Tim Tebow on Twitter. I did not expect Cipolla's First Law to be so prevalent. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

As much as I'm sick of everyone either loving or hating Tebow (or talking about him as if he's the only QB in the NFL), credit where it's due, the Broncos finally beat a team they can be genuinely proud of defeating. I only saw the last few seconds of the game, but it seems the Pittsburgh defense should get a certain amount of credit for the Bronco's win. Where were the safeties on that final play? DickTurpis (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

on the other hand, Dick, we had a 6-22 lead, and when I looked in the 4th, we'd let the lead go, and let them tie the damn game. (I need elway, sharp and Davis - Roy Forsey, Saks and duke and my life would be complete!)--GodotDear god, fucking grow up 02:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I will pay to have the conversation above translated into English.--BobSpring is sprung! 08:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe it translates as FOOTBALL FOOTBALL FOOTBALL FOOTBALL FOOTBALL FOOTBALL. pathetic 11:41, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Does it? Still not getting it. ... Wait! Now I've got it. You mean "American football,American football,American football"!--BobSpring is sprung! 11:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I think it's more like "Because of TEAblow we all now give a shit about American football!" --ʤɱ pirate 11:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Can someone please explain why it's called football? ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 12:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Originally all games played with a foot and in which you have to kick a ball through or in a goal were called football. This goes back to England were back in the old days no specific form of football existed. Over time different sets of rules were standardized but most of them were still called football, some names changed though. But by this technicallity even rugby is still football, the set of rules just got a different name. --ʤɱ constructivist 13:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
It's like their full names are "Rugby Union Rules Football" and "Football Association Rules Soccer" or something like that... pathetic 13:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC
Rhetorical questions, how the fuck do they work? ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 13:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Unseen Academicals explains all. bomination 13:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Rugby is colloquially known as "football" (or, specifically, "League") in those Australian states where it's popular. Australian Rules Football is colloquially known in said states as "AFL" (whether a game between Australian Football League sides or not) - David Gerard (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I thought AFL was just called 'footy'. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 14:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Some of the football variants are really awesome, they date back to when sports more resembled games children play, with rules tailored to a specific environment and focused on playing not spectating. The Eton Wall game can't be played anywhere else, because nowhere else has that exact wall. It's not very photogenic, there's no league or professional branch of the sport, even among people who've played they may only have seen one or two matches. But if they had a good time that's the whole point. Professional sports smear everything into a thin paste of heavily mediated "fair contests" that most people can only watch. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh hell yeah! I remember playing our own little variant of soccer on our old school yard on a field with three hard walls and a roof with a tennis ball. With the goals only being massuered by backpacks and endless arguments if a goal was scored or not. Or playing on a field with some kind of structure in the middle, or on a field the form a pentagon. --ʤɱ federalist 12:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

## Excuse me for my language, but what a bitch.

Student tries to fire a teacher over an OWS assignment she was "forced" to do. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently she hasn't learned what the word "sociology" means. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
This is why I don't envy people like Foster, here, who are going to face these spoiled, self-indulgent students. By the way, for a woman in a college class, she really needs to figure out how to write.  ;-) GodotDear god, fucking grow up 19:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Students are customers, not students. And the customer is always right. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Except when they aren't. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
At the same time, the university itself may not always be right. Sam Tally-ho! 19:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I've decided to become a carpenter. Better job prospects, and wood doesn't talk back. P-Foster Talk "Go get Ace" 19:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Except for the Ents. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I was reading the page, and the comments from the students at NYU were (as always) some of the more interesting pieces. They really think she has a point - that if you don't want to do an assignment, you should not have to; that alternative assignments should be given if you have an issue with the topic (ie., she is very "against" the OWS ideology); that you should have a right to express yourself in class, even if you get disruptive. And they are all tossing out this "freedom of speech" mantra. doesn't ANYONE under, say 25 know what that means?GodotDear god, fucking grow up 20:02, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The internet generation are clueless dipshits. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Kids these days! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The original article is very interesting and has links to the emails on Scribd, the most interesting one of them being the initial response from the Dean, which references a meeting in which he spoke with the student and her mother about this issue. The response from the professor in question appears rational--she appeals to the student to conduct the research as if she were a responsible sociologist--that is, one who might actually have to go out into the world and talk to people--and apply her own viewpoints to that research, which is really the point of the course. The response back to the Dean reflects the state of her mental health. What I find most interesting is that dropping the course, which should be an option and really a quite suitable one for someone who doesn't have the mind open enough to complete it, never comes up to anyone. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, 1,000 Facebook friends! I could see lack of an alternate assignment being a problem in some situations -- I remember an option for them in some dissection labs and projects that might require something that costs money -- but in this case, I will just ditto WfG's signature. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
There will always be instances where you make exceptions. If you were taking "biology for non majors" you didn't have to cut up the cat. If I had a muslim student and I wanted to do an assignment friday at 5, I'd figure something out... but if i had a muslim student say he didn't want to read teh bible (though what I had was Christians students not wanting to read the qu'ran), or a jewish student saying they didn't want to go to the Mosque that didn't fly. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 21:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
These kids never learned to suck it up, because they never had to. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Fucking drama queens... narchist 20:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Endured... ENDURED... bomination 20:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
A list of everything the wacko's said so far. She's so dumb that she actually linked the blog mocking her. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Her writing style in both her argumentative pieces as well as her letters looks...well...familiar. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Freepers give their support. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC).
Thta is perhaps worse than the original. my god. What is with this idea that OWS is dangerous and demented. there have been 3 or 4 documented rapes. Wanna know how many (sadly undocumented) rapes happen in military camps in teh same amount of time? Didn't think you wanted to know. Rape is a reality. It doesn't mean that going down IN BROAD DAYLIGHT is dangerous. and one CAN GO IN GROUPS, you knwo. it is possible. fucking little self-privildged brat. Oh, mommy helped too. If a mommy tried to talk to me when I was teaching, I'd have asked if her daughter was a child anymore? let kids grow up, or they never will! GodotDear god, fucking grow up 21:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
It's always dangerous when there are REDSREDSREDSREDSREDSREDS!!!!!! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

You know, I can take the chavs, wannabes, hippsters and gangsters of my genaration, but people like this Sara actually make me ashamed to be part of this generation. --ʤɱ structuralist 23:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

This incident reminded me a bit of this sketch (mildly funny skit ruined by Charles Barkley's inability to act). DickTurpis (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

### Ok, she's clearly got some mental issues

Have always found conservatives' views on 9/11 victims quite ironic. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm struggling to keep a straight face. This has to be an arts project, there's no other explanation. d hominem 12:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Psychiatric problems could explain everything. Plenty of people rushing to diagnose them in the comments, which I'd usually ignore, but also the university's letters themselves hint at it. "Wellness" is a euphemism, if you're referred by an administrator it means something more serious than "I'm scared of spiders, can I join a group session to help master my fear?". Everything short of actually putting her in a hospital could fall under NYU's "Wellness" umbrella. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 14:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Time to backorder irony meters and Hanlon's razors as they're all breaking on this one. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

## Typography question

Anyone know if < and > have a technical name other than what i learned in 3rd grade math "greater than" and "lesser than" signs? GodotDear god, fucking grow up 21:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

(angle) brackets -- Nx / talk 21:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
The ASCII names are "less-than sign" and "greater-than sign," thought "angle brackets" probably works just as well. 21:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I think angle brackets (aka chevrons) are supposed to be a little different from the inequality signs, but in ASCII/lazy typing people use greater than and less than in their place. For example in LaTeX angle brackets are \langle and \rangle, and no editor will let through < and > in their place (at least in my field, ymmv). --Benod (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, angle brackets are actually 〈 and 〉, but < and > are called that too, mostly thanks to HTML using them. -- Nx / talk 21:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so part two. What I'm really trying to find is how to type the guillemet for french (and other languages) quote marks. I found the wp page, and it says the unicode is at U+00AB « left-pointing double angle quotation mark (HTML: « «) and at U+00BB » right-pointing double angle quotation mark (HTML: » »). But i'm not sure what that means to me. When I just typed double greater than signs, RW's system yelled at me.  :-) GodotDear god, fucking grow up 21:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
It depends on where you're trying to type it. < and > have special meanings in html, so they're not allowed in usernames and I think page titles either. -- Nx / talk 21:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
As to what the info means for you: &raquo; and &laquo; are convenient ways to type the things in html, unless your keyboard has keys for them. Otherwise you can just copy-paste them like you did in your comment. If you want to use them in a page title, for example, you should do the latter. And create a sensible redirect. -- Nx / talk 22:01, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
If the core problem is specifically the typing, ie you don't want to copy and paste these characters every time you need them, then you will need to investigate your preferred computer platform as to whether there's a sensible way to re-map a key combination you're not using to generate these characters or whether you can learn a generic key sequence that allows you to enter a code number for the character you want. For example, on this Fedora Linux system, holding Ctrl+Shift and typing a U produces an underscored u character, and then I can type hexadecimal digits like AB or BB or 29CE and if I press space (or release Ctrl+Shift if I'm still holding them) it converts to the Unicode character with that code. I know that once upon a time there was a similar trick involving the Alt-Gr key in Windows. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Linux also lets you use alt-gr with shift to type even moar characters. -- Nx / talk 23:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Linux also has a far-superior US International keyboard layout (compared to Windows'). Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 23:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, duh. I could switch to a french keyboard. Where to do that in windows. "reginal settings?" hummm... thanks! GodotDear god, fucking grow up 00:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
"Reginal settings" must be what the queen uses. Rennie McGreet (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

[1] Osaka Sun (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

This stuff, kinda works both ways though TheCheatI run on alcohol 15:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Just saw this -- I'm not calling out Sam's revert, just wondering what policy, if any, there is on this? Seems fine to me if it's relevant like the one I linked to on the Michael Egnor page. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess if it's a relevant, well written essay then it would fit in under "see also" (the one I reverted was just a red link). You have to keep in mind, though, that essays do not necessarily reflect the aims of RationalWiki and it's important to keep the ones that don't out of mainspace. Sam Tally-ho! 05:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the rough policy has been to allow "good" essays to be linked to. Not one-off trolling essays or the Progressive People's Liberty Constitution Party Manifesto. 05:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I took it as a given that we wouldn't be linking, say, pro-creationism essays in mainspace. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm against linking any essays from mainspace to avoid people adding their own and then throwing tantrums if others think they are either not good enough or are not appropriate. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 08:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, but we already link to essays, so people are going to throw tantrums anyway because of the perceived double standard. And if you start removing those essays then their authors will start throwing tantrums 08:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
A couple of links to them are useful because things in the essay space are a) good and b) relevant and c) often not suitable for mainspace inclusion. This one for instance, would be well served with a link from one or two main articles. So long as no one writes an essay and tries to put it in themselves, that's fine (though should go without saying). theist 12:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

## Atheism isn't a religion, so let's make it a political party!

Srsly? Apparently automatically discounting 97+% of the electorate is great politics. Maybe they'll play "spoiler" for the Libertarian Party. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That kind of stupidity just makes me cringe. Parties formed on narrow single issues are bad in general, but a party based on atheism is especially bad because there are so many widely variant economic and social ideas on that atheists can have. I agree with Dawkins when he says that organising atheists is a bit like trying to herd cats. --DamoHi 07:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't mind forming political lobbying groups to counteract the pressure from religious groups that tend to push certain values - but an actual party takes the f**king cake. moral 12:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
You all laughed at Jimmy McMillan, but you can't argue with results: the rent is lower now, right? (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 16:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

## Blocking rights question

Hey guys, let's say I just scored blocking rights on a certain website. I have two questions:

1. I seem to have the ability to block everyone on the site, including the owner. Will I be able to permablock all the sysops or will I just get an error message?

