RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive152

This is an archive page, last updated 5 April 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Law of large numbers

Would an article on the Law of Large Numbers - the idea that given a sufficiently large set of possibilities, even the most improbable discrete event becomes certain - be too much of an overlap with improbable things happen?--^talk 11:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we need lots of new articles. 24.189.254.24 (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That's nice. Тy^Yarrr 13:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably, but i'm not a math geek, so i dunno. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 13:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it might go as a subsection in that page, or as a secondary/supporting page. 'Improbable Things Happen' as the page for the effect, and 'Law of Large Numbers' as the reason why it works?±KnightOfTL;DR^{walls of text while-u-wait} 13:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a smart suggestion.--^talk 20:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Jon Ronson interviews some tossers impersonating him on Twitter

Video. (Reminder: Jon Ronson is the author of The Men Who Stare at Goats and some other good stuff.)--ZooGuard (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Have to plug Them as well. The David Icke chapter had me rolling on the floor. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The Accompanying doco The Secret Rulers of the World was pretty good. It was funny when he and Alex Jones 'infiltrated' Bohemian Grove and came to such vastly different conclusions about what went on. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC) ok, my link not working. sorry

Help, help, we're being repressed

I feel like Conservapedia has landed in the UK. My BHA newsletter informs me that We found that SPUC are presenting a number of untrue claims about abortion, from the invented condition of ‘Post Abortion Trauma’ through to a fictional link between abortion and breast cancer. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 20:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought America was supposed to be the crazy cousin the rest of the civilized world looks to for an example of what NOT to be. --CoyoteSans (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

America has the Crazies that our crazies can only aspire to be AMassiveGay (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Please be more specific :D America is two continents, and several dozen countries...if you mean "the United States", then specify the state and/or region. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll jump on any chance to reference this song. Though obviously, there is plenty of different of kinds of crazy to go around these states. --CoyoteSans (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

My evil plan to destroy RationalWiki

I have an evil plan to destroy RW by creating a way of linking to tvtropes, in the same way {{w}} links to Wikipedia. The main stumbling block is my total uselessness at wikimarkup TVtropes' use of camelcase in its URLs. How do I get round this? Sophie^{because liberals} 20:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

TVTropes is where stories go to die. I'll fight you on all fronts to keep that crap off this site. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

CC is a problem?--il'Dictator Mikal 20:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll see... Sophie^{because liberals} 20:51, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with TvTropes, hater? GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 20:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

there are many legitimate complaints against Tvtropes--il'Dictator Mikal 21:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Sophie, you're a bit late on the bandwagon. My evil plan to destroy RationalWiki has been going strong for a few years now. Blue (is useful) 20:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the template:w which i was going to stteal the code from, I see it just writes out the [[WP:... thing. I need a higher level magic user to code that for a different website. End of that, and RA is save from having to gripe and edit war about a template he happens not to like. Sophie^{because liberals} 20:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been interjecting subtle comments and information satiring liberals for months and so far no one's said anything. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

that's because we set up a macro to hide your comments from everyone except you. Sophie^{because liberals} 21:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Satirizing liberals? That's impossible, because liberals are perfect. Try again. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 21:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

i'd reveal my plan but that would spoil the fun. lets just say it will be biting and crush you clowns!--il'Dictator Mikal 21:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with TVTropes? Everything. It encourages the misguided notion that stories are just a collection of concepts taped together. That what makes a story good is how often it follows the Rule of Cool, or how many Crowning Moments of Awesome it contains. Its administrators are legendarily incompetent, its editors populated by men's rights activists, pedophiles, and and the sort of braindead anime fans that make intelligent anime fans cringe, and the entire site is a massive circle jerk of people who don't understand what makes a story good, writing about what they think makes a story good. I would very much like to keep that shit off this wiki. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You're just a StopHavingFun guy (I love camelcase -- fuck MediaWiki). An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 21:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, stop ruining things for me. TvTropes may have problems, but it's fun. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 21:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

like everything, it's how you use it. TV tropes points out some very real, very american ways of looking at things. For example, when we talk about how native americans are portrayed in movies or tv, you tend to get one of two things. "drunk, temperamental, lazy" or "super spiritual type". and in almost every movie I've seen with indian people in it (save 2, that come to mind), it is ALWAYS the white guy who goes native and is teh Bestest Ever Nativest Native there everist was! And generally he is instrumental in saving the indian people. The tropes are often there, and should be pointed out. Or you can go overboard and overly simplify everything into "boy meets girl". Again, depends on how it's used, adn what your point is.Godot What do cats dream about? 21:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Godot (even though I still hate her! >:(). Works of fiction are largely made up of shared 'elements' -- of course it's more complicated than that, but you can simplify them into tropes, and that's not wrong, just like it's not wrong to look at a movie and point out the similarities it has with other films. And as for 'how good a movie is is determined by what tropes it has', that's the fault of some editors, not the wiki itself; they go out of their way to say that tropes are not inherently good or bad, and the quality of a piece is not determined by its tropes. Every wiki -- actually, every site with users -- has people who act like idiots (like me! :D). An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 21:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

And that's exactly why your story will always be crap. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly why, huh? An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 21:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

"Works of fiction are largely made up of shared 'elements'." Look at your story, The Colour Grey. It originally read like you had a bunch of ideas and vomited them up on the paper. That's what the "it's just a bunch of elements!" approach always produces. Your story was boring because your main character had no voice. They were just there, taking up space amidst a bunch of exposition. But stories are about people, not story elements taped together. The elements are just background. We read stories because we want to hear about people.

Define your character. Make the story about your character, doing things. Then add only those story elements that actually affect your character. Until you do that, your story will always suck. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I know that I suck with characters -- it's something I'm trying to work on. I'm much better at world building, although you'd probably say that I suck at that too. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 22:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

yay for writing problems! How well what i tend to put out for Henai varies, and is heavily hit by my inability to express what i think all that well. theres a reason what i put down is minimum, i can never find a good way to describe what i think, so much of henai is still in my head. --il'Dictator Mikal 22:52, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't buy the 'only add elements that actually affect your character' philosophy. I'm a fan of what authors like Tolkien do -- create worlds and then populate them with characters, not create characters and then build a world around them. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 22:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Building the world is a lot more fun then populating it, although when you populate it, you then get to change the world to make new and old ideas mesh. world building never ends if you are a good writer. Also, fallaxy, dont follow Tolkien to hard, you dont wanna get his perfectionism il'Dictator Mikal 23:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of Tolkien -- he's just the first example that came to mind. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 23:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

How dare you. Do you hate Asimov as well? --il'Dictator Mikal 23:10, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Fuck Asimov! Robots and atheists are stupid. (Note: the previous statement was a work of parody. Asimov, as well as robots and atheists, are awesome.) An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 23:14, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

World building is worthless without engrossing characters. Frankly, I don't really give a damn who the once and future king of Elflandia is or how big Lone Starr's schwartz is. If your characters are cardboard cut-outs, you fail as a writer. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I think both Stabby and Fallacy are missing the point. Stories share many elements, but a good story is not just a sum of those shared elements. You cannot write a good story by combining the tropes you like. Most of the time the result will be either schematic, incoherent or boring - something like Avatar, which is a completely predictable, vanilla storyline once you take away all the CGI. --Tweenk (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

@Stabby: Speaking as the resident (post-)structuralist at RW I have to say, No. Anybody who came to that conclusion from reading TVTropes is complete fuckin' moron. On the other hand I think anybody who condones collecting and categorising such structures and patterns (tropes, memes, mytheme, etc) because he thinks this would make people lazy is also a complete fucking moron. What makes a good story is how these tropes effect and are effect by characters and the plot, how they flow into each other (forced or fluent), how they — and things that are completely new — make a story. These tropes aren't candy in a candy store that you can shop to built a story, they are the border, the paint and the paper of a painting, the actual painting, it's forms and meanings, is all the other stuff (for this metaphor, let's pretend the tools of such a work aren't already existend with language, comic art and cinematography). It's not a about the characters and neither is it about certain tropes, it's about how everything fits together and how the story as a whole functions and resonates emotionally within the consumer. --★uːʤɱ atheist 00:31, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You're coming at it from the direction of TVTropes as a resources for non-Tropers. I'm coming at it from the direction of someone who's familiar with the serious shortcomings of the community responsible for creating that resource. I'm coming at from the direction of someone who's witnessed an extremely promising and talented writer transform into a self-indulgent, pandering hack because they thought embracing the TVTropes community was a good idea. It's just hard to forgive the site for that. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Spotlight fallacy? Perhaps the talented writer was too impressionable. Given that, would he really make a good writer in the long run?

You also assume they write about what makes a story good. I had a different impression. Many of the tropes are negative. The content is more of a commentary and a collection of similarities between works of fiction. It is not a writing guide, and I never saw anything that implied it was. --Tweenk (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

MUST TROPE! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't make me hate you, Nebby. I don't want to have to hate you. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You people are awful harpies

Reading this section has been a complete waste of time and no good has come from it. You evil banshees have wasted several minutes of my life where I could have been drinking whisky. Fuck off. Signed, Anon. Ace^Moderator 01:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

then our goal has been accomplished--il'Dictator Mikal 01:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I am listening to Deetron very loudly on my stereo in anticipation of the burning. Feeding time has come, a sacrificial lamb must be offered. You have fucked with me for the last time. Ace^Moderator 01:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I nominate Fallacy--il'Dictator Mikal 01:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually agreeing with this one. ^moral 11:51, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't wish to read it. Is there an executive summary?--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 12:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

tl;dr -- Stabby does not want a "link to tvtropes" template. Тy^Talk 12:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow - thanks. Seriously, I can drink the whiskey that Ace missed out on. Is this a free service or does one have to subscribe?--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 12:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

A free whiskey service would be amazing, but would sadly cause the downfall of civilization as we know it. Тy^{sic semper} 12:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll have Ace know that being an awful harpy is just one of my many talents. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

People like all of you are the reason most modern movies can be reduced to "weehh! colors moving on screen! weehh!" --★uːʤɱ constructivist 15:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

an academic defense of TVtropes

To the people above who think the site is all about reducing storytelling to a formulaic cliche, there's a time-honored rhetorical tradition, dating back to the ancient Greeks, called "topos koinos," which describes the kind of commonplace settings in poetry that act as a kind of emotional shorthand, a quick way to engage the audience. There are ways to abuse these topoi, but the art is in how you interact with them. Junggai (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

That's not really a defence of TVTropes, though, it's just a defence of tropes in general. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. My problem is with TVTropes itself, specifically it's community.

