RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive198

This is an archive page, last updated 18 April 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>, <196>, <197>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

fwiw

Nice blog, shame if Reddit happened to it ... oh, it did.

It's quite nice not having to worry about Redditdottings any more - David Gerard (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't get what you're talking about. Does Reddit no longer link to us? Are you being sarcastic? Have you optimized the serverin such a fashion that we don't have to worry about sudden spikes of traffic?--"Shut up, Brx." 19:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

In a completely non-depressing way

Is 16 too young to have an existential crisis? The Invisible Man^{I spoke to Him} 11:07, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

No. What about?--"Shut up, Brx." 11:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Not according to TOW. But your crisis at 16 is probably not as dark as mine at 61. Especially when I see so many of my peers about to kick the bucket. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I had mine at 14. Luckily I haven't kept any of the poetry I wrote. Sophie^Wilder 11:41, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I used to have them all the time, but not so often any more. Is 32 too young to stop having existential crises? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Just as Solon counselled "Count no man happy until he is dead" then don't think you have had your last existential crisis. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm only a little older than Genghis, and of my high school graduating class, nearly ten percent are dead. There may be others, since fifteen percent have fallen off the school's radar, yours truly included. I think I'm happier on this side of the turf. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, a 90% success rate isn't half bad. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope. I had one at around 7 or 8. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is an existential crisis? –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 17:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It's the thing described in the Wikipedia link towards the top of the section. Sophie^Wilder 17:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I have a great sense of isolation at the moment, if that helps anyone. Even though I shouldn't when I think through it. The Invisible Man^{I spoke to Him} 21:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I think having some sort of existential crisis is essential for the maturation process. I mean after all, if you don't question any of your beliefs during your teen years then you either had it all figured out or you haven't the courage to challenge yourself. I've yet to meet anyone in the first category. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 05:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Pointless pop at someone who's not even on the thread

Do you think EnlightenmentLiberal is having one of these? Or does the fact that he rejects all of our advice mean that he isn't? –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 17:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

yes fuck him for not taking your advice that you're harressing him with. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

That depends, can we start to apply the same logic at you?--174.71.102.208 (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

~rolls his magic 8-ball~ Verdict: Seems unlikely. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Really? I got "As I see it, yes." Peter ^mqzp 05:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

And this is why it's good to check the history or read in edit mode. Lols. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

British class survey

Apparently I'm Technical Middle Class, so no surprises there. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

you and me both. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm precariat, because I know a cleaner. I hope to work my way up to cariat, and then postcariat. Or possibly don'tcariat. Sophie^Wilder 11:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm American...dammit. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 12:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Precariats of the world UNITE! (wtf is a precariat anyhow?) Scream!! (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Class mobility is easier than I thought. If I tell it the truth it says I'm an Emergent Service Worker. If I tell it that I spent my savings to buy a house (ie savings reduced by price of house, pick "Own" and the house price), I become a member of the Technical Middle Class. If I'm even cleverer and take out a mortgage to pay for the house while retaining most of the savings, I get to count this vast debt as "financial security" and I become a member of the Elite.

I wasn't able to find any explanation for why anyone believes these classes are "real" in the way that the working classes were a real phenomenon historically. They look to me vaguely like the categories that my own employer (a credit reference agency, a vast international one, yes them) uses to stereotype people for marketing purposes based on where they live. e.g. if you want to sell a high priced new technology product you probably don't want to target "Golden Comforts", they have the money but they don't know shit about technology, nor is "Industrial Grit" a good target, they can't afford it on their long term disability benefit even if they wanted to buy it. But maybe "Asian Enterprise" is more promising. You find out that this group don't read many newspapers or magazines, but they do use Facebook. So you authorise a social media campaign. It isn't rocket science, and frankly it's not terribly accurate, but most importantly here, it's not "Class" in any useful sense. Tialaramex (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

its very slightly better than the previous catogeries as I've never fit in those easily. I'm still at the bottom of any system no matter how you work it. Lumpen proletariat is my favoured designation. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

What kind of test is it that the Cultural Section doesn't have 'Read a book' as a measure of your cultural interaction? Oh, and apparently I'm an am-pro-precariat. Or as I like to think of it - a pleb with pretensions.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 16:11, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Aha, just answered my own question - it is a test devised after publication of 50 Shades of Somebody Who doesn't have a clue about real BDSM. Fair enough.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 16:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Another precariat here. Balaam (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Elite. Hipocrite (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I thought that my love of the arts might make up for my desperate shortage of cash but no. It says I'm precariat too. Sod that. I'm middle class. Spud (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Established middle class. Probably because I'm old and so I've had time to get things.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 19:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Mrs K came out as EMC, so the material side is not the issue. Probably it's because she socialises with more professionals in the health services and she likes dance/ballet. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Emergent service worker. IOW, I'm too pretentious to be a prole, but don't have enough dough to be a bona fide elite. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Elite apparently. News to me; seems as though it's primarily based on what you earn. Tielec01 (talk) 03:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The assessment of wealth is based on a badly flawed model, but one which perhaps reflects something about society. It confuses credit with money, Alice with $100 cash in her pocket is considered "poorer" than Bob with nothing but a credit card and a $500 limit. Rationally this is almost indefensible, Bob doesn't have any money! But perception matters, and Bob can totally buy $500 of stuff while Alice cannot. Bob appears to be richer, until the creditors demand their $500 and Bob loses everything. 84.246.168.11 (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The three classes are (1) The one you belong to - entirely reasonable etc. (2) The ones you look down on (toffs, plebs, chavs, politicians, jobsworths...). (3) Everybody else.

Thoughts on North Korea

Assuming the worst happens, and Kim Jong-Un does decide to launch a war...

What are the odds his generals will say, "no. you are guaranteeing our annihilation by the US. We run this country now, you will step down or we will shoot you. We are going to join the modern world." MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 15:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That is entierly likely. What does this have to do with Conservapedia? Did he doubt/Or did he try? 15:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a lot. Someone should probably lump this to the Bar. But here goes. I don't think that they'll force Kim to step down. To be honest, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if it's the generals egging him on. But what is inevitably going to happen is that if and when war gets declared, the entire DPRK army will be gathered in a square in Pyongyang as happens to declare the conflict, and a single drone strike can wipe them all out in one go. --جئت ورأيت أنا القرف ^{gross, isn't it?} 15:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

how much of the noise coming from nk is from Kim and how much from the generals? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I was under the impression anyone who could explain the situation would be giving outdated information, as they have already escaped. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I think both scenarios described above seem unlikely. The Kim legacy is so important to NK's national ideology that if some sort of coup were to take place, KJU would be kept on as head of state & government mouthpiece while the junta pulls the strings. Of course we don't know how much this is happening already. It's not clear what NK is looking to get out of the current situation, but I don't think it's a full scale war. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to have to echo the sentiment that a nuclear weapon won't be fired even if was an order from KJU. Surely the people who can actually hit the button must know it would end well for nobody. IIRC a Chinese representative said that even NK was going too far. Hopefully Chinese disapproval will put any further action off for a moment. And as tempting as it is to simply say this is the usual NK wolf-crying...my skepticism can't rule out the possibility they may have an ace up their sleeve. Polite Timesplitter ^{Let's move on to some other area of sodomy!} 18:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's more a case of "Give us more food/medicine/seed/fuel or we'll scream and scream until we're sick." Ajkgordon (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem is they're threatening with an actual nuke this time. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

China is only worried that NK's missile guidance system is so shitty that any nuke they launch will end up in China. Vulpius (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The complication is wondering what China might do. It is clear they don't much approve of NK craziness, but the US appears to be hoping China will "live up to its responsibilities" as a major power and reign Kim Jong Un in; that is not happening so far & looks unlikely.

For one thing, US moves in Korea are seen as trying to encircle China; there's a whole history going back at least to the 19th century there. The history, as it is taught & generally accepted in China, is of "imperialism" and a "century of national humiliation" from the First Opium War (1842) until the founding of the "New China" in 1949; Mao & the Party get all the credit for ending that humiliation. Then too, China sent troops to Korea in the 1950s; it would be hard to sit back & watch NK get trashed this time. Also, China already has more Koreans than it wants in the Northeast provinces; they really do not want an explosion that would give them more refugees.

