RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive196

This is an archive page, last updated 21 March 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>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <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)

Am I the only that noticed...

I've been doing some reading on feminism and anti-racism (as well as anti-homophobia and anti-transphobia), and I noticed something that seems somewhat odd to me: Am I the only one that noticed that there are distinct waves and movements within feminism, but not anti-racism, anti-homophobia, and anti-transphobia? Is that thought strange to anyone else?--Token Conservative (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Terms like "anti-racism" and "anti-homophobia" are broad enough to cover any number of distinct waves and movements. Do you consider Martin Luther King and Unite Against Fascism, for example, to be part of the same movement? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

(EC) You're not comparing like with like, because feminism is not necessarily the the same as anti-misogyny. Генгис^mutating 20:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Frederick Douglass and Malcolm X represent the exact same way of dealing with racism. As for "anti-transphobia," that's a word that barely existed a decade ago, so how quickly would you like those waves to come? When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 20:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Or scientific anti-racism like the Boasian anthropologists. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Malcolm X was a racist. In private letters and talk from eyewitness' he recommended that black people spit in the food of white people. He was not for equality. Forests (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Malcolm X was a complicated figure whose views on race developed over the course of his short life. You need to read what he had to say after breaking with the NOI and his experience on hajj. Marable's book is also a good place to get a more nuanced understanding of Malcolm's intelectual development. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 21:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

@Weasel: that's true, but wikipedia has articles specifically about first, second, and third wave feminism, our article on feminism talks about this distinction, the wikipedia navbar on feminism has several specific types of feminism and articles on them (like Liberal Feminism vs Libertarian Feminism), we have similar articles on specific feminist movements, but wikipedia doesn't even have navbar on anti-racism, there seems to be no specific articles on distinct waves (such as anti-slavery, anti-segregation, or modern dealings with continued racial discrimination in pay and loans), or specific ideologies within anti-racism (like Marxist Anti-Racism or Radical Anti-Racism).

Am I the only one that thinks this is a strange distinction?

I suppose it is true that Feminism is not directly comparable to anti-racism, but that only makes things weirder. A person who is opposed to sexism can become a part of the broader ideology of feminism, but there is no comparable broader ideology for someone opposed to racism. And this is just as true with opposition to homophobia and transphobia. --Token Conservative (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

The question you're really asking has nothing to do with anti-racist activists or other struggles. What you're really asking is "Why have scholars used the idea of separate "'waves' to talk about feminism, but have not broken other struggles down into distinct, enumerated 'waves?'" When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 21:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

And also something about the different distinct ideas within the broader ideology of Feminism, such as Standpoint.--Token Conservative (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

(EC)And yet, even though they don't use the term "wave", hasn't anti-racism undergone numerous stages of development, in the U.S. at least? Abolitionism, followed by civil rights, followed by where we are now (which is pretending racism doesn't exist and getting really offended when it's pointed out)? Blue (pester) 21:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Feminism is an ideology and an identity label that many people have adopted. Anti-racism isn't. Somebody might say "I am anti-racism", meaning that they oppose racism, but this isn't a statement of general worldview like saying "I am feminist" or, say, "I am communist" or "I am libertarian" would be. If you look at any of things that could be categorised within anti-racism or anti-homophobia, such as the black civil rights movement or the LGBT rights movements, you will see that there are separate waves and movements within those. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I"m coming late to the conversation but there's something obvious here I see missing in this comparison. I think Weasleoid tried to express it, but it's this: "anti racism" is a position that stands against something. "There is racism, and I'm opposed to it". Femisims is a positive position. "I have these views about the value of, contributions of women". There are such groups in African American movements, including "Black pride/power", "Black theology", "Black liberation theology", "Black identity movements", panafricanism, Black conciousness, and on and on. There are serious theologies and philosophies and social movements to understand how to best be "black" in America. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 19:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not quite true--the black nationalists of the 1960s and later would use their racial identity as a subject position much as a feminist does in what you describe, and would argue that such a move is rooted to some degree in reaction against the racism thatthey encountered. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 21:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Surprised how quickly this has grown.

@Blue, I know there have been waves, as I said, but there seems to be fairly little direct mention of it in the most common source of information for people: wikipedia, and I don't remember reading much about the idea of distinct waves of anti-racism, or distinct ideas within it, or even a general ideology that is built around opposition to racism outside of wikipedia. That seems weird.--Token Conservative (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

"...even a general ideology..." Cultural relativism? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You must be fucking joking. There are racist gays, ageist gays, "straight-acting" gays who try to marginalise the more stereotypical types, biphobic gays, and transphobic gays, hoo boy, a whole fucking lot of transphobic gays. Even if you want to say "Oh, they don't count as a movement" even then there's a rather large portion of the gay community that advocates moving away from straight acceptance and norms (such as marriage) and focusing on being hyper-radical. An example is Against Equality, which wrote that recently WIGO'd article "The left's argument against gay marriage". I don't understand what these people want, what, a segregayted island that's just an enormous bathhouse? Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 23:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's EXACTLY what they want. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 23:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

PSAL gets to the heart of this. It's a terminology thing and may go no deeper than that. You'd have to establish that it does go deeper before you can draw any conclusion more exciting than you could from e.g. noticing that Windows 2000 and Windows 95 are both named after years while Windows 3.1 and Windows 8 are both named after small numbers. Is it a sinister conspiracy? Nope, just branding. Once there's a widely recognised "second wave" of feminism it was inevitable that people would claim the existence of "third wave" feminists, in the same way that after the term Generation X was popularised it was inevitable people would try to identify a "Generation Y" to follow it. People love labels and patterns. Tialaramex (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It may be terminology, but "second wave" feminism is usually quite well defined in contrast to "third wave". The latter is more open to the concept of "woman" being flexible enough to include transgenderred women because it's more open to dealing with a wider scope of discrimination. Hence why you get Germaine Greer saying things like "trans women are a ghastly parody of real women" or Julie Burchill casually flinging extremely transpohobic comments around (and let's not even get started on Cathy Brennan) while you don't get that from those who identify as third wave or sex positive feminists as much (if at all) as that third wave movement doesn't really hold a concept of a "real" woman that can be abused. Certainly they are labels, but that doesn't completely rob them of their use if the identity is well defined enough, and in this case I think it is. ^moral 12:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, sorry, I unindented to reply specifically to Hamilton's idea. I agree that the waves of feminism exist as identifiably different but my point was that the absence of such labels for anti-racists or whatever doesn't necessarily tell us anything. I mean, it could be indicative, but we'd need to actually find that and not leap to conclusions unsupported. Tialaramex (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

All I was saying is that's weird. It is weird, right?--Token Conservative (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No, you are. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

North Korea cuts communications hotline

Well, here we go. The last time they did this was in 2010. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

China really should have moved to get a leader that doesn't constantly bring bad PR to them when kim 2 died. --^Mikal_lakiM 02:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I suspect China may both overestimate their influence in North Korea and underestimate just how evil and suicidally stupid the latest Kim is. Remember, this kid likely spent his entire life being brought up to believe he is some kind of God whose nation is far beyond recrimination and attack so long as they act like psychopaths. Personally I half suspect the nu Jim Kon will lob a defective nuke at China to "keep them in line" and remind them who he thinks is boss. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 05:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

One of the problems with such an insular upbringing is that you believe your own hype after a while. Realistically, without direct Chinese support North Korea would get thrashed by the Australian Military, let alone the USA/NATO. A few defective nukes won't make up for not having enough fuel to run your 40 year old tanks. A standing army of four million is impressive at first glance (assuming it is true) but it is one that would have to walk to the battle, while pushing their mess kitchens on wagons. VOX^HUMANA 06:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Have they torn up the armistice yet though, or was that just an empty threat? Peter ^mqzp 06:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Null and void. Bob's prediction three years ago looks very close to going red. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm worried. Still, a "serious" invasion attempt looks unlikely—at least depending on your definition. Peter ^mqzp 06:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Rule #1 for dictators is to remain in power. The threat of war keeps Kim Jong-un in power. Actual war will get him removed from power very rapidly. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 06:50, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

^Aye, this whole fiasco is a lot less about threatening the rest of the world and a lot more about convincing his people that the rest of the world wants to destroy them. 101.161.75.196 (talk) 07:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I would argue that it would appear that North Korea is looking for a standoff similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis. I know I sure as fuck don't trust somebody crazy enough to threaten nuclear war to be all talk and no walk. Robot Opera Singer Who Fights Crime (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying Kim Jong-un is a member of the Tea Party? VOX^HUMANA 09:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Are there different types of Tea Party? Green, China, Ginseng? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

There's also the question of just how much power Kim the Third even has. If he's actively being undermined, or just prefers to hangout in his toy room. The only high ranking officials in NK to give statements are the hard-line Generals. I wouldn't be shocked that if there is a war, Un is found dead in some palace, or NATO troops are going to bust in, and find him playing on his PS3, not aware that anything is happening. --Revolverman (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

While the way you speak of it is....different then I might, I agree with your sentiments about Un's potential lack of involvement. The idea that the hard-line, old, generals might want to risk war if only in an effort to keep their country relevant would not surprise me. They may see their countries lack of industrial development, lack of world power, and failing economy as a sign to go to war. Not exactly rational, but they might just do it. EGKunz 03:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

And they would have pretty much every military in the world against them. As I said, China has no interest in maintaining the North Korean monarchy, and plenty of interest in destroying it if they were to attack anyone the US liked.--Token Conservative (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe that it's a hollow threat. Unless the Generals are as nutty as the regime as a whole, they know they have everything to lose if they go to war. And look at some of the things DPRK has done over the years... shelling that island didn't provoke war.--Durbinator^Durbinating 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If North Korea does succeed in dropping a nuclear bomb on South Korea or Japan (and not a dud like all their previous attempts), I'd suspect that South Korea would become an island, if you know what I mean. This makes me think about the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction. Sure, it works. People are too afraid to resort to nuclear warfare because then they'll get blown so full of radiation they'll be used as replacement fireflies when kids make lanterns. But then again, all it takes is one fuck up to cause mass murder. One poor decision on the part of a government. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, and uses them on Israel, does anybody think for a second that Israel won't retaliate in kind? Then, along with the million-and-some deaths in Israel, Iran will face its own storm of fire and free radicals. Mutually Assured Destruction is gambling with human life.--"Shut up, Brx." 23:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Looking for chums to game online with

I bought a headset today, so it's as good a time as any to actually find situations where i can use it: i want to find some people/groups that will tolerate me playing PC games with them. Here's my list of Steam games; i also have Battlefield 3, Minecraft, and probably some others i can't remember right now. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 05:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to look through all those games, especially since I generally eschew computer games. But if you play Frozen Synapse I will take anyone on in that, provided it still runs on my computer (which , last I tried, was questionable). Regardless, it is not a headset-useful game. DickTurpis (talk) 06:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I actually got it in a Humble Indie Bundle and have never even started it up, but i'd be willing to play it. Got a Steam ID? ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 06:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a steam ID myself, but loading up the game I see that the password is still in the box... Peter ^mqzp 06:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm on steam too and am always looking for a buddy to play some Company of Heroes with (which I see you already own), if you'd like you can add me. I have plenty of other games you own too, and i'm usually down to game as long as i'm out of class. EGKunz 17:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I can run through some Portal 2 co-op with you. Not a battlefield or multiplayer RTS (I've never won a single online RTS game in 13 years of online gaming) guy myself, though. This is me, surprisingly. X Stickman (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't tend to play much multiplayer unless somebody can convince me enough (as reflected in my games), but here ya go--^Mikal_lakiM 20:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I forgot my various ID's but I like BF3 and many steam games, including COH which is awesome. Hipocrite (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

@DickTurpis & Peter: I just registered an account — my username is "Valkura".