When you read posts by TVTropes' prominent editors and admins, you discover that far too many of them really do believe that all you need to make a good story is to scotch tape your favorite tropes together. Their understanding of the architecture of stories starts and stops with "Hey, this story did something just like that other story!" They are incapable of grasping anything beyond that.

This attitude is harmless if all you want to do is enjoy stories written by other people, but when you're interested in writing your own, good stories, then you realize that attitude is actively damaging, even repulsive. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 11:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably because they're a load of National Novel Writing Month competitors who think what they can produce in a month is good. ^gnostic 12:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're your problem is the community but not the core concept then go buy yourself a server and start your own trope wiki. I look forward to making fun of it here. --CoyoteSans (talk) 18:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I loves me some TVTropes. I don't pay attention to the community, though, but it sounds pretty bad if they actually think that way. Maybe it's the fiction equivalent of LessWrong. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The community is awful and I avoid it. I am part of an open community making a shared Web Original, and our page on TV tropes was incredibly unbalanced: containing examples from only SOME of the contribitors and ignoring elements that were part of the series as a whole. Such as way too many X-rated gags from this one person's spin-off (They probably went there on an ego trip and decided to insert everything related to their own work that they could think of) in a page about a primarily PG13 community. So we got together to clean it up and make it about the series as a whole, and we actually got blocked for a while for 'whitewashing.' Considering WE were the Word of God of the series... yeah. I really love Tropes, but not as building blocks. They're sort of like architectural features of a story. Although a building might HAVE high celings, arched doorways, and flying buttresses, one cannot simply make a building by throwing some buttress and a celing and a door in a pile. It's still got to be built. So it's possible to examine a story AFTER THE FACT and remark, 'Oh, ah, nice use of flying buttresses!' but it's not possible to build a building a sum. "Flying buttress + door + celing + walls = masterpiece?" It really takes away from perceptions of the writer's skill if their craft is reduced to 'oh they just threw some tropes together' rather than 'I've seen this idea in another work and they used it here, too!' One is dismissive, the other is analytical. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{going galt: the literal crazy train} 14:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community is also batshit insane sometimes less than absolutely optimum, but everyone still uses Wikipedia. Same for TVTropes. This suggests the community being rubbish has little to no bearing on the quality of the product, surprising a result as that may be - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

What about us, where everyone insists that it's the community they stay for? Does that make us the SomethingAwful of wikis? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Trayvon Martin

Okay, the latest spin from the right, including Terry, on the Trayvon Martin case is that Zimmerman says Martin attacked him, and, if that's the case, then Zimmerman was justified. (Even most of the right is now saying that if Martin didn't attack him, Zimmerman should be prosecuted.)

Okay, so, let's say that claim is true. Martin attacked Zimmerman and Zimmerman acted in self defense. However, Martin's girlfriend says his final cell phone call to her was him telling her someone was following him.

If he believed he was being followed, then, under the "Stand Your Ground" law that is Zimmerman's defense, wouldn't Martin have been legally justified in attacking Zimmerman? MDB (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

From my understanding of the law, Martin would of had to kill Zimmerman so that Zimmerman could not contradict whatever Martin wanted to tell the police. Human life is precious, whenever it is taken the burden of proof should be on the murderer. Sadly I have a stand your ground law in my state. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 13:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Also me and a coworker talked about that of sorts, basically if a situation can rise in which two men had the legal right to kill each other. I think the law allows for that. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 13:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think George Zimmerman is a racist. That is mostly a liw. 24.189.254.24 (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A liw? Тy^{Serious Business Guy} 13:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

As a student of journalism this case as been intensely frustrating to me. This is how this is supposed to work: injustice occurs -> media informs the public -> public reacts and moves against the injustice -> change occurs. This chain happens for both good (go look at the impact of some Pulitzer prizewinners) and bad (KONY 2012, pretty much everything FOX does) information. But this is a basic failure in the mechanism in general. There's a gap between steps 3 and 4 with this case. People get angry and move against the injustice, yet nothing is happening. With the amount of evidence against Zimmerman, even Phoenix freaking Wright could get the man convicted in a heartbeat. But even with the public informed of such evidence and flailing angrily about it, nothing substantial seems to be happening. Atrocious. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 14:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

"even Phoenix freaking Wright could get the man convicted in a heartbeat"

"Even"? Isn't Phoenix "Freaking" Wright supposed to be the greatest lawyer evar? GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 14:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Phoenix F. Wright is a defense attorney, so the right wording should probably be "couldn't get the man acquitted". Vulpius (talk) 14:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That too. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 14:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be another case highlighting the need for alternative media. Mainstream media organizations are not public servants, neither are they non -profit do-gooders. They are greedy rich evil corporations out to make a quick buck through sensationalism and inflaming the public. Oh, and it appears the alleged perp/victim a registered Democrat. nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 19:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"nothing substantial seems to be happening." Wrong. The Justice Department is now investigating the case, a move that happened largely because of the work of journalists reporting on it. Also, we are seeing public debates on the racial dimensions and the legal dimensions of the event. Moreover there have been several public protests, including a large one in NYC on Friday, that are bringing the stakes to wider attention. If you're a student of journalism, you're not very good at it. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 14:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You are right and I am wrong. I haven't seen the news about the protests on Friday, because I was on Spring Break all week. Thank you for informing me and helping me to be a better student of Journalism with your efforts. You're right, I am pretty terrible! I strive to be less terrible every day. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{going galt: the literal crazy train} 14:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You can make a start at being less terrible by telling old ladies at bus stations to take their god and shove it! The saddest thing about this case is how long it took for the announcement that Zimmerman will at least go before a grand jury. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 14:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that's the key here -- Zimmerman ended the life of another human being. Now, maybe he was justified (under Florida's screwed up law), but the police just took his word for it and let him go. That, I think, is the heart of the problem -- the police just seemed to accept his claims at face value, when they had a dead teenager lying there. Even if they didn't immediately haul him off to jail, I think they should have said, "okay, we're going to launch a serious investigation of this. You may well face manslaughter charges. We will get a court order that prohibits you from leaving the area. You need to hire an attorney." Etc etc etc. MDB (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It's as if "self-defence" is analogous to killing without consequence. ^{d hominem} 16:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, even with this stupid law on the books, you still have to run this one by a jury. Maybe if it was an intruder in your home you could let the police make the decision, but he shot and killed a stranger on the street. The guy needs to be arrested and tried for murder. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The sponsor of the Florida bill was on NPR today. He said that Zimmerman isn't protected by it, and in fact Trayvon was protected by it because he was followed and confronted. I think that most people wouldn't jump someone just for following them. I think Zimmerman drew on him, or at least flashed it. Senator Harrison (talk) 22:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

A quote this case makes me think of

I've been re-reading the absolutely brilliant Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever by Stephen R. Donaldson. The residents of the world where it takes place all swear an oath called The Oath of Peace. It goes:

Do not hurt where holding is enough;

do not wound where hurting is enough; do not maim where wounding is enough; and kill not where maiming is enough;

the greatest warrior is one who does not need to kill.

I realize that's naive, and it's from a fantasy world, but really, what if everyone tried to live by that oath? MDB (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that's pretty much the way it's supposed to work in the UK. We have a principle of "reasonable force" for self-defence. Just as it is illegal to use mantraps to protect your property you can't shoot a burglar and get away scot free, even though some people would like to think otherwise. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I know in many states in the U.S. there is a principle of non-escalation, where you can still be charged if you don't defend yourself with roughly equivalent force - I know of a few cases where people have faced criminal charges for pulling a knife on an unarmed attacker. User:ORavenhurst (gibber) 15:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Can I whine for a second. HE WAS TOLD TO STAY IN HIS CAR, AND THAT OFFICERS WOULD BE THERE WITHIN TEN MINUTES. He got out. He CHOOSE to engage. how is that self defense under anyone's definition? Godot What do cats dream about? 15:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

How soon would it take for the police to come? Within ten minutes? He could have been killed by that time. I grew up in Montana and it could take 1 hour for the police to come. 24.189.254.24 (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

In his car? While driving home? He could have been killed how, exactly? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 15:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You don't get it. There was a young black person loose in the neighborhood! That's a life and death situation there! Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this Jpatt again? Damn anons. I assume so because only Jpatt is this stupid. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It's User:Moonshot926 for sure. I don't know if this is Jpatt.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Every single word out there, disagrees with your telling of the tale. He saw a suspicious kid, called 911, was told to stay in his car, that they would "arrive soon", and to just "keep an eye out and let us know if anything more has changed". He decided to get out. again, he CHOOSE to get out of his car. He followed the kid. I'd sure be scared of some illegal mexican started following me around, huh? I'd probably want to attack. and in florida, i'd be justified. Oh, wait. Only if i had a gun and not some skittles. Godot What do cats dream about? 15:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC) (ed con - who is jpatt?)

Poor legislation

One of the things that is increasingly common in this era of "elect someone who's on my side, not someone who knows what he's doing" is the plethora of poorly written laws. Who writes a law that says "you have the right to use lethal force if you 'feel threatened' without defining what a threat really is? By the letter of the law, woman can shoot pretty much any male on the street at any time; by the letter of the law, atheist and christian can just shoot eachother. By the letter of the law, I can walk into a gay rally, and say "you threaten me with your gay ickies" and start shooting. It is not just this law, immigration laws (local ones), education laws, voting regulations - anything done as a "knee jerk reaction" to some supposed problem, is often written in such a way that no one even knows how to enforce it, or what it "really" means. Godot What do cats dream about? 16:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Zimmerman's account of what happened that night. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 16:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

So, if Zimmerman's account is true, the moral is that if someone is stalking you, you need to open fire first. Fists are useless.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It also contradicts an earlier statement. "Zimmerman said he had stepped out of his truck to check the name of the street he was on when Trayvon attacked him from behind as he walked back to his truck, police said.". That one, at least, seems thoroughly unconvincing. A neighborhood watch zealot doesn't know the names of the streets in his neighborhood, and has to step out of his car when it's still light out to check a street sign? Assuming that was his initial story and not an error in the police or news report, then it's no wonder he changed it. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

My own "anti gun" take, is that there is a reason cops carry guns. they are trained, for a decently long time, to understand how 1) to try to diffuse a situation, 2) not put themselves or others in danger, 3) use other options like tazers when/where appropriate 4) really understand what danger is, and is not. wanna be cops, running around with guns on an unofficial neighborhood watch, with no training are just begging for this very situation to come up. And i really really have doubts that some 17 year old kid, alone, unarmed is going to "jump" a guy, getting back into his truck. It makes no sense.Godot What do cats dream about? 17:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

UHM's lesson from the story

1. Outlaw neighbourhood watches, these people aren't cops and nothing good can come from untrained personal running around armed
2. Increase taxes
3. Put that money into police forces so they have more (wo)men and can be faster, better and more effective.
4. Find some way to make NRA lobbyists stop polluting American law, I'm sure with these kinds of laws like "Stand your ground" (even the laws they make sound like stupid-macho crap) can be seen a problem of national security.