There are reports of Chinese troops moving toward the border. Are they preparing to take out NK's nuclear facilities? Or to re-inforce NK if things go to armed conflict? I have seen commentators suggesting both. I have no answer, just a strong feeling that the question is important. Pashley (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Often, knowing the right questions is more important than knowing the right answers. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

China and the US are in what many have called an economic MAD, and the WikiLeaks cables back in 2010 revealed that Beijing's willing to accept Korean reunification. So anyone who thinks that China is going to be on Kim's side is wearing a tinfoil hat. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

As pretty much the only country to have good relations with NK, as well as fairly good relations with the West & international community, China will have a hell of a lot to lose if there is a conflict, especially if it becomes necessary to pick a side. Backing NK would put China in immediate hostilities with the rest of E.Asia & would sour their relations with everyone else; I can't foresee them going down that road. But doing a U-turn on its pro-NK stance & backing the western/democratic powers against commie NK would be pretty humiliating. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

"There are reports of Chinese troops moving toward the border. Are they preparing to take out NK's nuclear facilities? Or to re-inforce NK if things go to armed conflict?" My guess -- they're going to secure the borders against more of the refugees you spoke of, if anything. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 21:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

North Korea isn't communist. They've got that whole Juche + Cult of Kim thing going on. I don't know if enough of the world's citizens are aware of that for China to not be embarrassed for walking away from them, though. X Stickman (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Are there still South Koreans stuck in Kaesong? Given that most of the recent threats have been framed in the language of "if we are attacked we will destroy you with our death star (which we totally have)" some kind of botched rescue attempt is probably the only way that a war could get started right now. Peter ^mqzp 22:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Spooky Truth Onion Video

The Onion always makes me laugh. And this one is relatively germane to RW, no less! Transitional Form^{Still Durbinating} 18:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Goat wins court battle

More details here ^{— Unsigned, by: Alain / talk / contribs 2013-04-04T20:11:54}

Fun with Inquisitor Ehrestein

Bearenstain missed one: What we call a "grater" in my native tongue is called a "râpe" in French. This hilarious factoid is the basis for at least 0.68 reddit posts per week, if not a bit more. It's a lot less risible when you realize it's a cognate with "rasp." That little circumflex proves it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Overpopulation

Millions of Jews were killed during the Holocaust. This was a horrible and unforgivable tragedy. But if they had not died, and instead gave birth to a new generation of 18 million Jews, and then 27 million, and so on, and so forth, wouldn't this put a greater strain on the world's resources?--Inquistor Behrenstein (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Since the Aryan race is superior to Jews, Poles or Gypsies, Hitler decided to combat overpopulation by exterminating every non-German in Eastern Europe. Even though extermination its a very potent fix to overpopulation I still doubt that overpopulation should be seen as a valid reason for genocide.-Strangelove (talk) 18:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we have LQT on the Saloon Bar?

It would be better than this.--Inquistor Behrenstein (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

RAPE

Seriously, I hate rape. Rape is so wrong. We should talk about rape. Maybe we should rape rapists. For great justice.--Inquistor Behrenstein (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

+1 19:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Rapeseed oil

Has anybody ever tried it? What's it like?--Inquistor Behrenstein (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Go to your grocery store and look for canola oil. It's the same thing. Nowhere Man (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Quoth the raven, `Nevermore.' VOX^HUMANA 22:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Fencing

Anybody into fencing? I like rapiers.--Inquistor Behrenstein (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Women and sex

It's so unfair that people keep objectifying women. There are so many non-sexual things you can do with them, like playing tennis, or chess, or watching a movie. The list goes on and on.--Inquistor Behrenstein 01:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Or Words with Friends, lulz. Peace (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Very true. Pretty much my only intimate interaction with women nowadays is Words With Friends. :( Генгис^evolving 06:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Female tennis is non-sexual only if you keep your eyes open. Vulpius (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I was watching the Wimbledon women's final last year and my ex thought I was watching porn. Mostly because I was masturbating when she walked into the lounge... --PsyGremlin^{話しなさい} 10:37, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

"Female tennis is non-sexual only if you keep your eyes open." LOL.

Since some people don't realize this is a joke, I'm pointing it out for the feebleminded You can also get girls to paint your Warhammer army. This requires massive social skill, and even then, endless persistance. If you can do it, you need to apply to the Games Workshop marketing department, because they will pay you a lot of money. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 15:55, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm just curious here - have you actually ever met or spoken to a woman before ? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Far more than you have. You realize that's a joke, right? –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 16:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

its not easy tell with you AMassiveGay (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's been an issue, so I've finally made this: Template:Sar. <sarcasm>George Bush was an awesome president. I think we should become a Christian nation.</sarcasm> –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 16:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

no its just an issue with you, what with your jokes being identical to what you say in earnestness. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I think that also might just be a problem of me just saying the first thing I think of too quickly. While I realize a libertarian government is better, I tend to be very authoritarian at times, though I remember that what I'm thinking of is not a good idea in actuality. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 17:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

What I believe is different from my first reaction in some cases. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 21:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this (^) is key to the difficulties rationalists may have with selling their ideas. Instant gut reaction and intricate reasoning proceed in different realms and at different rates. We need both, and cannot discard either one. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thinking Fast And Slow. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Just make sure the woman in question does not have a Penis. That normally ends in disappointment. GhostofTK (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

How so? One can play tennis, or chess, or Words With Friends just as well with a woman with a Penis as with one without. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

True, but using your hands makes it easier. Sophie^Wilder 12:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

That normally ends in disappointment. - only if your expectations are limited. Other outcomes are available. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Just make sure the woman in question does not have a Penis. I know an extremely sexist guy who had an issue with this. He brought a girl back to his room, she quickly walked out. I thought he said sth, but it turned out she had a "very large penis." –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 13:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

May I take this opportunity to finally ask what "sth" means? Polite Timesplitter ^{Let's move on to some other area of sodomy!} 14:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

not wanting a woman with a penis does not make someone 'extremely sexist' AMassiveGay (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression that one needs a hyperbole filter with IE. "Extremely sexist" => "thinks of himself as a bit of a lad". "very large penis" => 9cm. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

He was not sexist because he did not want a woman with a penis; he was sexist because he literally came right out and said that victims of a crime I've decided not to talk about wanted it. Not a joke. I asked him about it and he repeated it. I thought the reason the girl walked out at first was because he said something sexist, and later I found out it was because she had a penis. It means something. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 15:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

yes. It means he's not into women with penises. The apparent sexism of the chap has no bearing on your little tale. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The last sentence was directed at me, not the story, I didn't know that 'sth' simply meant 'something'. I'm still pretty flabbergasted to think people need to abbreviate that. It's not hard to type. Polite Timesplitter ^{Let's move on to some other area of sodomy!} 18:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

There is still much to be explained (frak, feth, etc.) ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sexism is relevant because I thought the reason the girl walked out was because he made some sort of sexist comment. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 18:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Would I be sexist if I fancied males, but only those who dress up like females? What if I fancied females who dressed like males? This could get confusing quickly. 72.205.215.192 (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course not. Being sexist would be to only fancy males that dress up as males, or only females that dress up as females. Nicolas Perrault III (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Prodigal

Editor Prodigal repeatedly blocks me for 30 mins with accusations of "vandalism" while I add and attribute Dawkins quotes and fix typographic errors. Since this is a lie, could he at least be honest in his block reasons that he merely wishes to censor views which do not conform to and in fact disprove his personal biases. Thanks. 175.193.212.64 (talk) 10:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Caliing someone "Jewboy" isn't going to win you any favours, you racist twat. Sophie^Wilder 10:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You've also engaged in vandalism here and here. So, yes, you are a vandal. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 11:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 175..., you seem pretty destructive rather than useful.ħuman 03:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Junk phonecalls

The original article was kite-flying, but there is a case for an RW article on 'nuisance phonecalls and emails' ('relatives of dead dictators with secret bank accounts, HMRC-bank-draining-refunds, requests for credit cards and pins etc) and how to deal with them. 171.33.222.26 (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

We have an article on advance fee fraud, which is a start. --Seth Peck (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Neither is remotely on-mission. 15:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sign me up for this new religion!