@EGKunz: I just added you as a friend on Steam and am waiting for you to accept. Company Of Heroes is another game i own yet have never played, but i have actually been wanting to play it.

@Stickman: Just added you as a friend. I'm glad there's finally someone i can play Portal 2 with.

@Mikal: Yadda yadda, added you. I see you have Civilization 5 — want to go a game?

@Hipocrite: If you remember them, i really want to have friends in Battlefield 3 (my Origin username is "ValkuraReigns"), and i'm willing, as confirmed by higher statements, to play COH.

^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 21:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone want to work on my Minecraft world with me? I have it for Xbox. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 03:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

the only good minecraft is PC--^Mikal_lakiM 03:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. When I can install Forge and use Painterly texture packs, I'll buy Minecraft on 360. (Hint, Microsoft will never let that happen.) Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 06:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is there not a Rationalwiki Steam group? --Revolverman (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Unless it's an RTS, console games are better. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 06:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I take it you've never gone against a keyboard+mouse FPS player when you're using a controller. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 06:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Keyboard and mouse is fething goofy. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 16:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hahahaha... oh wait, your serious? let me laugh even harder! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Even ignoring the fact that there are more PC gamepads out there then you can shake a GPU at, seriously claiming that a controller is better then a mouse and keyboard... wow. Enjoy your two guns and 3 hotkeys. --Revolverman (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so if you spend $130 on a keyboard and another $60 on a mouse, it will be better. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 19:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm on a $15 keyboard and a generic optical mouse that cost about the same. If you've ever wondered why you can't play cross-platform multiplayer with Xbox Live/Games for Windows Live games, even when the PC version is a straight port of the Xbox version, it's because Microsoft playtested this concept, and the controller-using players got absolutely destroyed every time by the kb+mouse players. Joysticks are not a substitute aiming device for a mouse. Yes, there are some genres that are better with a controller than a keyboard, such as platformers, but you're wrong, Ehrenstein. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 20:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

A bit of Googling should find the developers of one of the few cross platform RTS games explaining that to make it "fair" they give console players heavy auto-aim. If you're on a console and you fire a gun vaguely in the direction of another player then you hit, on the PC version you must get the crosshairs exactly over or it'll miss. As Ochoton says, keyboard plus mouse totally dominates FPS. Playing a serious FPS on a controller (or "fish" as my circle of friends call them) is as laughable as playing an RTS with the touchpad of a laptop (I think Day9 did a video once showing people trying to do that in SC2 and it was hilarious).

Expensive pointing devices don't make a difference (now that everything uses lasers instead of a rolling ball) until you're a serious bad ass. Tournament level, not "I'm better than most people I know". Expensive keyboards don't even make a difference then, all you need is like 4 or 5-key rollover, which is something plenty of fairly cheap keyboards have. Just find one with a "feel" you like and then buy more if it breaks. Professionals use a pricey gaming keyboard for the same reason so many Olympians were wearing famous brand sports clothing - they're sponsored. Tialaramex (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

reminiscence

A few weeks will mark another mile stone for the site, 6 years! I had just started my graduate school program up in Canada. I was drawn to conservapedia like a lot of people by the crazy news stories at the time. That tale has been told many a time in other forms, but in the end a large group of funny and interesting people would meet and be driven off. RationalWiki emerged in an attempt to try and maintain connections between this group of people that would not have met otherwise. I assumed it would probably be marginally used as a contact point and probably dissipate in a year or so if that.

But then we decided to try and do something more with it. Rather than a mere hang out place we wanted to try and build something cool. We wanted to be a resource for information about all the crazy topics growing like an infestation on the internet. While at the same time not losing track of our original purpose. It was about building a light house that said "Over here! There are people like you over here, having fun, hanging out, you are not alone!" That was what served as the reason for starting this site, and our "public" expansion was to bring that to anyone else out there lost in a sea of absurdity of fundamentalism and pseudoscience. It was about building a community. It didn't take long for me to change my mind about our shelf life. I realized we were creating something that had some legs, could actually do something and be something worth while.

In many ways the history of RW has been tightly linked to my history as a grad student. Budget limitation of my stipend pushing us into a box in my one bedroom hole in the wall where RW lived under my last attempt at keeping a plant alive. When I stuck a hot pocket in the oven RW would risk going down, or the time my winter vacation took RW off the net for 2 weeks. But we survived it all and grew and prospered. RW provided hours of much wanted (though probably unneeded!) procrastination and provided much needed and wanted support and community in times where cold, dark and snowy Canada was winning its battle for my sanity.

As many all ready know last Friday I finished my graduate program (yes you CAN call me Dr.), and the fact that this site, and many of the people I started with, or grew to know along the way, are still here to celebrate with makes me quiet happy.

While one chapter of my life is (finally!) over with, I am looking forward to seeing what new things we as a community can do to continue growing and being both a resource and an online home for rationalist everywhere.

The short version: you guys rock, thanks for what you have given me, and lets be here in the future to give it to anyone else that needs it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I missed the very start of RW, and only found out about the place after sustaining minor damage in the Night of the Blunt Knives. It was great then, and still is now, to be able to write about serious things in a fun way, without all that tedious Wikipedia dryness. Floreat RationalWiki! Sophie^Wilder 19:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hooray, today we are all doctors! Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 22:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Amen to the above. RationalWiki, long may you run. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations Dr. T! You've been a rock for RationalWiki and I'd like to thank you for all the hard work and financial support you've put in over the years. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 23:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

As a member of RW's great Eternal September of 2009, I trust I may still be allowed to spill a few drops of aged Cruzan rum in Dr. Toulouse's general direction. I think of him every time one of the "it's been m.nnnx10³ days since Sean Hannity said he would be waterboarded" posts comes around on reddit. Slainte! Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for what you've given us, Dr. T: a website like no other I've ever been to. And congratulations once again. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Having only joined this wiki three months ago, I can already say that this place as a community has great people. You guys clearly have your arguments, but you get shit done. L'homme de la Perspective ^Discusez? 10:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Just checked and I'm coming up for my 5th year here. Certainly one of the better - and less seedy - places I've ended up on the intertubes. Still living in fear of the FBI breaking down my door, however. Thanks to Trent for putting up with the labour pains and all you other nutcases for making this place what it is. PsyGremlin^Parlez! 11:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dr. T. and happy birthday RationalWiki! I bloody love this place! Spud (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Falklands Referendum

Well looks like all of 3 people voted in a vaguely argentine direction (or for independance) which admittedly is about 4 more than I expected. From the looks of it though argentina will be far from dissuaded from it's main tactic of screaming that the islanders are subhuman usurpers with no rights whatsoever other than to GTFO or die. Maybe Cameron will take this strategy up in "persuading" the scots to vote against independence just to fuck over his replacement next election. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 07:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Argentina will play this as it always has - all heat but no fire. Back in 1982 Argentina honestly thought that the US would support them and that Britain would not react due to negative public opinion about military conflict... obviously they got that BADLY wrong. This time around they know that Britain would go ballistic, and may even attempt to invoke Article 5 of NATO (granted, that's unlikely to succeed due to how that article is worded). But would the USA get involved anyway? Only one way to find out... although poking the biggest dog in town with a stick rarely ends well. VOX^HUMANA 07:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This point was discussed by a retired American diplomat on Radio 4 about a week ago. Basically the US would have to back the UK if the Argentines decided to do something. However, in the meantime they just want to keep quiet so as not to upset anyone in Latin America. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyone other than the Chavez regime and Cuba and anyone else that has the audacity to be a socialist state, you mean? Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 09:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No, much wider than that. The USA has a long history of involvement in Latin American politics and would rather not be seen openly siding with the UK against Argentina if they don't have to. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Vox says that back in 1982 Argentina "honestly thought that the US would support them", really? If that was so a sneak attack seems crazy. Just get the US to say that it supports the Argentine claim and it's all over. The sneak attack instantly got the British a global sympathy vote, and as we know in hindsight it meant that countries which were publicly unwilling or unable to support the British task force provided tacit help anyway. In the end it was a reminder that conventional symmetric wars with limited scope still exist. Britain had nuclear weapons, along with conventional long distance weapons able to hit Argentina, but the war wasn't about Argentina and fighting stayed localised to the Falklands with both sides facing uniformed (albeit conscripted in the Argentine case) military opponents not a guerilla force or a civilian uprising. Tialaramex (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Tialaramex - I based my above statement on this Wikipedia - Leopoldo_Galtieri#Falklands_War (it has supporting references). Argentina had staked a land claim over the Falklands decades earlier, so the notion of the claim was not new. Galtieri thought the US would actively express support for their right to invade (in reutrn for Argentina openly supporting US actions in central America), and in the worst case would actively abstain from any involvement. The fact that the US ended up providing military support to the UK was not anticipated. VOX^HUMANA 23:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Something about the Monroe Doctrine makes me think that the US staying out of the conflict is about as close to "support" for either side as you're going to get. And actually considering it, it really says something about US support for the UK since we have what is generally considered a law saying we have to support Argentina, but we aren't.--Token Conservative (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Given what's happened in Cuba and Venezuela in the last fifty years, and that European nations still own/control parts of the Virgin Islands and Lesser Antilles, I'd say the Monroe Doctrine is about as dead as it is irrelevant in the 21st century, particularly post-WWII. --Seth Peck (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The Monroe Doctrine only applies to powers trying to establish new colonies or expand existing colonies in the Americans, it does not apply to established colonies, or countries in the Americans acting against each other, but does cover the US supporting the right of self determination against colonial powers. I cannot think of an example in the last hundred years where the US stood by while the Doctrine was violated, with the possible exception of the British asserting their right of control over the Falklands--Token Conservative (talk) 18:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Britain formally asserted sovereignty over the Falklands in 1690, so on that basis it is exempt from the Monroe Doctrine. Of course, a permanent settlement didn't exist on the Falklands until 5 years after the Monroe doctrine came into effect in 1823, which could (I suppose) be the basis of an argument against exemption. VOX^HUMANA 00:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that the Falklands has a leg to stand on and think that the Monroe Doctrine is a bunch of bullshit, I'm just saying the facts re:Monroe Doctrine in the case of the Falklands as I understand them, which is that Argentina can claim the US has to support them.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but the US could just go "Nah, sovereignty dates to 1690, Doctrine doesn't apply" and wash their hands of the entire matter. VOX^HUMANA 01:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Slight change in topic, but can someone explain to me why Argentina's claim on the Falklands has ever been taken remotely seriously? The UK had a claim, and a colony, on the Falklands since before Argentina was even a country, and both Spain and France (and the UK, again) had claims on it for over 100 years before that. Argentina's entire claim seems to be "it's close to us and we want it". I must be missing something fairly major because people act as if Argentina has a potentially legitimate claim rather than just being mouthy weirdos. X Stickman (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Between 1823 and 1833 the "United Provinces of the River Plate" (an independent state, later incorporated into Argentina) had a tiny colony on the islands and asserted sovereignty. That is pretty much the entire basis of the Argentinian claim. VOX^HUMANA 01:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm Argentine. My country's absurd and poisonous claim over the Falklands is based on four basic points: Spain claimed those islands in the 18th century, and we are supposed to have inherited that claim; the tiny and short-lived colony mentioned by VoxH; their geographical location "close to us" (again, already mentioned by VoxH Stickman) and "far away from London"; and finally the fact that the British are evil people responsible for everything that is wrong with Argentina and other parts of the world. Were it not for the evil British, Argentina would be the richest, stongest, mightiest and most developed country in the universe. Or so the story goes... This last point is not teached in schools, but it is an article of faith among a large portion of the Argentine population.Xyr (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Great post Xyr - I defer to your superior and intimate knowledge, naturally. Regards, VOX^HUMANA 03:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I know very little about the details. I have always found the issue too depressing to delve into it. You mention the word "Malvinas", and probably over 50% of Argentines turn into cavemen (Andy Sch. would know the exact percentage; I never mastered his expertise with statistics). Best, Xyr (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Right of Self Determination