2. What fun things should I do with my new abilities? Tesformes (talk) 06:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You can block them, sure, but they can just unblock themselves and block you (and then make it so you can't unblock yourself, i.e. remove your rights). PeterQuasniki 2012! 06:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Basically a sysop has as much power as a lowly policeman, you might be able pull a few power stunts but there are others who hold the real power and can easily undo what you have done and then have you incarcerated for abuse. You might get some childish thrill by temporarily inconveniencing others but ultimately you'll come unstuck. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 08:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the fun of climbing the ranks in CP has been gone for a while. Before you had the discussion groups and all of the insanity you'd only get a glimpse of by becoming a sysop, but I doubt they even do the discussion groups any more and we've picked apart Andy's brain for so long that you know exactly what you'd get by becoming the next Bugler or TK. I just don't see the point any more, unless blocking good-faith users gives you some weird thrill. Anything else can be undone with a few clicks. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 14:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
What fun things should I do with my new abilities? - RW does not endorse vandalism. Seriously. We're the good guys, OK? And why bother. Watching the long slow disintegration of the site is more fun without poking. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I want them alive. No disintegrations this time. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

## Comments sections on news websites

I don't understand why people read CNN/Fox news/insert other media people here and then bitch it has x bias. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Because people love to bitch and whine. Makes them feel superior. d hominem 16:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I think you've just defined the essence of RationalWiki in two sentences. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 17:13, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm under no illusions that it doesn't apply to RW, I'm just saying that generally going out of your way to complain and point out the failings of something, even "in enemy territory" as it were, is human nature personified. bomination 17:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
For instance, I'm currently (effectively) bitching and whining about people bitching and whining, thus making me feel awesomely superior to everyone else in the world. theist 17:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't read the bottom half of the internet! Ajkgordon (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

## Jesus and Muhammed in trouble for drinking beer in a London college

Short version: the atheist society of the University College London made a Facebook page for their weekly meet-up illustrated with a panel from the Jesus & Mo webcomic, showing the Son and the Prophet sitting in their local with a pair of pints. Complaints were made, the atheist society refused to take the picture down, and a UCL Muslims association has refudiated them.
Interestingly, the controversy seems to revolve soley around the portrayal of Muhammed having a quick one - surely the way Jesus is shown wearing his crown of thorns down the pub like it's a fashion accessory is more blasphemous? Balaam (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Showing Muhammed drinking something that is expressly forbidden sounds more insulting to me. Plus the whole of 'you are not supposed to depict muhammed at all' thing makes it doubly so. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The appropriate reply to any comment that says "This is offensive to me, remove this immediately!" is the exact same comment. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Although they spend most of their time in a bar, I don't think they're ever shown ordering anything in Jesus And Mo, so they might just be having a Coke rather than a beer. sshole 21:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Tl;dr version of that blog post appears to be "ow my butt hurts". postate 21:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Aggg. Don't tell me that SP's "refudiated" is actually going to enter our vocabulary.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
So I'm not confused, who or what is SP? -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Somebody called "Sarah Palin" or something... PeterQuasniki 2012! 22:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Seemed appropriate for the subject. Balaam (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully only as an intentional nonsense word. theist 21:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The borogoves are awfuly mimsy tonight. Balaam (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
It's not really the beer that's important here, it's the pork scratchings. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 22:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

## Evangelical climate scientist tries put some sense into her fellow Christians, gets hate mail

Even funnier is reading the comments by deniers...Goldman Sachs is now the warmist shill! Osaka Sun (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That's par for the course in terms of climate hate mail in the US at least: [2], [3]. Also, Goldman is a "warmist" shill, for greenwashing purposes. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
How is climate change not compatible with evangelical Christianity again? Sam Tally-ho! 23:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
It's part of The Green Dragon! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Climate change denies humans teh right God gave them to "take dominion over the earth". GodotDear god, fucking grow up 00:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
But wouldn't "dominion over the earth" include human-caused climate change? I would assume our screwing over of the earth would count because we'd basically have to have dominion over it to do it, right? Sam Tally-ho! 00:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Evangelicals have been split by environmental issues into "creation care" and denialist camps. Check some of the relevant links on anti-environmentalism, this one in particular. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

## RWW

After having rolled back a metric fuckton of vandalism, could someone else keep half an eye on RWW? I need to sleep so have to leave it now. moral 01:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm around. P-Foster Talk "Go get Ace" 01:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
As am I. That all happened fast. I last checked barely an hour ago. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

## Super Quote Mining Redux

This story was sent to me recently. Turns out that some people really are stupid enough to strip all context from a quote.

Professor Cameron Johnston was giving the introductory lecture in a social science course at York University, Toronto, and talking about the distinction between acceptable and unacceptable opinions. You can't say something like "All Jews should be sterilized" and represent that as acceptable just because it's your opinion, he explained... [some pro-Israel group complains]
...But she said that didn't matter: "The words, 'Jews should be sterilized' still came out of his mouth, so regardless of the context I still think that's pretty serious"

People are idiots. postate 12:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Reminds me of this sketch, but in reverse. Tetronian you're clueless 13:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hang on.

...But she said that didn't matter: "The words, 'Jews should be sterilized' still came out of his mouth, so regardless of the context I still think that's pretty serious"

...But she said [...] "The words, 'Jews should be sterilized' still came out of his mouth[...]

...But she said [...] Jews should be sterilized [...]

THAT BITCH. ONE / TALK 13:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
How's this for context: I wish Israel didn't exist. At all. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
"I wish Israel [..] exist" - how tolerant of you! gnostic 15:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
mmm...I have the warm memory of Andy saying how no true Christian would ever say "my Muslim faith". Occasionaluse (talk) 16:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
You should have seen my face in the midst of all this when the professor announced he was a Jew himself. Osaka Sun (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
He's lying, of course, to cast doubt on his vicious anti-Semitic comments. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 16:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, now that blog repeated those words, so it's anti-Semitic as well. Oh shit, Armondikov said exactly the same thing, so he's an anti-Semite too. In fact, by letting it stand, this whole site is. Well, me wight as well go ahead and replace our brain logo with a bracketed swastika. It was only a matter of time. DickTurpis (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hot. Antisemitism. RationalWiki. theist 17:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
That sounds like something Hitler would say! (and so on) 82.69.171.94 (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I believe, strongly, that it is not the case that jews should be sterilized. What the hell is with everyone being so fucking worried about thier little feelings being upset. I had been called on, in class, to defend my (ludicriss) position that Native Americans are not all nicey nicey earth lovers. I've called on students in my class to defend a host of positions including the idea that Bible is innerant. They delt with it or dropped the class. No one said "I have a right to my opinion being equal to yours". Blah. And trust me, teaching the king james Bible as Literature or History of the Old testement" courses got lots of kids who didn't like what i had to say. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 20:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, frankly, fuck 'em. pathetic 21:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Right on, let's ban all those books on the Holocaust! History is too offensive, so down the memory hole it goes. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Right [...] let's [...] Holocaust! - Dude, that's totally not cool! sshole 15:41, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