So I recently found out about the Missionary Church of Kopimism. Apparently, it's legally recognized in Sweden. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

This would be just the thing for HeidelbergKid.[1][2] Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I've decided to devote my time and spiritual energy to praising father Comstock.--P3A58NT86 16:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Even more Wakefield Qwackery

If we gave him a wagon and chance to wander from town to town promoting the wonderful powers of his Elixir, ( "It can cure your baldness, it can cure your impotence, it can cure the rheumatiz...") would he be more honest than he is now?-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 16:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone call Homer and Grampa! --Revolverman (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Vale Roger Ebert

I awoke to this sad news. Not unexpected given his long-term ill-health, but sad regardless. He was a tremendous writer, not just as a film critic, but as a voice of rationalism. He will be missed. VOX^HUMANA 22:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I started following his movie reviews when I was in high school, and later I grew to love his political writings, as well. His death is especially jarring for me when just two days ago he posted on his blog that he was going to focus more on doing the things he loved. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

(EC) This caught me by surprise considering he put this up two days ago detailing how he was going to move forward in the rest of his years. I don't know if that's a tragedy in itself (he never got around to carrying it out) or if it was a fitting end; at least he died after closing the book on one chapter of his life. Polite Timesplitter ^{Let's move on to some other area of sodomy!} 22:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Psst. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should have an article on Roger Ebert. If an RW article is nothing more than a cut-down version of the Wikipedia article, then it shouldn't exist — and that's exactly what an article on Ebert would be like. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Stabby on this one. Ebert is a fascinating cultural figure (and one who I deeply admired), but apart from the fact he made a few disparaging remarks about ID and other pseudosciences, he doesn't really seem to fit the RW mission. VOX^HUMANA 00:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Remember that Poe's Law used to be nicknamed the "Ebert's fallacy." Osaka Sun (talk) 00:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Well get to work then. I'm going to be busy for several more weeks (at least) on the Dover project :) VOX^HUMANA 01:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Cartoons about Ebert

I'm seeing some from political cartoonists on Facebook (e.g., George Takei's feed), somewhat heartwarming, showing Ebert joining his buddy Gene Siskel with a box of popcorn in a theater in Heaven. Anyone else think this is inappropriate, given Ebert's nonbelief? --Seth Peck (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Reminds me of Dara Ó Brian: "You can stop believing in God, but you don't stop being Catholic." Osaka Sun (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Why would it be inappropriate? Sometimes i think atheists are as bad as fundi Christians about how the world is treating them. It's a cartoon showing two good buddies after death, in a way of honoring what they both did for a long time. Given Ebert's views on many things, I'm more than sure he would smile and say "yeah, that would be great if it were true". commentary doesn't have to reflect real world truth. Ebert loved movies about elves, and far off worlds of aliens, and fantasy life. (and by the way, whether or not Ebert would have cared about a cartoon, he expressly stated he did not want to be claimed as a believer or non-believer by others. That his religious views were his own, and were private.)Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 16:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The inherent problem with the question is that Ebert would somehow be offended because it didn't reflect his beliefs. It exemplifies how someone who was religious might take umbrage over some perceived sacrilege, or rather whose fellow believers takes umbrage on their behalf. But any atheist should get the joke, because it's all over; it really doesn't matter. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I do think Ebert would have to be an absolute prick to not appreciate that people are going to miss him. I mean, he's just died. Now's not the time for an argument. The cartoons are too nice to not like and I don't think it's inappropriate at all. --Certified _{Sick Bastard} 11:56, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Bloglines.

So with the imminent death of Google Reader, I've switched over to Bloglines as a way to manage my RSS feeds. I just opened it up for the first time in about 18 hours, only to discover that I have 7000 unread items. Not because my preferred blogs and comics updated 7000 times overnight, but because Bloglines has decided that a bunch of stuff dating back months and years was "unread." Anyone have an option for a Linux-friendly or browser-based alternative? Something that looks like Google Reader and works? Did he doubt/Or did he try? 17:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't switched yet because I'm waiting until the last minute, but Lifehacker has been pimping Feedly. Tell me if you find something you like, since I have the same requirements (smooth transition, Linux-friendly or Chrome-based, etc.)--^talk 06:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I like "The Old Reader" myself (I'm not the only one, it seems). It's primary advantage is that it's basically a Reader clone, but from before the social bits were cut out. One the other hand there's still a lengthy queue of people waiting for their feeds to import, so you'd be best to sign up now and tell it to import and then come back a week later to try it out properly (you can also import manually, but that's not practical if you have hundreds). I think the "7000 old-but-unread items" problem is a bit of a constant, but it went away for me once it had done it for most of the individual feeds.

While you can wait until the last minute to change what you use full-time, it might be best to start testing options now so that you've figured out all the bugs. Another option to consider is newsblur, but I hear it costs (a small amount of) money. Peter ^mqzp 06:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Massive numbers of magically "unread" items from a single feed usually indicate a bug in that feed. A lot of feeds out there are basically built out of duct tape and old Cheerios boxes and have numerous serious things wrong with them technically, ordinary users only notice when one of those things interferes with their use of the system. This could also be the explanation when many feeds from a single source (e.g. maybe you get a Sport feed and a Politics feed from the same news site) go haywire.

OTOH if many unrelated feeds blow up in this way it does suggest a fault with the RDF aggregator. Note that Google Reader has plenty of bugs, so switching away from that doesn't necessarily mean things will be worse, just different. For example Reader sometimes doesn't send referrer headings in its bots (presumably a bot dies, the restarted one doesn't know what referrer tags were applicable, something like that) and so images will appear to be "hot-linked" from the feed when they aren't, leading to needless complaints on sites where hot-linking is forbidden. Tialaramex (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been using RSS Owl for a couple of weeks, and it's not bad. I'd rather have a stand-alone client than a web-based one anyhow. On a related note, Tweetdeck has been acting like a butt on me for quite a while, so I'm giving it the boot. Trying out Spaz as a twitter client, but does anyone know a good Facebook client for Windows that's not web-based? --Kels (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

So it took about 20 hours to get to the front of the queue and get Old Reader to import my feeds, but so far i like it. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 19:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm using the reader that comes with Wordpress sites. Seems OK so far. Scream!! (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Web of Trust on RationalWiki

Seems legit. Osaka Sun (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Praise indeed! 14:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course, we come out extremely well against Schlafly's muppets. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I like the high rating for "child safety"! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 19:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You can thank Nx for being exactly who and what he is and giving us the NSFW tag. That pic won't show up unless you're logged in and have some bit set somewhere in your preferences. He loved that.

Actually, I've seen that it will still show up even if I'm not logged in.--DoomTay (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

14:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is that website? Is it actually a reputable thing that people actually use, or is it one of those borderline scam websites that no one gives a crap about? My favorite is how W3schools sells "classes" and "certificates." No one is going to give a crap that someone got a web development certificate from some website's class. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 19:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Private Eye and MMR

I feel a sudden urge to write the definitive history of Private Eye and the MMR scandal, 'cos one doesn't exist. Any UK readers know of suitable secondary sources? And, does anyone have their MMR Special that they inexplicably no longer admit to the existence of? (Strangely enough, searching their website for "MMR" gets no hits either.) - David Gerard (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Dr Phil Hammond helpfully lists the respective issues which may still be available from The Eye's back issues. Also, this may be of interest. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

This is the BMJ link (paywalled, of course) - David Gerard (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Which BMJ article? The direct link isn't working for me, but I should be able to pull it up.

Also, did someone just cite whale.to? ^postate 12:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Kaesong is dead

We're going into the deep end now. Osaka Sun (talk) 08:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That's what you said last week. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 13:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Joel Osteen leaves faith, declares "There is zero evidence the Bible is the word of God."

Can't say that I'm surprised when the #1 spokesman for the me-centric Gospel decides that the "gospel" part of the equation was superfluous to his personal philosophy, but this is nevertheless a historical moment: "Mega pastor Joel Osteen resigns, leaves Christian faith" Junggai (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, next time I should check other news sources before posting this kind of thing. It's a hoax, nothing to see here. Junggai (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

While I couldn't completely confirm it with a quick search, it certainly had all the hallmarks of a hoax to me. DickTurpis (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Three key hallmarks

1. It cites CNN, but does not link to it.
2. The "Osteen" URL it links to spells his name "Osten".
3. It's from a blog not affiliated with... anything.