--★uːʤɱ federalist 19:02, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Neighborhood watches are generally not armed. Their philosophy is the best weapon they can carry is a cell phone. Zimmerman was not a part of an official neighborhood watch. MDB (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I know (this much I learned from TV), but there's always one self-appointed fucknut running around with a gun. --★uːʤɱ atheist 21:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Still, he was given authority while having a criminal record. Considering Martin's phone calls and racially charged incidents from the Sanford police in the past, the entire situation doesn't seem right.

Also, does any other country have similar "Stand your ground" laws? It's like the US justice system wants more crimes to occur. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Please be precise when talking about "the US". we are a fucking large country (which i dread more and more every year). Most states do not have this kind of law. Most states do not allow neighborhood watch groups to be armed. the few that do are the same states that regulate women's bodies, and try to tell gays they not only cannot marry but should fucking leave. They are the same states that have such a deep seated fear of anyone "not like them", it's virtually pathological at the legislative level. "They" are not Us". Godot What do cats dream about? 19:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, next time I'll be more specific. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure I asked the same of you more than once, OS. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm a half-American totally dumbfounded by the reactionary takeover of your politics since the past three decades. What do you expect? :P Osaka Sun (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

My dear WfG, we know it's not "you" or any of the other USians who edit here, but you are part of the American system which allows these nutter groups to do their thing. So criticism is levelled at a group level rather than individuals and I would expect reciprocal reproaches when our elected government does something (even though I didn't necessarily vote for them). It is up to us as individuals to do our best to change the system if we don't like how it does things. Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with such assertions is that you're making the assumption that what happens in Florida is a reflection on what happens in the other 49 states. As Americans we can only support (or tear down) a system for which we are constituent. I know that's a pretty clear-cut and well-understood concept of the America legislative and electoral system, especially around the world and among RWians, but why keep saying "Americans" when some dumbfuck in Florida pulls a gun on an unarmed teenager? WfG and I happen to live in the same state, where we see dumb shit happen from time to time—for example, there's currently a personhood bill in the state legislature, and that's something that we can attempt to do something about! But Florida is literally thousands of miles away and they have their own docket of dumb shit to deal with. Just because it's nigh impossible to get an abortion in Kansas doesn't mean the entire country is against abortion, and just because some people in California and New York feel like they want to protest doesn't mean people in Missouri or North Dakota feel the same way. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I can only assume you understand federalist politics. each state has a right to make their own laws. when you say "the us" and are not talking about federal laws, it suggests you are making a hollow statement. It would be like saying France is to blame for the mess that Greece is in, or that Germany is somehow culpable in the laws made by Italy that allow for reprehensible laws regarding rape. there is no - how did you put it - "American system". There are 50 state systems.Godot What do cats dream about? 20:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)(edit con)

All that being said, this is probably relevant to the topic of discussion. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Here in the UK, I only ever read about the crazy shit that goes on over there. Other stuff gets reported but its usually dull and I'm sure it colours my view of you all. I try to remember that your not all gun totting loons, but I do like to feel superior. Still, it does all look very polarised over there, which is never a good thing. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually we Germans do have a way to influence what is happening in Italy, not because we've got them at their balls right now, but because of the EU. Because all states have to conform to a body of Union laws and regulations we actually can influence something to stop, the biggest problem with that is that we don't have an EU government that can "order" states to do certain things, but there has to be a big enough consensus in enough states to push something through, we might see something like this with Hungary soon. And the same way it can work in the US but much more direct because you actually have a federal government, although slower because your (and here I'm justified using it) political system has to get money transfusions from economic groups and whatnot. So it's not a case of "we can't do anything about it" just a case of "we can't do something about it fast". --★uːʤɱ pirate 21:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Well of course I understand federalist politics, but that doesn't mean that I agree with them or you particular federal system. While many people identify as Texans or Californians there is a common identification as Americans which condones the federalist system. Of course federalism can exist at several levels with federated states having different legislative remits. So the criticism of "Americans" is a critique of the federal system where the extremists are not moderated by the majority of reasonable people. This mass generalisation occurs at all levels -of Christians, Europeans, Britons, etc. - so don't take it quite so personally.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll be sure to remember to blame the Brits the next time something awry occurs in Belgium :) -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Blame the Europeans

Sure, Sethpeck, blame the Europeans as a group for any fundamental injustices you see throughout Europe. That seems fair enough. There are tighter and looser bonds within Europe (e.g. there are countries that joined Schengen and the Eurozone where you'd scarcely know you'd crossed a border, the currencies are the same, the languages are the same, there's just a sign "Welcome to..." and at the other extreme you've got Russia which is willing to stop executing criminals and openly trading with rogue states as a member of the Council of Europe, but isn't even interested in joining the EU) but overall the feeling is not so different. We have one flag (the flag often associated with the EU actually belongs to Europe generally) and we have one anthem (but no words, with so many languages nobody's ever going to agree on the words). 82.69.171.94 (talk) 07:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Reading comprehension is apparently not your strongest suit, BoN. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the rant the BoN said, you can technically blame the Europeans for a lot of modern world problems, thanks to how they did things during their day in the sun--il'Dictator Mikal 15:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

But they're all dead. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you can blame the Europeans anyhow. If only because: "french". Damn frogs. Godot What do cats dream about? 20:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Did he put the colours in with the whites again? Ajkgordon (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That sort of thing makes Pat Buchanan very angry. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Is this the racist bigots' new argument? Really?

Saw this making the rounds. Prepare to facepalm. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

So, if that picture was true, it would mean that, since a black boy posted a stupid image of him acting 'gangsta' once, it means that all the available evidence we have is false and he actually deserved to be shot and killed. Okay. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 04:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That is just a shame. If the kid got himself killed by acting crazy with someone he didn't know was both crazier and armed, that's one thing but it is quite another to after the fact demonize the kid to allow sway emotions into the "maybe he had it coming?" sort of mind. 24.189.254.24 (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, sources have shown that pic was doctored. it's all over Facebook, anyhow. ;-)Godot What do cats dream about? 20:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Castle laws / stand your ground

I think we could do with an article on these kinds of laws, and controversies like this that come up when they're applied. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Screen caps...

...and should you edit them? http://tinypic.com/m/fk1vtx/4 82.23.210.230 (talk) 23:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that was me. Here's the full link in question. Something I came across ran into the other day that I thought might be worth an article right here on teh Ratwik. Still not sure if it's a Poe or not. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 23:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The link did not live up to its build up in this thread. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope, not much to see here. Sorry to let you all down. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 23:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Obvious parody. I think it's mentioned on here before. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Playing God,

The Loving Psychopath. Javasca₧ Who said anything about fair?! 00:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Pretty cool. Not exactly subtle though. --Damo^Hi 09:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be better if it was a bit more subtle. At least drop the "god" from the title. ^{d hominem} 15:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As other have said, not subtle. But I liked it anyway. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{going galt: the literal crazy train} 15:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Opinion on Deism

So, RW, i'm a bit curious actually, after reading some of The god Delusion, what your all opinion on Deism is?--il'Dictator Mikal 03:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Classical deism was pretty much proto-atheism. Modern-day deism posits a completely unnecessary being and is irrational just like any other theistic religion/belief (only much less so). GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 04:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, Fallacy, I actually agree with you on this, more-or-less. I think the original Deists were trying to reconcile free will against the prevailing attitudes of predestination. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There are a few crypto-deists in my family. (They still insist on calling themselves Christians or Jews, but they're pretty heretical even by liberal standards.) I used to be one too until I discovered the power of Occam's Razor. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The beliefs of those in my immediate family might fit into deism as well. Mentioned before that my parents refer to themselves as Cafeteria Catholics, while they insist on going to church once a month they break the mold shortly after. There's so many stories to tell. One of my first mindfucks as a religious teen occurred when asking my mother if a heaven or hell really existed; she insisted that there was none and "we should enjoy the heaven we're living in right now." My goodness I can't believe how stupid I was back then.

Still, you can't hate watching this. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Can I get a Belinda Carlisle song stuck in your head? -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The Deist god is simply unnecessary.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 07:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say rather merely unnecessary. Being a Deist is if anything less stupid than having a lucky penny or superstitions about the number 13. It's basically harmless, it's hard to imagine a society of Deists messing up the law or trampling on Atheists due to their belief in a God that doesn't intervene or show interest in our lives in any way. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ummmm. Why is it less stupid than the other examples?--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 07:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It at least makes sense, and gives a sort-of kinda plausible explanation for a real philosophical quandary. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 08:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this. But I'm not sure how the "stupid scale" would work. One could presumably set up a way to test the "lucky penny hypothesis" - is it possible to test the "deist hypothesis"? I don't think so. But does that make one idea more or less silly than the other?--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 15:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Once you embrace deism you are effectively junking all the religions which have been based on stuff after the creation and the ideas that you need to actively worship the creator and to pray for divine interventions. So a deist god only exists as a convenient way to explain the existence of the universe but then stumbles with the "who created the creator" problem, which (as Bob says) makes a deist god unnecessary. So to my mind, deism is cop-out atheism, a way of being an atheist without actually denying the existence of a god; which given the circumstances when deists first came out of the woodwork was probably a sensible approach. In much of Europe atheists are now able to "come out". In the UK this is something that has happened within my lifetime, I certainly didn't feel comfortable about saying I was an atheist until my mid-20s (1970s) and usually settled for agnostic (although sometimes filled forms with 'hedonist'). I think you might say that it was The Life of Brian which marked the change of tide with the ridiculous posturing of Malcolm Muggeridge and Mary Whitehouse. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Deism is just basically ietsism isn't it? Except pretending to be slightly more specific, as I doubt you'd be able to differentiate between those beliefs. ^moral 11:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Monkey business down in Tennessee

I think this has popped up a few times before, but a creationist bill in Tennessee only needs to be signed by the governor now. (Bonus: It also includes climate denialism.) Time to put on those greatest anti-evolution hits of 1925! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone revive Clarence Darrow back from the dead. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Not quite as exciting as Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 05:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Copperhead^Hisssssss 13:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

My goodness, I loved that cartoon when I was a wee PageOfTL;DR. It's goofy and derivative with terrible 90s CGI but I sometimes watch it and find that it's just... something... enough to still be pretty amusing. I am not sure what word applies here. Quaint? Both reminiscent of an earlier time and yet a bit unusual for its time. Maybe that fits. Yet it also drips with entertaining cheesiness. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{garrulous en guerre} 14:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

"when I was a wee PageOfTL;DR..."

