RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive185

This is an archive page, last updated 9 January 2013. 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>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>

, (new)(back)

Celebs & Science

2012's edition to download (pdf) Scream!! (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Why Can't They Let Him Be?

Canadian government is, once again, stripping Helmut Oberlander of his Canadian citizenship and is facing possible deportation over his connection to a Nazi killing unit.

Oberlander and his family have always maintained that he was conscripted into a Nazi death squad — Einsatzkommando 10a, which operated behind the German army’s front line in the eastern occupied territories during the Second World War — under duress.

No evidence has been presented in court that he personally participated in war crimes. Oberlander always said he served only as a translator in the unit and never participated in any killings.--Cms13ca (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As a Canadian, let me give you my nuanced take on this: Sucks to be him. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 14:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, those units didn't take draftees, so he's lying. Even if not, he had options. Like being a draft dodger or requesting assignment elsewhere. Besides, he should count his lucky stars that cooler heads then mine were incharge in the '40s. If I was in a position to do anything about it, the entire Einsatzkommando would have been publicly executed.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What is it about RW?

For one reason or another I've referenced an RW article to outsiders before. The first was on "raw milk". The response was (literally) "that article advocates drinking a white nutrient free soup". The second was on "chemtrails" and the person claimed he'd already read it, and basically called me an idiot for not bothering to deconstruct his particular experience. Then, called me an asshole when I said nothing other then RW article needed to be said. Wtf is it with RW that makes people react like this?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Wait, you tried to convince a chemtrailer? Those are widely known as the most gullible and stupid of all conspiracy theorists. I mean, seriously, these are the people who boil vinegar thinking it'll protect them. ^narchist 06:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think he was really a chemtrailer, just an idiot.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 06:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Weren't you a former chemtrailer, Armond? :-) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Moon hoaxer, purr-leeze, not a Vinegar Warrior. ^postate 09:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's because we are very in-your-face in our refutations of people's nonsense; kinda like pouring ice cold water on the face of someone who has overslept and missed their alarm. While they may grow to appreciate what you did, for now, at least, they are mad that you did it. And as the primary writer of the raw milk article, I personally challenge any raw milker to come debate with me. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 13:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Some of our articles are a bit too snark-heavy, which can look churlish. Also, "nothing other than RW article needed to be said" isn't the best tactic if you're trying to convince someone that they're wrong. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

A good RW article's like a portal to the actual sources; going through the article's claims and providing citations would be a good tactic, methinks; shoving the article in front of them and saying it's all they'll need isn't going to work. Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me} 16:14, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

What was fun about the "raw milk" debate is that after I posted the link and the two people I was debating ignored it, I just used the references and after a bit one stopped responding to the thread wholesale. The other one started in some pseudo-conspiracy theory about how because the FDA didn't post every detail of their study in a public fora, they could be hiding something, like the milk was left out in the sun for a week. --Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That sounds quite positive in contrast to talking to Kent and Eric Hovind's sycophants followers. At least one of your people read the references. ^gnostic 07:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

He only read the references after I divorced them RW and spammed another dozen websites all saying that "raw milk" = listeria.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Arguing about pseudoscience: a useful analogy

Gish gallop in the pub: Grauniad. ^{Note for furriners: Manchester is a northern(ish) English town that is home to (probably) the most famous football(soccer) team in the world with most trophies in its cabinet(probably).} Scream!! (talk) 13:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course this doesn't translate well to a 'Merkin audience, since the shooting would eclipse anything that was said prior to the shooting. C®ackeЯ

I know I'm missing the point, but I can't get over the idiocy of trying to convince somebody that their favorite football team is not the best football team.--"Shut up, Brx." 16:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I got a good laugh out of it despite being on the wrong side of the pond and knowing naught about sports; then again, I'm an Anglophile. Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me} 16:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, Manchester United should be your ideal team, HK - the usual joke about them is that they have no fans actually in Manchester itself. Sophie^Wilder 17:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

That is the point. ^postate 07:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sen. Dianne Goldman Feinstein Is A Loaded Gun Out to Destroy America

... is the title of a really long spam mail I just got, and the thing really has to be seen to be believed (executive summary: "Communistic-socialist ideas work for rich and powerful Americans, who are mainly counterfeit-Jewish."). Is this thing making the rounds right now, or am I somehow special? (Not sure which would be more terrifying.) --Yukabacera (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

... Counterfeit jewish? Is someone printing off jews now? --Revolverman (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

"Counterfeit Jewish" seems to be either dicking about with the lines between Jews (ethnicity) and Jews (religion), or it's pulling a No true Yhudi. Polite Timesplitter ^{talk to me sugar, but best keep it on the}_down-low 12:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's just an excuse for antisemitism while pretending it isn't antisemitic. It's a recurring canard among racist conspiracy theorist types; see here for example. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, they like doing that; it's actually mentioned in our article on anti-semitism. This guy (of Nazi UFOs fame) devoted a whole chapter to the myth in his second book, after the first one got banned for antisemitic content. Apparantly he hoped the authorities would fall for it. (They didn't.) --Yukabacera (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Counterfeit Jewish strikes me as an oblique reference to the kind of Judaism real Jews have, and fundies don't by virtue of accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. Honestly, minus the Protocols reference and perhaps talking about Jews a little much, this isn't markedly different than what you'll find on Hurlbut's site. If you haven't seen him write about Israel, go now. You will cringe. And read a little more. And shudder. 17:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

On cunts and the misery thereof

What a pack of miserable cunts you people are. ^{— Unsigned, by: 109.68.196.112 / talk / contribs}

Hi ken, show some guts and use user:newton or do you lack machismo ? Ole Ole Ole Naca (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Not Ken, but by and large I think we're a pretty happy bunch. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 14:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I resent that: I am not a pack! Miserable, yes, Cunt, Ain't got one. But pack? NO! Scream!! (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Say after me: "We're all individuals." --PsyGremlin^Sprich! 14:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Haha like mr.unsigned i felt similar rage toward 'RationalWiki'. Now i'm not expecting an impartial article...because A) it doesn't exist, and B) that's what wikipedia is for.

But my goodness, some of the shit on here is totally non-sequitir. I'm not even conservative yet i felt rage reading some of this leftist bias. this place doesn't stand for reason, science or free thought. Not if you can't see the value and importance of A) perspective, and B) moderation. Take the Geert Wilders article....How is he racist? and categorised neatly as Batshit crazy? If he claims to act in the name of reason and humanism, shouldn't you investigate that? see the other side of the story? Now that fool Mr.wilders may have a provocatively aryan hairstyle but he's criticising a religion not a 'race'. Religion, especially in heinously intolerant forms, should not be allowed to go uncriticised. And I should point out to those self-loathing far leftists, that religion should be criticised regardless of what 'race' may be behind it's main following. If you don't think so, then you can't honestly believe in free thought. If don't attempt to uphold an attitude of rationality, then what's the point of the name? I guess a ranting bastard like me should edit articles i don't like instead of cursing about them. And Yeah that's right. You just think i'm a dirty right-winger, eh? well, the rational person is a questioning person. ^{— Unsigned, by: Charidemus / talk / contribs}

A) sign your fucking posts dipshit. B) We opening say we aren't NPOV. --Revolverman (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Wilders is a racist. Have you fucking seen what his views are? Basically "throw the darkies out of the Netherlands". That's not "criticising religion" by any stretch of the imagination. ^bomination 18:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

'This IPs variant on Thingy's law' (seem to have a block on the name) - 'Swearing without justification loses the argument.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Too fucking right it does. Sophie^Wilder 19:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a shitty law, because i swear quite a fucking lot, and mostly without any goddamn justification. Nihilist 19:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Because there's absolutely no difference between using profanity constructively (for fucking emphasis, bitch) and jumping straight into calling everyone a fucking cunt. Indeed, the latter is much better to respond to eruditely and with no profanity at all. Really pisses people off. ^postate 07:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Can I just say that this is quite inaccurate: I am actually fairly cheerful right now. JzG (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Next Christmans

Is sooner than you think.

(slightly trick question) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What, exactly, is a "Christmans"? 18:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

What an idiot, it should be Christmen. Генгис^unbelieving 18:27, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Christman is a superhero, obviously. He walks on water! Conjures more loaves and fishes from fewer loaves and fishes! Resurrects after only three days! Admittedly, he sounds like a pretty pathetic superhero, but he's quite popular in certain circles. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Throw in enduranced strength and endurance and you have basically every superhero ever.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Christman is Andrew Schlafly's alter ego. He has tremendous powers, but unlike Superman, who wastes his time protecting the weak and helpless, Christman has the moral stamina to stand firm and leave people to suffer because it's their own fault. Once Christman saw that a local community hall was shared by groups including a church, pay day lenders and a soup kitchen, he was outraged and went before the city council. Christman explained that some things are sacred and shouldn't be obliged to share space with sinful activities - and so he was able to get the soup kitchen closed down. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Christman is a woman. Sophie^Wilder 12:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I was going to link ...

... to the BBC's list of deaths in 2012. I decided not to when I thought about the millions who died "before their time" in the world. Scream!! (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixing Firefox

Cann't think of a better title. I mostly use Chrome, but have Firefox as a backup (some pages I go to don't work with Chrome, and IE can fuck itself). There are times where I have to have several (or even dozens) of pages open in FF at the same time. I keep having my 'Adobe flash plugin crash' (the words of FF). What happens is I'll be opening a new page (especially in a new tab/window, but opening one in general), changing tab/window, or even closing a tab/window, the loading will stall, the page will freeze, and then a moment later, any video/flash area will go black and tell me that my flash plugin has crashed. Now, I don't know if the issue is the website or FF, or my computer, but at this point I'm kind of tired of it. I don't have this problem on the rare times I get onto these sites with Chrome, didn't have these problems when I was using IE, so I'm pretty sure its something with FF. So, can someone tell me something I can download to fix this, or an alternative browser? If it matters, I have Windows 7--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Happens to me: Chrome/Ubuntu. Thing with chrome - just reload the page & it's OK. Scream!! (talk) 00:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The only up-to-date flash on linux is the one in chrome. Adobe does not support the old plugins anymore. --212.226.75.89 (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That's except for the times when I have an hour long video loading, and have flash crash half way through the loading. --Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the most vanilla and probably useless advice i can give, but have you tried restarting/reinstalling/all the other basic troubleshooting shit? Nihilist 01:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Really, no mention of this? Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me} 03:19, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Much more relevant. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Is. The. Machine. Plugged. In? 04:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Honestly this happens to me every now and then, but I always assumed browsers just weren't designed to handle flash running on half of the 50-100 tabs (not an exaggeration) I have open at any given time. Q0 (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a LOT of porn there mate Naca (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What saddens me is there's never enough time to watch all the porn i want to. Nihilist 06:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the same happens to me with Flash and Firefox. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Flash crashing like a crashy thing here too. At least it no longer takes Firefox with it - David Gerard (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Same here. Doesn't seem anymore stable using Firefox Beta either. From what little I can gather both developers are blaming the other about the incompatibility.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 11:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Which plugin are you guys using? 11.2 r202 has been smooth as fuck for me. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