## Just when you though Ray Comfort couldn't be more stupid....

He offers a $10,000 challenge to anyone who can provide evidence of a genuine transitional form such as "a lizard that produced a bird, or a dog that produced kittens, or a sheep that produced a chicken, or even as Archaeopteryx—a dinosaur that produced a bird". I want to hit him. AceModerator 21:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I have a feeling with the lizard/bird or dinosaur/bird transition, he's gonna be out$10,000. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Ugh, I'm an idiot...like he'd even allow himself to be convinced to the point where he'd conceded the money. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
What a fucking PRATT. theist 21:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Does having a cat who acts like a dog count? Sam Tally-ho! 21:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
We all know what's going to happen - as soon as someone produces the fossil, he's not only going to move the goalposts, he's going to steal them, break them down with a sledgehammer, melt down the fragments, reforge them and sell them off as commemorative coins. -- 21:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I find it interesting that all the quotes are at least 10 years old. AceModerator 21:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
What has he done to the crocoduck?! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
This has been around for a while, and he keeps at it despite being corrected hundreds of times on his own blog. (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 22:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The point, Veni is that you can't produce the fossils. No cat gave birth to a dog; no sheep produced a chicken cause evo doesn't work like that. By *intentionally* misrepresenting what evo is, he wins. no one can challenge him, so he can tell his followers "see, they can't prove their own ideas"... even though it's NOT our ideas it's bullshit. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 23:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The problem lies in defining what is a transitional fossil, where exactly in the range would it be acceptable? If, for example, we had fossil A and fossil Z representing an evolutionary sequence would fossil B or fossil Y be an acceptable transitional form? Or would Ray only want something between K and P to satisfy his demand? ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 23:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
His demand? Pfft, do you think he even has $10,000 set aside for a prize? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC) In that analogy, what is being demanded isn't even a letter of the alphabet. bomination 00:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Well the point of my analogy was to try and show that there is nothing that can satisfy Ray and his fuckwit chums because they have no understanding of what the ToE actually is. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 14:23, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Or you can even turn Godot's point upside down and it works just as well. Chickens are the most fucking Saurian thing you ever saw in a barnyard. Watch them lie in the sun scratching themselves! Anyone inclined to look for it can see their reptilian ancestry, and to anyone who grokked ten minutes of evolutionary biology this makes sense. Every chicken egg you see is the egg of something that's near-as-damnit a lizard, and yet it will hatch into a bird (or more likely, it's unfertilised and will get eaten). But to the Ray Comforts of the world this proves nothing, because they're not looking for answers they're looking for excuses. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Well, in reference to dinosaurs, there are many indicators to suggest that dinosaurs are far closer to birds than modern lizards if you take into account things like bone structure and how their lungs must have operated based on efficiency calculations (the joys of late night Wiki-walks!). d hominem 01:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Marginalize him. RW should host a contest for children across the world in his honor, with the correct terminology and correct goalposts. The goal would be to connect past organisms with their current descendents, perhaps going as far as hypothesizing why certain adaptations are beneficial to the species survival. We would be educating young minds and have the added benefit of making this guy look like a fool because children are able to understand concepts that he can't wrap his head around. I'm sure our pockets are not so deep so perhaps a$20 winner, with a few $5 secondaries. I wonder if Neil Tyson or Bill Nye would sponsor it ^.^ TheCheatI run on alcohol 15:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC) ## WTF's up, bitches? Hey, guys. Long time, no see. Just wanted say "Hi" and let you all know I miss you. Except you, Ace McWicked. You can choke on a dick. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Fuck you buddy. Oh yeah, and fuck you! AceModerator 00:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Not that there's anything wrong with choking on dicks. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 00:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Did I type "Ace McWicked"? My bad... I meant Brxbrx. It's understandable, though, because the buttons are right next to each other and all. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC) shut your face, and put some fucking clothes on. AceModerator 01:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC) I don't think Brxbrx is gay. Then again, he is from 4chan. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC) He does have a girls name. AceModerator 01:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC) In my country, many girls are called "Ace." P-Foster Talk "Go get Ace" 01:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC) In your country, slightly impolite people are considered "hooligans", P-Foster. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Yeah but I bet those girls don't have massive pendulous nuts like mine. AceModerator 01:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC) They do, but even bigger. Evolution just moved them up to their chest area to prevent chafing issues. Intelligent design at work! The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Now that's an image that will haunt the rest of my day. pathetic 09:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC) People must be warming to Ace, I'm sure last time he was told to choke on a bucket of dicks. Or maybe that was Nutty. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 15:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Meh. I liek Ace. Eh drinks liek a fish and doesnt afraid of anything! The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC) I like you to Foxhole, you fight teh terrorist and doesn't afraid of anything. AceModerator 19:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC) ## An Inconsistent Truth Home page - this sounds like denialists' answer to Expelled. IMDB page We haz article? --PsyGremlinRunāt! 16:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC) The Great Global Warming Swindle Part 2? This is going to be fun. And all the usual suspects are there. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC) The IMDB summary also smells a little... you know. gnostic 18:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Here's a red-link: An Inconsistent Truth Though as always it's worth suspending judgment until someone has actually watched it (though don't hold your breath for anything as good as Expelled). gnostic 18:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Yeah, it's The Great Global Warming Swindle now with mixed wingnuts. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC) How can you call them mixed nuts when they're all white and bitter? Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC) ## All hail the Ferret Overlords! Kawaii, desu ne? So I got my first ferret today. This guy. ----------> Full of weaselly mischief, but with an unfortunate tendency to bite my hands & wrists, + get up on my head and scratch around in my hair. (These are things we'll have to work on.) ωεαşεζøίɗMethinks it is a Weasel 00:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC) is he (or she) a baby?GodotDear god, fucking grow up 03:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC) No, he's an adult. He's from a RSPCA animal shelter, and was one of their rescue cases, which might mean he was lost or abandoned or neglected or mistreated or the previous owner just couldn't keep him any longer for whatever reason. The RSPCA shelter didn't have any info on his background (& were fairly vague about his age). I don't think he's been mistreated as he's very friendly, but he hasn't been nip-trained properly (they should be trained not to bite while still young). It seems like friendly biting rather than hostile biting, but it's got to stop. €₳$£ΘĪÐMethinks it is a Weasel 06:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
He'd be irresistibly cute if his kind weren't considered pests here. PeterQuasniki 2012! 07:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Are you in California? ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 07:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
No, Aceland. What's California's problem? PeterQuasniki 2012! 07:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Possession of ferrets is illegal there (without some kind of exotic animals licence or something). The State's laws class them as wild animals for some reason. WẽãšẽĩõĩďMethinks it is a Weasel 07:27, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
They just want them all for themselves! PeterQuasniki 2012! 07:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Are you going in for some ferret legging? Rennie McGreet (talk) 09:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that should wait until the nipping habit has been overcome. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 12:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Obligatory Richard Whitely video Rennie McGreet (talk) 22:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Aww! This picture needs to replace the fake one on the Fun:Ferret page. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
How cute. Weaseloid thinks that he can train a ferret not to randomly bite. Next he'll probably say that he's going to train him to use just one litter box. Vulpius (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
SO CUTE! >u< Did you name your cute lil' ferret yet?--Dumpling (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm calling him Fidget. It's not random biting: it's pretty much whenever he gets near my hands. I'm trying some basic nip-training techniques, without much success so far (but early days). I'm gonna discuss this with a vet to get some professional advice. WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 07:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Ahh. I see! Well good luck training Fidget! (My friend's black cat is named Fidget. Heh.) :D He looks adorable, and is probably better in your care than in an animal shelter. LOVE IT!--Dumpling (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

## Gay marriage is a dire threat to humanity itself

So says the leader of the world's largest cult. That's right: not global warming, nuclear war, or stoneage religious thinking. People who have caught "the gay"a re the greatest threat. The Punk Symphony of Noise Your mental puke relief 14:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

They are just pissed because they don't have that role anymore. Just ignore them, at some point they are going to disappear. --ʤɱ sinner 14:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Unless of course their reasoning has to do with the 50% of priests and nuns who are in the closet, in which case they WOULD be the biggest threat. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not especially defending the Pope, but quote mining is just as bad when done here as it is anywhere else.
As far as you can tell from that article he made no comment on global warming or nuclear war. But the Church has in the past. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
technically it is in the off chance everybody becomes gay and somehow the species loses its desire to breed and survive--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Is it too much to ask that a news article which says it was "one of" several threats should actually either include that list or refer to somewhere a reader might easily discover it for themselves? Was Benny putting it on a list with global warming, terrorist "dirty bombs" and being hit by a huge fucking rock from space, or did the rest of the list consist of MLP: Friendship is Magic, Occupy protests and my friend Caroline's gorgeous red patent shoes? If we wait for Yahoo apparently we'll never know. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's too much to ask. It is, after all, Yahoo News. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the original Reuters article that Yahoo got it from lacks those details as well. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
"The family unit is fundamental for the educational process and for the development both of individuals and states; hence there is a need for policies which promote the family and aid social cohesion and dialogue," Benedict told the diplomats. Wouldn't that mean that every child that grew up in an orphanage is a threat to society? --ʤɱ pervert 18:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Why? Does he say that? No. No he doesn't. The implication is simply that he strongly believes that traditional families are the ideal and that alternatives are fraught with danger. I am sure that if you asked him how all children growing up in, say, an orphanage didn't become threats to society, he would reasonably say that orphanages can and should provide as many of the benefits of a traditional family as they can before finding a loving adoptive family. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Full text here pathetic 21:09, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I can't read all that. There might be facts in it! Ajkgordon (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
" Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself." theist 22:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, yes. But he doesn't say that global warming or nuclear weapons don't. Nor does he say that all orphaned children are a threat to humanity.
We should mock the Church as much as we can for all the stupid and dangerous things they say or do. But not mock them for the stupid and dangerous they don't say or do. That was my point. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, so when somebody says that the traditional family is essential to development of children that only means that we aren't to let people change that definition, although if a child does not have such a family by god's will not to save the parents accident than that's not going to hurt the child in any way? Yeah, makes total sense. When nomebody says something, things are sometimes implied. I said grew up in an orphanage not got into an orphange for a while but then found a family, few words, important difference. --ʤɱ netlabelist 23:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
But he also didn't mention... man-made illnesses, asteroid impacts, methane calthrates, economic instability, volcanoes, super-volcanoes, alien invasions, Cybermen invasions, internet addiction, job-related stress... There are countless things that weren't mentioned. Indeed, we shouldn't mock for things that weren't said; and what was said, and highlighted as a threat was, albeit in quite coded terms, was that gay marriage threatens the world. That was highlighted as a threat, the rest just seemed to be a case of what was happening in the world (abortion was shoehorned in too) but didn't really say what was causing or what the threat was. The speech very specifically, for some odd reason, singles out gay marriage as a threat despite countless other topics that could have been presented. What is there to misinterpret? sshole 01:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Yup, it is was obviously the major topic of his address - this unhealthy obsession with homosexuality and sex in general the RCC seems to have. Why they can't see that sexual suppression and oppression causes more trouble than it prevents, I can't imagine. I mean, surely the evidence, in the form of the kiddie-fiddling priests scandal, must be pretty persuasive. Sure, I can understand the Church's desire to uphold the traditional family unit as being the most favourable environment in which to raise children. Indeed, I can even sympathise with that on an instinctual level. But concentrating on homosexuality as the main threat to that is bizarre. There are myriad threats to the traditional family - divorce of heterosexual parents must surely be by far the biggest one and that doesn't seem to be obsessed over by the RCC anything like as much. Or sexual abuse by a heterosexual parent if they still want to dwell on sex.
As I said, all very unhealthy. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Personally, if my brother were to get married, I'd consider it a dire threat to humanity. But that has less to do with him being gay and more to do with him being an awful person. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

...I snickered at the thought of MY brother getting married. That should be interesting.--Dumpling (talk) 05:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

## Couldn't resist

This seems like a credible source of information. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 20:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there any credible (i.e. non-right_wing) source that says the US military legalized bestiality? Flubbertalk to me :D|see my shit 20:51, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
No. lol. there isn't cause they didn't. This is pure fabrication. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 20:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it's pretty telling when you google "us military bestiality" and all of the top results are from right-wing news sources.