[1] Osaka Sun (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

JUST LET ME LOG IN I AM NOT A SESSION HIJACKER AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 80.74.16.198 (talk) (Sophie at work) 10:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Spambot discussion potential changes to the site

If you care have your say at Forum:Spam bots (let's get this settled). Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Educational games

Just stumbled upon this today. Anyone have any favourites? Osaka Sun (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Affordable Care Act being heard by Supreme Court

So the Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments on "Obamacare". This is actually a pretty important moment because if this law gets struck down, health care reform won't happen for another 20 years (or more). While the ACA brings excellent reforms to the industry, I think what is most important about the bill is that it paves the way for public option or single payer. The bill requires insurers to pay 80% of their premiums to insurance. Now that they are required to accept people with pre-existing conditions, the health industry itself will end up being the ones lobbying for a public option to relieve them. I don't think the Court will strike the law down, mainly because individual mandates have been passed by Congress before. Any opinions? Mr. Anon (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Being discussed on this page, in a section above.--^talk 02:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Voting

While the Paul signs have been up for months and the Santorum campaign have sent me text messages(ugh) the Gingrich signs went up today. I've only seen one Romney sign at all (hanging out the window of a sorority). Any suggestions of who to vote for? Тy^rannosaurs 17:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

For the primary? Jimmy McMahon. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Santorum has my vote. I'm afraid of these militant atheists, Muslims, gays, and women who want to take 'Murica away from us god-fearing white straight Christian conservative males. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 17:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Santorum would make the most fun run against a black, woman loving, "for-ee-ner". --Godot What do cats dream about? 17:29, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

i have another month til they even care about my state, and even then im an independent so i cant vote anyways--il'Dictator Mikal 17:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you explain to a non-USA-ian how that works. Couldn't you just sign up for the party you liked least and then vote for the candidate most likely to lose when the main election came round?--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 18:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Depends on the state; theres a number that dont allow that--il'Dictator Mikal 18:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

How could you prevent it? Do you need to show how you voted previously or something?--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 19:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Voter registration includes a party affiliation (or "unaffiliated")...so every time you register (which you have to do before every election, or in some states on the day of election) you declare your affiliation if desired. Thus, in states without open primaries (which is a majority but not most), only registered Republicans or Democrats (or whatever) can vote for candidates. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I really should change my affiliation. Тy^{Serious Business Guy} 20:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to Reg. every election? they dont tell you anything in school--il'Dictator Mikal 20:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It depends on your state/county/parish. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, it's important to correct misinformation that discourages people from voting, so in what state do you have to register to vote before each election? I've never lived anywhere that you had to. (Also, what does "...a majority but not most..." mean? Godspeed (talk) 20:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

More than 50%, but (I believe) less than 75%. I know I get a registration card in the mail every year that I have to fill out and send back (particularly if I want to change affiliations), but that's for my county. One can also register when getting a driver's license, at least in Colorado. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

i got asked when i got my license, thats the day i learned the libertarian party is big enough to be listed as an option--il'Dictator Mikal 21:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all who responded. I'd like to say that I'm somewhat wiser but I'm not sure that I am. Suffice to say that there are complications which would prevent my cunning plan from working.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 21:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're talking about registering as a Republican and voting for Santorum or moving to an open primary state, it's been done...and probably the reason why Santorum did as well as he did in some states. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Vote for Obama in the primary. If you want to vote GOP, then vote for Romney, as the least harmful of the possibilities.--^talk 20:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a Democratic primary at all? --Tweenk (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Primaries are held at the state level, so it depends on the state and whether the party wants to run anyone against an incumbant (they also have to receive enough votes to appear on a ballot). Some states also don't hold primaries, just caucuses. JFGI results pretty much determine that while there ARE Democratic Presidential primaries, it is unlikely that the DNC will choose to nominate anyone but Obama...for an eligible incumbant not to run for a second term is pretty rare (Harry S. Truman declined to run again in 1952, and James K. Polk is famous for his insistence in only serving a single term). -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

There is actually, obamas opponet has one delegate--il'Dictator Mikal 22:55, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a strategy for which you vote for the party you are not for and vote for the most extreme candidate in the primary, but then vote for your (likely more electable) candidate in the regular election. sterile^talk 05:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

So what's the point in registering for your own party then? Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 05:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Party ID only applies to Primaries elections in states with closed primaries (closed to non-registered party members). This is how registered party members select a nominee for all posts (excluding president) such as mayor, councilman, congressman, senator, governor, etc. In caucus states, party members at the precinct level elect delegates to district and state conventions that in turn select nominees for the General Election.

In my state, I was registered as a Republican by ACORN in March 2008 so I could vote in the June Primary; I received my Voter Registration card in September of 2010, missing 2 state primary elections and off-year local primaries. Now, I could have shown up at the polls without the card to see if my name was on the rolls (we don't have same day registration), and could not have been denied if I didn't have the card nor be required to produce ID that I was that person on the rolls. Meantime, the Secretary of State who delayed sending me my card for two and one half years still awaits trial on other election related charges. nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 17:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait... registering to vote I can understand, but declaring your party allegiance up front? On a non-party specific form? So much for the secrecy of the ballot box. That is probably the most bullshit thing I've ever heard, besides the whole US electoral process. Damn, even here in the 3rd world, our votes are secret. Maybe the US system is designed to make it easier for Emperor Obama to send everybody to the FEMA camps. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 14:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

(sigh) As I said before, declaring a party allegiance makes you eligible to vote in party-specific primaries. Just because you declare an allegiance doesn't mean you have to vote along party lines (in fact, voter registration and your actual ballot are not linked at all). Voter registration has NOTHING to do with your actual vote, and it's controlled at the district/county/parish level, not the state or federal level. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

A-ha! Liberal style, that sighing. I still put it to you, that the number of people who vote differently to their allegiance is very small. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 15:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Certainly true. That being said, many American voters register as independent, and in many small races the city, district, county or even state rep level (e.g., county commissioner, sheriff, chief medical examiner, school board president, auditor, attorney general) have independent candidates or candidates who run unopposed, so it certainly isn't the polarized elections that the U.S. senator/presidential elections tend to be. Local judges, who are confirmed through nomination/appointment, are voted on by the constituency to that is, keep them in or kick them out, which makes that part quite interesting (I like Edward Abbey's method of voting when it comes to justices). -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The Primary Election process is a Progressive reform introduced by the liberal icon, Robert M. LaFolllette. A primary is a sort of run-off election in reverse. Party registrants choose a candidate, among several competing candidates of their party, to carry the Party banner in the General Election. What has not been properly explained here is, voters in the two major parties use different ballots. A registered Democrat is not given the same ballot a registered Republican is in a closed primary. Now, one could argue, for example, that a "registered Republican" means registered with election board officials, not registered with the Republican Party as a party member. And that certainly is true. Hence there is pattern among active members of both parties membership roster (including elected officials) of "cross registration" in years the opposition has a contested primary for a key position against an incumbent from one's own party. But remember, this process was instituted as a "Progressive reform" nearly a hundred years ago as a way of making more democratic process and limiting the influence of Party bosses who choose candidates in the back of smoke filled rooms. nobs^{I'm not a doctor but I play one with the girls} 19:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Tim Tebow excited

Man, he sounds excited.

Ace^Moderator 20:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody else here not give a shit about Tim Tebow? Sophie^{because liberals} 20:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Very much so. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It makes me excited when he says "Powuuuuuuuur". Ace^Moderator 20:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hands up those who have no idea who he is or why he's important. (hand)--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 19:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

(hand)Тy^Ahoy! 19:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand exactly why people think he's important, I just don't think those people are particularly right about it. ^pathetic 20:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The whole "I shot Manning Martin in self defense" business

What I have noticed, and haven't seen in the media yet (but someone may have mentioned it here), is that while the shooter is claiming self defense (and while Conservapedia trumpets it via Terry's blog) I think the one who was defending himself was Manning. If I were 17 and was being followed by a lumbering bear of a man who would have appeared no doubt to have been acting strangely (you know, like watching you and following you) I may have struck out with my fist also. Manning was defending himself from this guy which is why he apparently assaulted him. I reckon he should fry. Ace^Moderator 21:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

if the shooter is not prosecuted (and prosecuting might be a mistake) there can still be a civil wrongful death suit which is more likely to suceed. You might get an issue of a police agent (neighbourhood watch) violating the kids civil rights. Depends which lawyers jump in and when. 67.72.98.47 (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Manning? -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, for a sec I thought Bradley Manning had been assassinated or something. Just remember kids, names are important. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought Peyton Manning had been assassinated. We know the Tebow fans have guns an massive persecution complexes. Godspeed (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

This is getting tried in the public instead of a court which is very stupid. Oddly enough my brother in law, whom is a police officer for a large city, was complaining to me one night about a different issue (a few months before the shooting) that I have not heard anyone bitch about. He told me a story in which an officer was shot at and arrested the shooter. Three days later he arrested the same person (he comically says in his telling of the story 'Hey, didn't you take shots at me a few days ago?'). It seems prosecutors have some sort of discretion when it comes to which cases they take and look at their case history like a batting average that they don't want to blemish with a pesky thing like a hard fight for justice. So they let the criminals go without seeing a day in court. So far I hear the police initially wanted to file charges against Zimmerman but were told there is not enough evidence to secure a conviction. This needs to be in a court room. It sure is a sad time when the burden of proof rests with the state to unsubstantiate a claim of self defense when the victim is unable to tell his side of the story. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 15:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

New BBC Horizon - Global Weirding

docu wiki. anyone see it?--Godot What do cats dream about? 17:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No, but it's looking cheekily at me from iPlayer. Might watch it this evening. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Watched it last night. A bit disappointing, too much dramatic music. The basic message is that global warming is causing extreme weather patterns so that you can have record flooding followed by record droughts. Also the sun's cycle is very important and caused the little ice-age in Europe during the 17th century. Melting of Arctic ice will actually give the UK and continental US colder winters. Rising sea temps might cause hurricanes in Dubai. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 22:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, seconded. Nothing particularly new or substantial - not up to Horizon's usual standards. Beautifully filmed though but with an annoying over-reliance on tilt-shift. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

So what's new?