11.5 r502 (on Firefox 17.0.1) seems to be fine as well. --Yukabacera (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't read the whole OP, saw that someone was having flash problems, and I assumed it was linux. I didn't know people had flash problems on windows.. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

r502 on 18 seems to work ok, but prior to that just loading something the Guardian page could a) be fine, b) freeze firefox for about 20 seconds whilst the plugin crashed and then loaded two instances of itself into the task manager, or c) the plugin would constantly loop between loading two instances, crashing the first and then going through the cycle again, the only fix there was to kill firefox and restart it.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 16:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I got an app for Chrome that prevents me from opening more than 14 tabs at a time. It gets frustrating when even the icon is invisible. Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me} 18:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea what to say about this

Adolf Hitler statue in Warsaw ghetto. Sophie^Wilder 12:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Disgusting and distasteful, if you ask me. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama statue in Kentucky. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 13:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sophie, you don't know what to say about the hitler statue in Warsaw, but I do: Time for the shedding of blood and the gnashing of teeth.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Whose blood & whose teeth? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I just referenced a kids book. Something about killing a bunch of Polish neo-nazis.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

"A statue of Adolf Hitler praying on his knees has sparked controversy after going on display in the former Warsaw ghetto." I don't know what the artist is trying to say here. It looks to be in poor taste, but maybe it is just a misguided attempt at imagery. So I think we should not reach for the pitchforks and burning torches just yet, though we should certainly encourage the shop to check it has adequate stocks. JzG (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know that I have an issue with it. There is some merit to posing thought-provoking questions for people to ponder. I also understand that the artwork was discussed with a leading Rabbi in Poland who thought it was OK. I can see that it might be insensitive, but then some aspects of art and other expression sometimes are. --Damo^Hi 23:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The headline is worded in a way that suggests this is some kind of a monument to Hitler, which is absolutely not the case. The statue was installed back in November, and at the time it did not generate any significant controversy. Most of the media attention was focused on the fact that the art center that installed the statue advertised a grand exhibition of the works of Catellan, but in the end managed to obtain only eight (including this one), which caused major disappointment among art critics. I think this is a valid and thought-provoking instance of artistic expression, and the accusations about a 'needless provocation' (code for antisemitism) are wrong. This is a case of pointless butthurt. Note: I think that antisemitism and islamophobia are real, but both Jews and Muslims sometimes take offense for bullshit reasons.

Some extra information. Catellan had his sculpture, "La Nona Ora" ("The Ninth Hour" or "None"), exhibited in one of Warsaw's galleries in 1999. The sculpture shows the pope John Paul II crushed under a meteorite, along with some broken glass. The Catholic fundies were very offended and vandalized it. I think people from the Wiesenthal Center are having the same reaction. --Tweenk (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a Google translation of an article in the Polish press, for some more context. This is from "Gazeta Wyborcza", which is popularly regarded as a very "pro-Jewish" source. It doesn't identify the exhibition as antisemitic.

One more thing, which may not be obvious, and is relevant. The "Warsaw ghetto" was not a specific place or city block in Warsaw, it spanned multiple districts. Here is a map that overlays the extent of former ghetto on the modern city map. The borders are not obvious when walking around the city; you need to pay close attention to the signs (which look like this and are not present everywhere) or have a map with you. --Tweenk (talk) 03:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Like most places, Poland has its share of people who wish the "whole Hitler thing" would just go away, they're not denialists they just hope that if we forget about it then it's done with. For the most part they didn't get their way, the evidence of what happened (and remember in Poland it happened right there, there are people still alive today who saw it happen and did nothing and have to live with that) is on display for everyone to consider for centuries to come. I've been to the Auschwitz museum which is testimony to the determination by most Poles that this should not be forgotten. During term time, parties of school children show up at Auschwitz at a steady pace, just like visiting the Capitol if your school happens to be within driving distance of Washington, it's an unimaginative but effective way to teach kids some of the material on their curriculum. Anyway, you can expect the sort of people who wish we'd all shut up about it to protest against any further attempts to have people think about this subject. The idea that Hitler was not some unique abberation, that this might happen again - is not something they want to think about, and by extension not something they want others thinking about. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Dentist can't keep it in his pants, fires his nurse

A story that might be of interest to some of us:

An Iowa dentist of the Christian persuasion engaged in unsolicited flirtation with his nurse. His wife found out about it and demanded that he cast out the harlot who was posing an "irresistible" threat to their marriage; she then hauled him before their pastor, who agreed with her. The dentist proceeded to fire the nurse.

The nurse then sued her ex-boss, but made the error of alleging gender discrimination rather than sexual harassment, in consequence of which the Iowa Supreme Court recently dismissed her case.

This has caused certain communists to have a conniption fit, because it is, of course, completely unthinkable that a court should >gasp!< issue its rulings according to the law, instead of whatever the party line is this week. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You really think the dentist was right in this? That you can fire someone for such a petty reason (right out of an episode of Ally Mcbeal, too)?--"Shut up, Brx." 04:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been following the story quite closely, and many of the people whom I've read who are upset with the fact that the court ruled in favour of the employer at the expense of the woman in question actually believe in free enterprise and the free market, and are not now, nor have they ever been, members of the Communist Party. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 04:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I am in the unfortunate position of thinking that both sides were wrong. To my mind, what the dentist did qualified as sexual harassment, and the nurse should have brought suit on those grounds. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

So the assistant's problem was that she had a crappy lawyer...--"Shut up, Brx." 04:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much. The court ruled on the case that the client and her lawyer brought, rather than the case that they should have brought. Doctor Dark (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

So complaining about something that shouldn't be codified immediately makes you a Communist? Thanks, I feel so greatly enlightened. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

For a reasonably smart person, LX can be a giant tool at times. That comment was one of those times. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 04:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you deny that Richard Seymour, the author of the article I cited, is a member of the Socialist Workers' Party? Do you deny that his reasons for opposing the ruling are predicated upon the belief, currently fashionable among the Reds, that court rulings are based on ideology rather than the law? (We can also get onto his prejudices and his apparent failure to read the ruling all the way through.) ListenerX^TalkerX 05:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop poisoning the well. I don't give a fuck if he's Lenin's grandson or Peter Hitchens. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

How am I "poisoning the well," if what I am saying about him is not of concern to you? ListenerX^TalkerX 05:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He's not poisoning the well. He's elaborated his position, and his original premise is more or less sound: some people (ListenerX believes communists in particular) see law as based on ideology, and therefore court rulings as based on ideology, instead of the law itself- i.e, doesn't matter if it's legal/illegal, x is wrong, we can't have x.--"Shut up, Brx." 05:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

tl;dr version - Lx gets his knickers in a twist over a Guardian opinion piece. Nothing to see here, move along. Innocent Bystander (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Even shorter: Lx and Brxbrx don't know jack shit about critical legal theory. 17:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It is absolutely poisoning the well. As ToP pointed out, lots of voices have raised concerns about this ruling, not just those godawful damn reds. & Even if it was only Richard Seymour raising criticisms, his arguments could still be looked at critically on their own merits without précising the link with "BTW before you read this, please note that the author is a commie". ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be poisoning the well if this were WND, and communism incites whole tides of bile. @Nutty Roux, I imagine that ListenerX and I know as much about legal theory as anybody else, which to to say very little. But we aren't really talking about legal theory here, so that's okay. ListenerX began this topic to propound what he believes is a trend among communists to perceive the law as something as than it is (or as something else than what he sees it as). There's no need to be rude.--"Shut up, Brx." 20:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Communists, or rather one communist, are hardly unique in wanting laws to be applied along ideological lines. Frankly I would have expected better from LX. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 20:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't have. The guy knee-jerks into REDSREDSREDSREDSREDSREDS!!!!!! mode whenever identity politics or anything else that challenges an individualistic/free-market/libertarian view of the world crosses his radar. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 20:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

(1) If I had prefaced a link to a wingnut screed by noting that it came from a wingnut, I doubt it would have even blipped on people's radars. Calling a communist a communist really gets people in a tizzy, for some reason or other.

(2) Good to see that believing that courts should issue rulings according to the law is part and parcel of "an individualistic/free-market/libertarian view of the world." We now know, it seems, why communist countries were such despotic places... ListenerX^TalkerX 22:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but I see the courts as an appropriate place for the people to challenge unjust laws. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 22:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

^{That is interesting, but what does that have to do with the price of fish?} ListenerX^TalkerX 23:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Your take on this is very much "an individualistic/free-market/libertarian view of the world" viz. that she should have pursued a sexual harassment suit (whether or not she felt harassed) rather than a gender discrimination one. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

No, the libertarian view is that gender-discrimination and sexual harassment laws are a breach of property rights. That is not my view, but I am such a screaming reactionary as to think courts should not convict people for acts that are not against the law. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Brx, I'm not convinced that that is the main reason for Lx bringing this up (based on his choice of section title & opening line), but whatever, it's still an oddball leftfield sort of point to make. There's lots of things to be said about this story, but "commies want judges to follow the party line" is kindof a weird one. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

My main reason for bringing the story up here was the role that religion played in it. Mr. Seymour's column was mentioned as a uniquely undiluted example of the theory underlying such objections to the ruling as I have seen, although it looks like TheoryOfPractice has seen more than I have. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing I've seen on this yet convinces me that religion played a major part in it, unless (1) we take the rather dubious position that marriage is a purely religious construction, or (2) we place undue emphasis on the fact that the couple consulted a pastor (after they had basically already decided to fire the assistant). Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Or (3) Mrs. Dentist was acting in accordance with doctrine preached her at their church before the incident... ListenerX^TalkerX 05:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