There is an interesting point here - one made by the argies. OK, so we're all for self determination but suppose I went over to the states, along with a bunch of other Brits, found a suitable island with a low, preferably non-existant - population and also, preferably, beyond the three mile limit. Then, as long as there were enough of us I could claim it for Ruritania simply by having a poll among my mates. Ah, I hear you say, but you're not residents, you've only just arrived. And now we get to the nub of the matter - how long do you have to be there before you can claim it? See also Northern Ireland prods and Jewish Israelis. Innocent Bystander (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is surprised to find the line is blurry, but it's difficult at this point to argue that the Falklanders are on the wrong side of it. Very few people are "natives" of anywhere if you insist on going back far enough. A few African groups might have a decent claim, everybody else is going to be left spluttering something along the lines of "We've been here longest". It doesn't matter if you've been there so long nobody knows how you got there exactly (Australia, Western Europe) or you arrived far more recently (New Zealand) we are now pretty certain that humans have a single origin in Africa which makes everybody else just a settler. Tialaramex (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I actually argued the timeline issue on radio back in the 80s. There has to be a point where you draw a line in the sand and accept some sort of status quo unless there has been continual conflict between the inhabitants, because humans have moved around the globe and staked their claim to one particular spot for millennia. In the case of the Falklands, Argentina had a nominal military presence for a very short period 180 years ago. Of course Argentina itself only became a full nation in 1826 after Europeans expropriated the land from the indigenous population. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 18:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I think some people would take issue with that, because Jews were forced out of Israel between 600 BCE and 150 CE, and there was no serious talk about returning until the 1860s. The argument that would give the Falklands to the UK would destroy the Israeli state, and the argument for the Israeli state would give the Falklands to Argentina. I think the best solution is for the UN to assign a panel to sort out the bullshit. I think that resolving international disputes is a big part of what they were created to do.--Token Conservative (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thing is there is a panel specifically designed to deal with sovereignty disputes and provide legally binding judgement on them. The ICJ, and britain has repeatedly invited argentina to take the issue there and yet argentina for all it's fury and whining for a "settlement" to the dispute has yet to even acknowledge these offers. Likely due to the fact the ICJ would look not just at the right of self determination (which in itself would bone argentina due to the ICJ consistantly ruling in SD's favor) but at the historical veracity of both claims... which would be nearly apocalyptically embarrasing for argentina given that pretty much all it's claims about the dispute are creationist level stupid and wrong. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 20:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hamilton, the Israeli example doesn't work, Israel exists now, it's a fact now, like the Falklands. Ground facts tend to win out in these discussions and the idea of "self determination" is a way of recognising that. If you want to argue that back in the mid-20th century these same rules would have ensured Israel never came into existence? Sure, you're probably right. I'm not certain that's even a bad thing. That doesn't mean we should try to dismantle Israel today or encourage its neighbours to try to change the ground facts by force. Tialaramex (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I may have been unclear. All I am saying is that if we were to say that because a country/nation group failed to assert its right of control over a piece of territory for more then 100 years they have surrendered their claim to it, then the Falklands belongs to the UK and Israel should not exist, if nothing else because the Palestinians are definitely asserting their right of control over the territory to the best of their ability. I am not saying that that Israel should not exist, merely saying that the argument has some consequences that some people may not like.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The point may be interesting, but it is profoundly hypocritical. We Argentines live on conquered land, taken away from the indigenous populations and from Paraguay. And while the country's core provinces may have been conquered way back in the 16th and 17th centuries, a significant portion of the territory was conquered after 1833, that is, after the British established themselves for good in the Falklands. The provinces of Misiones and Formosa were conquered from Paraguay in 1864-1870, almost the whole Patagonia was conquered in 1878-1885, and up to 1899 there were Argentine troops establishing Argentine control over the Chaco region.

The only significant difference between how the Falklands and Argentina came to be is that the British expelled from the previously uninhabited islands only a few persons who had been there for a decade or so, while we subjugated whole indigenous popultions that had been there for centuries or even millennia. However, my country only wants to turn back the clock in the Falklands, not in the continent. And regards the Falklanders as illegal invaders without any right whatsoever, while we ourselves are rightfull conquerors with a right to our conquests.

In short whatever wrongs may have been commited by the British in the Falklands, they pale in comparison to the wrongs commited by the Argentines in what is now Argentina.Xyr (talk) 03:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

FaceBeef

Not quite big enough to merit a WIGO, but folks here might get a chuckle out of this little story. VOX^HUMANA 08:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• 'Trolls' don't see what the beef is about their Facebook page
• Facebeef dupes Today Tonight into fake trolling story

Stupid children trying to justify their bad behavior. Nothing more.--Token Conservative (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about the kids or the major news organization they easily duped with a sensationalist story? Occasionaluse (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes.--Token Conservative (talk) 15:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

My Little Rip-Off <rant>

Taking candy from children

It's getting to be a common topic now with children running up gigantic bills on their parent's iPads. I just this news report where a 6-year old girl ran up a £900 bill through in-app purchases playing a free My Little Pony game. I had a look at the in-app purchases and see that a mountain of virtual gems costs $99.99. What's the target audience of MLP, six or seven year-old girls? This seems like a blatant rip-off verging on child abuse by what should be a respectable games developer. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 17:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"What's the target audience of MLP, six or seven year-old girls?" Nope. Genghis, meet the Bronies. There is your target market. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 17:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I was talking about physical age but I guess mental age is about right. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 18:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey now, dont insult us bronies -.- As for this, theres a Manly Guys doing Manly Things strip about that game. --^Mikal_lakiM 18:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I wouldn't call this a rip-off, but rather inadequately programmed security measures for making purchases. I worked on a children's game a couple years ago where they had separate accounts for the end users (kids) as well as their parents (who could buy game credits for them to improve their profiles, etc.). They also had a support center for parents who would call in to either make purchases or rescind orders (gold account membership upgrades were available, but sometimes they didn't want them auto-renewed). The game itself had no ad support (on purpose), and this was before Facebook or other application integration. If the kid was able to make a purchase ad hoc without authentication/approval, then that's just lousy programming on part of the MLP developer and/or iTunes (probably both)...e.g., "exactly the kind of crap I expect from Apple".--Seth Peck (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Apple refused to comment on this particular case but has advised Catherine and other users of their products that they can turn off "in app purchases" by changing the settings of their devices. - there's the rip off. The in app purchases should be off by default. This is just putting candy in front of babies and expecting them to be grown up about it. Innocent Bystander (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"exactly the kind of crap I expect from Apple". Yep. --Seth Peck (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Apple? Making it hard for you to give them money? Why, that would get in the way of the premium, classy experience you get with an expensive Apple product! Innocent, do you want to let the islamocommiefascists win?! Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 20:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Part of the difficulty is that people often have a device which is "theirs" but which they in fact share with a young child. This is particularly easy to do when they're very young, it seems crazy (to ordinary people) to buy a four year old any type of compute device but then they get a lot of joy out of playing with your phone or tablet and after a while you can't bear to sit there watching them finger paint or whatever so you stop really supervising. Now there's a device which has your credentials but which is being operated unsupervised by someone who can't tie their own shoelaces. When you're using the device the in-app purchase option is a harmless convenience, but the device doesn't know when it's you and when it's Princess Sticky Fingers using it.

I don't own an iPhone/ iPad but the Android family initially come with in-app purchases requiring a password comfirmation. Even assuming that Princess Sticky Fingers doesn't know your password this is annoying and there's a checkbox right there offering to turn it off in future. Turn it off and you're never more than a click away from spending $50 on a sack of virtual currency. Convenience trumps security, that's lesson #1 of consumer device security. The bigger Android tablets now come with the concept of multiple "users" so that you can give the kids access to play a game without also letting them see your browser history, spend money on your credit card or send email to your boss. But again, convenience trumps security so why activate the feature?

As to why the prices are the way they are, the dynamics of F2P are that the vast majority of users are freeloaders but a handful of your "best" customers will put a lot of money your way which can make up for it. If your customers are adults (and they typically need a credit card, so why wouldn't they be?) this is no more unethical than "free trial" schemes or special offers that rely on attracting people to buy stuff they don't need because it's a "bargain". Which is to say, maybe a little bit unethical, but hardly the worst thing out there. Tialaramex (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Colorado Civil Unions

Becoming law soon. --Seth Peck (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Not marriage, but it's also not "a ban on gay unions" like we had. It's a good start. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 20:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Can people in Port of Spain answer the Fifteen Questions?

US-style creationism is inescapable, even in the West Indies.

When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 00:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

"The Hovind Theory?" My god, what a raging egomaniac.RachelW (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Price $5 TnT, or about 80 cents US. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 02:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

TYT University / OMG Students Paid to Take Cocaine at UK College?!11!