What I love is that they're morally equating bestiality and anal sex. Yes, fucking someone who, in most cases, has a questionable ability to give consent to say the least is comparable to sticking your penis into someone's butthole. They're practically one and the same. Fluckedtalk to me :D|see my shit 21:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I think I posted this to WIGO recently. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, that clears things up. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 21:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The Biblical basis is interesting, but I think it's just a case of having two (sorry for this) "memes" drummed into them; one saying "homosexuality is bad" the other "bestiality is bad". Because these ideas are drummed in (or perhaps "rammed" in) so hard, they don't really think about what separates them - it's just a big warning light marked "THIS IS BAD". For these people, anything marked "THIS IS BAD" is almost conceptually impossible to differentiate from anything else marked "THIS IS BAD". Hence the constant comparison to other bad sex acts - after all, they use paedophilia almost as often as an example, but the Bible says nothing about this particular act. It's simply a case that because they've been rammed hard with the "THIS IS BAD" meme that they can't quite grasp that other people might draw a distinction (based on informed consent, for example). gnostic 13:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I didn't read more than 3 lines into what was linked because I don't want to punch my computer, but I seem to recall this "unbanning gays = bestiality" thing came from the fact that the law/rule/whatever against bestiality in the military was in the same line as the ban on gays (or at least, sodomy) and repealing one required the repeal of the other (if only for a temporarily while a new one against animal fucking is written). Or something along those lines. X Stickman (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Speaking of the sexual limits of the US military code, have any men been drummed out for adultry? I know that there are 4 women since 2000 who have been. I always felt as if it was a gender thing, but have no proof, nor even know how to prove it. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 16:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, it was a post more explaining why they think that, not so much a wall punching experience. moral 17:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

## "I thought this was supposed to be RATIONAL wiki!" has spread to Twitter!

Scroll to #10. Moonies. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk. As the Twitterchief, you ought to know better than to link to an always-updating page like that. Here is the specific twit Osaka is referring to. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Ass. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Christian homeschooled. Military daughter. "washington times COMMUNINTY columinst". hum...GodotDear god, fucking grow up 02:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
You had me at "Washington Times." P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 02:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Considering who the Moonie Times has had on staff, she's probably a comparative genius there. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
she's not on staff.. she's a community colluminst. like pretty much any of us who have written an essay, or the folks at dkos, or any blogger...GodotDear god, fucking grow up 02:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
My point probably still stands, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
"Washington Times Communities columnist, Christian homeschool graduate & unconventional college student, military daughter & eldest of the 9 Read children."[4] And also a narcissist, judging by the GIANT GODDAMN PORTRAITS of herself she has set as her wallpaper. Do people realize how awful that always looks ("Stare into twenty sets of my eyes!")? Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 02:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
She's a creationist too. Who knew that moonie, homskolled, conservative, christian creationists didn't like our website? Breaks my heart. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 03:56, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Meh. Twitter is for idiots. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Twitter has its uses. I use it to follow all the current space missions :) ONE / TALK 08:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, the ISS Twitter stuff is really quite cool. gnostic 11:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

## Fine art, featuring Rick Santorum

This is an actual painting that someone made: "Still Life with Rick Santorum, Lube, Dildo, and Justin Bieber Doll." Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 06:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Artists creep me the fuck out. sshole 12:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I want to make a modern art generator: Pop culture item/icon + random sexual imagery/objects = ART! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't forget a filter that renders it in feces, urine, or menstrual discharge. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

## I stumbled across this

This site is as good a way of wasting time as any except TV Tropes and Cracked. I looked for our friend JimJast but couldn't find him. A lot of the links are outdated but it's fun anyway. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

## Canadian MP wants to define human being

Stephen Woodworth's challenge that a 400-year-old (or is it from the 1800s and has been amended) law says that a child is not a human being in Canada until the moment of complete birth. --Cms13ca (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

While I might agree with him (in a practical sense), he seems like a stupid dick. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 15:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is a podcast with Stephen Woodworth explaining his position along with a representative from Planned Parenthood and calls and e-mails from other people. --Cms13ca (talk) 16:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

(this got deleted in an edit change somwhere) ::Because of particular medical decisions, a child cannot be medically "independent" until it is born. While every mother and father the world over, knows the baby is a person, the law cannot afford to claim it is a person, or there will be consequences if there is a situation where the mother and child's life are both equally in danger. Or even unequally. --GodotDear god, fucking grow up 16:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

## This just amuses me

I like being able to say "Jerry Lewis is retiring from Congress." MDB (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Is it cause he is republican or the fact that he shares the name of a famous comedian? Is that how that guy won in California? TheCheatI run on alcohol 19:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Shares the name of a comedian. MDB (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
First comment on the article: "I never liked his movies." -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Maybe he can get a seat in l’Assemblée nationale. Doctor Dark (talk) 01:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

## Anyone here educated in international marriage law?

What is the proper protocol on this? Harper just pulled this out of his ass. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, buddy. I know a lot about the law and various other lawyerings. I'm well educated. Well versed. I know that situations like this- international marriage wise- they're very complex. Now, let's say you and I go toe-to-toe on bird law and see who comes out the victor? TheCheatI run on alcohol 19:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Formally educated in? No. Very familiar with, yes. what exactly is your question?GodotDear god, fucking grow up 19:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I can't resist to quote stuff I see on TV. I blame Nintendo. TheCheatI run on alcohol 20:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, he did not "just pull it out of his ass". When a couple from the US, for example, travels to Italy to wed, there has to be an agreement in place between the country hosting the wedding and the country which the couple is a citizen of, for the wedding to be legally recognized. Typically, US will suggest that the couple marry both in Italy and at a Justice of the Peace if they think there is any reason the marriage could be contested. (age, for example, but also if you are rich, heirs to your fortune), because it removes any of that ambiguity. The US is not obligated to recognize marriages that happen in Paris, where gay couples can be legally wed, for example. Now, a nation that has performed and attested to the license has a right to say "you must show that your marriage would be legal in the country of your origin, for it to be legal here, if you both of you are not citizens". That is actually common in places where the age to marry is low (some middle eastern and far east countries), because it causes serious 2ndary issues where a minor could be kidnapped according to one county, but legally wed in another. If that was not already in their laws, however, and if they granted the license to marry without that written and signed attest, then the marriage - at least in the country you married in - is legal and binding. What I do not know is this - was the attest there when people were getting married, or did he add it now, 1 year later? GodotDear god, fucking grow up 20:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)(my edits seem to be deleting themselves today... wierd)
There was no issue with this until now. And check the WIGO, shit's going to go down. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Whether or not there was an issue is irrelevant. the only legal question (regardless of the "moral" question) is: is such a rider in place on marriage certificates. Colorado, for example, among things like stating that you are not already married, that you are over 16, and that you are not 1st cousins, has a statement "if both parties are not a residents of Colorado, do you certify that this marriage is legal in the state or country of your nationality". If ONE is a resident, and one not, of course, that makes the marriage legal. so the real question is what does your law say, not what is "right" or "wrong", nor what has "been a problem". and so far, no one is addressing that in the articles you've posted. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 20:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Ugh, the complexity of this is idiotic. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
1) not really, adn 2) welcome to international (or sometimes just interstate) law. I'm actually in favor of federal laws rather than local laws on issues like this in the us. (marriage age, etc), just cause it prevents crap like this. In the US, it's actually legal to go from CO where we have a 16 year old marriage law, to Miss, where it's 14, get married, come back, and colorado must accept it cause in this cases Full Faith & Credit is the controlling law. That's why colorado explicitly requires you agree the marriage would be legal in your home state. Also, the US maintains an agreement with France, Germany, UK and Canada to recognize any marriage done in those countries as legal here, if and only if they would be legal in the state of residence of the couple. But these are teh same kinds of things you run into if you are doing internet gambling, or wiki leaks. it's legal one place, you live somewhere else - who controls? My guess is, Canada likely has some kind of law (like the US does) that says the marriage must be legal in the nation of citizenship of the non-resident couple. My guess is, stupid or not, Savage's example of a jewish-muslim marriage that is illegal in Saudi arabia, would be illegal for 2 saudies to come here - simply cause you are intentionally trying to bypass your own nations laws, and that's not usually a good way to set up international relations. but again, i've never read the law on marriage in canada. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 20:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

So we just let him do this then?

Edit: A 2006 article discusses the possible implications, doesn't suggest delegitimizing the marriage as a solution. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You don't "just let" anyone do anything. first, you find out what the law said *at teh time of these marriages*. Then, even if it says somethign you don't like, you take it to court. It is IMPOSSIBLE to believe that people did not "get" that these marriages were illegal in the US (and other international locals), and that the gay couples were not comming to Canada for a neat wedding, but to explicitly bypass the laws in their own nation. EVERYONE knew that is why they were there. so there is a very real argument that can be made (in US law, and i am guessing canada would be similar as both are largely based on English Common Law), that is you "excuse" something you know is the case, it make the "case" invalid. That is, if you know they are there to by pass US laws, and marry them anyhow, then you are saying it is a legal exception. So either way, there are plenty of ways this will be fought, but first they have to figure out exactly what they are dealign with GodotDear god, fucking grow up 03:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

[5] --"Shut up, Brx." 19:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

## Unintentional honesty from Newsweek

I saw this week's Newsweek cover, which features an updated version of a phrenology chart. I wonder if they're trying to tell us something about neuroscience media coverage. Or maybe just a Freudian slip. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

My massage school had an ad poster with a phrenological diagram in it. Just the kind of crap my teachers would have bought into. It's like palm reading or horoscopes, everybody wants to hear about themselves.--"Shut up, Brx." 00:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
People still believe in phrenology? Wait, I guess I shouldn't ask that question... Nebuchadnezzar (talk)

## When the Wind Blows

WTWB the movie version, as the only version i know for the comic version is sorta not the easiest to read. Felt like sharing the depression as two old people think they can survive a nuclear war. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

## Please be helping with the English as she talked

"it wouldn't stand s snowball's chance in hell"