C'mon, people. I hate to say it, but "I thought this was supposed to be RationalWiki". We're supposed to be the people who don't fall for things like this. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 18:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Mainly, the way it's written isn't what you expect to see from recent de-converts. That's written from someone who's been up to their eyeballs in atheist tropes for years. ^gnostic 00:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

True dat. And can I just add that if I see The Daily Currant or the Borowitz Report cited as fact in my Facebook feed one more time I'm going to puke my pants. DickTurpis (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Rick Warren's son kills himself

Rick Warren's son has killed himself, Son of Pastor Rick Warren commits suicide. All I know is that he battled depression most of his life. I don't know why he was depressed. Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

How sad.--^talk 10:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Depression doesn't need a "why." Yes, it may be exacerbated by a sucksome life situation, but it can also come a-visiting when things are going nicely. I won't preach about how mental states are temporary, but death is final. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering why someone with such a visceral hatred for religion and religious people would find this story interesting enough to post it in the first place. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 21:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

PC misspelled "I don't know why his body produced and metabolized neurotransmitters in a dysfunctional way." The sooner we accept that depression is an illness, in the same way that cardiovascular disease or MS or any host of other things are illnesses, the better we will be. Doctor Dark (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thatcher has apparently died

[3] AMassiveGay (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

[4] Sophie^Wilder 12:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You see, I had 'Ding, Dong...' and time to get some dancing shoes running through my head. Funny that.
Addendum: I wonder if they'll have to pull a Khan and hide the location of the grave to avoid possible desecration? Let's face it, somebody did behead her statue.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 12:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Ebert, Thatcher... They always go in threes, don't they? Vulpius (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're a comic book lover, add Carmine Infantino (same day as Ebert.) MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

yes, two unrelated people dying on different days in different parts of the world...it must mean something! Sophie^Wilder 12:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I had the honour of updating her entry on the Esperanto Wikipedia accordingly. Spud (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I fail to understand the enduring hatred and grave dancing of someone who hasn't been prome minister for over 20 years, and who has been very ill for most of those twenty. There where and are more deservin targets for such hate. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry AMG, but some of us have waited decades for this day. Her policies ruined this country. Sophie^Wilder 13:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

She likely died in December, anyway. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I was all ready to join in the internet grave-dancing, until I noticed that not one, not two, but three women with whom i am friends on Facebook--intelligent, politically-active women with unassailable leftist positions--posted that while they found Thatcher's politics reprehensible, that the fact that they either (depending on their ages) grew up thinking you had to be a man to be PM or grew up in a world where it was normal for a woman to be PM made them respect Thatcher, and feel a little sad at her passing. I think that's okay. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 13:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I grew-up during her premiership and watched her introduce Section 28, and actively encourage discrimination against homosexuals through her party.
I watched her appease the racist governments in South Africa, opposing sanctions against them, and propping them up, including describing Mandela's ANC a terrorist organisation. She also did her best to oppose the unification of West and East Germany, actually calling on the USSR to stop it.
I watched her rip the heart out of local coal-mining communities by deciding to import coal rather than provide employment in areas that vote Labour, and when she had gutted the communities of their economies, put fuck-all in their place for years. End result - even now, those areas that were gutted by Thatcher's policies still rank on the lowest and worst rankings for health, employment, life-expectancy, education, and social mobility.
I watched her government systematically discriminate against Labour voting areas when it came to allocating funds to the Local Authorities. I spent my entire time in secondary school with desks that still had ink-wells, and graffiti carved into it so deeply it wasn't possible to write on a sheet of paper on the desks, walls that had the corners kicked off years ago and never repaired, no money for text-books (didn't get to see a text-book until I started my GCSEs, prior to that there was one textbook per subject per year, and pages were photocopied from that when the school could afford toner. When they couldn't pages would be mimeographed and handed around the class), and up until the end of '91, BBC Micros for those studying A-Level Computing. Strangely enough, the school 36 miles down the road in a Tory voting area always had the best of everything. Weird coincidence that.
This was a politician who decided that high unemployment was an acceptable price to pay for economic growth, and when that became embarrassing, did her best to park the unemployed on disability benefits so they wouldn't show up on the figures. It's no coincidence that those actions have led precisely to this government's decision to bash anybody on benefit by taking every opportunity to infer that people claiming disability are faking it and ripping off the system (fraud rates are actually 0.5%, not a figure that the government likes to bandy about).
And then you had the poll tax, one of the most unequal flat taxes imaginable. You couldn't design a tax that was more favourable to the rich unless you decided to use negative tax rates.
Believe me when I say that me, and an awful lot of people where I live, have every reason to loathe that bitch.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 13:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 14:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm a Yank, not a Brit, and, as my dad would say, I "ain't got not no dog in this fight." I certainly don't have the attachment to the issue the RWian's from the UK have.

That being said, what does her death bring you? It's not like she was currently running the government and you could now have hope for a new direction. Yes, criticize her politics. Point out the horrible things she did to your country. But there's no reason to celebrate the death of a fellow human being.

At the very least, remember that there were people to whom she wasn't "Prime Minister Thatcher", but "Mom" or "Grandma" or just "my friend Maggie." Give them a few days. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 14:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"That being said, what does her death bring you?" Truth? Satisfaction. Which isn't particularly nice, and doesn't make me a shining paragon of sainthood, but it does make me human. I'd also point out that I'm not messaging her family saying "Glad she's dead!!!", although no doubt there are wankers that are.
It's strange, but when I had listed some of things that led to why so many people loathed Thatcher I forgot to add the one thing that effected me most directly, which was the deliberate underfunding of the NHS, and from that the very deliberate action of massively underfunding Mental Health, bringing in Care in the Community, and then underfunding Social Services so they couldn't take care of the people that had been released from hospital to the supposed care they were supposed to get when released. These were policies brought in by Thatcher, continued by Major, and still have repercussions today. I was first diagnosed with having a mental health problem when I was sectioned when I was 19, but I didn't get a diagnosis, or the correct treatment, until I was 33. I still don't have the care that I need, and that's because my Local Authority was so chronically underfunded for so many years during Thatcher's premiership any increase since is still only nibbling at the edges of a huge blackhole in Adult Social Services. Thatcher may not have been in power for 20 years, but her policies are still having terrible negative effects on people, even now.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 14:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

In politics you often find that you cannot do something which you know to be necessary because it goes against the groupthink of your own party. Frequently one side makes changes which are decried by the other but are then somehow never reversed when the balance of power changes. Thatcher did a whole lot of stuff which I didn't agree with but she managed to get the UK a much fairer deal in Europe and she rolled back some of the excesses of the unions which were bringing British manufacturing to its knees. Just like with useful idiots sometimes you need a useful bitch/bastard for the long-term good. Two-party politics is like a drunken walk lurching from left to right and banging into walls but generally heading in the same direction. We won't see a sober approach to politics in the UK until we get some sort of PR where a more general long-term consensus can be reached. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The latter part is definitely true. Or failing that, having the south-east disappear under rising sea-levels and with that the forced realisation that UK politics will have to refocus on the long-term, if only to cope with a rebalanced economy and population.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 14:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Every on-line news site I've looked at this afternoon from the Americas to Europe to the Far East has her death as the top story. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Obama just called her "One of the great champions of freedom". Um, union workers? Everyone who couldn't say a word to distressed kids and teens due to section 28? Fuck off, Barry. I know it'd be suicide to come out and say "she was a total cunt" but come on...Polite Timesplitter ^{Let's move on to some other area of sodomy!} 16:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why you would be mad at Obama for saying this, it is considered diplomatic and respectful to say something positive when a former major leader of an ally passed away. What would you expect him to say to the British people, "ha, she'd dead and I didn't like her!"?