No such thing as sexual harassment of men. --212.226.56.175 (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Err, speaking of oddball leftfield comments . . . Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't like the fact that the woman got fired, it seems very unfair, yet the law is in the United States that most employment is termed "at will" which means that an employer can fire anyone at any time if they so choose. Just as an employee is not bound to work for an employer and can quit at any time. It's the law. Some places get around this by having the employee sign a contract that penalizes them for leaving, and restricts whom they can work for after leaving, etc., and most larger businesses have in place their own internal policies regarding firing personnel, and union workers are covered by specific provisions negotiated by their unions., etc. but the basic law states that an employer-employee relationship is "at will" by both parties. Of course, if the employer is violating other laws such as discriminating against the person for race, religion, etc., this is not allowed. This is my understanding of employer-employee relations anyway. Where's Nutty, our resident lawyer... he can say if this is correct or not. Refugee^{talk page} 21:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That's not leftfield, that's just 'wat'. Though I've heard a fair bit on this story, this is the first I've heard of it being at the man's wife's command. I was always under the impression he took the initiative with this crazy blaming the victim logic - though, quite frankly, I'd say it's better he took action (albeit not the whole "fire" route) rather than, ahem, what could have happened. At least he was honest, I suppose. But yes, as above, the problem with the court is chiefly because she fought the case under his terms. If she was to bring it under sexual harrassment, she would have easily won if she brought up some of his statements. Some foul tripe about having to adjust himself when she was around, talking about her sex life, and comparing her to a car that hardly gets put to use. Harrumph. Begs the question, if he was such a Good Upstanding Gentleman Christian^TM then why did he lack the "grace" to control himself? Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 21:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The "Good Upstanding Christian" element is as much of a red herring as the "let's hear what communists have to say about this" thing. As for sexual harassment, yes she could have sued for that if that was what her grievance was, but as reported she did not allege sexual harassment because Knight's conduct may not have risen to that level and didn't particularly offend her, according to her lawyer. Her grievance was getting fired unfairly & that's what she sued for, rightly in my opinion. Also, be careful about how you use phrases like "begs the question"; some folks around here get pedantic about that sort of thing. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The judges agreed that her firing was unfair, but ruled that it did not violate the law that she claimed it violated. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Requesting a merge

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki:Duplicate_articles/Archive3. 23:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Belgium vs. Scientology

After an extensive investigation, prosecutors in Belgium charge the Church of Scientology with extortion, fraud, privacy breaches, and the illegal practice of medicine. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 12:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Much better than simply outlawing them.--"Shut up, Brx." 13:49, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Idiot question, is scientology considered "religious enough" in the US to warrant tax exemption like other churches? Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 15:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately. I say, if you charge for a service, you get taxed. --"Shut up, Brx." 17:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you REALLY believe 501 not for profits can't sell goods or services or are you merely expressing your opinion that the Church of Scientology shouldn't be able to? That's where the "unfortunately" comes from, right? Just stop talking about legal stuff this morning. Go learn something about the Internal Revenue Code or something. You're making my head hurt with your idiocy. 17:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

My god it just occurred to me that you commented like that without even understanding what it means to be "tax exempt." Under your system virtually no prospective NFP would ever be able to get official determination. Holy shit. Donations to 501(c)(3) are tax deductible to the donor. That's part of the colloquial understanding of tax exemption. Even profit to the 501(c)(3) that is gained doing activities that directly advance its mission are is tax exempt. So - I imagine that would include things like tickets to awards dinners and the like - I'd have to check the CFR and other official interpretation for 501(c)(3). Profit derived from "unrelated business income" isn't impermissible, it's just taxed like regular business profits are. And then the NFP is entitled to all permissible deductions. So it's a matter of routine that NFPs engage in profit motivated activities that capitalize on their branding or whatever good will. They just pay regular income tax on those profits. The Catholic Church selling tshirts is a business activity different in kind than selling devotional candles, even at a profit. 17:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I am thinking of Scientology courses, which are ruinously expensive and seen as necessary for Scientology's brand of enlightenment. I think money Scientology makes from these courses should be taxed. I am probably unaware of the specifics. Are you done being an asshole for the day?--"Shut up, Brx." 20:02, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

the correct term is autist --212.226.56.175 (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Scientology is really interesting in that it seems all one ever reads about is the fraud and money-grabbing of the church, being declared a cult in Germany, are close to being outlawed in France, now this latest action in Belgium, then how to they still exist and thrive? It just seems so strange. Refugee^{talk page} 21:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Not that I am a fan of scientology but people value what they pay for and people pay for what they value. An education costs money. NLP courses cost money. A Tom Robbin's talk costs money. Mormonism can cost you money. A psychotherapist is not cheap. USA engaged in wars abroad costs you tons. What is the real problem here? Dirk Steele (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Extortion, fraud, privacy breaches, and the illegal practice of medicine. See above. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

@Dirk. People addicted to heroin value heroin. Scientology is a clever confidence scam that makes people addicted to scientology programs, very much like a drug. People taken in by addiction are not always the best judge of what is good for them. Whilst it may not be right to ban them, I certainly think they should not get a leg up by having tax free status. And I'm surprised that you aren't a Scientology fan. They are right up your alley when it comes to mental health. Damo^Hi 22:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Just like Government (tax free?) and extortion by violence. And Bad Pharma who have been fined billions because of illegal medicine. Scientologists belive in Einsteins General theory of Relativity. So do I. Does that make me a scientologist? By your logic.. yes. Why denigrate tiny insignificant small fry when you totally ignore the boot that stamps you on the face? Dirk Steele (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

What has that got to do with the price of fish? Damo^Hi 22:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The Catholic church should have lost it's 501(c)(3) standing because they advocate political positions. Just saying. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 22:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Tiny minds means tiny thoughts. You goldfish you. . . Dirk Steele (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

In which a neo-Nazi finds out he's part-Jewish

[1] Old so I didn't WIGO it, but good enough you will enjoy it - David Gerard (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Kos had far too much fun with the "liking bagels makes you Jewish" stereotype. "The DNA evidence says you've got Jewish heritage. And your own words admit that you like bagels" gets me every time. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The Neo-Nazi guy sounds like he was having fun too. I can't decide whether or not he's a parodist. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This happens every few months. It's not "news", per se. Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me} 23:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, wasn't there a case where the head of some European fringe anti-Semitic party found out he was Jewish earlier this year? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I think so; I couldn't give you a name or a link, but it made it on RW's Facebook page. Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me} 23:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Bleh. Daily Kos - the site that in ten short years gone from seeming to be one of the more intelligent to becoming one of the stupidest hives of ignorance on the internet. Markos' one-trick act which is channeling genuine progressive outrage back into GOTV for the most non-boat-rocking establishment Democrats got old years ago. The good things he once evinced - opposition to the Patriot Act, his pro-Second Amendment stance, having the guts to dis Blackwater, the "crashing the gates" and "netroots" talk - were dropped a long time ago in favor of pushing only agenda items approved by the Beltway Democrat establishment, he has never had anything good to say about Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader, and don't forget how quickly he threw Jerome Armstrong under the bus once his own star rose. I have no respect for that opportunistic hack or what his site has become what-so-fucking-ever.

Back on topic: My own guess is the Saturday hate mail column is mostly parodists. Secret Squirrel (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The Moog is back!

Now that it's already December 31 in some parts of the world, I decided to have a look at the New Year's Eve Google Doodle. It links to some previous Google Doodle from the past 12 months. Unfortunately, only two of them are interactive, the Star Trek one and the fabulous Moog. Here's Google Australia. Click on the picture of the organ being played by the woman in green on the left (not on the woman, that'll take you to a different doodle) for hours of fun on the Moog.--Spud (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

But what of the Electronic Sacbut? Moog gets all the love. --Kels (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

A more straightforward link--"Shut up, Brx." 17:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm so disappointed yon e-sackbutt wasn't one of these, electrified. In my rock & roll repair bench days we worked on a few Moogs, but our shop was more about Arp. You may see the back of their chief engineer, Phil Dodds's neck in Close Encounters of the Third Kind, as he plays the big synth. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It's already January 1 in Australia. Here's Google Canda!That and the above more straightforward link will do the job for at least a few more hours. --Spud (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Worth a read.

Thomas Friedman writes a column that's absolutely spot-on. Say what you will about him, he guy's totally on point here. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 22:34, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Love it. Ty^shenanigans 22:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Free trade causes globalization of the Golden Arches Theory in which CAFTA makes the flattening of the world a mobile uber-steroid for the Radical Center of the Lexuses (but not the Olive Trees) which are constrained by the golden straitjacket and trampled by the electronic herd. Now where's my column in the Times? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It only gets better the more posts you read. Blue (is useful) 23:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"If ethnic conflict is Moldova's curtain rod, then freedom is certainly its alarm clock." Blue (pester) 23:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

*Snicker*. Checked it twice, got the same article with the same quote for Algeria and Mongolia. Secret Squirrel (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"When I visited China in 2000, Kiki, the cabbie who drove me from the airport, couldn't stop telling me about how he had to take a second job because of the high cost of same-sex marriage. I caught up with Kiki in Shanghai last year. Thanks to China's reformed approach toward same-sex marriage, Kiki has enough money in his pocket to finally be able to afford a playground for his kids." I can't stop laughing at this. --Revolverman (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Why, what's the joke? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, i don't get it. Nihilist 02:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

China does not have same-sex marriage. Ty^shenanigans 03:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"Second, I'd tell them to look at Iceland, which all but solved its health insurance crisis over the past decade. When I visited Iceland in 2000, Mwambe, the cabbie who drove me from the airport, couldn't stop telling me about how he had to take a fourth job because of the high cost of health insurance. I caught up with Mwambe in Reykjavik last year. Thanks to Iceland's reformed approach toward health insurance, Mwambe has enough money in his pocket to finally be able to afford a smartphone for his kids." Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 03:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"Don't expect to see any solutions as long as fringe bloggers insist on playing a high-stakes game of ping pong with one another. America's got to call a time-out." I can't stop. Blue (pester) 11:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

scary notice

I posted a comment and got a scary message at the top of the page. It said: "Notice: Undefined variable: substRegex in /home/rationalwiki/public_html/w/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 4489 Warning: preg_match(): Empty regular expression in /home/rationalwiki/public_html/w/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 4489". Wow, what does all that mean? What the heck? Refugee^{talk page} 02:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It means your computer is virus-infested and you'll need to throw it out. Nihilist 02:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Funny. :p Now I'm thinking that maybe it has to do with Tmt setting up the voting thingy. But I dunno. Refugee^{talk page} 02:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Where and when did you try to post? Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 02:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki is built out of PHP, an example of the phenomenon called Worse is Better which is found throughout computer science. PHP is really, really awful, but it's available everywhere and as a result incredibly popular. The approach of spitting errors intended for the web site's programmers into the visual output for the web site's visitors is one of the less egregious examples of how miserably bad PHP is. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

So you're an ASP.net fan then? Nihilist 02:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha, no. They're not really comparable. PHP is a language that happens to have grown a framework, ASP.NET is just a framework and is agnostic about the language chosen although in practice most people end up using a Microsoft vendor-locked language like VB or C#. The sort of people who write language critiques mostly take it as read that vendor-locked languages are garbage and should be avoided. With PHP are you are pretty much stuck with PHP's own framework, which is also poor. On the rare occasion that I am called to write user-facing Web applications I just use Java (with Tapestry where appropriate), which isn't an option for the average person because their $10 vhost doesn't offer Java. Hence my reference to Worse is Better. PHP is everywhere, and that trumps every conceivable feature of other languages, no matter how terrible PHP is. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki shouldn't actually be showing you errors like that. Not that we can actually do anything about it - David Gerard (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

There was a specific reason that you saw that and also a reason you should not be seeing it any more (let us know if you do), and yes it is related to the election extension. Tmtoulouse (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

normally the lower level messages should not be output to the user and thats a setting in the apache or php config file. Hamster (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Mixing fruit flavours - yay or nay?