What part / figure of speech is that please? My mind says "metaphor" but I gave up trusting my mind a long time ago. --PsyGremlinParla! 15:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a simile. There's a subtle difference between simile and metaphor, see if you can spot it (I'm not expert but this is as i understand it):
Simile: it would be like a snowball in hell
Metaphor: it would be a snowball in hell
ONE / TALK 16:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
It's similar to (but i don't think it's actually) a metaphor. "You are the salt of the earth". A metaphor is where one thing is equated to something else, to give an indication of a quality of the first thing. A simile (like or as) is where you compare something with something else. "you are as fat as an elephant". But in this case, it's more of just an expression, cause you are not actually making a comment on the nature of something. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 16:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
(ec) No, a simile is saying "the moon was like a ghostly galleon"; a metaphor is "the moon was a ghostly galleon." the example above is neither, but for the life of me, I can't think of the term to describe it, except cliche. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 16:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
It's certainly a metaphor in the broadest sense of that word, which is quite inclusive. Perhaps the word we're looking for is "idiom"? Those are set phrases that often carry more or different meaning in a language than their constituent parts. We aren't actually interested in "hell" or "snowballs" when we use this phrase, it's just a set of words that we're familiar with to express the idea. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
PHRASE!! You Sir, are a very clever boy. --PsyGremlinSermā! 16:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Come to think of it, I suppose it's not a simile either. Since the phrase is talking about a chance, not a snowball, and that chance is the same for both subjects. That the chance refers to sustained existance is implied, I reckon. So the phrase says "its probability of sustained existance is equal to the probability of the sustained existance of a snowball in hell". I declare it not a simile or metaphor, but a statement of fact! (but yeah it's also a phrase) ONE / TALK 16:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
It's an adynaton. --ʤɱ socialist 16:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Never seen that word before in my life, but yes, that does seem to be exactly what it is. Cool. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Showoff.  :-) GodotDear god, fucking grow up 17:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Er, no it's not. A snowball's chance in hell is not using hyperbole, it's saying that it stands no chance at all directly rather than expressing the inverse. Analogy is probably a better description. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 18:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
You do realize that every adynaton is by its very definition an analogy, right? --ʤɱ heretic 18:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes but adynaton is a more specific use which this idiom fails to meet, and although it is an idiom, that term encompasses a much broader range of parts of speech which are characteristics of a region or dialect. The requirement of hyperbole for adynaton means that "when hell freezes over" complies by being an event that would be extremely unlikely to occur, whereas a snowball has no chance of survival in a very hot environment, so the same result but without the hyperbole. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 18:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
On further consideration, simile is probably the most appropriate. ONE mis-represented the phrase by suggesting that the comparsion was with a snowball in hell when it is actually the 'chance' of the snowball continuing to exist in hell. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 19:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure, if it makes you happy… How about we just call it a figure of speech or a bunch of words? And while your visiting hell, tell me how fast the snowballs there are melting… --ʤɱ heretic 19:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Wow, what a fucking sore loser you are. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
That was very snide sarcasm. If you don't believe in hell, mentioning it is hyperbole. Like, you know, I did. --ʤɱ constructivist 17:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Strange, that wasn't the part of your post that I was commenting on. --Steven Kavanagh (talk) 19:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, whatever. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 20:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The closest weather station to Hell (MI) is Pinckney, MI: 10 Day Forecast, UHM. Coincidentally, my favorite idiomatic reference to chances and Hell is "...a paper dog chasing an Asbestos cat through Hell." The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I did indeed misrepresent the phrase but I caught myself on that in a later comment. ONE / TALK 20:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, he did not "just pull it out of his ass". When a couple from the US, for example, travels to Italy to wed, there has to be an agreement in place between the country hosting the wedding and the country which the couple is a citizen of, for the wedding to be legally recognized. Typically, US will suggest that the couple marry both in Italy and at a Justice of the Peace if they think there is any reason the marriage could be contested. (age, for example, but also if you are rich, heirs to your fortune), because it removes any of that ambiguity. The US is not obligated to recognize marriages that happen in Paris, where gay couples can be legally wed, for example. Now, a nation that has performed and attested to the license has a right to say "you must show that your marriage would be legal in the country of your origin, for it to be legal here, if you both of you are not citizens". That is actually common in places where the age to marry is low (some middle eastern and far east countries), because it causes serious 2ndary issues where a minor could be kidnapped according to one county, but legally wed in another. If that was not already in their laws, however, and if they granted the license to marry without that written and signed attest, then the marriage - at least in the country you married in - is legal and binding. What I do not know is this - was the attest there when people were getting married, or did he add it now, 1 year later? GodotDear god, fucking grow up 20:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
This is where your comment went, I see. PeterQuasniki 2012! 20:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

## This is so cool

Or rather pictures like the one in this article. I'm really hoping to learn how to take these pictures. We have very clear night skies in the Pyrenees in the summer. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Little chance I'd say. That image is probably a composite. You would need very high ISO to capture so much detail and then you would have image noise problems. Most amateur night sky shots are of startrails which are quite feasible with several long exposures on a rock-steady tripod. To get the milky way image you would need a servo-tracking telescope but that would give blurred terrestrial features if you included them in the shot. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I've done a little research already and it doesn't seem that difficult. Depending on the focal length, you need an ISO setting of around 1600 at 30 secs, which doesn't give you too much noise. And with judicious use of Photoshop you can do composites and get the foreground. Or maybe just composites without the foreground. Maybe all a little optimistic but I'm going to give it a go. I can drive up the track to around 1800m and look south towards the border with Spain with the spine of the mountain range as the foreground. No artificial light at all. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Longer than about 20 seconds at 50mm focal length will start to produce trails. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, although I was planning on starting wider than that. Although my 50mm is faster. I could hire a faster wide angle but I just want to play around to start with - see if it's worth it. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
You need some specialist software like IRIS and stack maybe dozens of pictures, it all depends on what you hope to capture, but why wait for summer, you often get clearer nights in winter. You can either use a laptop to conttrol image acquisition or do it manually with a remote to eliminate shutter shake and mirror bounce. I've got a Hähnel Giga T Pro wireless remote for my Canon which can be programmed for both interval and bulb exposure time. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member
Well, because you get better views of the Milky Way in the summer and because in the winter the track in impassable. Yes, I've got a wired remote for my 550D which is less cumbersome than a laptop although that's an option. Yes, I've seen the IRIS software. Looks good. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
That's really a gorgeous picture.--Dumpling (talk) 05:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
If you've got a 550D you can record HD movies and then process then in something like Registax. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 12:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

### On a somewhat related note

Anyone got any plans for the last Venus transit of our time, on the 6th June? Western Europe is in a really bad position for it but I can't afford going anywhere exotic, so I've decided on a trip to Iceland, which will be sitting in a rather unique position: the transit will begin, the sun will set, and then the sun will rise again before the transit ends. I'm worried about cloud cover, but if I can be on one of Iceland's mountains at the time I should be sitting pretty... ONE / TALK 17:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh by the way I'm not going just for the transit - I've never been to Iceland so I intend to see the glaciers, geothermal pools, and volcanos too :) ONE / TALK 17:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like quite an epic trip if you plan on staying up all night. theist 17:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm planning to blow up the Earth because it obstructs my view of the planet Venus. Now, where did I put that Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Mod-u-la-tor. MDB (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Man, I tried making some plans but everything's been booked for years now. I guess I learned the hard way if you want to do something special for a Venus transit (any Venus transit), you gotta plan way ahead. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Here's a pic of a Venusian transit. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 12:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

### On a somewhat different related note

This past summer, my Dad made a trek from Detroit, MI across the country to Fairbanks, AK in his Jeep to do a time lapse photograph sequence of the sun during the Summer Solstice last year. He didn't get what he wanted, but it was the journey of a lifetime for him. You can read his blog about it here. The last entry is the time lapse he DID get, during his test the day before. I was pretty proud of him using the technology and such to the best of his ability. All in all, it wasn't a bad attempt for a 64 year-old retired HVAC contractor! The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey, careful. Not everyone here is a spotty teenage dweeb. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 22:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey, no offense meant, Ghengis. I guess I take his technological inexperience for granted. Also, it was a pretty arduous trip. I'm still proud. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
None taken. Mrs. K is a complete technophobe but is loving her iPad, while my 85-year old mum bought her own laptop, does all her banking online, has a webcam, digital camera, and uses both Skype and Facebook. BTW, sorry to snigger but "Gobbler's Knob"? ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 22:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
LOL. Yep. I guess "Turkey Hill" must have already been taken, but that's just speculation. Who knows WHAT those crazy Alaskans get up to during the long, cold winters? The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

## A wild neologism appears!

I'm starting to see the word "Bain" being used as a verb in forums and news comments, to the effect of "Don't Bain me, bro!", clearly a reference to Mitt Romney's Bain Capital's practice of investing in a company, laying off the workforce and reaping the profits. Also saw the word "Swift-bained" being used on a political site, which I thought was amusing. This might trend or become a meme (not appearing on KnowYourMeme yet). -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that half-hour anti-Romney documentary made by Gingrich's people is pretty brutal.--talk 20:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Is it starting? -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
It'll be the bane of his campaign. Rennie McGreet (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

## More Tebow

I know we've discussed Tim Tebow quite a bit lately, but NBC Sports has an article discussing a poll done that asked respondents whether or not they believed divine intervention helped in the Broncos' wins. Just thought it was interesting (and kinda sad). Sam Tally-ho! 04:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

*wink* *wink* Osaka Sun (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

### Rant from a theist

Okay, I know my somewhat theistic beliefs put me in a minority here, but I'm going to rant from a Christian perspective here.

Now, my ever-evolving beliefs are something akin to what I'd term Christian deism in that I think Christianity comes the closest to getting it right, but I also believe God doesn't generally intervene much, letting us humans handle it ourselves. I also take the perspective Judaism takes -- you don't need "faith healing" for instance, because God gave humans the brains to develop medical technology.

So, I'm not pre-disposed to believe in any claims of direct divine intervention. That being said, I'll take the opposite viewpoint, that God is interventionist and is helping Tebow win games.

There's kids starving in Africa. What's God doing? Making sure a pass is completed. There's probably someone -- maybe even someone whose lead an exemplary, "Godly" life -- dying of cancer within a few miles of Tebow's latest game. What's God doing? Making a tackler trip so Timmy doesn't get sacked. Some soldier in a war somewhere is getting blown to bits, leaving his children without a daddy. What's God doing? Making sure Tim's throwing arm doesn't get too fatigued so he can keep going.

Feh. No, scratch that. Fuck it. Idiotic beliefs like this are why I hold almost all organized religion in contempt at this point. That's not a God that's worthy of praise and worship, that's a God that deserves loathing. MDB (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Do I detect signs of progress? ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 13:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
That, or I'm just cranky today. MDB (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
But don't you know? God works in trivial ways. ONE / TALK 14:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like your less cranky. PongoOrangutans are sceptical 14:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I've had this very discussion with three close friends (christian friends) on facebook, and 2 of the pastors I'm friends with (they are here in denver). All of them agree with you, and find Tebow to be a mockery of what xianity SHOULD be. granted, it's always "no true scot", but nevertheless, does he and his followers really think their god is THAT FUCKING PETTY?GodotDear god, fucking grow up 15:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Tebow himself has ever claimed God is directly intervening in the games; he merely thanks God for giving him his talents. (I realize that's a subtle difference, but as I understand it, his philosophy is "God made me a great football player", not "God made me a great football player and He made the other guys lousy".) There are definitely other Christians making that argument. Really, I have no issue with Tebow himself (well, other than he played for Florida, since I'm a Tennessee grad), it's his fan club that gets to me. MDB (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
God's fan club tends to be the one that pisses people off too. moral 15:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
That's been said before.[6] Doctor Dark (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
(ECx2) Yeah. I don't really follow sports, but it's been impossible to be an atheist on the Internet and not follow Tebow -- and from what I've seen, he's just some silly Christian football player who has a tendency to show off his 'faith'. The real annoying ones are his fans. Flinttalk to me :D|see my shit 15:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
If God's got time to count falling sparrows I suppsoe he's got time time to take an interest in trivial sporting events.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

### On a related note

A Boston paper goes after Tebow, full force. MDB (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

## Twit

Whoever's doin it, once is sufficient, twice is too much but THRICE! Scream!! (talk) 07:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It's Osaka - what do you expect? PeterQuasniki 2012! 07:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I hate you all. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
We just envy your perfectionism. PeterQuasniki 2012! 07:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
(You can delete the old ones you know) Scream!! (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
He does, but that doesn't stop you seeing them before then. PeterQuasniki 2012! 07:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
One news item and one article a day seems to have been the average, which is fine. That seems to be what every other Twitting body does. What's the problem? narchist 09:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
a) Freudian slip... b) They were commenting on my re-edit spree. Don't worry, I don't have OCD. Osaka Sun (talk) 09:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry, I have enough OCD for the both of us  :-) Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 09:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Wait, I suddenly realise I may not be reading this right... what is this about again? bomination 11:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
What a stupid twit you are. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 12:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Is this microphone on? Doctor Dark (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
MIC CHECK! -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