Anyone ever watch TYT University YouTube channel? Although I don't have a lot of time for YouTube, most of what I've seen of The Young Turks (usually linked from RW) has been pretty much OK, but I've just watched a couple of TYT University videos & felt like I was watching something on Fox News, or Oprah. First the not-very-interesting "abortion game" video (posted & downvoted at WIGO World, but not really worth watching), then I followed a link from there to "Students Paid to Take Cocaine at UK College?!". This is really poor coverage. The woman who dominates the video is very sensationalistic & moralistic about drug-taking, and dismisses the possibility that testing the effects of dangerous drugs, & how to detect them, might actually have beneficial real world applications. Plus they keep repeating that participants will be required to take cocaine six times, which appears to be false. The email they quote states that there will be a main one-day experiment, followed by five more visits to take bodily samples (i.e. to study longer term signs of drug-use, not to repeat the experiment). Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, at 1.55 min, "relevant" pronounced as "revelant". Ugh! ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I like TYT, but yeah, TYT Unversity sucks. They should just stick to the main show. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 21:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Do those two have any idea how medical trials are done? They find it funny that participants must be "fit and well" as if this is some quaint British thing. What?!? ^narchist 18:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I dislike TYT. They're very obnoxious and fail to grasp foreign cultures.-Strangelove (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Interpretation of Genesis

I just noticed that when you read Genesis as an epic that extolls the virtues of a nomadic pastoralist lifestyle, it makes a lot more sense. For example the story of Cain says that pastoralism is the way of life preferred by God, as opposed to farming. Basically all important characters in the book except Joseph are pastoralists. --Tweenk (talk) 21:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

That's probably got something to do with the fact that it was written by nomadic pastoralists.--Token Conservative (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as we all know, farming has been responsible for holding civilization back so much...(!) I still find Genesis 4:4 to 4:5 very weird, why was Abel's offering of dead animal good but Cain's offering of farm produce bad? VOX^HUMANA 22:13, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I always liked to imagine god was pissed that Cain managed to make the land useful despite his cursing it a chapter before.--^Mikal_lakiM 22:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Blessed are the cheesemakers. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 23:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Cheese doesn't bleed. This gift is unpleasing to the Lord. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 23:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

So God likes blood. Blood - associated with death. But he hates menstrual blood. Menstrual blood - associated with the creation of life. I think I see the pattern now. VOX^HUMANA 23:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I vaguely remember a religion teacher in high school (I went to a catholic HS) teaching us that Abel sacrificed the best of the animals to God, but Cain didn't give the best veggies, just whatever was lying around. So it wasn't that God liked animals better, it was that the relative quality of the offering. Mcnamara12 (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Eh. I still like the "god hates agriculture" argument because it makes me giggle --Token Conservative (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Troll

Dealt with. Sophie^Wilder 14:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

In Kendoll's and Ballisticbutt's feverish wet dreams, this is how banning liberal trolls goes down. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 14:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't twitter have stuff allowing you to block tweets from specified users, as well as blocking them from receiving your tweets?--"Shut up, Brx." 15:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. --Seth Peck (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

People forget or just don't care. Blocking them only means they need to spend 5 minutes setting up a new account. Showing up at their door fully able to beat their face in stops the problem. Not that I agree with him, mind you.--Token Conservative (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This is seriously creepy; all the more so that people are hailing him as a hero. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody joked about blowing up an airport, so it's fine, don't you know? Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 20:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

There's several people I'd like to meet with IRL. You don't even need to use violence. Just showing up would probably cause most people to shit their pants. That said, you might want to inform the police about your intent beforehand so that if they see you coming and run, they can't get paranoid and claim you were going to kill them. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 21:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, inform the police you want to invade somebody's privacy with intent to make them shit their pants. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Advice: If you have to inform the police that you are not intending on assaulting someone, because what you're doing could be interpreted as preparation to assault someone, maybe you should reconsider your plans. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 22:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that if you tracked someone down in the real world for something they said/did online, that probably counts as stalking, never mind any implied or explicit threats of violence. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 21:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

In the Curtis Woodhouse case, I think the threat of violence was fairly heavily implied, although probably not serious (liveblogging his own movements would be a pretty dumb thing to do if he actually intended to beat the guy up). Even so, there's a big difference between making an empty/joking threat of violence online, and making an empty/joking threat of violence online while posting comments & photos indicating you're right outside the home of the person you are trying to intimidate. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not defending that fuckwad one bit, and I hope there's at least an investigation into this. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 22:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Depending on how batshit insane the troll seems, you could see if the police would be able to escort you in case he does anything crazy. If you want the police to be there, it's clear that you weren't going to do anything illegal. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 03:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't. If (without their consent) you've tracked down the real life identity/location of somebody who posted anonymously/semi-anonymously on the internet, you're already doing something of dubious legality. If the police are willing to overlook that, why should police time (i.e. civic funds) be wasted in acting as your bodyguard? Why are you so keen to confront a troll in person rather than online, and how is this in the public interest? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, <devilsadvocate>one could reasonably argue that confronting a troll in an entirely online fashion is in "mudwrestling a pig" territory</devilsadvocate>. Hydrogen and Time (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly how is it illegal to go to where a troll lives? I'm not seeing what's illegal about that, provided that you don't actually go into his house or something like that. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 16:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's a video I found of someone meeting a troll IRL. I think this would be quite fun. You'd at least get some of them to stop. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 16:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

MRA list mansplaining sex to women

http://www.daterate.net/articles/ten-things-women-dont-know-about-men-and-sex.php

The first thing on there is a claim that men need sex that that women are doing harm by not providing it. Frak. It sounds like the sort of thing that would be on Love-shy.com.

ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 17:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No references of any kind and poor spelling/grammar/syntax: 2/10, would not bang. Also, the one about post-sex detachment is the opposite of my experience. I become extremely cuddly and affectionate.--Token Conservative (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Judging by the article, they must have misspelled the domain. Shouldn't that be a 'p'? Vulpius (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"DateRate is a site that lets you rate people who you've met through online dating services." ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Some other...*ahem* "dating" sites already offer this feature as part of their existing services...which is actually kind of nice to see so you can separate the wheat from the chaff. The difference? Reviews/ratings must be approved by those being reviewed/rated. I imagine those that would not get approved would either be ignored or become part of some thoughtful introspection/self-improvement plan. --Seth Peck (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Do they include ratings for kissing skill? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

People from love-shy.com wouldn't like that. They wouldn't like any method of people being about to share how creepy they are. And for that reason, it's dumb that they would have to be approved. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 19:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The world doesn't revolve around love-shy.com. There are other considerations. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

How is this mansplaining? You can read almost identical lists in any lowbrow woman's magazine. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

^^I honestly can't tell if a man or woman wrote this, but regardless it's fucking stupid. 5-4-3 contradicts itself, 9 and 8 make me lolwut and...just...I don't know, this is so daft I wouldn't even be amused if it was in clogosphere. Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 19:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, it is fucking stupid. But mansplaining? Anyone wanna explain why? Aceⁱ⁹ 20:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Ace. this sounds just like cosmo. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 20:08, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Cosmo is a funny read. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I found it on MRA Reddit. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 21:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

So basically, Cosmo for MRAs, but without any publication standards whatsoever except Reddit's overall content policy. Check. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 21:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, all it needs is some terrible stock images of a guy sitting up in bed, muscles all out and Calvin Klein perfume oozing from his greased-up pits, while the girl looks all cheeky next to him like "oh my golly gosh, I just had sex!!! LOL!" and this would be straight out of Cosmo. ^bomination 11:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

No, wait, I know the difference. If this was Cosmo, it'd have quotes in it like "Professor Jane Bollocks O'Tool, Professor of SEX at Lancaster Polytechnic says [insert random evo psych gumpf]" ^theist 11:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I think even Cosmopolitan is actually a little more realistic than this. I can't believe whoever wrote this has met any humans let alone men (or women). I've read a few of what being described above as "lowbrow" magazines for women and likewise I've read some of the equivalent magazines aimed at men and they're usually a step or two above this when they're in "List of uncited facts" mode. The characters in Kids have a healthier and more comprehensive understanding than is portrayed here. Tialaramex (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Watchtower Online Library

If anyone is interested in Jehovah's Witnesses, I've just discovered that they've put almost all their publications since 2000 online here. I already added some cites to our article. Their Insight lexicon is interesting even from a secular perspective, for example it has a sizable entry on Goat, which I'm fairly sure lists every verse in the Bible referring to goats. --Tweenk (talk) 03:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm... Reading these is going to be interesting. For the record, I have an ex-girlfriend whose family were Jehovah's Witnesses (she, herself, left the sect because the idea of not being able to get an emergency blood transfusion because of God perplexed her) and they were some of the strangest people I have ever known. "Have you heard the good news?" No, I have not. Nor am I sure I wish to. Robot Opera Singer Who Fights Crime (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

After the time I almost dated a neo-nazi, I now ask if the girl I'm out with a neo-nazi, communist, or Jehovah's Witness. You can never be too careful with those people.--Token Conservative (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

After the time I almost dated a neo-nazi...dammit Hamilton, you can't just start a story like that and not finish it. --Seth Peck (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That story is how I trick people into thinking that I'm interesting. If you really want to hear it (it isn't all that it's cracked up to be) I'll post it as a separate post.--Token Conservative (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I think a really devoted JW girl would be expected to either try to convert you or refuse the date. I know that's what was vaguely expected of boys like me, so as long as I was in the congregation I thought it was an impossible task and didn't even attempt dating anyone.

Back to the original subject, their essay on the Trinity is really good at showing that this doctrine was invented out of thin air. --Tweenk (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

In which I achieve Nerdvana

Penn Jillette replied to one of my tweets! MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 18:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I have serious doubts about your taste in men. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I've had Voltaire respond to a facebook comment--Token Conservative (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

i had junk mail from the Rosicrucians once. That was odd. Sophie^Wilder 19:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

On two separate occasions I received an e-mail (in Polish) titled "Crucifixion of my mind to the state of inner silence" which contained a 40-page Time Cube-style rant. --Tweenk (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm still surprised there was once a time Penn wasn't an enormous tub of lard. Especially since his show basically said "enormous tub of lard today? It's your genetics, and you're fucked". --Token Conservative (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Best I ever managed was spending several months corresponding with Brian May of Queen in 2009. I had no idea who he was for most of the correspondence ("Brian May" isn't a unique name) and it was only when I saw a BBC story on the book he had written did I realise who I was talking to. VOX^HUMANA 00:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

You seriously just said "Best I ever managed was spending several months corresponding with Brian May of Queen"? Are you serious? You really just said "the best I ever managed" and "was talking to Brian fuck-mothering May or Queen"? Are you serious!?!?! Do you have no taste in music or scale that makes it acceptable for you to say that!?! *Has a stroke and dies*--Token Conservative (talk) 01:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

MBTI

One of my coworkers (who also happens to have a water bottle with "www.mercola.com" on it, neither here nor there) is hosting an optional lunch at work tomorrow to discuss the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator test. I've declined the meeting (I may just work from home tomorrow); if anyone asks why, I'm going to tell them one of the three five things:

1. I'm not interested in astrology.
2. Any test, originally designed to filter in/out candidates for nursing jobs, that puts Michelle Obama and Michelle Malkin in the same category is sorely lacking in completeness.
3. My personality type is D-G-A-F.
4. Carl Jung was full of shit (not completely, but at least when it came to religion and dreams).
5. Just accept that I'm the Iconoclast™ of the group and I'm not going to get involved.