...I should really just join a cooking forum.

Some of my friends have said I'm a pretty good cook, albeit in need of being more organised and not panicking. That may be so, but I'm most certainly not a knowledgeable or educated cook. I know that some things work, but I don't know the why or how. I pick up new things just from being told, rather than thinking, usually. Why does apple work with pork? I was taught that way a few years ago. Why is rosemary good on potatoes and with chicken? Because I was told that on a video. I'm alright with basic acid / alkaline, but ask me things like if you should cook something with whatever you want to flavour it with, or have it on the side, or in a sauce, and I'm screwed.

Which brings me to my current situation. Yesterday I made a bannoffee pie from instructions, but subbed out the whipped cream for banana angel delight (I had no cream). It's my friend's birthday in February, and she loves bananas and peanut butter, so I'm thinking of making it again, but with a few changes: a little bit of golden syrup mixed with the butter in the biscuit base - using gluten-free chocolate digestives or choc chip cookies (her significant other is celiac, sadface) rather than just digestives. Change the topping with whippped cream + cream cheese (to make it a banoffee cheesecake)...and this is where it gets a bit iffy.

I want to flavour my cream cheese with strawberry, either through flavouring or an alcoholic thing, and top it with shavings of chocolate, glacé cherries, and candied orange peel (this is a thing, you try to cut the rind away from the pith, blanch them twice, then warm them in water and sugar, then coat them in granulated sugar, leaves you with a nice fruity syrup too). I'd be tempted to incorporate peanut butter somehow but that seems a bit much. So the end result will have a nice base, and theoretically it'd mix the orange, cherry, strawberry and banana flavours, but I honestly don't know if they'd all go that well together, especially if there's a tinge of alcohol, and that's before you factor in the caramel beneath the bananas. Where does one draw the line between 'varied flavours' and 'everything casserole'? Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 12:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want to go for something that's still recognisably banoffee, I would advise against getting other fruits involved, but peanut butter &/or chocolate would be OK. If you want to go for a mixed fruit thing, OK but leave the peanut butter out. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Strawberry/banana is a nice combination. I wouldn't add anything else to that particular mix. But strawberry/banana with a peanut butter base? No way. Peanut butter and banana is rich/flavourful enough on its own. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 13:52, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks like I'm not alone in thinking the peanut butter would get in the way then. I was only considering it because she's a fan of it but frankly I don't want that texture in it. The cream cheese and cream is thick enough, but there's no avoiding having peanut butter glued to the top of your mouth between spoons. Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 13:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Worth your time to do a bit of research on exchanging syrup for sugar, and gluten free stuff - just cause if you don't know what you are doing, you can end up with bricks or goo instead of nice bread. I live at 10,000 feet and make tons of bricks and goo and very little bread, so i'm pretty good at it. ;-) Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 18:00, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't that only apply if you're baking / heating it? This thing juts sets in the fridge. "Cake" is such a misleading word. Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 18:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

For gluten-free stuff you frequently have to be careful about liquid content when converting non-born GF recipes (although I doubt it will matter if it's just the crust) since gluten free alternatives may absorb more/less water than their gluteny counterparts. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 19:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

baking or cooking at 10,000 feet should be a matter of adjusting the times according to the publishesd altitude tables. Do you wear a respirator all the time at that height ? Hamster (talk) 22:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year to everyone from Australia. So it begins... Man of Perspective 13:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

its not new year until it is new year in London. We evented time Greenwich so we gets to sayAMassiveGay (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Dammit, I was late by an hour. Eh, I'll still be able to play The Curfew like I do every year before the ball drops in Times Square. Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me} 01:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

More Dirk Steele!

This discussion was moved to Forum:Dirk Steele said something. 22:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It's been a slow day.

Not much activity relevant to me on my DeviantArt, so I've been waiting and literally subsisting on popcorn for the past few hours. Anyone have something to talk about? Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me} 22:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's talk about snakes. Copperhead^Hisssssss 22:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I tried starting a conversation about snakes but it didn't have legs. Sophie^Wilder 22:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

My pet Californian kingsnake is actually the most well-behaved of my pets. I've also an insane pot-bellied pig dog and two insane cats. Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me} 22:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

When I was a wee nipper I had a book about a kingsnake. Copperhead^Hisssssss 22:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

<=+====+===+====+==D< Copperhead^Hisssssss 22:18, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

steady now, before we have a thread of long, thin ascii's. Permission to gibber in fear. Sophie^Wilder 22:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hissssssssssss Copperhead^Hisssssss 22:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

How long do you think it'll be before humans finally get rid of "reptile" as a taxonomic class, integrating it with Aves into Diapsida as a class (and maybe a separate class for the turtles)? Just sayin'. Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me} 22:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

*Throws poo at HK*

Not a slow day anymore is it? --Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Won't not be slow until a) my pizza gets here, or b) Thurosis gets back on and I can finally use my hollowed ammonoid. Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me} 22:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

What kind of pizza? Copperhead^Hisssssss 22:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Plain cheese. Pepporoni's a bit spicy for some reason :-S Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me} 22:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with cheese pizza. You can then customize it. Or claim you are being healthy or something. Copperhead^Hisssssss 22:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Bah. Italian sausage with ghost pepper sauce. Ty^shenanigans 22:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Can't wait for the pizza and/or Thurosis.... WHY DOES IT TAKE AN HOUR FOR PIZZA AND WEIRD RPGS IN THE COMMENT SECTION?! *gnaws on popcorn* Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me} 22:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Is the aftermath of the New Year's 2012 Block War over yet? Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me} 23:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

This sums you cunts up

You can't say rationalwiki without spelling anal. Sums you cunts up if you ask me. Happy new year, cunts. Fuck you Foster & Ty. 86.47.73.213 (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

"anal includes two "a"s, an "n" and an "l". "Rationalwiki" contains an "l" and "n", but only one "a". It is impossible to spell "anal" with only the letters in "rationalwiki". Thank you for your time.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 01:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

What the fuck man? "Rationalwiki" contains only one "a"? Next time read back what you've written before deciding what letters it contains. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

There are two a's, but they're in the wrong place. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 02:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

RATIONALwiki *bites lip* Happy new year to you too Marcus! Blue (is useful) 02:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, poorly worded my anal snarkery. I'll go beat myself in punishment.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

More importantly, it's one letter away from spelling "Toenail War." RationalWiki, home of the fightin' cuticles! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

To discourage feeding the troll, might I tell you all that I have just created a music folder set to play on loop? First person to guess one of the pieces on it gets a biscuit (redeemable for 10 more HeidelbergKid points). Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me} 03:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

To play on loop where? In your mind? At this site? In a secluded grotto? At the Carnegie Hall? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 03:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

EC. "Relaxin' at Camarillo" by Charlie Parker. "Playin' in the Band," Grateful Dead, 24 February 1974 @ Winterland. "River Rat Jimmy" by Kelly Joe Phelps. "New Craas Maasakah, by Linton Kwesi Johnson. "When the Lie's so Big," Frank Zappa. (Last 5 songs to come out of my shuffled music collection. If any of these match, it's proof of god's existence.) Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 03:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

@Weasel I have my music folder set to "shuffle all" and "repeat". @ToP, you are completely wrong for all of them. Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me} 04:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Two Steps from Hell, Nox Arcana, Von Throstall, Voltaire, the videos of D Piddy, Imperat, E Nomine, and Grendel, various songs thereof.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 04:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

E.S. Posthumus. Nobody^{don't bother} 04:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

To the we who are not normal

Who censors the censors? Dirk Steele (talk) 04:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year from a fellow aspie! Now fuck off. Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me} 05:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of speech is something that should be tempered by the knowledge of when and how to use it, Dirk. Those who cannot do that only make it that much harder to justify it to others. --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 05:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The electors.--^talk 04:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

a year later

About a year (February I think), ago, I made a post here about my problems with being a YEC/BL christian, as part of the general crisis of faith I was going through at the time. I'd gone through others before, but this time, partially because of this site, partially because I was tired of it and partially because I had a much larger group of friends in that camp than before to give me support(I've always had mostly non christian friends though) I decided I was tired of worrying, justifying my belief in something I barely even believed was possible anyways. I couldn't believe in a god that punished people for crimes that he admitted they couldn't help but commit, that wanted to punish me for being born a descendent of somebody who fucked up and demanded all of my life in order to get forgiveness.

So, I stopped being a christian, however much I was one those last few years. Since then, I've honestly been happier, able to enjoy life more. I've had to hide it, from a family of varying degrees of devoutness, while being able to be open about it just about anywhere else. For all of the problems I was expected to believe would come from deconverting, first to that deist stance then to outright atheism, Life, in general, has been better for me.