Of course I am an American and I don't really understand why people would be excited and celebratory towards her death either, especially after so long. I read what people said above and I saw typical partisan actions and typical politics from the Eighties from her and shrug; perhaps that is just cynicism as politicians of any party here would be willing to do. I also found it interesting one person stated she ruined Britain, but I am just old enough to remember Britain in the Seventies being , well, a fucking wreck, with high unemploment, inflation, and crazy strikes that would essentially paralyze the nation such as the "Winter of Discontent".--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Nobody who supports / supported Section 28 and did not see the problems in that, in hindsight or at the time, can be truthfully called a "champion of freedom". Polite Timesplitter ^{Let's move on to some other area of sodomy!} 18:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And wanted the Iron Curtain to remain up. Obama should've just praised her pioneering work in the invention of soft ice cream. Vulpius (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thatcher wanted the Iron Curtain to remain up? That's a new one! (At least for me.)--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy of the Torygraph-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 20:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Context, people. Context. All world leaders must have been shitting themselves at the upheaval going on at the time at the end of the Cold War. North Korea waving its dick around? The Taliban getting a bit uppity? Pah. Children's playground stuff compared to what was going on then. She was right to be apprehensive as were many others at the time. That Kohl was so respected and seen as safe pair of hands was probably what kept the likes of Thatcher from voicing her worries at the time. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And the view from the left-hand wing mirror. Remember, objects maybe closer than they appear…-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 20:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not seeing that as wanting to keep the Iron Curtain but simply British worries over the power of a united Germany; I mean you can understand them having a little worry given the history of Europe from Kaiser Wilhelm II to Adolf Hitler.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

So Thatcher preferred to keep East Germany impoverished and under communist rule, rather than run the risk of … what, exactly? There was zero chance of a united Germany joining the USSR, and no chance of a united Germany deciding to kick-off and re-invade Western Europe, so the only risk of a united Germany was that it would become what it has become, the economic powerhouse of Europe with levels of influence within Europe and the EU that Britain couldn't begin to dream of. I'm sorry, but thinking that is a threat worthy of keeping East Germans where they were, even if it was only going to be for another 10 or 20 years, isn't just ridiculous, it's dangerously similar to the abhorrent ideology that had her supporting a nakedly apartheid regime.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 21:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Funny you should say 'nakedly apartheid' considering she referred to Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu as terrorists. Polite Timesplitter ^{Let's move on to some other area of sodomy!} 22:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, must be getting tired, you'll need to explain that one to me.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 23:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And yet Ahmed Kathrada believes that she exerted influence to prevent Mandela being given the death penalty. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 06:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Wanting the iron curtain to remain up and saying: "These events marked the most welcome political change of my lifetime. But no matter how much I rejoiced at the overthrow of Communism in eastern and central Europe, I was not going to allow euphoria to extinguish either reason or prudence." Are not quite the same thing.

What surprises me is that she kept being elected after sacrificing live babies to Satan on prime time TV. Or didn't that happen?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 10:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

A statement made after the fact, and at odds with her behaviour before reunification. She was bound and determined to limit the power of both Europe and Germany fearing the negative impact on the UK's power and influence, especially within NATO and directly with the US. Remember, this was a woman perfectly happy to champion Pinochet, even after knowledge of his atrocities was well known, supported apartheid in South Africa claiming that overt racism was better than socialism, arm-in-arm with the US happily armed and supported Saddam Hussein, and called General Suharto “one of our very best and most valuable friends”. If Thatcher had one ideology that ruled her domestic and international politics it was that the ends justified the means, and if a few eggs got broken along the way, or a few million people impoverished, repressed, tortured or killed, well that was fine and a price worth paying, because after all, it wasn't any of her supporters getting the shitty end of the stick.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 12:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"In threes"

I was working on the math for an "in threes" debunking article, but then I realized I could'nt think of a good way to estimate the total number of people famous enough to be in threes. Any ideas? Hipocrite (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

At a certain level, fame is relative. If (God forbid...) Sonny Rollins or Wayne Shorter were to leave us in the next day or so, that would close the circle of three for me, but lot of people would be, like, "who?" But if the nation started mourning some TV actor or football player I've never heard of... Did he doubt/Or did he try? 14:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The truth is, marginally famous people die every day. Trying to break up 21 deaths in a month into 7 groups of 3 is silly. DickTurpis (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: the "dying in threes" meme; while I say it's horseshit, Annette Funicello seems to disagree. DickTurpis (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It's confirmation bias, but I can't prove it until I can estimate the number of actually famous people that exist. Hipocrite (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If Sonny Rollins or Wayne Shorter passed, that would be too monumental to fit in. You'd need to form a new triad, with (Goat forbid) Hancock, Quincy or someone comparable. And now I'm upset even thinking about it. VOX^HUMANA 21:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Just check for deaths on Wikipedia. It's several Wikipedia notable people per day at least. How you then refine that to "famous" is arbitrary, though, but WP notability criteria basically means they're famous to someone. ^sshole 00:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No, on Wikipedia "notability" is a technical term, essentially meaning that the person or thing has been mentioned a couple of times in mainstream media and that someone cares enough to write an article on them. It has nothing to do with being "notable" or "noteworthy" or the like as such terms are usually understood, much less "famous." Doctor Dark (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

nowthatchersdead

Oops.Did he doubt/Or did he try? 23:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Best thing I've seen in a while. DickTurpis (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And here is number three...

Annette Funicello, Mouseketeer and Beach Movie Actress, Dies at 70 VOX^HUMANA 00:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think Cher is probably more notable. I've not seen anything in the mainstream news but on Twitter there's a hashtag #NowThatChersDead. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Er, see section above. ;) Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 20:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

And I hope that my association of Annette Funicello with Margaret Thatcher was taken as intended - obviously Annette was more of a neo-marxist. VOX^HUMANA 21:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as "life," or is it entirely subjective?

Is there anything really different between living and non living things? Isn't "life" just complex reactions that happened to become so complex that it created a God in the gaps type sitution, and so people decided that there must be some sort of fundamental difference? –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 20:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes,no,no. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 20:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Than what is the difference between living and non living things? –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 21:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Punch yourself really hard in the nose. Then try to answer your own question. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 21:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Consciousness. Yet most forms of life do not have it. Plants, and many forms of simple animals to not have it. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 21:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Life is bigger. Bigger than you. And you are not me. Sophie^Wilder 21:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Life is very difficult to define[1] but "everyone knows it when they see it". I think this summarizes the problem. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 22:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Life's a piece of shit, When you look at it. This also summarizes the problem. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It's an issue of semantics. There are a wide variety of characteristics of "life" (Wikipedia lists seven), and depending on which attributes you focus on, your results may differ. Regardless of how you define "life", there will be a continuum of living to non-living things. If you put humans at one end, and a piece of basalt at the other, then a real grey area emerges with things like viruses, viroids, mitochondria.

As to your original question, no, it is not subjective. As with many scientific concepts (eg. crystallography, quantum theory, relativity, astrophysics, fluid dynamics) the existence of a poorly defined/understood subtopic within a field in no way negates the overall concept. (To quote Dara O'Briain: "Science knows it doesn't know everything, else it would stop.") VOX^HUMANA 01:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Just because vitalism was refuted doesn't mean that there is no difference between life and non-life. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It keeps meat fresh. ^theist 12:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

But, seriously, it is pretty much semantics. It's a case of what your definition is and then what you want to use it for. People define a fertilised egg as "alive" because they want to ban abortion. But if you do that, then living skin cells that you've just scraped off have an equal right to the definition of "alive". It's not terribly dissimilar to trying to define "religion" - if you define it as "any worldview about the universe", then atheism is a religion, it's just a case of "so fucking what, then?" is the response. ^sshole 12:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

But "life" at least has a pseudo-controversial definition to start with. ^{d hominem} 01:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

a) It's the same bunch of period table chemicals and forces everywhere, so one answer would be "No", no difference. b) The actual answer would be that "Yes", there is a difference, the difference is Information. Information defined as the particular geometric arrangement of all these bits to each other, their momentum, their movement vectors and velocities in space time, and so on. So, although in terms of mass, energy and ratios of chemical elements, a 70kg bag of blended human body and a 70kg human might be exactly the same, information content would be found to be very different. Not less or more mind you. Just different, but it is an actual "objective" difference. Sen (talk) 06:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Seeking assistance from the learned alphas at RW

I have been in Japan for 3 weeks. I left my laptop at home in cool, dry shady place while away. Upon arriving home I discovered that, when loading and typing some keys would produce several characters. That solved itself and last night it seemed to work fine. Now it won't start at all (except in safe mode). Dell Inspiron, a year old with windows 7. I have fucked around with if to no avail. Calling on RW learned Alphas. Any advice? Aceⁱ⁹ 06:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Who used it - or spilled water on it - while you were away?--^talk 15:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