What have I missed on RW being gone for a few months? άλφα^Ταλκ 22:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Not a lot, trolls come and go; some guy with a lot of TL;dr posts on Cold fusion was around, robs back... brx sorta came back. --il'Dictator Mikal 22:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I resent that! I purposely stayed out of that discussion!:V ±KnightOfTL;DR^{sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic} 22:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

[2] Тy^rannis 22:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

What the hell kind of reference is that? Top item is something making it cover story status. Is that really the first thing you'd want to check on after a hiatus? ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

c over lambda. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Rob Smith s trolling us on an almost daily basis now that he's no longer a sysop at CP. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 22:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

@Seth - Well said. @Genghis - Ah, CP. Haven't though about them in a while. I guess I'll ask if anything is new there on its respective page. άλφα^Ταλκ 22:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Save you the trouble: going more and more isolated and insane--il'Dictator Mikal 22:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Why does rob hang around here? I like that he does, it gives discussions different angles even though most posts following his are bitching about how he spins things. I wonder if he likes it here better than CP considering he is free to say what he wants without it being labeled vandalism and fearing the banhammer. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 15:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Rob is an interesting specimen as he probably more representative of the American, anti-commie, fundie right rather than the doolally ramblings of Ken and Andy who are both completely bonkers. I've certainly come across many more Rob types on the internet than the other two. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

NYC Dept. of Education "forbidden words"

Apparently "dinosaur" and "evolution" are banned from tests because it may offend creationist students (yet conversely "creationism" and "intelligent design" are ok). MeMyselfI (talk) 02:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This is completely stupid. Now entire subjects or topics may be off limits for teaching, if this SOMEHOW (I doubt it!) passes and people actually heed it. What are they going to do now when they have their dinosaur unit? I remember we had this really cool poster of dinosaurs in my elementary school science classroom because they were a sciency thing that looked remotely interesting to the average 10 year old boy. (that wasn't some kind of explosion or radioactive superpower, anyway.) What are they gonna do? Just call them dragons? Somebody had BETTER protest this. I protest this. Too bad I don't vote in the state of NY... This had BETTER not go through! ±KnightOfTL;DR^{free guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain!} 02:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, can I get "NYC Dep't of Education" added to that list? Because they're too fucking embarrassing to ever be mentioned. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a suspicion this isn't being covered completely accurately by the media. I suspect this is an overreaction to the teacher in the news a few weeks back who had his elementary school kids do some math word problems which involved calculating the number of people terrorists killed. In an effort to prevent that sort of thing it seems they're trying to ban, or discourage, teachers from bringing controversial things like that into unrelated questions, which in the case of terrorism might be admirable, but this is obviously going way beyond the reasonable. I don't think it would prevent biology classes from discussing relevant topics. I could be wrong though. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 03:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Shush, now. Let the plebes be angry. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me while I bang my head on the wall. Seriously, what the fuck? Osaka Sun (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Just checking: we can still make "how many Creationists does it take to change a lightbulb?" jokes, right? Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 04:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Before you all freak out, I'd ask you to read the proposed rules themselves and not the ridiculously "light" version of them, i'm seeing on the news and facebook. They are stupid; they are NOT as stupid or overarching as the media portrays. For example "Dinosaur" is not restricted from the SCIENCE part of the test; it is restricted from the literature or cultural part of the test. "alien" which does not mean the things from space, has been restricted because almost inevitably it occurs with the word "illegal" and in a city like NY, there is a huge problem and kids know their parents are illegal aliens so any story relates to them differently than it does to other students. References to religious ceremonies and holidays are removed cause there really are kids who do not know what Christmas is. The intent is to reduce a child's stress level during the STATE MANDATED test taking. this in no way restricts what a teacher can teach, it in no way restricts the teaching of evolution and the testing ABOUT evolution (again, attached to the list of words is an explanation for most and exceptions for some, like dinosaur). I think the list is a stupid over reaction or an assumption that kids can't handle seeing things that are emotional for them. But that said, it's not just some list, generically created, with no thought behind it. --Godot What do cats dream about? 15:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Why Greece went bust

So what did the Greeks spend all their cheap Euro-loans on? Breast implants, apparently. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

A quite interesting article but I don't think it fully em... supports your conclusions. Also surprised that Venezuela was not higher in the chart.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 17:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

"Why Greece went bust." I see what you did there. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Please Help Me

I just got a new computer and it is seriously hell on me. I'm registered asperger, and changing to a new machine really screws me over. Using google sync, and some other online services, I have managed to reduce my suffering somewhat. But I still need help. How the hell do I make it so the "add new tab" button is always on the left side, and how the fuck do I make new tab windows not be cursive and red? This is using Firefox of course. Nobody uses IE. Dendlai (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This will not be helpful, but I just wanna say, being part of a community where the phrase "I'm registered asperger" will get no more than a nod from the average user is pretty cool. I'm an Ubuntu guy, so I can't really help you. Maybe Chrome is an easier set-up? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 14:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I like internet explorer 9. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 15:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Loser. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 15:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest searching for Firefox tab add-ons, there are probably dozens. Newtabking.com is one which touts itself as being fully customisable but I've no idea if it does what you need. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I've done anything goofy with my setup, but I think you can just right-click on it, click Customize..., then click and drag the new tab button to the left of your tabs. Cow...Hammer^time! 15:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What CowHammer said. Anything funny going on with your Firefox? --★uːʤɱ constructivist 16:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You can get addons for it but I used this method.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 16:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Chrome.--Dumpling (talk) 05:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Chrome is the devil. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

...Well, considering I'm evil now...Not a single fuck is given.--Dumpling (talk) 05:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I see your evil clone is here to stay. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps.--Dumpling (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Synthetic vs. Natural Vitamins

I was having an argument yesterday with a few of my family members over whether natural vitamins are more healthy for you than synthetic vitamins. They seem to think that natural vitamins somehow get processed by the body better than synthetic vitamins even if the chemical makeup is identical.

I've done some googling, but it seems almost no one cares about the difference other than people selling natural vitamins and other woo-peddlers. I know it falls under Naturalistic fallacy, but I can't seem to find a decent source specifically relating to vitamins. Can anyone help? Cow...Hammer^time! 18:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like trying to find a source that an apple is indeed an apple. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 18:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Haha very true. None if it makes any sense at all, really, which is probably why no one has bothered to do research on it.

Side note: I feel proud, at least, that I got my mother to stop taking olive leaf for immune boosting (or whatever bullshit she read about it) because one of the actual effects of olive leaf is lowering blood pressure and hers is already way too low. So that's something. Cow...Hammer^time! 18:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, taking "natural" vitamins, i.e. the vitamins that are already in the food, is better than taking the synthetic ones not because the vitamins are any different but because of all the the other things you get in the food such as minerals and other trace elements. People who eat crap processed food and then think they can make up for it by taking "synthetic" or even "natural" vitamin supplements are in danger of missing out of all the other goodies that proper food contains.

Vitamin and mineral supplements are not needed if you eat a balanced healthy diet of fresh food (unless, of course, you've got some medical condition that demands them). Ajkgordon (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

CowHammer did you mean the difference natural and synthetic vitamins in supplemental form or the difference between eating vitamin rich food vs synthetic vitamins? I was under the impression this related to the fact that vitamins somehow become magic if they are harvested from nature as opposed to created 'unnaturally' in a lab. Now... Back to my Rico's aged cheese with Flintstones vitamin sprinkles. Mmmmmm... TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 20:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I did mean in supplemental form, and yes the whole "theory" seems to run on magic. My family tends to eat well, so they're really not the kind of people who even need supplements in the first place. So it's really kinda moot, but one step at a time I guess. Cow...Hammer^time! 20:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

This is not completely bogus. Although the compounds / elements are essentially the same, they may differ in bioavailability, which depends on the overall chemical composition of food. For example, iron oxide will absorb differently than iron citrate, and both will absorb differently when there is some EDTA in the mixture. In some cases, for various reasons, the vitamins from supplements will absorb less readily than the vitamins from plants and other food. This says that taking the supplements when eating tends to increase absorption. Another problem is that relying on supplements promotes an unhealthy diet in general.

Regarding the question of whether there is some subtle difference between the vitamins from food and from supplements - no, there isn't, but that's not the only thing that matters. --Tweenk (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

If anyone ever talks about Vitamin B17 (and that it cures you of cancer) smash them over the head with the Big Book of Vitamins and tell them to look up the entry for Vitamin B17. Then watch them mutter something about Big Pharma conspiracy. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

they may differ in bioavailability - "what was causing the blockage of her sewer was hundreds of undigested vitamin pills, some of them with the brand names still readable." Sophie^{because liberals} 22:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Legend of Zelda Woo

If you need an amusing diversion, watch this guy use Legend of Zelda to take the piss out of colloidal silver, wheatgrass, and Power Balance. Doesn't stop a couple of woosters from sneaking into the comments, though. --CoyoteSans (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Couple of Woosters? Is Jeeves there too? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool video! Though I'm pretty sure that unlike the rest of us, Link lives in a world where 'it's magic' and 'Goddesses did it' are actually observable phenomenon. I guess health woomeisters wish they all lived in Hyrule!±KnightOfTL;DR^{yeah, well you fight like a cow!} 19:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

As an avid LARPer I would welcome a world where such things truly existed. Heck, I'd even welcome a world where God(s), angels and demons existed and Heaven and Hell were real places (a la Hellblazer). It's certainly possible to embrace and enjoy fantasy while still realizing that it is nothing more than that. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I used to LARP one or two years ago but I didn't get along with a lot of the people I ran with. Kind of a difference in maturity level. I'm more of the 'working together to save the day' type person and they were more of the 'LOOK AT MY ENORMOUS BACKSTORY I AM GOTHY ELF MCSADPANTS' people. My poor LARP sword is so neglected... ±KnightOfTL;DR^{garrulous en guerre} 20:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Nutty's campaign to scrub some CP material out of the wiki.