--Seth Peck (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You could go to the meeting and rationally explain to your colleagues why it's shit. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 17:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

A fair point, but (a) I don't want to spoil their free lunch, and (b) in my industry, the turnover rate is high enough that eventually something like this will be forgotten and lost (possibly to be brought up again at a future date when I will continue to ignore it). --Seth Peck (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you a telemarketer? ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 17:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Software developer. --Seth Peck (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Are bosses going? Show up, and prove yourself as a ESTJ if you are in a by-the-book developer, INTP if someone is supposed to come up with the next awesome thing to get promoted. Hipocrite (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

i'd have gone, "fuck it, free food". This is partially why I may have been talked to by the local fundamentalist campus christian group longer then they should have since i filled out some surveys they did to get free candy. --^Mikal_lakiM 22:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: sticking to my convictions won't lose me my job, and falsifying interest won't earn me a promotion. --Seth Peck (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

This reminds me of a story. Gather 'round children. So, I absolutely hate filling out job applications and doing interviews (probably the two fastest ways to make me hate myself). I filled out an application to a company, I wont say their name for privacy reasons, it was a low level stocking position, basically, but you had to do some MBTI knock-off bullshit, but I powered through and got an interview. At the end of the interview, the hiring manager asked for my facebook login information. Now, I consider that a pretty stupid thing to ask for, and didn't want to do it (because I like my privacy, and also fuck you). So, I answered with something to the effect of "I'm guessing so that you can see if I'm posting unprofessional things on my facebook page that will reflect poorly on your company? Well, I'm not interested in working for hypocrites, because your application process includes the MBTI, a personality test that has been debunked probably a hundred times on every possible measure of the value of a psychometric test. It is complete garbage, and that you actually use it is a horrible reflection on your company and you personally, and I wont work for someone who is stupid enough to use that shit, and demand to know that I'm not posting pictures of me puking a stripper". Then I walked out, and he probably picked his jaw up off the ground.--Token Conservative (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Wait, they asked for your FB login info (username/password) at interview? Or just your profile id? Also, how does one puke a stripper? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I've heard of places asking potential hires for their Facebook info as well. --^Mikal_lakiM 01:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It's becoming as common of a part of the application process as the MBTI. They want login info because they know most people have atleast some basic security on their page.--Token Conservative (talk) 01:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I'm killing my FB account 3 months before I next go on the job market. "Sorry, don't have one." I have a common-enough real name (the local equivalent of "John Smith") that it would be a giant hassle to try to find out if I was lying. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 01:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I just plan on leaving, generally while calling them a moron for using the MBTI.--Token Conservative (talk) 01:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure of your local laws, but if such a request was made in Australia it would be outrageously illegal. I find it hard to believe that such a request wouldn't be illegal in the UK or the US. The MBTI is useful for one thing - to help people realise that other people think in different ways than they do. If it's being used as a selection tool, legitimate breakdown of personality types or anything else really then it is being mis-used. However, even if you were to do a 16-PF or MMPI during the recruitment process it is most likely that the data is being 'interpreted' by a psychologist who will make a bunch of Barnum statements that are completely unsupported by the research literature. With personality tests there is only a very small window of validity during selection.Tielec01 (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the UK mainline train companies use psychometric testing to select for obedience in some roles. That is, they want train drivers (and a few similarly critical employees) to be people who on balance prefer to obey rules. This simplifies the human component of safe working to setting the rules such that they're consistent, memorable and as safe as practical. Still very hard, but easier than "Oh, all the people we hire might just do whatever they personally think is best despite incomplete knowledge". Certainly a tram company was criticised for not having such a selection process after its employee was found to have been driving (the tram) at excess speed before hitting and killing a pedestrian who had crossed unwisely in front of him, said speeding being part of a pattern for that employee knowingly violating rules. I don't know for sure, but it seems intuitively as if obedience might be a sufficiently coherent psychometric factor that we have a workable test for it.

I've been subjected to MBTI at work. I'm senior/ important enough that my open scepticism can't result in any real reprisals against me, so I get to be the one to say "You realise this is all bunk and if I see you trying to use this data to make employment decisions you're all for the high jump, right?". I believe we were given our "type" on a piece of paper after the test and I immediately threw mine away without looking at it. Tialaramex (talk) 10:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

@Tielec01 Cracked actually did an article about this, but companies have been using the MBTI or some knock off to screen employees by deciding what "type" they want, and then having the candidates take the test, and simply scrap anyone off the bat who isn't exactly what they want. I would agree that for certain things, like willingness to follow the rules, you could easily construct a valid test for it, but the MBTI is not one of them.--Token Conservative (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The request for password details is shockingly illegal in the US. Consult a lawyer. Hipocrite (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Its also shockingly common, and this was a shockingly long time ago, and I shockingly barely care. --Token Conservative (talk) 15:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As google says this practice is widespread, it's shockingly illegal because the TOS of the site in question is generally incorporated into law by 18 USC § 1030. "intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains... information from any protected computer... shall be punished [by] a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years." Facebook does not permit you do authorize others to access your account. Facebook has said they will sue employers who do this - [1]. If you expect this to happen to you, you should also include on your facebook page information that makes it clear you belong to a protected group per Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Just put your religion on your facebook page, for example, and if rejected for the job, sue again - in effect, by asking for your password, they are asking for your age, marital status, race, and religion. I can't imagine any corporate HR manager saying it's ok to do that. Hipocrite (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to print some of this out and stick it in the binder I keep copies of my resume and various certifications. --Token Conservative (talk) 15:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"I find it hard to believe that such a request wouldn't be illegal in the UK or the US." If it is, nobody cares about it. According to this management textbook: "More than 2 million people a year take the MBTI in the United States alone. Organizations using the MBTI include Apple Computer, AT&T, Citicorp, Exxon, GE, 3M Co., plus many hospitals, educational institutions, and even the U.S. Armed Forces." Can't argue with the invisible hand. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If the DOD uses the MBTI for anything other then toilet paper, it would have had to have been in the last 4 and a half years.--Token Conservative (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No, the MTBI is totally legal. Asking for your facebook password, however, is not. Hipocrite (talk) 13:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Neb, I meant asking for Facebook passwords would be illegal here. Using the MBTI as a selection tool is probably not illegal, albeit highly unethical. I think, if challenged in court, that using the MBTI for selection would be nearly indefensible. It doesn't address any of the inherent requirements of a job and its personality breakdown is not well accepted in the field. However, using information from Facebook in selection decisions is also illegal in Australia, so it's likely we have more employee friendly workplace laws than the US. I don't know how such a challenge would go down over the pond. Tielec01 (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Habemus Papam!

We can haz a Pope? When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 18:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully one who can get a grip on the Church's problems - although the problem of "being a self-serving institution spouting dark ages mumbo jumbo as fact" might not get much attention. Sophie^Wilder 18:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Relevant--Token Conservative (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

In the spirit of Conversapedia Proven Right, I predict the new pope will be a conservative old white guy. --Seth Peck (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Ironic how that would mean that Conservapedia was proven wrong. Vulpius (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'll go cue up The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again" in preparation for the announcement. --Seth Peck (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm hoping for one that will bring some transparency to the church, if nothing else.--Durbinator^Durbinating 19:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I just hope we don't end up with another asshole that's more concerned with sheltering pedophiles then acting in the best interest of global society.--Token Conservative (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This guy is Jesuit who is strongly committed to social justice; it may have been the best possible outcome. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 19:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Guess I got that one wrong...and by wrong, I meant the "white" part. From CNN:

“”Until last year, Bergoglio was the archbishop of Buenos Aires before stepping down because of his age. He is 76. Bergoglio is considered a straight-shooter who calls things as he sees them, and a follower of the church's most conservative wing. He has clashed with the government of President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner over his opposition to gay marriage and free distribution of contraceptives.

--Seth Peck (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

He's a Jesuit. He could declare holy war against the Lutherans and it wouldn't surprise me.--Token Conservative (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

There are white Argentinians. There are white Latin Americans.--"Shut up, Brx." 19:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Google says man be white--Token Conservative (talk) 19:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Guess that makes me right after all. --Seth Peck (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

We're not going to see any major social reform (there were actually a lot more moderate candidates), but I detected a shift in attitude. The guy seriously looked stunned to be up there, and he was also cracking jokes. A lot more humble than Benedict, who was given the Palpatine nickname right from the start (and for good reason). Osaka Sun (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

That's mostly because he's a dead ringer for Palpatine--"Shut up, Brx." 20:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

What about Pope Insanity?--Durbinator^Durbinating 20:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Too liberal, too pro-reform. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 20:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Being Argentine myself and having lived in Buenos Aires for some years (that is, having had Bergoglio as my Bishop for some years), I can say that this is a step in the right direction. Argentina's Catholic Church has more than its fair share of lunatics who wish to return to the Middle Ages, but Bergolgio is not one of them. He's an intelligent man, who knows the widespread povetry of my country and the folly of populist government full of empty speeches. Sadly, he also shares the old views on homosexuality, which less and less Catholics share. But he clearly is a step in the right direction, someone who may reduce the rigidity of the church's hiererchies and bring the bishops closer to their peoples, the parish priests closer to their neighbours, not just physically but mentally as well. The Church desperatedly needs to become more open, more transparent, more responsible, adopt zero tolerance to pedophilia and other crimes, accept sexuality and homosexuality, allow the ordination of women, end obligatory celibacy, etc. For the institutional Church it's either that or become more and more irrelevant even to those of us who are Catholics. His choice of Papal name gives hope. We Catholics have spent seven centuries looking toward Assisi and praying for the Church to follow St. Francis' example.Xyr (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the name of Francis is more a nod to Francis Xavier, founder of the Jesuits, rather than Francis of Assissi. But hey, a bit of ambiguity can't harm, can it? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Because povetry has been such a central issue of his work in Buenos Aires, and the simplicity he always choose for his way of life, I think that Assisi was his main inspiration. But Francis Xavier immediately came to everyone's mind too and, as you well said, that ambiguity can't harm. Regards,Xyr (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Miss Delaware and extreme hypocrisy

Some time ago there was this story.