That would be one year and a few days old then? Out of warranty? Генгис^unbelieving 17:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Laptop batteries sometimes bulge and exert pressure on the backside of keyboards and trackpads, causing them to act erratically. Use the computer plugged in without the battery and see if that fixes it. Your computer's battery health utility may not know anything is wrong if one cell is bulging but still holding a charge. 21:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

No one used it. After doing some diagnostics I think the hard drive is fucking out in a similar fashion to what happened to my mother in law's Dell. Thanks for the tips. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Odd. I've left laptops unused for a couple (or more) months with no ill effects. I don't know the details of your "cool, dry shady place" but sometimes this can be more conducive to high humidity and condensation that warm, well-ventilated places. So you might try leaving it in a low humidity location for a while. Hard drive "stiction" used to be a problem with unused computers some years ago. But according to Wikipedia (so it has to be true) improvements in drive technology have mostly eliminated this. Doctor Dark (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It was under a dresser (obviously to thwart thieves). The house was empty for 3 weeks so not sure if humidity would be a problem but it did seem like that was the issue when I took it out. The keys felt dampish and the key's fucking up suggested so also...Aceⁱ⁹ 21:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Well then wrap it in foil and put it in the microwave for a few minutes. That should dry it out. 23:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Excellent advice. Also, rather than trying to hide a laptop under a damp dresser I'd recommend screwing it to a heavy desk with four of those tamper-proof screws. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 05:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems OK now. Next time I'll keep it in my anus. Aceⁱ⁹ 06:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You might as well leave it in the street. 13:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Why? Less traffic? Ajkgordon (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it's just that they are frequently co-located. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

For the lighter side of life

Empty night, but I enjoyed Knighmare. So here's a Guardian nostalgia article about it. And for those who don't know Knightmare, well worth seeing if you can find it to watch somewhere.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 23:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Oooh, Nasty! --Revolverman (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

'Where am I?'
'You are in a wiki. Ahead of you is a table with some items on. It looks like… a pie, a red jewel, a sword, and a metal thing, looks like a wand.'
*mutter* *mutter*
'Okay, take three steps forward'
*smack*
'You've walked into the table. Walk around the otherside.'
'Okay, take the pie and put it in your knapsack.'
'Quickly.'
'Phew. Okay, what is the metal wand thing?'
'This? It's a key.'
'Oh. Oh, right. Take the key then.'
'I can take something else. What else should I take? Shall I take the jewel'
'Um, no, take the sword, just in case you are attacked.'
'But I can't see, how would I use the sword?'
'But what if you are attacked? Take the sword.'
'Okay, turn around. No, all the way.'
'Now take four steps forward.'
'STOP! You're about to hit a wall. Take a sidestep to the left.'
'Sorry, no, step to the right. And another step. Now take another step forward.'

'Where am I?'
'You are in the the Chicken Coop, ahead of you is a lack of Goat.'
*dull thudding heartbeat and eyeball goes flying off-screen*

'Oooh, Nasty!'-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 11:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This article is also worth reading. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, that was brilliant. "For an entire generation of British children, it was the televisual equivalent of owning a terminally ill hamster."-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 19:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Pompeii of the North

Excavations of the site where Bloomberg's new European HQ will be have revealed some remarkably well-preserved items of Roman leather and wood. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 05:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, damn it all. After that intro of some remarkably well-preserved items of Roman leather and wood I was expecting a strap-on at least. On the otherhand, the finds make the archaeology geek in me happy.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 10:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

There's a reason I like Bercow as Speaker

Starts at the 7:09 mark. Check out the stare at 7:38. Fair play, he looks like he wants to grab the mace and dish out a beatdown.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 21:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No, no. Do not start at 7:09. You need to watch the preceding seven minutes to appreciate the punchline - David Gerard (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't want to be the one to push the rest of the video, figured I used up my Thatcher bashing quotient for this week!-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 21:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

As a point of order Member for Stunted Dwarfs: There can be no exceeding a TBQ (Thatcher Bashing Quotient) they are infinite. Scream!! (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

If you want an emetic after that delicacy try IDS sycophanting.Scream!! (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin madness

http://bitcoinity.org/markets/mtgox/USD

The price of bitcoin has risen to more than 230 USD. There's going to be something to write about soon.

Interesting times for the few projects that accepted bitcoin donations way back then and never bothered to sell them off. --83.84.137.22 (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I can tell you one thing it's not. It's not a bubble. That's for sure. DickTurpis (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Can someone tell me why we're taking Bitcoin seriously again? Osaka Sun (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Libertarians and software geeks love it--"Shut up, Brx." 23:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoins are the proof that Hard Money advocates (at least those who support bitcoins) have no clue what they are talking about. It's even less tangible then fiat currency. At least I can find a loonie or a one dollar bill, I can't hold an encryption algorithm. --Revolverman (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I won't be satisfied until we have a tungsten-backed dollar. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

A real chemist wouldn't settle for anything less then a Lutetium-backed dollar. --Revolverman (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That would be entirely appropriate, given that lutetium is literally the most useless element. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

At least it won't kill you, unlike that Uranium backed dollar I heard one person advocating before. --Revolverman (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Lutetium's too rare. It would cause deflation. We would have to include cerium along with it--"Shut up, Brx." 05:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a nice system actually and I think it will grow even further. That said, in my many day ponderings I always found it a bit amusing that "anti-the big man folks love it". The way I understand the system, it is still vulnerable and will always be, to a 50%+1 computational power attack that will override the truth of the "miners". And who would have the money to build a purpose build supercomputer to do that? The government/man/rich bankers of course! :p Sen (talk) 06:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it just began crashing :D though it did peak a little higher than what the price was when the thread started. --83.84.137.22 (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

If the rumours are true Alex Jones called it too yesterday. --83.84.137.22 (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

150 USD still blows my mind. It's literally nothing but an inscription protocol. What fucking value in it could make it worth 150 USD? --Revolverman (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Most of the practical value in today's fiat currencies comes from user confidence. Although there is a practical underpinning it is not understood by most users, for whom the primary consideration is "Can I use this currency to obtain things of value to me?". Because of this shortcut, for better or worse, Bitcoin appears no different to most users from a foreign currency. They can't easily use it to buy bread in their local store, but it seems other people will trade it for "real" money, and for less common valuable commodities, so it's still worth something. Ordinarily if you made a new fiat currency of this sort it would rapidly be debased by forgers who want a slice of the action. The "inscription protocols" (I'm guessing you wanted "encryption" here, but that doesn't really make much sense either) ensure that this is very difficult for Bitcoin, forgers must work together in a conspiracy to mathematically "outgun" all the legitimate users or they achieve nothing except wasting their own resources on the failed forgery. Whereas legitimate users don't need to do anything except obey the protocol and they get to retain their value in the system. It's quite neat, I don't personally have much interest, but it's pretty cool that somebody did this. Tialaramex (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/MtGox/status/322355614414147588

MtGox closed down trading for "market cooldown". Reopening tonight. It will plummet. --83.84.137.22 (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It's gone mainstream media - http://www.smh.com.au/money/investing/zuckerbergs-nemeses-revealed-as-bitcoin-moguls-20130412-2hp5h.html VOX^HUMANA 01:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy Road Trip

Hi guys, just thought I'd put a little plug for this show on here because it might interest a few of you. Essentially the idea is that this Irish fellow gets a bus together of people that believe in certain conspiracies (9/11 false flag, creationism etc...) and then they drive around looking to prove/disprove the theory. I've only watched a couple of episodes but it feeds into that weird craving I get for watching people do mental acrobatics to avoid cognitive dissonance. I imagine other people here get the same craving so well worth a watch; if only to realise how hard it is to ever disabuse someone of their kooky beliefs. Link. Tielec01 (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Where are you watching this? I saw the Creationism episode last October but they are no longer available on iPlayer. (Thanks to Mrs K for recording 5 days of continuous tennis coverage for wiping out everything else I had on the PVR.) Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 06:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The NIish(?) guy in the Creationism one was scary. Manipulative sod on steroids. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. A quick google search brought up the episode on Creationism. Also shouldn't rationalwiki have an article about this show? 86.45.216.32 (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Bored now