## New ID bill in the South

[7]. I'm so fucking proud of my country. Tebow should be proud of my country. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 17:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yay, more PRATT that's already been struck down in other states! Apparently Missouri state legislators don't pay attention to what happens in other states. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
the textbook shall give equal treatment to biological evolution and biological intelligent design. Even if they did get this passed, how the hell can they fill up textbooks with the same amount of words to ID as evolution? Just repeat 'goddidit' over and over again? (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 20:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Political posturing in an election year -- they're throwing red meat to the party's Neanderthal wing. It's not the first time that the legislative process has been used to make a statement, knowing full well that even if the bill was passed it would be struck down by the courts. Doctor Dark (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

## Gay marriage in Canada redux

I guess Harper was afraid of what Dan Savage might do to his Google-osity. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 18:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that's a pretty quick response to a PM's decree....-- Seth Peck (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

## mural depicting school prayer

and starting with "our father" is "secular" says the school. "are you fucking kidding me?" says the judge. [8]GodotDear god, fucking grow up 23:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

## An Overture

This discussion was moved to Forum:Drama dump. 03:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

## Wii Sales plummit! This is shocking news!

yep, but seriously, WHY DO PEOPLE ACT SURPRISED. The Wii U is scheduled for 2012 and either way IT'S BEEN OUT FOR YEARS at the top spot, No shit sales declined. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

So by now you've all heard about the US soldiers desecrating the corpses of Taliban insurgents. It's pretty easy for lefties like me to just throw this on the pile of atrocities committed by armed forces worldwide and to feel smug about how such a thing would never happen if people just followed my foreign policy recommendations/behaved and acted just like I would like to think I would in a given situation. But ultimately, that wouldn't be incredibly productive. Anyone here--Foxhole Atheist, I'm looking at you, if you can at all comment--with military experience or other expertise on behavior in high-stakes/high-stress situations have any take on what this event can tell us about the situations of soldiers in Afghanistan or more generally, and what--if anything--can be done to undo a culture that lets such a thing happen? P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 21:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't get the big deal made out of desecrating corpses. Yeah, it shows a lack of respect, but does that mean we're supposed to respect Taliban insurgents? They're dead -- what does it matter what happens to their body? And besides, if a zombie uprising ever takes place, they will be in much worse condition to eat us all. Flinttalk to me :D|see my shit 22:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster." Osaka Sun (talk) 22:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Fallacy. the trick is that you are there representing something that is "supposed" to be somehow "better" than the people you are fighting. (I've never bought that, but whatever). It ends when you say "fuck you, you dead person" -- why is that necessary? it's a dead person, do you need to piss on it? Stress or not? GodotDear god, fucking grow up 22:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's a good thing, i'm just saying I don't think it's really a bad thing. Tasteless, yes -- but when has that made something morally wrong?
Put another way: should be it be done? No. Should it be placed in the same category as needlessly killing and torturing people and the like? No. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 22:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Not as bad as bomination 22:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm saying there's nothing really 'wrong' with it, but it shouldn't be done because of image issues and the like, and it shouldn't be equated with real despicable acts our military has done. Fidgetertalk to me :D|see my shit 23:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I kind of agree with Fallacy on this one. Tasteless and tactless, disrespectful in the highest and certainly another blight on America's already tarnished reputation. Technically, though, this violates the Geneva convention, so yes, it will deservedly receive a "war crimes" spin and I think we're looking at the new Abu Ghraib. From personal experience, I have come close to doing "similar" things but my training and commitment to the Army Values prevented me from acting, no matter how badly I wanted to do it. The most egregious instance that comes to mind was a particular patrol where I was the lead Scout truck of our file. I was suspicious of a particular IED crater on our route and got out to investigate with my dismounts. While we were moving up, the gunner on one of the follow on trucks spotted a male hiding in the reeds about 200 meters out in the direction of the nearest dwellings and he was trying to low crawl away. Skipping ahead, I crossed the road with my dismounts and we assaulted in his direction. By the time we reached his last confirmed location I was able to confirm that it was an IED triggerman's hide site. There was a command detonation wire running back to the crater, a camera flash to be used as a trigger, a cell phone, two bottles of water and some food. We moved to the houses and were able to find him and get positive identification from the gunners (as all four were able to locate him during our assault) and moved forward with detention. EOD came in to dispose of the bomb and informed us that it was four 155mm artillery shells (approximately 200 lbs. of plastic explosive; i.e., enough to pretty much vaporize my truck if we had rolled into the kill zone). The detainee kept wailing "Please! Please! My baby! My baby!" As a father of an infant myself, I stood before him as he was on his knees, zip-tied and blind folded, seriously considering kicking the everloving shit out of him while he was defenseless. I found it ludicrous at the time that he would use it as a defense, but I resisted acting on the violence. I got down on one knee, called the interpreter over, lifted the guy's blindfold and asked the 'terp to translate "Shut up, now. Don't expect me to worry about your baby, because you weren't considering mine. You lose." and I left it at that. He didn't utter another word until we handed him over to the detention facility.

Another thing one must consider is the stupid shit young 20-somethings get up to when left unsupervised. What I would like to do is kick the shit out of the NCO's who let this happen in the first place, whether they were directly involved or not. That kind of lack of leadership is almost as bad as what their subordinates are doing in this video. It pains me to no end that these rare instances of behavior are the pigment that colors our military for the rest of the world. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, FA. Great bit of perspective. The question of how this sort of thing reflects on the Army/the US is complicated a bit by the whole video dimension. Reading what you wrote, and remember, i'm the tree hugging lefty here, I could understand why you wanted to kick the shit out of that guy; not condone it, but understand it, and maybe turn a blind eye to it if you didn't kill/cripple the guy, but just gave him some hurt. I get that. But to film it with your buddy's I-phone and keep it for a souvenir, and then it ends up on YouTube to cause an international incident? Makes no sense to me. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 23:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Awesome (as in "incredible", not as in "cool!") story, FA. Seriously.
All this talk about pissing on the dead (which I originally, "scotomatically", read as "dancing on graves"...my bad), the closest thing many of us non-military folks ever get close to doing is "Teabagging" a downed enemy in Halo/BF/MW, which would not constitute a war crime. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I have a lot of other thoughts swimming around in my head right now, and I have pondered this all morning, honestly. Most of them center around leadership and the importance of command and control in deployed environments. I will compose something about it when I get off of work tonight, most likely in essay format and post it to EssaySpace, unless someone has a better idea for a venue. I am totally open to discussion and I will talk freely about my experiences, opinions, and knowledge about regulations, policies, and what (little) I know to be true in the legal aspect. I have thick skin and won't shy away or take extreme offense to the more liberal/pacifist among us if anyone wants to talk or has further questions. I think that an open dialogue on issues such as modern warfare and the sources/solutions for instances like this is in order. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 03:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
This sort of action makes it very difficult to present US forces as professional military, and gives cause for ither non-insurgents to hate the US troops. That normally means intelligence sources dry up and at worst US troops killed by "friendlies" when they think it wont be noticed. Like the Abu Ghreb prison thing where politicians say "our troops are not like that" this just says to the world "yes they are" and you lose whatever moral high ground you have tried claiming. Its the same with the deliberate killing of unarmed civilians during house to house searches. Hamster (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Those are good points, Hamster. Basically, the stress of a decade of war has pared down the military and removed a lot of the wisdom out of the senior levels of leadership. See, "kids will be kids" (i.e., kids do a lot of dumb shit and we all should know, because we were all one) but these "kids" are heavily armed, put in harm's way, asked to do a VERY grown up thing, and led by kids themselves. As an analogy, it's almost like a re-write of Lord of the Flies, but with assault rifles and camoflauge. I can't freaking WAIT to get off of work so I can start writing a bunch of these thoughts down. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 06:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I had to cringe as I watched the military crucify itself over this revelation. Who is seriously comparing it to Abu Ghraib? ListenerXTalkerX 06:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's definitely not worse than propping naked Iraqis onto a human pyramid, but I don't know how you can defend this conduct. And it's happened before. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
All's fair in love and war. We can only properly condemn it if we believe that it was to our disadvantage to allow it to happen (though that does seem to be the case).
(EC) Evacuating oneself on a few non-civilian corpses is somehow comparable to picking off civilians for fun? ListenerXTalkerX 06:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I was referring to keeping skulls as trophies. And it really shouldn't matter if it was done to a civilian or not. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Except that the insurgents are the ones actually, you know, fighting our soldiers. ListenerXTalkerX 07:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
So let's piss on them. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
If P-Foster speaks aright, the corpses in question were those of insurgents. ListenerXTalkerX 07:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The "they're dead so it doesn't really matter" argument I think its a red herring. Even the most hardcore atheist who lacks any belief in a soul should be able to see it's not what the (former) owners of the bodies think but everyone else. It's long been pointed out that how we deal with and react to our dead is what separates us from (well, most) animals and revelations about burial rituals is often how we deal with spotting the evolution of human traits in the distant past. When you observe someone mistreating a dead body, even Gaddaffi's ferfucksake, you should feel a sense of unease because of it. We're ultimately meat, but it's meat that has carried and has been capable of something borderline miraculous - thought. Because of our ability to empathise, and so put ourselves in someone else's position, we can imagine what it might be like to cease that thought (i.e., die) and how it will affect others who survive us. Ergo we treat deceased bodies with a decree of decorum that might seem quite irrational for rotten meat, but only a complete nihilist would disagree with the sentiment. So it's really an issue about what image you want to put forward to those who do survive and do (as fellow humans) view mistreatment of dead bodies as wrong. The irrationality of that feeling is irrelevant, as the result is what you care about - if seeing US soldiers piss on dead bodies inspires a few more suicide bombers and IED layers, then no amount of saying "they're dead so it didn't matter" is going to prevent them from doing their work (hence that argument is irrelevant). As a self-proclaimed professional body attempting to invade a country and emphatically not to it Roman Empire style (because we like to consider ourselves "civilised", and with that tag comes certain rules) the answer is obvious: don't fucking do it. pathetic 09:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You know what? I've done some serious thinking and some serious drinking and I can boil warfare down to a simple term. It's a game. I know that isn't going to sit well with a lot of people here. Hell, it doesn't sit well with me but that's what it is. It's a game of skill. It's a game of will. It's a game of drill. The stakes are high and you play for keeps. They are trying to kill you and you are trying to prevent that from happening. You learn their tricks, you learn their strategies, you learn their methods and you try to turn all of those things against them, or bypass them, or trick them so you can momentarily gain the upper hand. All the while, they're doing the exact same thing to you. The reason that this incident doesn't sit well with me is that those Marines HAD ALREADY WON. What they were doing is the equivalent of vandalizing the home team's locker room after you kick their ass on their homecoming night. That can be boiled down to a failing on the "coach's" part. Those Marines have Sergeants and at LEAST a Lieutenant with them that are TASKED with keeping them in line. Their FUNCTION is to maintain good discipline and order among their ranks to prevent their highly trained and well armed death dealing "machines" from going beyond the realm of reason (as if there is all that much to work with in something as irrational as warfare) and turning into mercenaries or thugs or worse.