I think it's a good thing--like he hinted at in one edit comment, with the Foundation comes the question of money, and looking a smidge more serious would help fundraising as we try to focus harder on anti-science and woo and less on a couple of guys with ZERO social or political significance. As a compromise, maybe RWW could host silly pages like this and this and whatever else fits the bill? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 23:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Kill 'em all IMO. Тy^{Lonely. Ever so lonely.} 23:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Without saying this is a good idea or a bad idea the fact remains is that we need to have a cohesive, agreed on goal instead of one guy running around deleting shit he thinks is embarrassing or whatever. Ace^Moderator 23:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I started this discussion. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 23:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I said it before: Really, you behave as you have married upwards and are now trying to get rid of your family heirlooms as a paint-by-number picture of a couple of dogs playing poker drawn by your deceased uncle is beneath contempt for your new relatives...

There should be at least some kind of attic on this wiki... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 23:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

They're already in the attic. Тy^{sic semper} 23:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

There's still plenty of stuff around. sterile^talk 23:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Ace. If we're going to take a potshot at the guy, it's best we do it by being actually funny. CP's Atheism and Obesity page is basically just calling people that Andy and others at CP don't like fat. I don't really think we should promote that kind of immaturity. If we make pages about Andy and his shenanigans, let's make them funnier than the ones that we have now.±KnightOfTL;DR^{sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic} 23:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm behind it. Never understood why we spend so much time "taking down" a man who is already a joke. I mean, if you want to actually "take something down" why not CMI or Focus on the Family - groups that are actually a threat to sanity as we know it. But when you giggle and say "oh look, andy made a typo, and thinks obamma is dumb" i just wonder what the point is. And it does look bad. Godot What do cats dream about? 23:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Larron - curious, but what value does it bring to RW? I mean a few really well written articles, of course... but the vast amount of space devoted to CP. what does it bring us?Godot What do cats dream about? 23:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, giggling about him when he does something funny on a talk page seems OK to me. But making terrible flame pages to a guy who pretty much makes fun of himself is just kind of silly.±KnightOfTL;DR^{sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic} 23:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

CP is still very anti-science, and despite rumors to the contrary, does bring in editors. sterile^talk 23:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not on a campaign to scrub CP material from the wiki. Some of it is critically important to the mission. I'm interested in seeing us rid of the stuff that makes us look like a bunch of spasmodic 13 year olds. 00:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait, we're not? (Joke.) sterile^talk 00:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Say, Ty, why don't you be a dear and do the following: create this page and fill it with a list of every CP-related article on the wiki, each with a keep/delete poll. There's a shiny nickel in it for you. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 00:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

CP-space is already its own little ghetto. I don't really care what people do with it so long as random CP material stays in the CP-space playpen. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There are some good things in CP space. I like the Conservapedian relativity, or the Schafly statistics articles, for example. Most of the stupid stuff is on the "fun" space.--Tlaloc (talk) 00:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The Ken articles are great and actually transcend CP in the he appears on so many forums and has been mentioned by PZ, Penn etc etc. Ace^Moderator 00:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of which, the conservapia's relativity is better than our "conservative" one, which is a huge problem. We should really move lots of that stuff over as CP just stole their ideas from other conservatives. Godot What do cats dream about? 02:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the list put together, yeah we'll need to clean out that attic with a flamethrower — But there's some stuff in there that I'd like to save, just not as single articles. I'd say we make two new articles/lists, one for minor, erm, "characters" and one for their very special language, Diccionarium Conservapediaum (or whatever the correct Latin form is) so to speak. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 03:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't realised there was so much dross. We do need to put a lot of our juvenile past behind us but at the same time keep a record of the idiocy, deceit and shenanigans at CP. There may also be a case for cleaning up captured images which are generally unsorted and uncategorised. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 07:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

CP article deletion debate

Because it was a giant recent changes cluster fuck it won't appear there anymore. So as not to be accused of covering it up I am alerting people here to check out RationalWiki:Do we keep these CP-related articles? if you care. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I love you. 05:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

OKIE DOKE.--Dumpling (talk) 05:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If you love him so much, why don't you marry him? </ 12-year-old> Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

We spend a lot of time together talking about our feelings and holding each other. That's good enough for me. 05:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I am against the marriage of two such as you. It goes against my religion to see two geeks marry eachother. Therefor, I am offended by the whole discussion.--Godot What do cats dream about? 14:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Man, CP-space has so much utter shit - David Gerard (talk) 09:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... scary. The whole place has the odd "what the fuck is that" article, but CP is knee (waist? neck?) deep in it.--Godot What do cats dream about? 14:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

OH, bummer, I'm too late. I don't get to see how truly bad those articles were. sobs... ;-) --Godot What do cats dream about? 14:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense, they're still there, go check it out. Тy^Talk 14:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually that's the problem. There seems to be mountain of them to read through and evaluate. It looks a tad time-consuming.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 14:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we should do it in rounds of 5 or so at a time to encourage people to vote. Cow...Hammer^time! 14:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

My idea was just keep the articles on the players, the main events, some key things like 90/10 and the like, and the lectures. Everything else is not really worth it for a not funspace article. --il'Dictator Mikal 15:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

We started trying to clean up funspace a while back, & it just got abandoned as it was time-consuming & unrewarding & people lost interest. Same might happen here if we try to get consensuses on each individual article. I think with both CP & fun, there's so much pure crap that a lot of the pages could just be speedy-deleted by whoever wants to go through them, and only ones with at least some substantial content should go through the full delete-nomination process. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I have very very little interest in CP. But if the articles are not in mainspace what is the problem? What about an automatic template on each one pointing out that it's not the main focus of the site?--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 20:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that many of them make us look like assholes. The tone is childish. The analysis is shit. If nobody cares about that, then funspace is a superduper idea! Just put everything embarrassing in funspace and let strangers who come in on Google searches figure out for themselves what we wish to convey about ourselves as intellectuals and what all's just fun and games (that 13 years might enjoy)! 20:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with nutty. you are judged by what people see in 'you'. Articles that are mean and petty make us look mean and petty. and saying "it's not our main focus" though we have tons of articles on CP just feels like Romeny saying "I don't believe in health care reform, though I signed it into law in my other life". Godot What do cats dream about? 20:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Nutty. Тy^{Serious Business Guy} 20:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Santorum just went Capital N.

I really had to go on the Internet this early in the morning, eh? Osaka Sun (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

No Youtube on this box, and no idea what "Capital N" is, maybe Nuts? But I did read today that Santorum supported a policy (for which he's now getting a drubbing by the US right wing) that I actually agree with. People shouldn't in general be barred from voting just because they committed a crime.

The EU forced the UK to change policy on this fairly recently too. Traditionally the UK had legally denied the vote to prisoners or escapees, and effectively prevented other people in a prison from voting by simply neglecting to provide any means to vote. The EU said that it's fine to take away a criminal's vote only if the government can show why that specifically makes sense for their crime. Caught stuffing ballots? No more voting for you. Bribed an election official? Jerrymandered a city's wards? Sure. But why should someone locked up for dealing cocaine or stealing cars lose their vote? The British government fought this case for a while and then reluctantly said it might condescend to allow some inmates guilty of "less serious" crimes to vote and provide a means for all the non-criminals who are locked up (e.g. awaiting trial, held for contempt) to vote.

Now Santorum's position was way more conservative than that. He wasn't up for gang members voting in jail, or even for paroled thieves showing up at the polling station. He just wanted to let ex-convicts eventually get their vote back. But evidently that's too extreme for the "All poor people should be permanently enslaved inside privately owned prisons" right wing of the US and he's taken a beating for it. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 13:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Fuckin' Osaka is a tool; after all his time here, he still can't write a section headline or provide a link to save his life. He expects people to be able to read minds. The story in question is here. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 13:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

/sarcasm? Osaka Sun (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct! Tell us what she's won, Johnny. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 14:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

While I love hating on santorum, does the phrase "Government nigger" really make sense to anyone? He was going to say something, stumbled when the word (not nigger) didn't fit with what his mind said, and moved on. Godot What do cats dream about? 14:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Welfare dependency immediately comes to mind, and he's made those kind of comments in the past. But who knows. Osaka Sun (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible he was speaking from a teleprompter and someone fucked with it to see if they could get him to use a racial epithet? Sort of like on Anchorman? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Given teh entire context was foreign policy, i'm guessing his mind was trying to feed him something like "negitator" which is a bad word to them. he wants to Talk - that weak bellied sniper. But either way, "Consider obama the candidate, the anti war obmam, the government Nsmutz Obama, the "get us out of here' obama. Nigger just don't fit there. Godot What do cats dream about? 15:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That leaves one question then: Why wouldn't he finish the word? If he did say negotiator, is he that naive that it would be construed that way? Osaka Sun (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Cause you touch yourself at night. Futurama makes me smile though, thanks. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 17:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Information" and evolution

I keep coming across the term "information" as used by Anti-evo folks to "prove" evo isn't possible. The general statement being "How can you increase information?" WE have a fork page on "information" and 5 or so articles that are maybe on the topic or maybe not. Would anyone be willing to write something that could help non-scientists like me, use the resources we have at RW to answer this idiotic question? It might be as simple as putting short summaries on the information fork page, so those of us "not in the know", know which "information" is meant -- if any. or we might want an entire section of some page addressing "creationists meaning of information". both of which i suspect we have - it's just a matter of not being "inside", and making better guide posts. Thanks! Godot What do cats dream about? 16:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

B... bwah? How does one redefine the term 'information?' Everything that has a meaning, in any language, symbol, sign, or communication is information. Anything able to be interpreted to have meaning (such as the direction of a compass, or the flow of a river) is also information. Wrong things are information. The fact that when you see black clouds, it may mean rain is information. A blue-footed booby's mating dance is vital information to other blue footed boobies. Taking your finger and going 'bllllbt!' on your lips in response to a sarcastic comment is information. The Bible is information. So is a term paper, and so is a book on alchemy from before the establishment of chemistry. But just because something is information it doesn't mean that it's illuminating, particularly related to what is at hand, meaningful to the topic, correct, or supported by evidence. I don't understand what such people are trying to accomplish, or if they've even stopped to think about what information actually is before they define it so ambiguously. How does one increase information? Try not shutting yourself in a tiny grey box. That ought to increase the amount of interpreted stimulus that passes through your brain! ±KnightOfTL;DR^{free guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain!} 16:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

This and that related? TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 17:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a really idiotic (mis-)application of information theory#Creationist information theory. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this just another restatement of the creationist view of entropy? They typically fail to understand the difference between closed and open systems.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 17:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much, but dressing up old talking points in new language is the goal of cdesign proponentsism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, dude. This is not a can of worms you want to open. If you want to see what happens when you ask a creationist what they mean by "information", just go over to ASoK and search the talk pages. The short version is they have no idea what this information is, how it is stored, transmitted or metered. But they sure know that you don't have any new information, whatever it is. It still gives me a headache just thinking about those conversations.... --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I"m not really science informed and don't want to walk on toes, but can we make the "creationist theory" it's own article, and on the "information" fork page, help people like me find out what these creationsits are trying to suggest. Godot What do cats dream about? 17:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If I was still a day trader...