When is Kim Jon-un going to grow some balls and fire off a missile? --Horace (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for! Spud (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Not anytime soon. N.Korea is the international relations equivalent of Ken DeMeyer at Conservapedia: all empty warnings, promises & threats; an embarrassment to its allies and a pesky attention-whoring time-wasting nuisance to everyone else. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about Kim, but I suspect the top military probably, really, really doesn't want him to fire a missile, or anything that will endanger what is probably a really comfortable, paid by the slaves below, lives. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Kim might in fact think he has fired a missile already and that there is a war going on, based o reports given to him by a military saying "oh, say something to him to keep him happy or something". Sen (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Heard a fascinating interview with a former NSA guy from the Clinton era. His theory was that this whole charade in actually intended to put pressure (via embarrassment) on the Chinese to cough up more money and food (China had been making noises about distancing themselves). Kind of a "OK, well we'll show you just how irritating we can be" scenario. VOX^HUMANA 04:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a version of Nixon's Madman theory. Act crazy enough and people will give in to your demands for fear of extreme consequences. Sophie^Wilder 10:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Anybody else find Kim hard to take seriously? Every time I see him I can't help but think of the name: Little Fat Buddy (i.e. Roscoe's pet name for Boss Hogg). --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 13:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The only real concern is that Chubby Leader could ratchet up the rhetoric so far that he has to do something totally nuts to avoid losing face. Most likely the situation will play out as usual: NK rants and raves, the West (and maybe China) send them a couple of bags of rice and some fuel oil, then things quiet down for a year or two until the cycle repeats. I've read speculations that internal factions (perhaps the NK military) are maneuvering him into a corner so that this new and untested leader can be brought down. But nobody really knows who's pulling the levers behind the curtain. Doctor Dark (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking for a word

Wondering if anybody can help me. I'm looking for a word that defines how the expression of something is constrained by thought and perception. To be precise, I'm working on a fantasy game system where magic works by a mage gathering magical essence from the surrounding area, shaping it with their mind, and then expressing it, but this process is subject to preconceived ideas and thoughts, so although in this system wood conducts magical essence, equipping a wooden shield stops the process of gathering magical essence. This is because the intent of equipping a shield is to block something, rather than allow something through and so this perception works on the mage's mind, stopping the process of absorbing essence on a subconscious level.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 18:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

taboo--"Shut up, Brx." 19:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Dogma. Did he doubt/Or did he try? 19:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Read the wikiP on Sapir Whorf (linguistic relativity), and see if they use any terms to signify what you are stating. Cause that's right up their alley. Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 19:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look at the page.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 19:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This is well outside of things I know about, but Situated Cognition seems to fit the bill for what I'm looking for. Not that I'm going to be able to call it that, but I'll make up something that sounds psuedo-Greek and have it mean the same thing. And at least I've got a written explanation I can work with, as opposed to waving my hands about vaguely as I try to describe it.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 20:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Quiddity is nice as a (fairly arcane) term for the inherent qualities of a thing (the quiddity of a shield is defence etc). ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ooh, that is a useful word. Thanks. Given that I'm calling the magical energy 'essence' that will work nicely.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 21:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

"Cognitive constraints" or "cognitive limitations," perhaps. If you're talking specifically about language, linguistic relativity is probably what you're looking for. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Cognitive constraints with situated cognition will probably sum up the mental side of things (a mage under this system is constrained by their own experience and expectation of reality, so a shield blocks the absorption of magic because a mage, even subconsciously, expects a shield to block something. So when they equip a shield this expectation is met and then reinforced by the experience of finding that equipping a shield blocks absorption. The cycle starts with expectation, and then keeps going with experience). Quiddity can be used as the external explanation for properties of certain items, so the quiddity of shaped wood allows it to conduct magic, but situated cognition overrides quiddity when the shape becomes recognisable as a shield and is being used as a shield. If it isn't being worn then it's just a piece of wood.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 09:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

What you describe sounds very similar to the best roleplaying game I have ever had the good fortune to play, Mage: the Ascension. The main book is now easily available online, since the company started making the inferior Mage: the Awakening, so you should check it out and see if any of it is helpful.--^talk 15:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look at it. I seem to have this funny inkling at the back of my head that M:tA was the anomaly-based magic system, but I guess I'll find out tonight.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 16:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of the words they used were made up. So You could do the same.--"Shut up, Brx." 16:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

In M:tA, the idea was that the universe was based in consensual reality: things are the way they are only because everyone agrees on them. Mages are individuals who have gained some degree of enlightenment and have learned to impose their own worldview on the world, and thus do things that are "impossible." In this way, a devotee to the ancient beliefs of the Hopi could actually have his ritual to curse an enemy's health work, and cutting-edge hackers can use their computers to alter the code of a cotton shirt to give it the strength of steel. Because of this, mages often have limitations imposed by their own beliefs, since their magic is based on a way of thinking about how the world "really" is: a member of a Wiccan-inspired tradition might find it impossible to cross running water, for example, without automatically failing her next spell.

The game was and is the best because it surpassed the normal limits of roleplaying mechanics while still being internally consistent and coherent (unlike, say, GURPS, which is just a hugely flexible set of possible rules). Within the very loose guidelines, your character could be and do anything you want.--^talk 16:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll say this much in defense of the New World of Darkness, it's easier to do crossovers. I do hate the new fluff, but it is simpler.--TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

And the word I shall pull out of my arse is -- Psychodeterminative. That should do.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 16:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

(EC) A fun game to play is Nobilis, which is diceless, but players take on the roles of concepts. If you are the noble of waves, you have power over water, and sound among other things. My friends and I did "Civilization" as our group, and were Writing, Fire, and Alcohol... Good times. The book is out of print, but I always hear rumors of a second edition. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Brace yourselves

For an hour of pure, unadulterated Pamela Geller insanity. --PsyGremlin^Speak! 01:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

"Leftist Jews..." Do they mean the 69% of American Jews who voted for Obama? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe that Geller can't believe that Muslims would dare have a Muslim Day parade in New York City. Gosh, it's almost like they'll let anybody who gets a permit hold a parade! She clearly does not understand this whole free speech thing. If NYC had barred Muslims from organizing a parade, that would be an abridgment of free speech. When the two thirds of Jews who presumably disagree with Geller's birtherism and other assorted crazy shit protest enough to get her speech a synagogue cancelled, that isn't an abridgment of free speech. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be either way, right? Freedom of speech as a legal concept only applies to the government. A private organisation and/or religion can say "no you can't say that here" as much as they want. X Stickman (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sufficiently large and pervasive businesses in the US can't, quite. I don't have the caselaw at my fingertips but it does exist. Company towns, large malls I vaguely recall - David Gerard (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Miserable woman. I remember seeing those Propaganda Ads in the NYC Subways. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 17:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yuri's Night

You did see that banner in the Recent Changes, right? It's time to lay out the vodka bottles again. (With apologies to all the people who never put them away...) As a side effect, I'll try to clean up the article of the gentleman comrade in question and create a few related ones before the day is over. Meanwhile, open a bottle of spirits and enjoy the view!--ZooGuard (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou, Wonkette

Godwin’s Stepbrother’s Law.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 21:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

See, the trouble is that the 2nd amendment is treated just like the 1st and 4th. TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 22:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk about delusional paranoia. ---- Or extreme hyperbole. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd say more an incredible ignorance of the situation in Rwanda before the Genocide. --Revolverman (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

On the commute home....

There is a dude preaching on the bus. I love headphones TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 22:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

False rape allegations - Statistics vs. presumptions of innocence

Apologies for the provocative header in advance.