I don't know, i just felt like saying something somewhere. --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 05:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

:If you really need to puke hard with your virtual venomous vomit then throw up over there. Not here or anywhere near us. And clean up yourself afterwards. Thanks again in hindsight. Dirk Steele (talk) 05:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was February. A year ago, I was a hopeless n00b. Good job with your de-conversion. *pats on back* Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me} 05:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a good year then. I'm glad you were able to come to better peace with yourself. Happy new year, Mikal. 05:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Great story to hear. peace with yourself is hard to find, and teh best place to be! Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 05:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing guys. You've both made great strides. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.}

The Problem of Evil has always been the most persuasive argument against the existence of the Christian God for me, too.--^talk 04:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Recommend me some reading

There's a series of thoughts which lead to this question, but no one cares about them, so I'll cut to the chase: I'm interested in learning more about the French Revolution, and the various internal conflicts in England during the early imperial period that led to the republican reforms in England/Britain/UK such as the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution. I'd take a course at my college, but long story short, cannot. I have quite a few resources on the American Revolution and the American Civil War, so I think I'm good on that front. Thanks!--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 06:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

For the French Revolution, Lefebvre, Rude, Guérin are the classic left interpretations, and Furet is probably the best response to that school.Lynn Hunt for a feminist take, I've not read enough of Schama to have a strong opinion. If you really want to understand the Revolution in its full transnational/Atlantic dimensions, you need to read C.L.R. James, The Black Jacobins,(about the revolution in St. Domingue) and Laurent Dubois, A Colony of Citizens (Guadaloupe). Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 07:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I was expecting just a few suggestions, thanks ToP--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 07:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I just finished reading some Thomas Paine. He touches on it. Nothing too exciting, but it was interesting to read it in someone's words who was there. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

True. I don't remember exactly when or why, but I have a copy of Common Sense and Other Writings edited by Joyce Appleby. I decided to give it a go yesterday and remembered that I've been meaning to learn more about the time period.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Godless

Vision TV produced a "series" called "godless" in 2011. I'm curious if anyone has seen it, and how bad it is. I found the summary at MV Group, and am including a link FOR INFORMATION ONLY, as they have a pretty decent write up directly from the producers of the "series". [[2]] Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 01:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Video here, but it's Canada only. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Stumbled onto the new Thunderf00t video in the clogs

The dumbest decision I've made all day. Why is this still a big deal in the skeptic community? There is so much "PZ and Phil Plait agree with Watson that all men should be considered rapists" from his fanboys I can take. Osaka Sun (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally I theorize that in the absence of major creationist/anti science conflict, thunder's big swinging ego demands he take up another fight. However, in place of targeting dworkin/solanis esque radfems, who would indeed be deserving of being targeted for ridicule, he seems intent on targeting mainstream feminists who he simply finds obnoxious on a personal level, or have committed actions he believes to be sexist. In short its little more than a playground slapfight with people he doesn't like. Personally Im torn between utter tedium and a troll-like desire to see this descend into utter apocalyptic drama. Either way Im guessing I will be disappointed Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 12:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

The entire thing is just so stupid. I wish the anti-women people would shut up. I think I might find them more offensive than the actual average religious people. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Glad I never really let myself go down the "skeptical vlogger" wormhole. Sounds like a bunch of horrible people. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 13:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

My analysis is that he really is that pigheaded & really just doesn't get the points that Watson, PZM et al are making; plus he's carrying a certain amount of butthurt from the fallout at FTB. He's likely to continue on this weird crusade, since he's really nurturing that butthurt rather than getting any real perspective on it, and since, having alienated a lot of the atheist/skeptic community, he now has only the anti-feminist crowd to talk to. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Just managed to find it in my YouTube inbox. I'm so pleased I have the Herp Derp extension to block out comments... I have no problem with stating outright that some apparently "feminist" views are many times more damaging than patriarchy ever could be, but he's targeting the wrong people to even pretend to be making a point that good. ^pathetic 14:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Petition to get Kent Hovind out

I am sure a lot of you aware of the We The People petition web site. Apparently, someone has put up a petition to try to get Kent Hovind out of jail.

I created a petition to keep him there (1931 signatures) a few years ago and to compete with another that wanted him out (1001 signatures).

I don't think this petition will reach its goal.--Cms13ca (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No shit Sherlock. "SIGNATURES NEEDED BY JANUARY 31, 2013 TO REACH GOAL OF 25,000 : 24,999" ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, it's an American tradition that presidents pardon a bunch of douchebags who really ought to be in prison for life on their way out the door, but I think you have to be a douchebag with influence to qualify. I think Kent can look forward to serving his entire sentence. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

My question is this: what do you fucking care? Which other federal prisoners' petitions for presidential pardon are you opposing? How many of them are prominent creationists? 02:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This is mostly worth following because Hovind claims to be a "prisoner of war" while his sycophantic followers like to call him a political prisoner and actively deny that he's in jail for tax fraud - even when presented with the actual court transcript from WikiSource that says exactly what he's in for. ^gnostic 14:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing the case is an acceptable goal, as long as they are prepared for a review that concludes he should rot in jail. JzG (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Warren Jeffs

Apparently, he also jumped on the 2012 bandwagon, as CNN reports that his followers were prepping for the world to end before New Years. Some prophet he turned out to be! Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Africa

Looks like another epic series from the BBC wildlife unit. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Heads up

Apparently Deepak Chopra is doing an AMA on Reddit at 12pm EST on the 4th Jan. I'm sure he'd be more than happy to explain how his mumbo jumbo works to us disenlightened types. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Time to brush up on some basic QM to test him, then. ^theist 21:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

mwahahahaha... "Deepak, I have a cat in a box here. If you don't answer my question to my satisfaction, I might kill it. Neither one of us will know until it's too late." EVDebs (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, this'll be fun.

Can't wait until the wingnuts catch wind of this. It could be the best entertainment of the year. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

So that expains why Al Gore was trending today. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year! My message to all y'all

(Redid it and I gotta get back out the door here's the original one don't fuck up tonight come home safe) Cuddles, 05:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Nobody^{don't bother} 05:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A happy new year to you too, Nutty. Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me} 05:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

New years eve is me continuing the week of slaving away at Minecraft and EU3/Civ 5 and waiting for my laptop to come back. Tomorrow though, mikal is partying with friends =D Happy near years Nutty and other people. --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 05:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year's to you, Mikal. (Cue the needless pseudo-formal wishing everyone happy new years.) Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me} 05:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Your sig doesn't even render like a poop smear on a phone. When are you going to take me up on my offer to make you a proper one? I'm drunk again so I guess the offer is renewed. Take it while it lasts. 05:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh holy fucking shit I left Rob out. Happy new year Rob. Don't respond with your RW name if you're not out. 05:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh my fucking god I gotta crank another one of these out. I didn't do it right. 05:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's the original planarian my icon's based on A really nice-looking Dugesia sp. (CC-BY-NC licenced). Thanks :-) Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me} 05:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Always good to see happy people, on a happy new year! have a great year all!Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 05:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh no, Nutty. No no no. Aceⁱ⁹ 06:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy new year, everyone! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year. Now leave me alone and let me nurse my hangover! Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Nutty. I feel a little peeved that your video is private though. :( Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The one marked as the original one does work, at least, and presumably it's at least similar in content. Also, fuck you, Nutty, you didn't wish me a happy new year. I'm kidding, of course. Happy new year, Nutty, and everyone. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 10:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy new year y'all! El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 13:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that G. The first one wasn't. It was linked. The replacement somehow was. Quicktime can suck it. HNY. 13:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year all, and especially to Nutty. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Aw, thanks dearest Nutty nut. All the best for 2013. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 14:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Bah, I don't think any of those people you mentioned were me. Happy New Year all the same, Nutty. & The rest of you bastards. Hope you all had happy drunken times last night. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Awww, so sweet. Thanks for remembering me & wishing you a Happy New Year too. :-D huggles! Refugee^{talk page} 21:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been sitting here for 20 minutes looking at my cursor blink and not knowing what to say. It took less than 24 hours after I posted my new years message for RW trolls to send me shitty emails and leave a voicemail on my office line. 02:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

To this day, i do not understand teh interent, trolls, and the desire to fuck with people. I'm sorry you deal with that, just for trying to say "happy new year" to friends and acquaintances. Some days, i am ready to have a restricted cite. hehe. :-) Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 02:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that sucks. Why can't we have nice things? </rhetorical> Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Taking the risk of getting these kinds of invasions of privacy is still worth it to be able to help the board. I think I emailed you guys a few months ago about getting a batch of creepy fringe porn and dating site subscription emails. I didn't have to wait very long for one of them to have the creep's IP address in it ("Someone from xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx created an account with this email address.) Not a proxy. Not a TOR node. Not a smart person. 02:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry man, you seemed lonely and I was just trying to help. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Nuts! I didn't get to see it (both are private) but I assume it was nice!--^talk 04:21, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

This post will be one of the creepiest I've ever made outside of the weird innuendo thing with Ace two years back Huh? I don't remember this? Aceⁱ⁹ 04:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Business as usual. ^postate 15:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe he has a brother.--^talk 04:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Nobody's ever cried tears of sexual frustration over me before. I'm kinda jealous of Nutty. --PsyGremlin^講話 23:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Psy, you'll never know just how wrong you are.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Ohhhh myyyy. blushes furiously --PsyGremlin^{話しなさい} 13:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not considered 'good form' to us Brits when you force a random ugly nutjob off of the streets just to make an utterly cringing self worshipping video. Please refrain in the future. Thanks in anticipation. Dirk Steele (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's cheering

TIL that we got Redditdotted and I didn't even notice. Did you, Trent? - David Gerard (talk) 00:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of which, why don't we have an article on Reddit? If we thought TVTropes was bad... Osaka Sun (talk) 02:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd been intending to write one for a while now, but kept putting it off. For the moment, it's a stub. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Stubby the Misanthrope.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Michigan republicans, Gotta love them

After ToP's rant about the republicans totally going anti union, i found out about one of the requirements (now removed) on the anti choice bills they were working on and have since passed. "women must sign death cirtificates and have funerals for their fetuses". sighs... are you serious, michigan?Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 03:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 13:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Words fail me. Nobody^{don't bother} 04:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This is supposed to be America, not some retarded mediaeval theocracy, right?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this the one from July? All I can find is articles from then but they refer to funerals for miscarriages...which is actually even worse. Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 13:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Last I heard, MI's governor signed a law that would force abortion facilities to meet the same standards as surgery theaters and that would force doctors to make sure a woman wasn't being coerced into an abortion, but vetoed the law that would have forbidden private insurance companies from paying for abortions unless the beneficiary paid a specific rider with her insurance--the slut rider. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 14:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that's the status I'd heard as well. the article talking about the passage of the TRAP law and veto of the insurance law mention the original language of funerals and death cirtificates. TRAP laws are some of the best written laws in the nation. it's hard to argue against them, and they don't restrict access, they just make it cost tons more. Chris put an article up on Facebook about the availblity of ru-486 and friends over the internet. That should be legal for any doctor to perscribe, in the right does, and without worry that it might be fake. the need to control women's reporduction is just sick.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 17:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned about this. I imagine that before the laws in question actually go into effect some group of not-idiots will take the state to court and the law will be struck down before it actually goes into effect.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If you're overweight, you'll live longer

Is it just me or are we getting more controversy-inducing studies lately? Osaka Sun (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