I would have invested heavily (short term) in Ohio Arts and Mars, Inc in the last couple of weeks. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Meh hindsight is always 20/20. When AMR (american airlines) announced bankruptcy you could of bought at the instant @.2 bottom and sold at $1 a day later. So you know... add that on to your pile of regrets. Are you in the market now? Which stocks are you invested in if you don't mind me asking? I am mostly into tech stocks. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 17:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Not really...and I did LOUSY with AMR. I'm not a day trader anymore because I kinda sucked at it. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Should've gone in on Best Buy! I got lucky yesterday buying puts. άλφα^Ταλκ 20:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Fun with animation

A friend of mine posted this on my facebook, and it's fun to tool around with for a bit. άλφα^Ταλκ 20:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Fitocracy

Just a reminder since I haven't bugged anyone about this for a while: we have our own Fitocracy group! Work out your body, not just your mind!--^talk 07:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

What do I do when I gt to that page?--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 07:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Register for an account and join up! I think this link should work to invite you!--^talk 07:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It's the invite code thing which is confusing me.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 07:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Joined (I already had an account). -- Seth Peck (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I've always thought that once the nerds found a way to get physically fit that the world would end... ^bomination 15:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Obligatory unfunny xkcd comic. - π 03:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Singed up, found RW, but entering data looks like a pain. When is the Android app coming out?--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 17:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I don't know... there might already be a mobile version.--^talk 20:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It works best on Google Chrome if you're not using a phone. The mobile website is actually pretty good (I have an Android phone and don't have any problems), I use it on a daily basis to track my workout while I'm working out. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Any idea if this lets you track your distances/time via your phone? I use a system now that I can hit "start", walk, hit "done" and it logs how far and fast I walked, then uploads it. Godot What do cats dream about? 21:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Fitocracy doesn't, but MapMyWalk does...I use them both, and use the statistics from MMW to log the workout in Fitocracy (for the points). -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Speak of the devil - just in the past few days they've launched a new app and overhauled the whole site!--^talk 02:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Fuck yeah! Number 1 baby. - π 03:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Shut Up Gun

From the "not another screwball non-lethal weapon" department, Japanese researchers have developed a prototype gun to make you stop talking already. What's the verdict here: is this just another example engineers wooing it up, or is the science behind this concept legit? And more importantly, would any of us be able to resist the urge to use one whenever our crazy uncles start jabbering on about socialized Marxism? After all, what good is "freedom of speech" if you are unable to speak... --CoyoteSans (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

When I see a link to a site called "Singularity Hub," my engineer woo-o-meter goes berserk. I don't think you need any science to explain this, just the fact that you're pointing a big vaguely gun-looking thing with a laser pointer at people. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would have preferred to find a less hyperbolic site to link to, but the original project page is in Japanese and a nightmare to navigate. And yeah, skimming that site from time to time is a guilty pleasure of mine. --CoyoteSans (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Misread that as "big vagina gun" at first. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The principle is boringly simple. A fairly low-level part of your brain is responsible for managing the half-duplex spoken language channel. So if you're about to speak and someone else speaks instead, you stop. It has a filter which disregards your own voice and local echoes of that voice so that you can speak without detecting that speech as a conflict on the channel and stopping. But if you delay the sound slightly, this overrides the filter and you interrupt yourself. A crude PA system or a huge echoing natural environment can both trigger this naturally, making ordinary people unable to speak because the channel management system tells them they're constantly interrupting someone (themselves). This "gun" just uses that same effect. You can (but probably shouldn't because it's rude and will make people want to punch you) train yourself to ignore the channel management and then the gun won't work on you. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If you've ever used VOIP, you've probably already experienced it. It's extremely hard to keep talking when you're getting your own voice echoed back at you. It's very distracting. I don't know how well it works to actually stop determined speakers, but they've probably invented a weapon of mass annoyance. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Kill, kill, kill, kill, kill the poor!

Paul Ryan is back with a budget that makes the "Path to Prosperity" look good! Romney, in his best pundit-speak accent, calls it a "bold and exciting effort." (Title ref for the oblivious.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Imagine if this thing got passed, even more so in another recession? I'd never think a libertarian Great Leap Forward could be an actual term. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It baffles me how someone can actually think this is a good idea. More poor people and poorer poor people doesn't exactly scream a prosperous and strong economy... ±KnightOfTL;DR^{just shut up already} 06:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Damnit, I was hoping this was a thread about the Dead Kennedys...... The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 09:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be a tactic of Republican Party; Step 1: Heavily opppose any state controlled welfare. Step 2: Let a changed version of the welfare programm through. Step 3: Cut, hinder, block and manipulate the program. Step 4: Don't talk about cutting needed programms, blame the programs directly and with that the state. Step 5: Get elected because obviously the Democrats/sane people can't do the job. Step 6: Abolish the programm. Step 7: Instead of putting the needed money into other programs, cut taxes. Step 8: Take another program and go back to step one. --★uːʤɱ secularist 14:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It kills me because everything I learned in the social inequality class I took for my sociology requirement said that taking away services actually keeps people poorer and away from jobs. No public transportation? People who can't afford cars can't commute or even just move around outside their local area, thus getting the job and money to improve their money situation. No social support? People have limited ability to satisfy their basic needs while looking for a job, and as such just don't look for better jobs and are more concerned with just surviving. Poorer education budget? A whole slew of terrible effects on not just the economy but the population and what it thinks, how it votes, and how it lives. It's not even a political ideology. It's not particularly liberal or conservative to say 'Hm, we're making poverty in our country worse. Maybe we should not do this. It negatively impacts the image of our country and has negative effects on the smooth operating of said country.' ±KnightOfTL;DR^{just shut up already} 16:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

"It baffles me how someone can actually think this is a good idea." That depends on what your goal is. If it's to pawn off the US to corporate oligarchs, then it's a brilliant idea! Either that, or you need to scrub your brain clean of all that Marxist college indoctrination, read your Charles Murray, and get with the cognitive elite. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Captchas

So, I don't really care why RW has switched from ReCaptcha. Whether it was a matter of principle, or economics, or convenience. Whatever. I doubt it will help you in any way, but I donated about tuppence and I'm only a BoN so it's not my site and thus not my decision.

However, I can't answer them most of them time. e.g. they'll say "Enter the third and fifth letters from the site logo" or whatever. And I will look at the logo, just to check whether it has somehow changed, but it has not. So I wrote to. Apparently that's wrong. I don't know why it's "wrong". I doubt any humans know. But probably the automation will figure out the "correct" answers so spammers will be able to edit more easily than me. That does not seem like the Right Thing™. Before just ceasing to edit altogether I thought I'd mention it here. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we seem to have a problem with the experimental new system. It should be fixed...I don't know, when Trent next has a minute. Don't stop trying though! Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 08:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Signing up for an account would help you here. There's no reason you have to keep editing as a raw IP. You'd certainly have to fill in less CAPTCHAs. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Has that silly new system been switched on already? I agree with BoN; the proposed questions I've seen look pretty unreliable. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If you only watch one thing today...

...make it this. --PsyGremlinFale! 11:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

And people wonder why "in the beginning, there was..." doesn't impress me. ^bomination 11:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I immediately thought of this clip from the film Tree of Life.

Sitting in the hall drinking beer

So it's 1:26am and I have a house guest sleeping in one part of the house and my wife sleeping in our section of the house so where does that leave Ace? Slumped in the fucking hallway drinking beer and telling you dumb fucks about it. Christ almighty, this is some bullshit. Ace^Moderator 12:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hallway? No porch? No kitchen table? --PsyGremlinSprich! 12:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Bathtubs are usually my favorite last resort for sleeping. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 12:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, what am I doing wrong with the sigs?

I thought I'd create 2 of them, one relatively simple, one a bit more elaborate--and thus for less common uses. I read Help:Wikisig until I got some understanding. I checked out the templates of others. I made my attempt. I notice two problems. First, the image file pages are noting all the pages I use the sigs on. Second no time or day. I need help. Until then, I'll use the regular sig. Thanks in advance for comments.Civic Cat (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

First, the image file pages are noting all the pages I use the sigs on. That's what image file pages do; where's the problem? Second no time or day. ~~~ Signature, no timestamp. ~~~~ Signature with timestamp. ~~~~~ Timestamp, no signature. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Weaseloid, I just searched some of the files that are used on varying signatures, and they seem to bear you out. Very well. Okay, just making sure that if some RationalWikian just randomly stumbled on Binturong file page and sees all the pages it's been on, the hundreds and hundreds of pages, he/she won't say, "HOLY MARY MOTHER OF GOD!!! WHO THE FUCKS BEEN PUTTING THIS IMAGE IN THESE HUNDREDS OF TALK PAGES!!! I MEAN FUCKIN' FUCK FUCK!!! WHAT RETARD HAS BEEN VANDALIZING THESE PAGES?!? I NOMINATE HIM TO BE BANISHED FROM RATIONAWIKI FOR 10 AEONS AT THE VERY LEAST!!!. Very well. As for the time and date stamp, you signed your post {{User:Weaseloid/sig|}} with no ~~~ ~~~~ nor ~~~~~, and yet I see the time. How didja do it? Did you do it and I can't see it, or is there other magic you use?Civic Cat (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not magic; they do it with computers. I type ~~~~ which adds my signature^{{{User:Weaseloid/sig|}}} as recorded in my user preferences, plus the date & time automatically. This is covered in the Help page. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it says stuff about preferences. I'll re-read it. But until then, I'm now presuming that if you typed "{{User:Weaseloid/sig|}}~~~~~", you'd get the same result as above, or maybe I would in regards to my name. Okay, I'll try it. I'll type"{{User:Civic Cat/Sig1}}~~~~" and then "{{User:Civic Cat/Sig2}}~~~~~." This is what I get.Talk to Civic Cat19:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC) User:Civic Cat/Sig219:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC).