She won a prize for sexual attractiveness, but had to resign because of a video where she is having sex. What the fuck? This beauty pageant thing is more rotten than I ever suspected. Apparently the prudes think that objectification is OK but sex is not OK. --Tweenk (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you somehow miss that this kind of thing has been happening for years? --Token Conservative (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the "west" (in a generalized sense). Sell everything you can with sex, but use your cultural religious ties to remind people (especially women) that sex is bad, they shouldn't want it, and if they have it (much less like it) they are sluts and harlots.Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 01:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't really follow what was going on there until I found an article that listed some Misses who quickly resigned or had their title stripped. Until then I assumed it was more or less a competition for professional models. The article also listed some other really strange conditions, e.g. you have to be single, childless and under 25. --Tweenk (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

But of course. Like most outdated sexist guff, beauty contests play into the traditional virgin/mother/whore categorisation of women. Beauty pageants are strictly restricted to women falling into the "virgin" archetype of wholesome girl-next-door innocence. "Mothers" & "whores" need not apply. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

RIP Google Reader

For the four of you who care (and who probably care a lot), say bye-bye to Google Reader. What do they expect me to do, surf the web? On to Bing I guess. sterile^talk 01:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft has an equivalent? ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 01:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

He's saying that because google canceled something apparently no one used he's jumping ship completely to Bing, because when you want a company that will do something that isn't profitable because it's what a fraction of the costumer base wants, you definitely want Microsoft.--Token Conservative (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Nah, they don't. Still not happy. sterile^talk 01:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Bloglines doesn't seem to be working for me. Has anyone got any other ideas? Peter ^mqzp 01:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

There are a gazillionty blog posts right now about this topic. Also: [2] sterile^talk 02:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

(EC)None of the billion RSS reader apps out there suit you? There are even browser extensions, and if you use Chrome, they'll sync (at least the extension, have not yet tried the extension's data) in any instance of Chrome once you sign in. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 02:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not just an RSS aggregator. There weren't any great alternatives for mobile devices and people who wanted a stark interface. RIP indeed. (formerly Ghostface Editah) 02:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It's my understanding that it's not on most Android devices (I've got a Nexus 7 with Jellybean 4.2, so I'm slightly spoiled in that regard), but Currents does a decent job of bringing Flipboard-like layouts to RSS feeds on Android. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 17:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The Old Reader sounds promising, but they're experiencing high load so I haven't had the opportunity to test it properly. I can't find any extensions that work for what I want, though feedly comes close (for a poor field). Peter ^mqzp 07:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

For an academic following the literature and looking for stuff for classes, it's a travesty. It's really easy to sort through titles and with the advent of pictures with abstracts, all the easier for a chemist. You gould tag things--which is lost in Google's shitty download (I'll have to do that manually). Minimalist was great; you don't need some of the things that the other RSS readers needed. I'm surpised, because although it's not popular (yes, indeed not), it does have a loyal following. Probably more than Google+. sterile^talk 02:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

According to Lifehacker, NetVibes and NewsBlur are good alternatives. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 08:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Damn. I probably spend more time in Google Reader than any other web app. It just works so well! Also, I can use it at work while Google+ is blocked. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Fuck. It was really convenient. --Henk (talk) 08:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

G+ being "Facebook without the people" evidently isn't enough. Photographers on Picasaweb got dragged over too, as did YouTube users. Anything to fake up HUGE EXPANSION! - David Gerard (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The userbase of Google+ is growing rapidly ! GhostofTK (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Obligatory Hitler video When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 18:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Tried Feedly; interface is weird and the font is terribly hard to read and really light on white. RSSOwl's OK, but I'm not sure why I have to have something installed and a rather larger folder. Will try other options. sterile^talk 00:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

International Day to Defend Apostates and Blasphemers

The Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain have declared today (14 March) to be International Day to Defend Apostates and Blasphemers. There are still an appallingly high number of countries where blasphemy and apostasy can lead to prison or death. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

They're co-opting Pi Day? Off with their heads! MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 10:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

It's really only math nerds who know/care about Pi Day, so there's really much to co-opt. I'm sure there are several coincidental co-opting events in the holidays the rest of us celebrate.--Token Conservative (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Fucking hell, I'm supposed to fit this in with pi day AND Steak AND Blowjob Day? I'm not even out of bed yet. Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 15:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we get our Popes straight?

Our article on the new guy is titled Pope Francis. The articles on his two predecessors leave out the word "Pope." A bit of consistency is called for. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 15:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You have access to the "relocate" function ... - David Gerard (talk) 16:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I will point out that Pope Benedict XVI redirects to Benedict XVI, Pope John Paul II redirects to John Paul II, Francis and Francis I redirect to Pope Francis. It might be a fallacious argument, but I would suggest adding "Pope" to the other two, because that's the way it's done on Wikipedia. --Spud (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm the reason it's titled "Pope Francis" because Francis I wasn't actually correct, but titling it just Francis was not much better. --^Mikal_lakiM 16:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Spud's idea is best. How is "Francis" any worse than "Benedict XVI," Mikal? When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 17:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I never said his wasn't bad, I gave the Rational as to why I changed it to "Pope X" from just Francis, itself a change from Francis I. And because Benedict ### tells me who it is and what he was, "Francis", minus a number or any other wording, is far to vague to be useful.--^Mikal_lakiM 17:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't really think it's a huge problem, because we've got the redirects. It's a little messy, I suppose. I have to agree that just calling an article "Francis" just, well just feels weird. If he had chosen to style himself Francis I (like John Paul I did) or called himself John XXIV or whatever, I would fully support keeping the current names. But, if they have to be changed, well I already said that. --Spud (talk) 17:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Drop "pope" to fit other Pope articles (apart from Pope Joan). It's not like we're going to have articles on Francis I of the Two Sicilies. Sophie^Wilder 19:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Just call it Frank. Then at least we know we're being weird & arbitrary without quibbling over it. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Collectivist treachery!

I rarely read the bottom of the internet, but this one is worth a skim. Shorter: Libertarian blind spots get called out with predictable results ("Collectivism!", "White dudes are oppressed too!", "University indoctrination!", etc.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I almost admire certain peoples' complete and unfailing refusal to admit that racism exists, and that they may be a part of the problem. Almost--"Shut up, Brx." 18:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

How did that "hambeast" white woman you joked about getting raped by a black man on Encyclopedia Dramatica fare? (formerly Ghostface Editah) 23:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you interested in derailing this topic?--"Shut up, Brx." 03:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Getting more involved in the skeptical community

So, I'm thinking about getting more involved in the online skeptical community, so I made accounts on A+ and JREF. I have this feeling I'm not going to get along on A+ (they seem to be taking a good idea a little too far), and I'm not seeing much of interest on JREF, so I don't know long I'll be on either site. So, I was wondering if there's some other place I can get into the community. I know there are countless blogs and such, but I like a community. So, is anyone aware of any skeptical/humanist/agnostic/etc forums or wikis, or other places for us vile subhumans to get together?--Token Conservative (talk) 22:57, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've done the same search, and this is the best place I have found so far. There are however some good offline communities to be found in major cities (like Sydney, where I am). But YMMV.

As far as RW, there's a bit of a vicious circle problem here, we need to attract quality editors to build a thriving community, and we need a thriving community to attract better editors. I want RW to be the best skeptical site around, so I'm just focused on improving content where I can. If enough of us do that, we'll establish some momentum and get somewhere. (eg. Nutty Roux raised a good point about the fact that our Creationism rebuttals are 18 months overdue, so I'll be helping out there.) VOX^HUMANA 23:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

My issue actually is the administration, which seems to range from "eh" to "weirdly terrible". I'm basically trying to use Rationalwiki to find somewhere to jump ship to.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but as I've stated before "we" are the community. You are of course free to leave, but I still think the place is worth improving. The "Old Guard" are who they are, and they are unlikely to ever listen to people such as us. So I just work on making the site better in the hope that a new guard will eventually arrive. VOX^HUMANA 23:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Build a place that's worth taking over - David Gerard (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I tried that once, actually. Everything died fairly quickly, and then we were attacked by neo-nazi cunts, and then it died again.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The tone here is already an improvement over a year ago. So I have faith we can fix it without getting into huge fights with the old guard. Criticizing and complaining will achieve nothing. I don't think any of the old guard will actively oppose anyone quietly improving the site, but (like anyone) they'll take umbrage at newcomers getting in their face and telling them "how things should be done". Just do it. VOX^HUMANA 00:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Like I said though, my issue is with the administration (almost completely old guard). Like the time we unvandal binned Brasov so that he would stop using proxy accounts. Then when he made his troll-bot, I recall Trent cutting the "no ip editting" that was put in place to stop the bot. These are actions that do not lend well to long term site health.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

If I believed exploring your issues with the old guard had any chance of achieving a positive outcome, I'd be right there with you. But I don't, so let's just get on with it. The site survived the Brasov incident, and will survive other things. VOX^HUMANA 00:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

When I make this an issue in before the next election, I'll give you a heads up.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I presume you are talking about Moderators? Unfortunately mods don't have power to change the wiki, they are more like judges rather than lawmakers or policy-makers. Changes either have to come from the community or be driven by the board. Of course you may have been referring to the board elections but even then their remit is more to do with the Foundation rather than the Wiki. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 12:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you're dead wrong there. The rule is there for a reason - i.e., to engage with people we don't already agree with. And given the level of the attack from Brasov, I think we'd like a little more appreciation for keeping it down to the really pretty bloody minimal damage it was, thanks. Ad-hoc ZOMG THERE'S A BLEMISH ON MY WIKI panic in the face of a one-off malicious attack is the opposite of a good idea for site health - David Gerard (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It took a proxy ban to stop Brasov. A proxy that pretty much none of the old guard wanted and that was implemented with a lot of whining. The people here seem to want a site that is incredibly easy to attack. Throw in the fact that apparently no one knows what the board does except the board themselves, the complete and total unwillingness for anyone to take any long term action to stop destructive posters, and the canned response of "ignore the trolls" or "we cannot ban people fucking up the site because then we'll be just like CP!" and you get a site that is incredibly poorly run. This isn't my fault, and it isn't the fault of any individual. Thanks to the organization of the site, it's basically everyone's fault. This site is poorly run: deal with it.--Token Conservative (talk) 17:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

the complete and total unwillingness for anyone to take any long term action to stop destructive posters That's more a consequence of certain vocal minorities. If you have an issue with that, I'd suggest you be a part of the solution and push back against them. That's how change gets effectuated: New ideas press against old interests, here and in the real world.--"Shut up, Brx." 18:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you should ask what it took to stop Brasov rather than make stuff up. The only absolutely 100% effective means of stopping anonymous IP editing is to shut off IP editing. As you noticed, that's not what the Operations Manager of RW wants. It's wholly inconsistent with RW's policy of open editing. Disagree with that policy if you want. There was a "proxy ban" in effect throughout Brasov's week or more long attack. Here's where you're talking out of school: Brasov was using fresher proxy lists than we had - I was able to scrape proxy sites for lists that contained those he was able to edit from - depending on the state of the list (they rapidly add/retire proxies), I could have anywhere from 6k to 14k unique IP addresses. Even with the proxy ban in effect, he was able to find a few useable addresses, save 4 or so of them up, and then do a little vandalism spree. My understanding is that that entailed hundreds of thousands of server requests. The only truly effective means of stopping him was Trent implementing ReCaptcha, which requires a human being to solve. Brx, this is why people loathe you. You really and truly don't understand what it means to be a completely open wiki. Part of the goal is to permit people in any country under any circumstances to edit freely. There's no vocal minority empowering destructive posters. They're the downside to open editing. And honestly, with your disruptive sockpuppetry, it's absurd of you to comment on destructive posters or "vocal minorities." Please go away already. (formerly Ghostface Editah) 19:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you read too much into my comment--"Shut up, Brx." 22:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

As Nutty pointed out a proxy ban was completely worthless for dealing with the attack. The biggest issue as far as PR goes is that almost no one sees the efforts that go behind actually implementing a solution. Significant man hours were put in behind the scenes to both diagnosis weakness being exploited, implementing changes, viewing the response, rinse repeat. Often time when I was in the middle of monitoring an attack the "block all IP editing" on the wiki would be implemented (despite requests that it not be) which would disrupt my ability to monitor/implement changes sever side. Multiple wholes were filled (only some of which were being exploited), varying degrees of solutions were tested (many of which could be useful in the future for other issues/attacks), and ultimately a permanent solution was implemented that required almost no change at all to the site, site policies or editing policies. So us evil old guard site admins implemented a rather elegant permanent solution, which makes us bad people because we didn't implement the cudgel those less informed were clamoring for. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