BMI has always been a bit of a blunt instrument when it comes to weight management. It has certainly been useful in looking at eating disorders relating to the low side, but on the moderately upper side things are more complex. Of course there is a BMI level beyond which even the muscle-bound cannot be confused with the outright obese. As with so many things the nuances of the professionals are grossly over-simplified when it comes to being reported in the mass-media. For example, when it gets reported that a small amount of "chocolate is good for you", then it is a far cry from the sugar-laden, mass-market confectionery which the average (wo)man-on-the-couch tends to consume.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Penn & Teller's Bullshit episode on obesity made the same mistake with BMI. They found that across a range of fitness tests, someone a bit over the "healthy" weight according to BMI was actually the fittest out of their group. Concluding that BMI was bullshit... Completely glossing over the fact that the heaviest person in the sample quit after one event and was carted away on an oxygen supply. But no, the concept of a statistical proxy is far too complicated for people. ^postate 16:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The trouble with BMI is that it's really an unnecessary statistic used primarily if not ONLY for insurance companies. Doctors don't know or care about your BMI, other than an easy way to get the "you're fat, lose weight" conversation started. They care about how much fat you have, where it is on your body (for some reason, big butts are good, big bellies are very much NOT good), they care about your blood pressue, etc. I am actually quite health for being obese. no one doubts i'm obese or should lose weight, but every number (cholesterol, heart rate, ability to walk longish distances, flexibility) is in normal range. so it's always "your weight is a danger for future problems". however, my insurance sees BMI 35 (yes, i am very over weight) and says "you get the delight of paying 200 more a month for your insurance.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 16:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Most articles that talk about health and mention the BMI are just saying "The BMI is bullshit, ignore it. Go by percent of body fat". So saying "the BMI is bullshit" is nothing new.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

According to various sources I am either very overweight or obese. Body fat: 15%. My son is 6'0" same height and weighs a bit shy of 240lb (17st for those outside the USA), do feel free to call him obese just as long as you are well insured against being hit by large heavy fast-moving things. BMI is bullshit. However, being fat is a marker for poorer health, as is being excessively thin. Because BMI only works for the normally sedentary, the findings are almost certainly skewed by the presence of fit people, who tend to score higher BMI because muscle is denser than fat and because muscle makes you bigger without being taller. Why is this even news? JzG (talk) 23:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Why does this have to be from the Weekly World News?

Chris Christie becomes a Democrat. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

What's awesome is that other Google search results for that same idea returns stuff from Daily Caller, quoting gifted insights from political wizards like Laura Ingraham...no winky smileys required. --Seth Peck (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

But at this rate, it's gonna happen. First he actually said something nice about Obama, now hating his own party, calling them out for being colossal fuck-ups. At least if he doesn't quit they'll throw him out. ^sshole 16:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I always figured Rubio would be the first to switch. The Tea Party isn't giving Republicans much wiggle room, and moderates are beginning to chafe.--"Shut up, Brx." 17:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You'd think someone with half a brain in the party hierarchy would consider the results of the November elections and put the hammer down on the Tea Party fuck-knuckles and try to make the entire enterprise into less of a loony bin, instead of letting said fuck-knuckles double down on their stupidity. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 17:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

As the article on the New Left says, the Tea Party is the GOP's New Left. We eagerly await the libertarian bombing campaign.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is the much larger country adjoining the USA and run by a crazed American anti-semite? Oh, wait, we're not supposed to actually think about this piss-poor excuse for a historical analogy are we? JzG (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Swiss gun murders

I WIGO'd this as well, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this story. L'homme de la Perspective ^Discuser? 23:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is a comparison to be made with the U.S. shootings, because despite having a high gun ownership rate, in practice Switzerland has very strict gun control laws. If I remember this right, In Switzerland everyone in the military reserve has a government-issued assault rifle at home, but the ammunition supply is strictly controlled. You can only buy bullets at a shooting range and can't take them home. Until recently people were issued one box of bullets to be kept at home, so they could fight their way to the barracks, but this was phased out. --Tweenk (talk) 00:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

More here: wp:Gun politics in Switzerland. --Tweenk (talk) 00:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of that, but maybe some wingnuts will stop using the "look at Switzerland" argument. On the surface, and with sufficient ignorance, it can be very convincing. L'homme de la Perspective ^Discuser? 00:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Well you can hardly compare that incident to things like Aurora or Newtown. The Number of victims alone makes quite a difference (3 opposed to more than 20). As cynical as this sounds but this could have just been a family drama. I actually live in Switzerland and this incident has almost passed my radar. It's not necessarily something that is on peoples minds.

As to your remark about Switzerland and guns in general: If you must use a tragedy to bring home a political point then you should maybe use This. Also do not forget that only about 60% of Swiss men go to the military. The rest does not get a gun. It is also not mandatory to take your gun home. Most guys I know left their rifle at their parents home when they moved out.--Th. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 01:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Unless the States wishes to conscript 100+ million people and makes an official policy of neutrality, using Switzerland as a case study is quite illogical. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Kitty Werthmann

This screed is going around FB and other social media right now, and while it's the culmination of a long history of viewpoints, Snopes is just now looking at it. It's worth noting that the author (potentially article-worthy?) is a teabagger and the president of the Eagle Forum. --Seth Peck (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Quite a bit of that is facially inaccurate, and the whole thing is of course little more then a reducto ad Hitler.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 06:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not just factually inaccurate, it's the very definition of not even wrong. From 1934-1938 Austria was a proto-fascist state. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

While there is some truth to the screed, it's pretty terrible in general. The highlight for we was this paragraph: "As for healthcare, our tax rates went up to 80% of our income. Newlyweds immediately received a $1,000 loan from the government to establish a household. We had big programs for families. All day care and education were free. High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized. Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing." Enough non-sequiturs to make Rob Smith. The last sentence is particularly rich, given a few paragraphs earlier it says "...a full-employment law was passed which meant if you didn't work, you didn't get a ration card, and if you didn't have a card, you starved to death." DickTurpis (talk) 15:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad that I have no social media contacts who would circulate such a screed except to point out its WTF-ery. I can't imagine how I would react if a friend or family member was serious about that sort of thing. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 15:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I've told facebook that if they post wingnut/moonbattery I'll purge them. Already done this with two right wing extremists and a guy I suspect is a left wing extremist. --Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That seems a little harsh. Nihilist 18:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Tired of seeing people bitch about non-existent nazis coming to take their guns to use as rape instruments on their virgin daughters, or whatever the GOP is cooking up today.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

She describes Hitler's background in a small town in the Alps quite accurately, "people intermarried and offspring were sometimes retarded." Burnum (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This out-crazies... pretty damn near every conspiracy theory out there

Snopes summarizes it best: WellAware1, a web site whose stock in trade is claiming that politicians, government officials, celebrities, and other people featured in media-covered events are actually imposters portrayed by actors, many of whom are supposedly members of the Greenberg/Sexton family. (Among other articles, the site maintains that Adolf Hitler and Walt Disney were both pseudo-persons portrayed by Kermit Roosevelt, son of U.S. president Theodore Roosevelt.) MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 18:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Henry Winkler is Sirhan Sirhan.
• The Fonz is also John McCain.
• Paul Newman is the King of Spain.
• Kirk Douglas is Buzz Aldrin.
• Robert "Beretta" Blake is the Pope.
• Kevin Bacon is zero degrees of separation away from the White House Press Secretary.
• Jimmy Carter was JFK.

The site has the same effect as driving past a terrible auto accident... you know you shouldn't look, you hate yourself for looking, but can't stop looking. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 19:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The Gabby Giffords HOAX. "This is the event they used to further the gun grab, and silence free speech across America." Burnum (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Please, please, please, someone with a CP sock suggest this is the source of Castro and Chavez's body doubles. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 19:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Chris Christie as Hugo Chavez^img Burnum (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Adolf Eichmann / Bing Crosby. LOL, I'm calling parody on this shit. Also, can you please provide the Snopes link? Thanks. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Here you go. --Seth Peck (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Does this guy say WHY they do this, or how they can unless they ALSO have secret transporter technology. --Revolverman (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Gerald Celente as DallasGoldbug. DallasGoldBug is webmaster and cp:Gerald Celente is Ken Doll's chief economic & strategic thinker. 'Splains everthing. Burnum (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget that Paul is dead. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

John Boehner is a Rastafarian. Doctor Dark (talk) 04:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

75% tax rate in France

Am I not the only one here thinking this a bad idea? Osaka Sun (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds great. Tax the people with all the money. I'm tired of our elected representatives sucking up to these legalised crooks. They won't starve. Sophie^Wilder 13:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that it's over 20% Scandinavia's marginal rate, I believe. Osaka Sun (talk) 13:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It's purely symbolic. The amount the state would raise is very small. The problem with ideological policies like these is that they always ignore the real world side-effects, like wealthy successful people moving to competitor countries. It happened in the UK in the 70s. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:13, 1 January 2013‎ (UTC)

Seventy-five percent is nothing compared to American tax rates from 1936-1963. Also does the French plan only tax income from work, or does it exempt capital gains, which is where most of the money rich people make comes from? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 15:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Capital gains is already 34%, I have no idea if this plan factors that in. And yeah, I don't think we'll ever see a return 50s-era rates because of the relative ease the rich can Go Galt now. Osaka Sun (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

In the Iron Lady, Meryl Streep as Thatcher says the French rate is 85%. Burnum (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Has there ever been anything to show that a rich person will just up and leave if they don't like paying taxes? A study or a survey of migration might end the debate. Personally, I don't think there should be rich people. The accumulation of capital is the enslavement of the workers, ->communism, blah, blah, blah: I'm not in the mood to debate my political ideology, just asking a question and clarifying my intentions--"Shut up, Brx." 16:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

anecdotal evidence. I Think a lot of the nouveaux-rich rockers left the UK in the 1960s/70s because of taxes--some of the Rolling Stones come to mind. I don't know how that translated to people who needed to stay in the country to make their wealth. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 16:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Rich people up an leaving France, you say? like Azanavour? Hallyday? Pagny? now Depardu and Arnault. It's a virtual national pass time for rich french. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 17:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I was too young to be earning myself back then, but I think the top rate of tax in the UK was in the region of 95% during the 60s - The Beatles song Taxman says "There's one for you nineteen for me". Certainly at the time Thatcher came to power it was 83% and she cut it to 40%. Генгис^unbelieving 18:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

While the Laffler Curve is hilariously abused and almost definitely faulty, the idea it's built upon (if you tax people too much it'll weaken the economy and you'll end up with less revenues) is pretty accurate, and I don't think anyone will disagree with it. A 75% tax rate if implemented would be disastrous for any country. While the US has had much higher, the effective tax rate was much lower for various reasons. --Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 17:56, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Question: Does France have marginal tax brackets like the United States or is the 75% proposal the effective tax rate of millionaires? If it is the former, then like someone above pointed out, it isn't nearly as much as Eisenhower and Roosevelt tax rates in the United States. Mr. Anon (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

If you mean the progressivity of brackets, it appears so, and the 75% rate kicks in a US $1.2m+. But it also appears to be levied on "households" as the basic unit of taxation, as opposed to "individuals" as in the US. Burnum (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the 'real' purpose of otherwise-great freedom of movement reforms like Schengen is to provide a disincentive to countries that might otherwise be willing to place a greater burden on the rich. Raise income tax rates, capital gains rates, or cap CEO pay, and the people affected most will just move away and find a new job in the 'global marketplace'. After all, we live in an increasingly neoliberalized world, where you can exploit what is basically slave labor in 'developing' countries, stash your money in the Caymans or another tax haven, and live somewhere like Monaco while you run your business half the world away.