Without that control and that guidance, combatants are left to do whatever the fuck it is that they want to do. Sure, people want to bag on the US Military for being paid killers. Yeah, that's what I was trained to do and I did have to do it on more than one occasion. Am I proud of it? NO. In every instance, though, my (and my Soldiers' and fellow Scouts and Infantrymen's) hand was forced. We were good enough to force the surrender of more than a few armed insurgents by application of overwhelming force and coordination of efforts. I felt such a rush of relief every time we could get the drop on the enemy and I would hear the AK hit the ground and see his hands go up. If you want to see how BAD the US could be, look no further than the mercs and fighters at work for the warlords in Africa. THOSE guys are fucking nuts. Discipline is the difference. Adherence to the rules, the regulations, and the law is the difference. This is not an invocation of "not as bad as", because I can tell you one thing: SANE SOLDIERS WISH THEY WERE UNEMPLOYED.

We know that it's just wishful thinking, though, and for those of us that stay, it's because we've seen some of the worst that the world has to offer and we know that SOMEONE has to get in its way if it ever comes home to roost. When I got to Iraq, I figured out very quickly that the reason the insurgents were attacking us was because we were there. The thing is, the insurgents were using tactics that INTENTIONALLY put the civilians in the area at risk. I don't know if you want to imagine it, but can you picture what a 50 lbs. bomb will do to a pickup truck full of fish being driven by a farmer and his son to market? I don't need to, because I've seen it. It is NOT pretty. I, having willfully signed a contract stating that I would faithfully execute the orders of those appointed over me, was stuck in a moral quandary. Even if I could desert, where would I go? "Quitting" was not a viable option. The decision I came to was "No. I will not stand by and allow these people to harm their own." The same is true for everyone in my unit. We focused our attention deliberately on breaking the back of the IED manufacture and implementation and weapons supply chains in our area of operations. We were successful. When we first got there, there wasn't a road in the AO that DIDN'T have bombs under it. When we left, parents were actually letting their kids walk to school (which we were able to reopen) without escorts.

Yeah. War is an awful, hideous, ugly beast. It does bad things to people. It changes people. Most of us learn the right lessons from it, though, and I am not alone in saying that there are plenty of NCOs like me who would like to have "a few minutes alone" with the leaders who let this happen. Or Abu Ghraib. Or the "Afghanistan Kill Squad". Or any of the other shitheads who make it so that I have to come onto here and play apologetic for a business that needs no apology because it is bad enough already. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 10:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
As ever, I am in awe. Great post. Thanks. Jack Hughes (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Actually the "it's a game" sits fine with me. I view a lot of things in the world as just games. In the sense that you have people, rules and objectives. If you have people, you'll have people who want to win, which means you need rules to make the winning meaningful, and then you'll naturally get rule benders, rule breakers and people who will do anything to win, then strategy, learning, good players and bad players. Politics, war, anyone sitting down at an exam at school. I think that description works well enough to describe it. It's certainly not making light of war by saying that, if anything it shows how serious it is. moral 11:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
A great post but I think the game analogy is easy to take too far... yes, war is a game, but only in the same sense that everything is a game. Relationships are a game, war's a game, running a business is a game, life in general is a game and all our genes are playing for the highest stakes possible: immortality or extermination. But to put any of these things in the same category as scrabble or poker, by calling it a "game", is to risk trivialising it to an absurd degree. Maybe try a different phrase, like "game where real people might die" ONE / TALK 11:07, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I guess I wasn't as clear as I was hoping to be when I was outlining the stakes, One. I did mention the killing, though. That was the real thrust. The sad thing is that it is "a game where real people WILL die" and unless we ever get an intergalactic alien race hell bent on conquering the Earth, I don't see it stopping its "human on human" format anytime ever. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
There's a quote from Reagan about how he and Gorbachev used to talk about the possibility of some external threat to the human race (apparently there are alien invasion plans, but they're secret) and how that sort of thing would make us put aside all our differences and unite... except, call be cynical here, but if we can conceive of that happening, then why doesn't it happen? If we admit it was possible, then we'd do it. More realistically, if that situation occurred the invaders would just stay in orbit and what the mother of all HCMs tear the world apart, and then they'd come down and pick up the pieces effort free. So even then, I can see the "human on human format" being how it will end up. theist 11:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't happen because it's not enough to be possible, it has to actually happen - same reason we only mandate safety precautions when an incident occurs and not before (on the rare occasion we do do that, the incident consequently never occurs and the media blame the government for 'wasting' money on something that never happened. It's a political no-win situation) ONE / TALK 11:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Just stepping in here to say is that I don't care if it is a 'game', or if they should be excused because they're 'just kids with assault rifles'. The point is that they're pissing on dead people. If I was a person over there who somehow had internet access and had spent the past ten years or so under military occupation and I saw that video, I'd get angry as hell. I'd want to do something. I guess it's something like this; by pissing on dead combatants it's easy for any enemy to come up and go 'see look, the Americans are evil swine who piss on your brothers and blow up your mothers'. Tempers flare, more people join, and what do you know, we could have more dead US soldiers or even civilians. Well what a fun game, right? That's war and we should all just excuse those guys because they had no idea what they were doing. Uncle Sam suddenly possessed them. Why would they film it anyway? Hollow (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

### Ok, I give up (finally, really finally)

I give up on understanding the mindset of a soldier. I don't know if I'm too dumb, too bright, too rational, too emotional, too cowardly, the exact opposite of that or if all these concepts are just way too foreign for me, but I give up on understanding it. --ʤɱ digital native 18:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, you've said this before. You give up easily. It's not rocket surgery. Soldiers join up and serve for all sorts of reasons. There is no one mindset of a soldier. Like in any profession, they are all individuals with their own fears, hopes, dreams, families, history, politics, education.... all the experiences that make up any individual human being. Christ UHM, quit with the voluntary ignorance. It's unbecoming. Ajkgordon (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
No, no. Soldiers are all the same, like UHM says, they all share the same mentality. In fact, I was just on Facebook and saw Foxhole's pics of him pissing on four different dead guys before breakfast this morning. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 22:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh holy crap that came out wrong! I didn't mean because of the pissing on corpses, but because of what FA wrote. And with the mindset I meant how you are willing to kill for something. That's what I don't understand (with more and more coming in when you take in pride of nationality and stuff like that). Oh god, of course not all soldiers are torturing people and abusing corpses. And I swear by everything that I believe in that isn't sarcasm! Arg, I could slap myself right now... --ʤɱ heretic 00:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Many soldiers don't even think about killing when they join up. It can often be a straightforward decision driven by economics or family tradition or excitement or adventure. Others join up because they sincerely believe in serving their country or defending freedom or whatever and are prepared to kill or be killed when doing so. I'm sure you could imagine an extreme example where your family or community was being attacked by a sadistic criminal gang and the only way to defend yourself and those close to you was to kill the attackers. It's just a matter of extrapolating that out to a national or international perspective. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
It's very easy to be 100% idealistic when you are young and compartmentalise everything into black or white boxes. Some people do manage to eschew all violence, and I admire them for it, but sometimes you might need to make a choice where by killing someone you save your own life or the lives of those you love. Frankly, I hope that I never have to make that choice but can empathise with those who do. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

## Moore's law

So nano wires are now shown to conduct electricity like larger wires, so it seems microchips can be continually scaled down all the way to atom size pathways. Any futurists want to gossip on the technology that has to come after that to get more IOPs? Quantum computers? Extreme multi-core? Synthetic diamonds replacing silicon? TheCheatI run on alcohol 15:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It'll never catch on--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I'll bet they get buggered up by quantum indeterminacy in respect of the election positions on the nano-wires. --BobSpring is sprung! 15:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Election positions? Will they think Romney is too moderate for the Bible Belt? Rennie McGreet (talk) 21:03, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah yes. My bad. Electron.--BobSpring is sprung! 14:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The trouble with electrons is all the negative campaigning. Rennie McGreet (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Are you positive?--BobSpring is sprung! 22:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The Singularity is nigh! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

## IANAL

But the UK-USA extradition treaty seems lop-sided despite the verdict by a judge. A British student is up for extradition for copyright violation by posting links to US sites where people can watch US TV from outside the USA, The issue here is just where the jurisdiction of the law extends. Because Wikipedia, and RW, both break British copyright law (where there is no fair use) and there is a long-running dispute between commons and the National Portrait Gallery over high-res reproductions of paintings but I don't see Jimbo being extradited to the UK. </rant> PongoOrangutans are sceptical 18:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

*cough* You do realise Jimbo is a UK resident now? - David Gerard (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the extradition situation is lop-sided. Not on paper, just in practice. The US is bad at treaty obligations generally. As a rule of thumb, most bilateral treaties in peacetime are pretty simple tit-for-tat. So the US agrees to do something for you, and you agree to do something for it. But the US just doesn't keep its side of the bargain. It's not so much central governemnt, I think Hilary's people are trying, it's the individuals on the ground. The average American really buys into the idea that America is special. To the extent that treaties deny that, they're happy to violate the treaty. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

## Memory test

For those interested in such things, the Graidna has a memory test that readers can take part in. I haven't taken it yet because I'm at work, but I'm posting it here now for others than can. Aren't I nice? ONE / TALK 14:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

And I though it was so that you wouldn't forget. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Best not to spoil the point of the test since that will screw with the results, but I suck at this. d hominem 14:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I got a score of 0%, which is actually the best score you can get, weirdly enough. I think I got that because for most of the results I put either "somewhat" or "vaguely", and few of them I answered strongly or very strongly. Flinttalk to me :D|see my shit 15:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
This is not, repeat not, a test for Friday afternoon. It's not testing my memory, rather my ill attention. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I got an 80%, though I thought I failed badly. I'm pretty sure Fallacy took a different test. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I got 100% with a 90% for the second thing (don't want to spoil the test for anyone), and I have no idea how. Maybe I said I remembered too much? (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 20:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Yep. I was very conservative with what I said I remembered for certain, and I got 0%. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 03:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I kept forgetting the instructions and having to start over. Doctor Dark (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I got 80%. However, you could say I "cheated." Since I suspected there would be trickery involved, I tried to associate the words with visual imagery. CoyoteSans (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