"The biggest issue as far as PR goes is that almost no one sees the efforts that go behind actually implementing a solution." Maybe you should try, oh I don't know, TELLING PEOPLE WHAT THE FUCK YOU'RE DOING! Because generally, when people think I'm just sitting by doing nothing while a house burns down in front of me, I know it generally helps me to not look like an oblivious jackass to go "no, see, I called the fire department 5 minutes ago"--Token Conservative (talk) 23:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the PR issue, but you'd have to be as stupid as you're acting not to realise that Brasov was reading too, so giving y'all a blow by blow account would be as stupid as you're acting - David Gerard (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Because of course there was no way of saying "hey, I'm trying to come up with a more long term solution, but I need you to leave the proxy ban off", instead it was just "turn the fucking proxy ban off you little shits". Yep that does not at all make it look like the site owner doesn't give a shit.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You're now saying words that don't make sense. The open proxy ban was on and is still on. The question was the block on all IP editing. And guess what, Trent and I both said exactly that. Now what the fuck are you babbling about? - David Gerard (talk) 00:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

TMT & David G were both open about the fact that they were working on behind-the-scenes fixes, without going into details which might have compromised the fix. Painting TMT as an "oblivious jackass" hardly looks fair. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I've only been lurking for the last few months and even I saw that Trent and David were pretty openly discussing solutions to it and showing what they were doing behind the scenes. Sure, they weren't drowning everyone in technical details, but no one needed to actually know that. ^postate 19:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

There's value to all, old and new, if they choose to contribute and move the wiki forward. sterile^talk 11:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The "old guard" trope gets pretty tiresome, and especially the "old guard just don't give a shit about security/functionality/reputation/content/civility/whatever" meme. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It is my hope that the day will come when members of the "old guard" might actually be willing to discuss why so many "newer members" keep perpetuating this "meme", as you so dismissively term it. I'm not looking for a fight with anyone. But there IS a reason why these things get said. VOX^HUMANA 01:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I am somewhat disconcerted to be "old guard". I suppose "old guard" is anyone who sticks around longer than 12-18 months - David Gerard (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

What "things" are people saying and who are these people? (formerly Ghostface Editah) 23:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The 'Old Guard' act the way they do because they are smarter than you Hamilton. They've been through RW1.0, they've seen what happens when you try to construct ideologically pure wikis, they have well formed opinions based on experience and sound philosophical principles, they know this isn't ever going to be wikipedia and they've an understanding of how far smug self-assuredness gets you. Take note of that last one. You don't even understand the 'old guard' positions let alone have coherent positions of your own. Vox -as much as I have nothing but respect for your intellect- ask yourself why smart people, who have been at this wiki for significant periods of time, have all come to a similar set of positions on certain issues. Coincidence? The wiki can be improved, but not through ignarant ramblings and childish LANCBing (especially when no-one cares). Tielec01 (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not aware I ever made any ignorant ramblings. Anyway, I'm opting out of this discussion now, it was foolish on my part to have even gotten involved. VOX^HUMANA 02:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

An improvement project for RW: clean up dead links

In the course of writing up articles as posts on the blog, I'm finding shitloads of dead links. Sometimes because the site really did disappear, sometimes because e.g. ScienceBlogs broke all the links when they moved from Movable Type to WordPress.

So, if someone is feeling geeky and bored, here's a project:

1. Go through all of mainspace checking every link.
2. Produce a dead links report.
3. (after a bit of thought) Can any of these be fixed by bot? Do that. Fix others by hand.

Is the API for en:rw still broken? - David Gerard (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Can they at least be checked by a bot? It would make stages 1 & 2 a lot less of a hassle. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh fuck yes, that's what I was thinking of (hence "geeky and bored") - David Gerard (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I often feel geeky & and bored, but I know fuck all about deploying a bot. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

How do people want it? JSON? YAML? CSV? In other words, the site is a little slow right now because I'm hitting the API. (formerly Ghostface Editah) 16:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

There was a deadlink bot on WP a year or two ago, which did a thorough job of searching all wikipedia and flagging up deadlinks. Perhaps we could borrow their lawnmower for this job? I imagine that it'll find shedloads of pre-capturebot CP diffs. Sophie^Wilder 16:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I just wrote a bot that goes through a namespace and checks whether external links return a "200"... How do people want the return data. It's trivial to modify it to check for dead wikilinks in the file namespace. (formerly Ghostface Editah) 16:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

No, they can't be fixed by a bot. (formerly Ghostface Editah) 18:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow. 3.1 GB of mainspace links pulled from the API. That's a pretty astonishing number to me. I could automate adding a cat for "Pages with Broken Links" but I gather I'm wasting my time. (formerly Ghostface Editah) 19:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

How's that a waste of time? Sounds useful. How long's the list of articles with deadlinks? You could put that up somewhere: article, plus the dead link or links. Thanks for doing this, btw - David Gerard (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I was only looking for !200's and it was gigantic - just realized how prevalent 300 series status codes are. Retooling. Also, HTTP status code 418. (formerly Ghostface Editah) 23:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Rangeblocking?

Is that something we do now? I'm gonna unblock the /16 range block that just got laid down. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 14:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

For this jerkface, yes, actually, we kind of do. Short-duration, but he's persistent and annoying. I blocked that fucker's range for a reason. Go look at recent changes for the past 12 hours. If you want to deal with that, reverse my rangeblock and handle it yourself. I'm fed up with him. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 15:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't find anything about range-blocking in the Community Standards. That should be the litmus test. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 15:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It's ill-favoured - David Gerard (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

God damn, why do all the cranks with spam ranges come here?--Revolverman (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

They go everywhere. Google syamsu free will and you'll see it's not just us. He was nattering with PJR on creationwiki yesterday. Sophie^Wilder 16:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

cp:User_talk:Syamsu Gleeheehee. It's a strange moment when you find yourself in partial agreement with Karajou. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 16:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Intriguing, he's been banging on about free will for at least three years. Perhaps it was his destiny. VOX^HUMANA 22:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, just to make sure everyone is aware, an informal vote on rangeblocking is going on at the coop. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 16:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

(wistful expression) rangeblocking...rangeblocking... sounds like a small village in Lincolnshire... Sophie^Wilder 16:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Somewhere between Bitchfield and Thompson's Bottom. Doctor Dark (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I am a Christian