Those who champion neoliberalism have learned a lot from the Cold War - they know that any country that moves too far to the left has only to be correctly isolated for it to fall apart. That is, assuming said country can't just be lured into the suffocating embrace of the IMF and World Bank. The more free the 'global marketplace', the more incentive is given for others to join in on the (usually) US/UK-led stranglehold. And the more that individual nations today rely on large corporations for a significant share of their GDP, the harder it is for them to pass truly progressive reform (or, like in the case of Sweden, the harder it is for them to counter the recent trend to the right).

At some point, nationalist pride and the cost of moving business will no longer be barriers enough to prevent this becoming a runaway effect. Q0 (talk) 03:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning Schengen here seems weird. Schengen is basically a paperwork reduction exercise, the internal EU borders (including those not affected by Schengen) are forbidden by EU treaty from having any effect on freedom of movement by citizen workers (and the courts have interpreted "workers" broadly enough to include toddlers and the bed-bound elderly) so Schengen just means you don't have to show your papers, they couldn't have kept you out anyway. Really. Even without Schengen it is illegal for an EU internal border control to treat EU citizens any differently from its own citizens. So you can stop criminals or check people's photo ID (which you'd do to your own citizens) but you can't demand a visa, proof of employment, means of support or anything like that. The rationale is that workers should be free to move where the jobs are, just as goods are free to move where the consumers are.

The problem we've been seeing recently is that big companies are trying to hide profits from a tax system that focuses on taxing profit. Starbucks can pretend that it didn't make a "profit" on its UK operations by inventing an arbitrary sum paid to an overseas subsidiary that handily cancels out the profit, every Hollywood studio or Music label that offers "net points" to people knows this trick, most successful box office hits never make a profit on paper, hundreds of millions of dollars vanishes in "promotional" fees paid by the movie to another division of the same company and a foolish actor, writer or other contributor who expected to make a fortune gets nothing. The right fix is the same as for aspiring musicians, demand gross points. Make sure you're getting a slice of the income to the company, regardless of its profits. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It seems I was not clear about what I meant by marginal tax brackets. In the United States, the "top income tax rate" is 39.6% for incomes over $400,000 (with the recent fiscal cliff deal). This does not mean that everyone who makes over $400,000 pays 40% of their income to taxes. The first $400,000 they make are taxed at a lower tax rate, and every dollar above that is taxed at 39.6%. This makes the effective tax rate rather difficult to calculate, but it ensures that someone who makes $400,001 pays virtually the same effective rate as someone who makes $399,999 (note that this is all discounting payroll and capital gains taxes, plus state taxes, but that's a different story).

If the proposed effective tax rate in France is actually 75%, then that is probably not a good idea, as you probably will not gain the maximum revenue that you can over a long term. However, if France operates with marginal tax brackets like the United States does, than 75% as the top rate would not be a big deal. Mr. Anon (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, Depardieu got Russian citizenship in protest of the taxes. I don't think the nation has lost anything, though. He's worthless in any other role besides Pierre Richard's foil.--"Shut up, Brx." 18:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• the people affected most will just move. This isn't necessarily a hard and fast rule. Access to civil courts and defense of property rights is a huge factor in investment thinking, not just $2 a day labor costs. Political stability is paramount, and not all under developed countries can offer this. As to the immediate effect of rate increases in the US, an argument can be made that someone with $1 million in income maybe forced to start a new business (a deductible expense), invest $601k in it to deliberately keep his income at $399k. The problem is, it costs about 100k on average to create one new job (anybody have a more accurate figure?) Burnum (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

JK

Some people are somewhat more altruistic:

Rowling has eloquently described why she feels compelled to pay her full taxes as a UK resident. "I chose to remain a domiciled taxpayer for a couple of reasons," she said.

"The main one was that I wanted my children to grow up where I grew up, to have proper roots in a culture as old and magnificent as Britain's; to be citizens, with everything that implies, of a real country, not free-floating expats, living in the limbo of some tax haven and associating only with the children of similarly greedy tax exiles.

"A second reason was that I am indebted to the welfare state... When my life hit rock bottom, that safety net, threadbare though it had become under John Major, was there to break the fall."

Scream!! (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As much as I admire Rowling for this, I'm not sure how much of an example she can be considered of the general population.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't think she is "... of the general population." She is, however an example to the wankers who can self exile or farm out their income to other states. James Dyson's said/done similar but he's farmed out his manufacturing to Asia - rather negating the effect. Scream!! (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait, what? Osaka Sun (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"Wait what?" What? Scream!! (talk) 15:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I meant I don't remember Rowling doing such a thing. Osaka Sun (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I read somewhere (was it here?) that Elvis Presley's manager said it was his job to get Elvis into the highest tax bracket possible. --Seth Peck (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Brings tears to my eyes, only how do budget forecasters estimate how many share her altruism? "If the prodigality of some was not compensated by the frugality of others, the conduct of every prodigal, by feeding the idle with the bread of the industrious, tends not only to beggar himself, but to impoverish his country. Burnum (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Question for biologists and genetics types

I was reading a "new" study on a new genetic theory for homosexexuality. the article [here] states : Rice and his team created a mathematical model that explains why homosexuality is passed through epi-marks, not genetics. Evolutionarily speaking, if homosexuality was solely a genetic trait, scientists would expect the trait to eventually disappear because homosexuals wouldn't be expected to reproduce. But because these epi-marks provide an evolutionary advantage for the parents of homosexuals: They protect fathers of homosexuals from underexposure to testosterone and mothers of homosexuals from overexposure to testosterone while they are in gestation. --- what the heck does that mean?Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 03:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Might be woo. Bootmii(Nomic) 03:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"Evolutionarily speaking, if homosexuality was solely a genetic trait, scientists would expect the trait to eventually disappear because homosexuals wouldn't be expected to reproduce." Not sure about the "epi-mark" business, but that quote is definitely bunk. I wonder if the reporter knows how to spell "heterozygote." ListenerX^TalkerX 06:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It does seem a strange argument to make, especially as the twin argument already exists and points the finger at epigenetics, mostly because that's the next step out from having a nucleotide based explanation for sexuality. For those who don't know the twin argument, very roughly it boils down to: 1) identical twins that have (almost) identical DNA should have identical sexualities, but 2) some identical twins don't, one is straight, the other gay, therefore DNA itself can't be solely responsible for determining whether somebody is straight or gay. However, identical combinations of genes can still be expressed in different ways by each individual, and how they are expressed is dependent on their epigenetic makeup which is unique to that individual.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 11:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Twin studies are more complicated than one might think for a number of reasons for all genetic (and nature-nurture) studies. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 14:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, one twin who is gay, has a significantly higher chance of his tiwn being gay, than his brother or sister. which suggests *some* aspect is genetic. but mostly i was trying to figure out what the hell "epi marks' would have to do with protecting the mother or father from hormones. if the hormones are in the womb, and the fetus is dealing with them, what does that have to do with mom or dad. i looked up epi-marks in wiki, and my best understanding is that it's geneitic things that do not actually effect the DNA. But now i'm even more lost. there is a reason i went into social sciences and not hard sciences. heh.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 16:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said, a very rough explanation, mostly because I can't remember which study it was that it turned up in. I'll have a hunt around, see if I can find it.(ec) Oh, and the way genetics and epigenetics was explained to me in a layman's explanation - I was told to think of the DNA or mRNA as an non-English speaker trying to explain a complex and complicated argument to an English speaker and so needs a translator. One of the effects of epigenetics is to act as that interpreter, but the actual nuance of the argument that the English speaker hears would depend, for example, if the interpretor was a non-English speaker who has learnt English as a second language, or if the interpretor spoke English as their first language and the non-English language as their second. The overall translation would be the about same in either case, but there would be differences between the final two results.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 17:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

@Godot, re "one twin who is gay, has a significantly higher chance of his twin being gay, than his brother or sister. which suggests *some* aspect is genetic." Are you talking specifically about identical twins here? The vast majority of twins are fraternal, & therefore no more genetically similar than other siblings with the same two parents, so any increased correlation in sexuality is more likely to be related to nurture/environmental factors than genetics. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, specifically identical twins. and the studies i've seen intentionally included twins that had been seperated via adoption, so they had different "nurture" for their "nature" as it were. But even that could be something in the womb, and not genetics per say.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 03:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought the latest on homosexuality was the exposure in the omb to high or low levels of estrogen and testosterone ? I am sooo out of date though. Hamster (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Epigenetics involves factors affecting gene expression that don't change the underlying DNA code, such as DNA methylation. Check out TOW. As far as how this protects mothers and fathers from hormones, it doesn't really say. Look at the last paragraph, though: "We've found a story that looks really good...." Basically, they came up with a nice-looking equation but haven't actually tested it yet. Consider it hype. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Also one twin who is Christian will have a higher chance that his twin is also Christian which also suggests that the religion we adopt is genetic. If anyone wants a counter argument then read a bit of Jay Joseph Dirk Steele (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't correlate if you look at twins raised in different homes with different religions. religion is not genetic. but there are good reasons to suggest that homosexuality is genetic, epigentic, or something "in utero".Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 03:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You are just talking 'moral' eugenics. Of course a genetically identical twin raised as a christian will not have the same beliefs as his twin raised as a muslim. A twin set both raised by the same religion (as is thr norm) will adopt those same beliefs. Are there good scientific reasons to suggest being gay is genetic, epigentic or in utero.? Or is it merely the psychological fact that we attribute to ourselves external conditions for 'misfortune' but tend to blame the other person's character (genes/biology) for their 'immoral' actions. What about the ancient Greeks view of homosexuality? Cite me the scientific study that backs up your ideology. Thanks. (Of course you cannot cos there is not one and you are not familiar at all with the literature. You are just gay bashing.Homosexuality is a disease to your thought.) Dirk Steele (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

giggles. "gay bashing". want to call me a rape appoligist next? :-) Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 04:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, you have made some effort recently on apologias for certain of Muhammad's dastardly deeds... ListenerX^TalkerX 05:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

What has homosexuality got to do with rape? Don't understand your connection here. Of course you must insist without any scientific evidence at all that gays MUST be caused by genes, epigenetics, or in utero abnormalities. Why discount the fact that some people make a personal choice in their sexual partner's gender. Suck my dick Godot. Yeah and you and your mates can block me again now and remove all my comments from any thread as usual. Herd arseholes. 81.101.244.221 (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Fun with Amazon reviews

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Melanies-Marvelous-Measles-Stephanie-Messenger/dp/1466938897 is a book so evil it is hard to describe. Hard, but not impossible, as the reviews show. JzG (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Pfffft. "Andrew's Awesome AIDS" is way better. DickTurpis (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Paul's Preventable Polio is more relevant--"Shut up, Brx." 23:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It is uplifting to see that all the 5-star reviews are sarcastic. --Tweenk (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I was enjoying the fact that one of these sarcastic reviews is written by "Mike Litoris" who has Amazon's "real name" reviewer seal of approval. What sort of government ID do we supposed Michael provided to Amazon to establish his credentials? Maybe his Official Breast Inspector card? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I always preferred the spelling "Mike LaTorres". I had an active CP account under that name for a while. They never caught on. DickTurpis (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It's worrying if Amazon are as stupid as CP. JzG (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Great idea to bring in revenue for the RWF

Create a domain (assf.ly) that puts interstitial ads for the likes of the JREF on links to Conservapedia. Even better, make the cp: markup point to assf.ly. Wouldn't that be nice? Bootmii(Nomic) 05:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Not. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Very clever, Firaxis. Very clever.