## Pedantry

Why do people use the word "backpedal", when pedalling backwards on a bicycle doesn't actually reverse course? Is there another history? Just seems weird, given that bicycles either stop altogether or don't slow down when you backpedal... -- Seth Peck (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Only on modern bikes with multiple gears. On older and simpler designs, the peddles drove the wheel directly so peddling backwards would reverse the bike. sshole 13:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
wp:Fixie P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 14:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Of course on a unicycle the term still applies and fixed wheels were banned from my school slow-bicycle races. But language is replete with archaisms relating to horse riding, flintlocks, sailing or social class that people use without understanding their origin. That's why so many people erroneously use the term 'free reign' rather than 'free rein' in the sense of giving a horse its head to run as fast as it liked; Bill Bryson's excellent Mother Tongue explains quite a few. There was an item on the radio last week about how much detail authors should include in their novels because even some recent domestic things are quite alien to the younger generation; an example was given of a teenager who asked his mother what 'darning socks' meant. To him it was incredible that somebody might repair a pair of socks when you could buy them so cheaply, yet I remember my own mother in the 50s darning socks and other knitwear using a bakelite darning mushroom. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 14:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Stop reminiscing about the past. Besides, young people today dont know what a fucking floppy is, and those only stopped being around within my generation. Hell, theres plenty of terms still around for when media was still not as digitial--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Indeed. Let us reminisce about the future!--BobSpring is sprung! 14:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
"young people today dont know what a fucking floppy is." You're pretty out of touch with young people. A lot of the young people that I know not only have a strong appreciation for old digital technology, but have huge collections of things like 8-track tapes, cassettes and vinyl records. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 14:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
[Insert appropriate hipster meme here] moral 15:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Bah, I bet youngsters like Mikalos never experienced floppy disks that actually were floppy. None of these hard cased 3.5" jobbies. Real 5 1/4" disks that flexed. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Bah, 8" was the real deal, not that microcomputing crap. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 15:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Being born in the early 90's I sort of caught the tail end of old tech. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Old tech was optical correlation of data by shining a light through two pieces of smoked glass, I kid you not. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 15:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Bleh. Kids these days. I had a DVD drive and wireless networking before you'd stopped shitting yourself. Old tech indeed. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The step up from paper tape to punch cards made life much easier too. Doctor Dark (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
just so you know, punch cards are comingf back. so are data tapes. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 16:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I always understood backpedalling to be a completely futile attempt to reverse something (like trying to unsay something you shouldn't have said). So the analogy of pedalling backwards on a bike without it having any effect seems quite apt. WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 01:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

### Take me to Cuba!

Since this thread got hijacked onto another subject (which I seriously don't mind, since my original question was answered), in line with nostalgia and "times they are a changin'", anyone ever read any Lewis Grizzard? I just finished a couple of his books. He died before I was old enough to appreciate his works (he briefly mentioned not understanding "kink" when it was first becoming fashionable...I think I was eight when I first read it, so I didn't understand it either). I have a hard time believing that anyone under 25 (or heck, even some under 35) would fully appreciate his jokes, but I'd love to be proven wrong. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

ive never read him but ive seen his stuff--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

## Who's watching the Golden Globes again?

All hail Ricky Gervais. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

## Codeyear

I signed up to codeyear but god fucking dammit, it's not working for me and I can't figure out why. I'm simply unable to type anything in the box, and I'm pretty sure I'm supposed to be able to do that. I'm using Chrome. When I try doing it in Internet Explorer, it tells me IE isn't supported - which is fine, but it then recommends Chrome, which I fucking have!! It's driving me nuts. So basically I wanna know if any of you can use it (don't worry, you don't need an account), and what browsers you're using. I've already tried searching the web for "codeyear browser problems" but there's just nothing. I feel like the only one. ONE / TALK 18:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Not working for me in FF 8. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems to work fine with FF 9. Maybe some HTML5-thingy? --ʤɱ soviet 18:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Works fine with my FF8 (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 20:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm learning coding! (ONE, try actually clicking on the box first. I'm using Chrome and it's working fine but any time I use the scroll bar I have to re-click in the box to enter stuff.) The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Seems to work on ff9.01--BobSpring is sprung! 22:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I fixed it!!! For some reason it was my pop-up blocker at fault... not sure how, but disabling it did the trick. Thanks anyway guys :) ONE / TALK 08:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

## I don't understand Ark searchers

Not tied to anything recent but i found a reference to ark searchers (noahs ark that is); in one of my textpad documents, and it made me want to ask you lot why you think people searching for it expect to find a many thousand of year old wooden ship. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

They have about as much of a chance as finding the original Argo, I would think. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I think the assumption would either be
1. It's on the top of a mountain with conditions like Everest and the cold would preserve it.
2. God kept it around because of its significance.
MDB (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I think some people just don't understand how wood works. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I can just see it now; 'How does fucking wood work?' . Which is a sentence that rearrange itself in your head quite a few ways.-- Spirit of the Cherry Blossom 21:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
After a massive flood had wiped everything out what would the survivors need when they set foot on damp land? Wood for fires and for building, any remains of the mythical vessel would have disappeared in a very short time. Haven't these people read any books other than the Bible, such as Robinson Crusoe for example? Steven Kavanagh (talk) 22:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
I see it just like the creation scientists wanting to say "see, it's not a myth; we've got proof". ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 23:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
It is really weird that we have to specify which hopeless crazy Ark they're looking for (Ark of the Covenant or Noah's Ark).--talk 03:14, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The covenant ark has a better chance of being real then noah's though; just because it's more tied to organized society then a story about the primordial age. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Uh, also because the Ark of the Covenant is just a box and not an unrealistically big ship.--talk 03:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The thing is, if they found the ark and it wasn't an obvious fraud we'd have to look again at just about everything we currently think we know about history. These guys see the writing on the wall. The more we learn, the more evidence there is that suggests everything in the Bible up until at least 1 Kings is complete bullshit. King David is almost certainly a mytho-historical figure, if not entirely fabricated altogether and everything before that is just plain made up. If they could find the ark, it reverses the slow grinding away of their myths in one fell swoop and vindicates their belief in a way that even a die-hard sceptic like me would have to acknowledge. It's just sheer desperation at this point. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 03:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The sad thing is, my mom actually believes in the whole 'Noah's Ark exists and is being hidden by the Pakistani [right country, right?] government'. Sigh. Flitzertalk to me :D|see my shit 03:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Probably wrong country, you're thinking of Turkey I guess. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 05:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that was my second guess. It's a bullshit conspiracy theory anyways. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 05:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
If you have a belief that says the world was repopulated by a boat containing animals and 8 people a mere 4000 years ago, it would seem reasonable to look for any trace of its existance. It would similarly be to the advantage of any secular government to keep it hidden because of the social impact it would have if found. (just a very large wooden boat of about the right age would do). Ditto any other Biblical artifacts. Hitler searched for the spear that pierced Jesus side because of the legends about it. Hamster (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
When there are claims of people having found the ark it's often because of some resemblance to a proper boat, not the coffin-like design proposed by CMI. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 10:12, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
It's also one of those things that you can keep doing for ever. If we find the ark, the yeti or if SETI come up with something then it's case closed - it's been found. But not finding evidence doesn't prove anything, you can just argue that you haven't looked hard enough or in the right place and just keep on believing. It's one reason why I'm not keen on SETI - how do you demonstrate you've failed?--BobSpring is sprung! 14:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Now how would Karajou present it? "I want you to search every inch of the known universe including all real and postulated dimensions and then come back with concrete proof that there are no alien civilisations." ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 15:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
It's a confidence thing with probability theory, really. SETI can't "prove" they've failed, at least not in the traditional ways that we think about absolutely proving something, with they can keep searching and say "we've looked at this, that and the other, and found nothing" and so can rule certain things out and perhaps do work on refining the parameters of the Drake equation, for example. postate 22:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

## "Marines in video are 'kids,' not criminals"

Perry: desecrating the dead deserves a reprimand, not criminal charges. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

18 is not a kid. We generally do not let kids die for our country, pay taxes, or vote. just saying....GodotDear god, fucking grow up 16:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
just no. once they have completed training and as an active duty soldier in a war zone they are subject to miltary law that can require an officer to execute them for misconduct. Playtime is over. Hamster (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
(EC) I still don't get why this should be considered criminal. Reprimands seem like the most reasonable punishment. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 17:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Because desecrating a corpse is against both the US military code of conduct and the Geneva Conventions. Because the US is incredibly lucky the Taliban decided not to use this as a rallying point to convince people to kill more US soldiers. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 17:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I was surprised they didn't actually. Besides, remember a few years ago that chick who posed with the nude POW's as they violated lots of POW laws? --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I've heard interviews from other marines on NPR who have said their biggest issue when soldiers do things like this, is that it makes their job that much more dangerous, and makes any work to actually train up local troops, or get intelligence that much harder. And you don't do it just cause it's classless. If you kill someone, you kill them cause you had to - not cause you hate them. GodotDear god, fucking grow up 17:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't it strike anyone else as bizarrely macabre that we send all these guys over there with the explicit intention of shooting the Taliban, but if you piss on the corpses suddenly you've gone too far. I'm fairly sure if these guys could object to anything, it'd be the bullet holes not the piss on their clothes. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
its not the dead guys , its the civilians who see this conduct and hear stories of other people like them tortured or mistreated. This does come back to bite you on the ass. Hamster (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
That's the inherent contradiction in trying to add a humanitarian/decency limit to the practice of war. By saying this isn't okay, we're condoning a lot of nasty stuff. P-Foster Talk "a cheetos-eating, Mountain-Dew drinking vlogger living in someone's basement." 19:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
They certainly shouldn't be drummed out, but neither should this be ignored. Their punishment (45 days extra duty, loss of a full pay grade, letter of reprimand in their files) is perfectly appropriate, I think.
That's an interesting comment for Rick Perry to make, consider how he has no problem fucking executing people for crimes they committed when 18.--talk 20:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

What is it with these assholes making arguments that defeat themselves, or at the very least, show themselves up as complete fucking douchebags? I mean, if we accept the internal logic of this argument, that these soldiers really are kids and not criminals, and should be treated as such, then the conclusion is that America is sending children/kids overseas to fight and die in wars, which Perry is apparently okay with. And that's the best outcome of Perry's statement here (for him), when we take it at face value and agree with it completely. Do these assholes even think before speaking? X Stickman (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Short answer: No. Long answers: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!! theist 12:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Outrageous. Peeing on a corpse. Next somebody will want to build a mosque at Ground Zero.... nobsEmpty Recycle Bin 22:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Piss off Rob. Your analogy is closer to installing a WC at a mortician's parlour. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 23:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm amazed he's got time to post here after Andy crawled back to him, begging for his genius level headline writing abilitipfffffffhaha okay I can't keep that one going. X Stickman (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)