Comment or conversation hidden in order to discourage God-bothering

I am a Christian and I think you are all abhorrent. I hope and pray that you will embrace Christ and renounce the life of sin and sodomy you have embraced. Go in peace. JustJack (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Be well, Jack. My favorite sins are lust and gluttony. Which ones are yours? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Sin and Sodomy... I'm thinking god hated the letter S--MikallakiM 00:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Starfish are sodomites. I once saw one smooch a pickle on TV. Sponges are supposed to be asexual, but I think Spongebob's lifestyle is a little iffy. Is mayonnaise a sin? I sure hope so. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Right there with you on lust and gluttony. With a side-order of "sloth," especially now, since it's so damn hot out. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 00:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Mmm, we had a dusting of snow a little while ago. I heard a Baton Rouge native say that once when it snowed there, the kids in school got sent outdoors to catch it on pieces of construction paper, to observe the wonders of nature at first hand. My slothful nature rejoices that it was naught but a dusting, since here the city imposes a fine for failure to shovel the sidewalk. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC) You guys are failing to appreciate all the fun that can be had with wrath. VOXHUMANA 01:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC) I only do wrath in homoeopathic doses. Seldom does it serve a higher purpose. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your feedback! At RationalWiki, we do our best to continually improve our abhorrence and loathsomeness. Our most recent improvement drive increased the number of paedophilia references by 45%, the number of abortion jokes by 120%, and our revulsion factor by 2,34 squicks. Simultaneously, our blasphemy level increased by 233 kilojudases. This great achievement was made possible by our team of dedicated editors, always eager to break new ground in depravity. Thank you and please come again. --Tweenk (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC) And it's only 45% and not higher because we decided to give Tisane the boot. Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 03:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC) I can't tell if you're joking or not. We're not doing it right if RW is about blasphemy. We make way too many assumptions about our readers. This site cannot be about anti-theism and left politics or it's going nowhere. I wish we could have a dialog about who we're trying to reach and how we're going to do it. This guy doesn't trike me as absolutely 100% trolling. He deserved a more temperate response. (formerly Ghostface Editah) 03:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Don't know if you are being sarcastic Nutty, but I hope you are. He called the site "abhorrent" and accused the members of being sodomites and sinners, and unless he's paid a few a conjugal visit (or there's some steamy RW porn running about that I'm thankfully unaware of), then he's not really offering anything worthy of a tempered response. There's a difference between opening dialogue and going around condemning people you don't know. 147.138.87.241 (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC) What BoN said, Nutty. "I hope you all abandon your filthy, hell-bound lifestyles and accept Christ" is not how you begin a civilized conversation. Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 04:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Who cares what he called the site. Any affirmative claims that RW is about blasphemy, is an atheist site, rationalism = atheism/leftism/anti-____, etc., are wrong and, even if this guy is a troll (he probably is), evidence a disturbing trend here to make wayyy too many assumptions about who our readership is and misinterpret RW's mission. If anyone thinks I'm wrong, go rewrite the mission statement yourself. From the perspective of a christian everything he said is true. We are reprobate sinners and sodomites who lead hell-bound lifestyles and many of us don't and won't accept Christ. What's that mean to you Octofdwhiury289fwds? It's not a personal attack. It's the (moronic) idiomatic language of a religionist. You do the same thing. 16:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC) That's how I greet my friends when I see them... Sam Tally-ho! 04:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC) BoN? Badass of Norway? Badger of Nantucket? Bringer of Nachos? 147.138.87.241 (talk) 05:10, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Bunch of Numbers, aka IP-address editors who aren't using registered accounts. Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 05:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Still, don't get us wrong...if you do want to bring us nachos, go right ahead. Sam Tally-ho! 05:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC) I'm sorry if I offended you. I attempted to preach at wikipedia but they banned me for proselytisation. I hope I can share sacred scripture with you and allow you to embrace the one true loving God in to your hearts. Sorry are those who think 'science' is superior to faith, for that is the road of the man of great pride, who shuns his heart in the face of God. JustJack (talk) 10:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Maybe you should read the Main Page, because if you're coming here to try and instill religion in us, that's almost perpendicular to RW's mission, and is likely going to be seen as offensive by many. We have theists here, but they know to stick within their own bounds. Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 10:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC) "Without a blinking smiley or other blatant display of humour" I don't know if JustJack is for real or is simply having a laugh. Given the events of recent days, I wouldn't be surprised if he turns out to be the sock of a long established RationalWiki editor who's doing an experiment to see how nasty we are to newcomers. Spud (talk) 11:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC) (EC) Sorry are those who think 'science' is superior to faith. Faith is, by definition, accepting things without evidence. Genuine question, let us propose there was real, convincing evidence for the existence of your God without natural explanations, evidence that would even make me pause - would you prefer to continue sticking with faith, i.e. believing with no evidence, or would you use the evidence that existed to ground your belief? (cont, I just don't like wall of text) You're able to wriggle off the hook because of common use of the word "faith" for example, "I have faith that my friend will help me off the curb." If I was to say that, it would not be accurate - I don't have faith that my friend would help me, as my experience with them shows them to be caring, understanding, and trustworthy (and no, this isn't because she's a frigging Catholic. She's bisexual for chrissakes). I have evidence to show it. When most people say faith, they don't mean faith. Oh, and Spud, although that may be true, that wouldn't be a fair way to say "YOU SEE YOU SEE THEY HATE NEWBIES IT'S A CULT A SECT A CLIQUE" by going in, insulting on idiotic grounds and being the antithesis of the site's userbase. Would it be fair to say Tea Party Facebook users are hostile to newcomers if you bait them by saying "ONLY gays get married from now on, no guns, no creationism, btw Jesus was a bottom"? Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 11:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC) I Should like to Welcome my Fellow Christian JustJack. There is much Work to do here.--Tolerance (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Wait, wait! Sin and sodomy? You mean sodomy isn't a sin? SophieWilder 11:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC) You're right of course Polite Timesplitter, it wouldn't be the least bit fair. But, if this turns out to be a long standing sysop telling us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised. Spud (talk) 11:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC) But that's what makes me frown the most. Whenever I see a "turn the other cheek" it's always either preceded or followed by some variant of "you filthy (sinner / sodomite / apostate / atheist / blasphemer)". I'm going to just scream Poe for now, thanks. Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 11:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Gods love is infinite and if you repent with a clear heart and soul you will be forgiven. Those sodomites who continue on their disastrous course, an affront to natural law and justice, will surely suffer in the fires of hell for eternity.JustJack (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Amen Brother.--Tolerance (talk) 15:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC) "From the perspective of a christian everything he said is true." I think that statement shows a pretty narrow, if not willfully uninformed understanding of what it can mean to be a Christian. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 16:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Narrow and willfully misinformed? Are you kidding me, ToP? You want to turn pedantry into an opportunity to take a shot at me? If I overstated it it's not because I'm some ill-informed boob who pops in to make shit up. You know me and my educational background. I could give a shit about some random clown coming to RW to have a laugh at y'all's expense. I do care about someone I know saying shit like this. Get fucked. You know me better than that. Of course there are some christians who disagree. You've apparently missed some of my comments about how RW cannot conflate skepticism with atheism and leftist politics or we're going to alienate mainstream readers and continue being held back by groupthink. 18:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Woah, settle down there, son. You can't have it both ways -- either, as you seem to argue above, and I agree, that there are too many assumptions at play about the website/its mission/its readership, and then defend that argument with a blanket claim about a massive and varied community. Perhaps I was being pedantic -- not that that is so unusual on this site -- but the inconsistency is exactly what you were arguing against. Sorry to get you so riled up, Chief. When Roosevelt came to the land of the hummingbird, shouts of welcome were heard!. 18:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC) and a liar I will make no use of scripture here I hope I can share sacred scripture with you Which is it to be, now? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC) The scripture of the Lord is essential, without it I cannot pass on the good news. However, I do not wish to be like one of the Protestants, spouting scripture insensibly and rejecting the natural right of the vicar of Christ to interpret the Gospel. JustJack (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Funny how you contradicted yourself in the space of three minutes. Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 12:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Just sayin', but Jack's tone is very Cicerone. Of course St. Paddy's day is a good time for a bit of Catholic trolling.  Lily Inspirate me. 13:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC) you people are pathologically unable to ignore trolls. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC) At least we learned that RW is an atheist wiki and that "I am a Christian and I think you are all abhorrent. I hope and pray that you will embrace Christ and renounce the life of sin and sodomy you have embraced. Go in peace." is such a personal affront that it will set off hours of self-gratifying counter-trolling wankery. 16:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC) That's an interesting way to frame a short spate of saloon commentary on an otherwise boring Sunday. How do you feel about being an abhorrent sodomite? Seems to me like a fit way to welcome a troll. Like everything else, this will pass. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC) And you're so much better, Roux? (talk to a) Nihilist 16:41, 17 March 2013 (UTC) I hadn't thought about it, Nihilist. Do you think me being better or worse has anything to do with this? (I was actually waiting with bated to see if someone would make this "argument" - you win!) 16:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Great, you can link to fallacies in an informal conversation — clearly that excuses hypocrisy. (talk to a) Nihilist 17:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Lol. I asked you a question and for the second time you're attacking me solely for commenting. Even if I'm a hypocrite, what's that got to do with this? And that's putting aside whether you're right - I don't recall going apeshit when some random nobody shows up to yank RW's chain and get the same predictable reaction. Pst. You're awful at this. 17:56, 17 March 2013 (UTC) I concede. (talk to a) Nihilist 18:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC) I would like thank you all for your time. If you would like to explore your life in the service of God further, please see my talk page. I would be happy to introduce you to the glory of God. JustJack (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC) which God ? I didnt like the fine print for Cthulhu, and the FSM wanted to pay me in pasta, Odin has a bunch of drunks with weapons loitering around and Kalii makes my neck itch. Hamster (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Extra, extra, read all about it

Here, just look at these. (Facebook link warning) A link to "god on the slide." I am viewing "Joshua Witten" from my sockpuppet "Ted Lanser". The conversation's ending is important. For those who could care less about the facebook link: Evidently this is "Bob Sorenson"s idea of libel. --P3A58NT86 17:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

completely off topic - help with electricity wanted

I am getting a cnc router soon , from china. It has a 220 volt power supply. That worked fine where it was but my houshold outlets are labeled 110. My stove however is labelled 220 volts. If I plug it in to the outlet for the stove will it work ? I dont want the smoke, sparks and flames this time. thanks Hamster (talk) 20:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Check the specifications of the router. Most modern electricals are built to work within a 100v to 240v range, so that they can be compatible with most of the world's power supplies. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty unlikely a shop tool is going to be dual voltage. The motor nameplate or main serial number/manufacturer nameplate will specify the voltage range. The only tricky part is that your router may not have the correct plug if it wasn't necessarily made for the US market. If you confirm that it's 220 and doesn't run on dual voltage, you're in luck - 220 plugs aren't compatible with 110. If it's 220 and the Chinese somehow put a 110 plug on it, it's only going to run brown - or possibly not at all since there's a microprocessor. So you can probably just go to Home Depot, get the correct plug with screw tight terminals, cut the old one off, and install. Then you're good to go. 20:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

With motorised tools it's not just the voltage but the cycles. I remember working on a site with a 220v/50Hz generator and being supplied with 110V/60Hz tools from the US. Although we used transformers they eventually burned out through overheating, they weren't rotating fast enough to dissipate the heat. Of course you might have the opposite with them spinning much faster. I can't say what will happen, because you've not supplied enough information but it's something to keep in mind. I think that multi-voltage electrical equipment like laptops normally uses rectified DC unlike AC motors used on routers. However, I don't claim to be any sort of an expert on this. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 21:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

ok thanks, I know of the 50 vs 60 cycle thing. I am hoping that it uses dc power so I can just replace the power supply. I have to wait until it arrives to get specs. Hamster (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If there are magneto-electric motors (and most CNC machines have these) you will need a rectifier/inverter as motors are sensitive to power frequency. The rectifier will convert 110V/60HZ to DC power, and the inverter will convert DC to 220V/50Hz. Wattage will become the main concern here. If the wattage demands of the CNC unit are small, then you'll be able to buy an 220V/50Hz inverter which runs off a 12V car battery. Throw in a car battery charger (which is effectively a rectifier as it converts AC to DC) and you have your power system. Order a 12V inverter from an Australian website and you won't even need to change the Chinese plug (Australia and China use essentially the same type of plug) VOX^HUMANA 00:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

RW Facebook banner

Would whoever made the RW Facebook banner please contact me? I would like higher resolution copies of your goat profiles if you'll share. Thanks. (formerly Ghostface Editah) 17:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Armondikov. I asked him for the originals, he hasn't found them. (I need to redo the blog header some time before the end of the world) - David Gerard (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I made vectors of some b/w silhouettes from several billy goats in profile. You want? There are some nice goat images on Flickr and MediaWiki commons. Lemme know if you want image processing. (formerly Ghostface Editah) 23:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The original was made at the resolution of a FB cover picture so that's it. ^theist 13:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

If you have better stuff, by all means update the image. It was just supposed to be a quick and temporary thing to fit the space but time and inclination to do something better sort of ran away from me over time. ^sshole 12:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, as I mentioned I (or anyone) could basically reconstruct it (except the goats) from source images already on the wiki, and the main barrier is being arsed to - David Gerard (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Fuckin' Crust!!!!

Fuckin' crust. I am, or would like to think I am, the only thing that kept some asshole from beating his girlfriend up in downtown Mpls tonight. I shit you not, my friend was on the phone with the cops about the assault, and before he even got a hold of them, I was across the street pulling the asshole off her, and ready to kick his ass myself. It's by the fact that my friend ran in-between us and the cops didn't take long that there wasn't his blood spilled on the ground. Man, I'm on some weird adrenaline kick right now as a result. Even the cops told me that, had it come down to it, they wouldn't have charged me for taking this asshole to the curb. I know, violence is not always the way. But when you see a drunken asshole hitting his girlfriend, you find a better way to react that isn't pure rage. Anyways, sorry for posting this here, but I just had to put this somewhere. My adrenaline is pumping at 1500 mph right now, and I need another beer. Cheers! Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I worked on doors throughout my Uni degree. I once choked out a guy who had knocked his girlfriend out (she was talking to another bloke). As I was putting him into recovery position she popped a bottle on my head. From then on I tried to deal with these situations by talking, and keeping both parties in sight; you'd be surprised how often it happens (at least over here). Well done though mate, it's always nice to see reality crash through some arseholes veneer of excuses for why he should be able to beat up his girlfriend (or beat up anyone for that matter). Tielec01 (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

There was a kid who got destroyed when he started a fight with one of my friends because he was butthurt that I was working too slow. Blood everywhere, and he was a local hero. The asshole was the one who started the fight. I personally have not had any situations to intervene on, and my closest doesn't come anywhere close. It was the 20 year old loser I exploded on for making Nazi salutes while siting in a chair in the corner, completely hammered. The only reason I didn't kick his ass is because he wouldn't have been worth it, and because he obviously had severe social deficits, but I wasn't about to let him get away with it. I verbally assaulted him, shamed him for his social failure, and then offered to help him. The "help" was like the scene in Safety not Guaranteed where the weird kid covers his head. Someone who actually gave 1/10^th of a fuck tried to help him, and he buried his head in the sand. Fuck him. He has lived in the social arrangements I've put a lot of effort into, far more than I have, and his response is to sit in the corner, not talk to anyone, and occasionally make Nazi salutes. I'd take his housing arrangements any day. ఠ_ఠ Тод Зенос ан форфар фор 04:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)