I've been playing XCOM: Enemy Unknown since Christmas, which is set in 2015. When you recruit soldiers, their nationality is randomised (their features and names are derived from their nationality), and is represented by a flag. Now, of course this leads to missions that play out like jokes ("A Greek, an Egyptian, a Russian, an American and an Irishman all walk into a UFO..."), but I just noticed something. Scotland and the UK have separate flags, and there's no Wales. Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 11:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wales? You mean that place where dragons come from? Ha! Next you'll be telling me Ireland is a real country. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 12:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't Wales from one of those obscure fantasy novels from the 70s? Blue (is useful) 16:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Howl's Moving Castle is from 1986. Nobody^{don't bother} 16:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Ha, Americans who vaguely think they might have Scottish ancestors don't get a vote, leaving only the people actually living in Scotland to make the decision. On the whole they seem to like "An independent Scotland" far better as a slogan than as an actual choice on a ballot so this, like the alien invasion, may have to remain an alternate history come 2015. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 13:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no one even implied that Americans with Scottish ancestors would get a vote. Blue (pester) 16:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Firaxis are American. Did they buy a Scottish (independence minded) game studio to build XCOM? No. It's conceivable this was a cheeky "Random things that might change in the world by 2015" tweak but it seems more likely that somebody in California is rooting for the SNP. And you're also a little out of touch, although eligibility for the referrendum was never practically in any doubt (all and only residents will get a vote) in parliament, in the press SNP supporters argued that it would be "fairer" if those who "aren't really Scottish" didn't vote. Which we should expect, they are nationalists after all and this is how nationalists think everywhere. There's the people "like us" who deserve representation, protection under the law and so on, and then there's everybody else, who ought to go back where they came from... 82.69.171.94 (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh... what? --Revolverman (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I remember seeing this film with David Tennant, Lost in LA or something, and his character seemed pretty peeved that people kept misidentifying him as English.--"Shut up, Brx." 23:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That film was probably written by somebody from the SNP. They have guys working every angle. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Only thing I've really played from Firaxis was the Civilization [sic] series. (Does Alpha Centauri count? MicroProse was the direct ancestor of Firaxis, and it has Sid's name on it.) Spearman > tank. Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me} 04:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I question netflix

So, a while back I noticed they had Clue (mid 80's comedy adaption of the game, sorta mediocre but i love it) on netflix, listed as "Suspenseful 1980's", on the big list of recommended movie by category. I laughed and copied that, thinking nothing of it. however, Now I think it's just trying to mock me. Troll2, The suspenseful 1980's movie like Terminator and Children of the corn. --^Mikal 15:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

WTF Troll 2 came out in 1990. Nobody^{don't bother} 16:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the date is clearly the problem here. Where's that picture of Picard smaking his forehead when you need it? There's no reason people should be renting Troll 2. It's just about bearable with a team of semi-professional comedians riffing on it live, that's how I saw it. But there's just no reason to risk exposure in your own home. It's very nearly completed shaded over from "so bad it's good" to pure "just actually bad" like Batman & Robin. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

And the BoN doesn't get the joke. Nobody^{don't bother} 17:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Oops. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Nobody will object if i link this here, right? Nihilist 18:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't feel too bad, BoN. It wasn't that good a joke to start with. --Kels (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ubuntu phone.

Ubuntu phone. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 18:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I just want them to focus on tablets for right now, but I guess this could be considered a step in the right direction. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Does Debian on Arm count? Percival^Cox 19:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

From what I've read (which was months ago), the touchscreen GUIs out right now just aren't up to par. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, another pipedream from people who have never read a 1000 page operator requirements document. Good luck with that, Canonical. Might as well have dug Palm OS out of its grave rather than waste your time with that. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:10, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Jeeves, a theoretical company could one day use Ubuntu on their devices! Get on the train now while it's still at the station!!! Occasionaluse (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And they're gonna do what that Android hasn't done already, exactly? EVDebs (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I assume you'll be able to run full copies of LibreOffice as slowly as your heart desires. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You will be able to run native code on it, which means tons of existing high quality C / C++ code can be reused in apps. Running unmodified desktop Linux apps might also have some utility - you could hook up a monitor, mouse and keyboard and work directly on your phone. The processing power of current high end smartphones is more than sufficient for this. --Tweenk (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

You can already do that with Android. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

So when do I get to wear a Raspberry Pi in my hat? ^theist 02:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There is Android NDK, but this is just an implementation of the Java Native Interface. You can write shims for C / C++ libraries to call them from Java, but you can't run entire unmodified C / C++ applications. --Tweenk (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, almost. Android devices can run unmodified C programs that live down in the layer where input and output are file descriptors. So if you prefer a CP/M style pip program for copying and moving files (because you are some sort of heathen presumably) on an Android device you can write one in C, compile it for the CPU architecture of your device, and run it from a command prompt on Android. Everything that lives up where ordinary users are, with buttons and pictures and so on, has to be plugged into the Android-specific stuff. If the phrase "command prompt" means nothing to you then yeah, as far as you're concerned Android only runs special Android programs. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Intriguing. However, I have a questionable question however. The fist thing that comes to mind is the Rasberry Pi, yes, but from what I know, Rasberrilicious that one as it might, owning to the fact that it uses an ARM processor, such computers cannot run X86 programs. Wouldn't an Ubuntu running on ARM, equally be an Ubuntu unable to run X86 programs? (So no Libre offices and GIMPs straight away)? Sen (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Those aren't x86 programs - being open source, they can be, and are, recompiled for whatever processor they're running on. If it's Ubuntu, it'll have the whole GNU/Linux software stack and compilers on there. I believe Debian Squeeze is still OpenOffice.org, it's Wheezy that's LibreOffice, but the ARM version should be able to just install it from the repos - David Gerard (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, here we are. LibreOffice on non-x86 is admittedly going to be a bit arsey, only because the OpenOffice code is such a huge ball of shit loaded with architecture-specific kludges, and quite a lot of LO dev effort is still cleaning out the shit. But apparently they really could just compile it as-is and it worked - David Gerard (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Life after the Fiscal Cliff

Well, I have good news (tax hikes with spending cuts are a surefire way to balance the budget). My mom, unfortunately, thinks it will ruin her life (note that she makes just over $250k a year, cares for four kids - the other three have moved out - and donates to charity). I know everyone hates taxes, but without them, how are we going to balance the budget? Bootmii(Nomic) 21:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe the tax cuts are still good for anyone making less than $450,000, if I'm not mistaken...and even if they didn't (e.g., less than $250,000), with income deductions she'd still be unaffected. --Seth Peck (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Start by taxing your mom at 1963 rates. Closing all the loopholes that the wealthy/corporations use to avoid the taxes they should pay. Tax incentives for same said corporations to move manufacturing jobs back to the US, creating a broad middle-class tax base -- this step also involves people getting used to the idea that a laptop computer should cost more than $400. Also, cutting the nuclear arsenal by 99% and the conventional forces by half. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 22:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

BUTBUTBUT THEN NORTHIRANISTAN WILL ASSFUCK OUR DAUGHTERS (AND SONS!!!!) WITH THEIR NUCLEAR WILLIES! --Revolverman (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure they say they aren't supposed to like sodomy. --Seth Peck (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Objection - relevance. Bootmii(Nomic) 08:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

1963 income tax + Social Security + FICA > 100%. Do you want anyone to pay over 100%? Bootmii(Nomic) 01:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't understand how tax brackets work, do you? The high rate of X is applied only to income over level Y. Income under that level is taxed at rate Z. So I make, say, 300k a year. I'm taxed at 0% on the first 12k. I'm taxed at 15% on all income between 12k and 250k, and taxed at say,75% on all income between 250K and 300k. That doesn't add up to zero even with SS or FICA. Nowhere close. (All numbers PIDOOMA) Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 13:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

US tax brackets are marginal. For someone making "just over $250k a year", there will be almost no difference in actual taxes paid because only income over that $250k boundary is taxed at the higher rate. Sounds like your mom has bought into the fear mongering. Q0 (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I wish more people understood marginal brackets.--^talk 21:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Will the Fiscal Hank take his band the Fiscal Shadows on to become a guitar-based version of Fiscal Muzak, thus proving that history repeats itself? JzG (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh ToP, if only someone in government had your common sense. L'homme de la Perspective ^Discuser? 23:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm a reasonably well paid UK professional top lining somewhere in the region of $60,000 (depending on allowances and the exchange rate) and you're asking me to be sympathetic towards someone earning four times that. Bollocks to that and the bus it rode in on. Innocent Bystander (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• a surefire way to balance the budget. There is no relationship between tax hikes and balancing the budget, unless increased revenues (assuming tax hikes lead to increased revenues) are earmarked by law for deficit reduction. Experience shows increased revenue lead to increased spending, aka known as porkbarrel or "christmas tree". Legislators wake up one morning, and there is more revenues in the kitty than anticipated by budget projections, so voila, a pork barrel package appears under the christmas tree. [3] Burnum (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I've updated progressive taxation because we had no content that explains the difference between how people think income is taxed/how conservatives pretend it is taxed, versus how it's actually taxed. --Seth Peck (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious $250K and she is worried? you should come meet the guys who have to live on £52 a week i know