Sorry folks. Soon gotta go. I'll read your comments and consider them carefully. Thanks for the help.Civic Cat (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The tildes are a shortcut for your sig. You don't need to type your sig and tildes. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 22:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've enterred my first as a preference and will end this post with just 4 tildes. I suppose I'll use the template and 5 tildes for the second. Let's see if it works. Civic Cat   16:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I clicked to edit the template, noted a break in the script, corrected it, re-entered it, checked for error, found none, entered, and now will try again: 4 tildes. Civic Cat    ^{Talk to Civic Cat}   16:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

size of image

Thanks to the above for help. But one more thing. Should I upload a shrunken version of the binturong image lest the current image be using too much computer juice?User:Civic Cat/Sig219:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

No, a resized version is unnecessary. The scaled down versions of images are generated automatically when they are first needed. --Tweenk (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Warning: Upsetting pic inside [spoiler: it's teh gays]

Truly sickening.

Urist,

Let me warn you right now, this story is disgusting.

Unfortunately, the worst stories are often the ones that need to be told the most.

As you know, since the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), the Homosexual Lobby has been pumping the military full of their propaganda and filth.

They’ve instructed homosexuals in uniform to flaunt their new found privileges.

And any member of the armed services who speaks out against it is publically [sic] condemned.

Last fall our nation saw one of the Navy’s most time-honored traditions, the first kiss of a ship’s homecoming, befouled when it was performed by two female Petty Officers.

And now this... the latest homosexual craze being promoted by the liberal media.

A U.S. Marine... just returning home... with his legs wrapped another homosexual in public.

If you care to see the image, you can click here look to the right. But let me warn you again -- it is disturbing.

My friend, this is what they have planned for our future.

This is what they want the military to look like.

And any soldier who doesn’t like it faces immediate punishment.

Well, it might not be that long before men and women who embrace morality are banned from service.

You and I have to remain vigilant for the Homosexual Lobby’s schemes to further corrupt our military.

The loss of Don't Ask Don't Tell has certainly done a lot of damage, but I will never stop fighting to restore it...

...and to restore the right’s of the men and women serving in uniform to be free from radical homosexualism.

The greatest dangers still lie before you and me...

Will you face this fight with me?

For the Family,

Nihilist

P.S. Please prayerfully consider chipping in with a donation of $10 or more to help Public Advocate RationalWiki fight for traditional values.

That pic is hawt. And I'm pretty straight. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 01:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm a big ol' homo with a thing for men in uniform. That picture is uber-hawt. MDB (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That was formatted so crappily I'm not even going to read it. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That's Public Advocate for you. Nihilist 01:28, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

"Look at me!

As more as I hit the return key

as more every sentence looks important!"

No, it doesn't. --★uːʤɱ soviet 03:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, it looks a bit better when it's condensed in an email. Nihilist 04:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Awww~--Dumpling (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Tangential comment

Why did the kissing marines' picture cause so much "uproar" and hand-ringing and this picture back in December didn't? Slow news day when the marines came home? Or was it just the usual homophobic lesbians==hawt, dudes==gross? - π 13:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Gays expose all the sexual insecurities of the conservatives. Deep down they are just afraid of being raped. Existence of gays makes them feel vulnerable and no longer in control of sex. In their world, it's the woman's role to be vulnerable. Their homophobia is just a manifestation of sexism. --Tweenk (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Unicow responds

Thank you for bringing this to my attention and I agree this is aesthetically displeasing however not so much as the transparent body bag with internal organs no longer internal, or the Arab girl dug up from the bomb raid with eye sockets packed with dust. Keynsian economists such as Dean Baker (the gentleman who is credited with being the first to recognize the housing bubble) are claiming it is a good time for the Federal to borrow and spend lots of money, while Austrian "economists" such as Peter Schiff or Ron Paul are claiming that is what caused these problems. Med Jones seems to have the most correct predictions and he is saying the wars are not going to be good for the US economy, meaning they are not likely to be "won" unless the goal is to create more war and weaken the US. That said, Bradley Manning was looking damn fine posing at that hacker party. Unicow (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

April Fool

Adblock is doing it right. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 04:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's getting its usual "we did something on mainpage, people are crying we aren't an encyclopedia" bullshit. --il'Dictator Mikal 04:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Google Maps has the best one right now. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If this Toonami thing is only for tonight...My emotions have been toyed with.--Dumpling (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

BMW one isn't as funny this year[3]. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Aside from the misspelling of "Underground lairs" this is quite funny[4]. A list of the good ones this year is here. The Lynx one is a keeper. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

...For those who loved Toonami...

...It's Back! Playing Gundam Wing right now. So excited.--Dumpling (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Do they still play the bestest anime ever, Dragon Ball? Nihilist 05:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You just missed it. It was DragonBall, Gundam Wing (Which just finished), next is Tenchi Muyo, and Outlaw Star.--Dumpling (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Great, because nothing makes me more nostalgic than little kids with monkey tails/sweaty insanely overpowered shirtless dudes duking it out in the sky with flying punches and energy blasts. Nihilist 05:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

INDEED.--Dumpling (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Gundam Wing was my gateway drug, not only into anime, but into fandom, especially fanfiction. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The only good thing about DBZ is that the people who watch it will one day go, "Hey, I wonder if the Japanese ever made any good anime?" --PsyGremlinParla! 09:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, though I apply the same sentiment to Yu Yu Hakusho. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:07, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

shills toonami aftermath 24/7 live stream--il'Dictator Mikal 06:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Conservative Teen magazine

Did nobody mention "the lamest magazine ever" (see also [5]), or I've missed the discussion? Can some USAn get a copy? This could be a fun article.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Guess what? --PsyGremlin話しなさい 14:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

O.o I swear it didn't appear in the search results when I looked for it!--ZooGuard (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I have decided...

That the liberal worldview is correct and that communism is the way to go. The North Koreans have it right; the only one's that deserve to live above poverty levels are government officials. And you know what, everybody should subscribe to socialist medicine and attend public schools, and the wishes of the liberal labor unions should come before quality care and education for patients and students. Additionally, everybody should get food stamps, or better yet, private grocery stores should be banned and replaced with government canteens. After all, why should people get to decide what the eat anyway? All red meat ought to be banned because it's bad for you and is bad for the environment. If we continue to eat red meat and drive cars the planet is going to melt because of global warming. In fact, I think the government should limit the number of times people can go to the bathroom per day, because going to the bathroom contributes to global warming. So does breathing, which is why I think we should all follow China with their one-child policy.
And before anybody does anything rash, look at your calendar, because it's April Fools Day! DMorris2 (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You know, clever people don't need to put "April Fools" after their pranks. Also tl;dr. --PsyGremlinParlez! 14:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

What I found funnier is what you think liberals believe. - π 14:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

^ and I have decided that you're still a delightful example of a Poe. 14:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

When I first starting reading this I was thinking "wow, we're finally getting through to people! Thank Darwin! Our communist paradise we envision will come to fruition after all!" Then I saw the "April Fools" at the end, and now you've ruined my day. Thanks a lot. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow, do you honestly think that most liberals are communists, and look to North Korea as a model of what society should look like? That's some Rob-level stupidity right there. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 15:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that's what happens when somebody stops to listen to what the other side says and only listens to what the own side says. DBag, protip: stick to practical jokes. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 15:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Candidates not pulling out of the race

So ricky is going with the line even if he loses wisconsin he isnt gonna pullout, the others have much the same attitudes to the more consistent failures they keep having. I find it amusing that they want to shoot the chances of a republican victory more in the foot by dragging out a battle while obama just gets to prepare for the important bit. --il'Dictator Mikal 15:11, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I can see the headlines now. "RICK SANTORUM DOESN'T PULL OUT." ±KnightOfTL;DR^{just shut up already} 15:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Running for President is like a crack addiction -- it ends when you're out of money. nobs^{Debate topic: Should AIG reorganize, get into the healthcare insurance business, and purchase FANNIE MAE securities with the insured's premiums?} 17:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The annual sit-in-the-dark-for-an-hour-and-feel smug festival.

Is anybody else doing Earth hour tonight? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 23:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Apparently I did it all wrong since I didn't feel any more smug than usual. Vulpius (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any point, and during that time, neither does anyone doing the Earth hour thing. --CoyoteSans (talk) 23:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I have all my lights switched off for about 18 hours a day anyway. ^bomination 23:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I sit in the dark for an hour or more every night. I'm usually asleep. As an aside, my campus is so overlit, we will never appear dark from the sky. We have a street lamp every fifteen feet, and it's so bright out at night it feels like I am in a really big cave. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{more at 11} 23:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Insert obligatory North Korea joke here. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

it;s 90 outside, i like playing games on my computer, and my light is currently only turn ofable if i turn my fan off as well, so no, fuck the earth. --il'Dictator Mikal 23:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware of Earth Hour. But I did just discover that I'd left the light on in my spare bathroom for like a week without realising. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Earth hour is a load of look-at-me-being-good crap that achieves nothing. Light bulbs, even incandescents, use less energy than computers or TVs, but they don't get turned off. It would be better to make earth hour into "turn off the TV and computer and go read a book" hour. Sophie^{because liberals} 10:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

So is it just the lights that get turned out? I'd assumed it was all electric devices (with exception of things like the fridge that you basically have to keep on). That does seem like an arbitrary pointless gesture. So does doing it in the middle of the evening. If you want to save an hour's lights/electricity, going to bed an hour earlier would seem the best way of timing it, rather than making yourself sit in the dark for an hour before turning stuff back on. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)