I've read on RationalWiki as well as other places claims that false rape claims are rare. Not that I doubt this statistic, though I don't know how this statistic can be validated, but I would be more upset if an innocent person, like Brian Banks, was sent to prison over a false rape allegation than if a rapist got off free because he created reasonable doubt that the act did not happen or was consensual. The discussion of rape has become politicized and tied to abortion, which I feel is tragic. I do actually agree that if abortion were restricted to just rape, they're would be much more false rape allegations. So in that sense, I do agree with some of the extreme Republicans. Peace (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Responding particularly to: "I do actually agree that if abortion were restricted to just rape, they're would be much more false rape allegations. So in that sense, I do agree with some of the extreme Republicans." Interesting thought. I don't think that's what those MRA asshats are talking about, but that quoted section is seemingly straightforward, actually. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

if abortion were restricted to just rape, they're would be much more false rape allegations. - I also think that this is quite plausible. But it's hardly an argument against abortion (if anything it's an strong argument for ensuring women continue to have legal options available), nor does it shed any light on the topic of false vs genuine rape allegations (as it is hypothetical). VOX^HUMANA 00:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, boy. Another discussion about rape. What the hell is wrong with us? Did he doubt/Or did he try? 01:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't have many contributions. I suspect he's run by the same guy who runs Inquisitor Behrenstein. I suspect he's trying to make fun of me and upset that there won't be drama since I topic banned myself. I'd ignore him. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 01:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The best kind of topic bans and calls to ignore somebody are whn you go out of your way to mention them and tell others to ignore somebody.--^Mikal_lakiM 01:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

We need to draw a distinction between false rape allegations, which require that somebody be falsely accused of rape, and false rape reports, where the victim reports being raped to the police but doesn't accuse anyone specifically. The 1-6% statistic cited from the FBI refers to the percentage of reports that are false, and false rape reports are far more common than false rape allegations, for obvious reasons. The percentage of rape reports that actually falsely accuse somebody of rape is a tiny fraction of total reports and is dwarfed by the number of legitimate reports that aren't prosecuted or aren't taken seriously. RachelW (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

BBC threatened to self-censor because "Ding-Dong! The Witch Is Dead!" has to be played on Radio 1

Absolutely rich. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Gold. VOX^HUMANA 04:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the name of the chap who said it but on question time last night they claimed it was an anti-thatcher conspiracy by the conspiracy. All the other panelists said he was talking bollocks. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• by the beeb, not the conspiracyAMassiveGay (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hell, if anybody's campaign is responsible for getting the song up the charts, it's the Daily Heil. They can't wait to post the story every frigging day.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 11:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It was reported that when they play the clip on Radio 1 it may not even feature the offending words. In the meantime the BBC played the clip of the offending words several times on Radio 4 news bulletins yesterday evening. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 06:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Even more Wakefield Qwackery (Part Deux-che Bag)

If there's one thing I've got to say it's, "Dude, STFU."-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 14:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Two requests

Moved to Chicken coop--^talk 15:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Oooh, the irony

Made me smile anyway.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 16:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to use javascript to illuminate signatures of users with specific colors?

Is there a way to possibly have javascript look for the text or some other component of user signatures, and apply a background color or some other effect? The purpose would be to have a specific effect for each user's signature that would be easily visible while scrolling quickly. To make it stay the same even with signature changes, it could maybe look for something like the link to the user page to determine which user it is. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 01:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

There is a way to do what you want, why would we want it? and why is it better than the current method?--^Mikal_lakiM 01:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about putting it on my own javascript page. Users have their own javascript and CSS pages, if you didn't already know that. These pages make it possible for users to have their own javascript and CSS that only they are affected by, since it is their own javascript and CSS page. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 01:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure, this is easy to do in javascript. Are you asking someone to write the code for you? 21:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

$("a[href*='Nutty_Roux']").css({'background-color' : '#ec008c', 'border-top' : '#0dff00 3px solid', 'border-bottom' : '#0dff00 3px solid'});

You could do slicker stuff in 5 lines of code or less if RW had the jQueryUI module installed as well. 00:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd just need to see generally how to do it, and then I can probably start making code for every user. Thanks. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 07:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Slimming advice.

Following a link above to the Guardian website I came across 7 Fattening Alcoholic Drinks You Need To Avoid - beer, wine, vodka, whisky, cider, liqueurs, gin & tonic. Er, what the hell can you drink? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Weightloss is complex. And simple. all at the same time. hence the proliferation of "woo". But the easiest answer is this: have a drink and skip the damn 2nd helpings of whatever, or the cheesecake. ;-) Wine and beer have uber healthy "side bennies" like anti oxidants, and vitamin B (beer), that make them actually far more nutrious than usually given credit for. It's just that most people don't want 8 oz of beer or 6 oz wine. ;-) Godot The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability 20:09, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You will not metabolize protein, fat, or carbohydrates with alcohol in your blood. The best advice I've gotten is to drink very little and eat a balanced diet of only a many calories as you need for your activity level. I don't follow it and I'm still skinny, but I have scurvy, rickets, and pagets. 20:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"You will not metabolize protein..." really? Where did you get that from Nutty, sounds like woo to me. Note that if you don't metabolise them they'd go straight through, and as anybody who has tried the prescription medicines for disabling processing of fat can tell you, this quite literally gets messy very quickly. Anyway, Genghis you can drink water. I quite like water. Tialaramex (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

My point is that they specifically say 7 Fattening Alcoholic Drinks as if there are a bunch of non-fattening alcoholic drinks which you could drink instead. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a doctor. Apparently the term is "oxidize." [5] The liver prioritizes alcohol oxidation because very little if any gets stored. This suppresses oxidation of fat, protein, and carbohydrate. My understanding is that these substances get stored, ultimately as fat, since they can't be converted to energy. 00:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so you continue to digest them, but they don't get "burned" (oxidised) while there's plenty of alcohol to burn instead. OK yeah, I suppose that does make sense. I guess I misapprehended what you were getting at. Tialaramex (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I don't understand it much either - my nutritionist and GP both tell me that you can't lose weight with any alcohol in your blood and that what you eat gets packed on, but I admittedly can't find any good papers on this on PubMed so who knows. I'm a medical illiterate, so that doesn't help. 03:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Just so I can add my 2 cents, I've lost a fuckton of weight ever since I went stone-cold sober a month-and-a-half ago. At bare-minimum, it would seem that alcohol tends to pack on the calories, not to mention that it makes it harder for your body to shed its initial water weight. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 06:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Very Classy London

http://www.smh.com.au/world/hundreds-turn-out-for-thatcher-death-party-20130414-2ht90.html

Your country's really going to the shits. RyanC (talk) 00:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Heh. People have been saying they'll literally dance in the streets when Thatcher dies for as long as I can remember. I'm actually impressed that people have followed through. X Stickman (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

While I have some issues with the tone of some of the reactions, I don't think you'll get much sympathy here, Ryan. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 00:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Many people detested her and some even think she ruined parts of the country and destroyed lives. Why wouldn't people celebrate her death? --Damo^Hi 01:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Because celebrating a person's death isn't something decent human beings do? If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 01:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

So what if people detested her and disagreed with her policies? Celebrate when she resigns, celebrate when her policies get overturned, but don't go dancing on someone's grave.

With fear of pointing out the obvious, now that she's dead this won't achieve anything. The people who are affected by these actions are her family and friends, and unless you're accusing them of being complicit in her decisions then these actions are incredibly disrespectful and hurtful. RyanC (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

"This won't achieve anything", neither does my lighting off fireworks every july or gathering with friends to remember a lost friend, but I still do it.--^Mikal_lakiM 01:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It depends how strongly you feel about the actions of the person concerned doesn't it. I mean when Saddam was killed people (rightly) rejoiced, ditto all sorts of other undesirables. If one felt that Thatcher was an evil cow who destroyed parts of the country and made life worse for many people it would be fair enough to celebrate her passing. I tend to think that such claims are overstated, but I equally don't rate the claim that one shouldn't celebrate death occasionally. I was glad when Osama was killed and I was glad when Jerry Falwell died and I don't give two hoots if someone tells me I shouldn't be. Damo^Hi 02:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The comparison with Saddam Hussein is facile, at best. When Saddam died, it represented the end of his tyrannical, torturous and muderous regime, a regime that was still very much in power and affecting the lives of Iraqis. When Thatcher died, it was a senile old woman, decades away from power, dying in her bed. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 02:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a hyperbolic example, I'll grant you that, but if that is how people feel (and plenty of people do feel that way) then I don't blame them for celebrating. Of course I chose the example of Saddam because he had been out of power and imprisoned for some years before he was executed. Damo^Hi 02:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I do stand corrected on the lapse between Saddam's downfall and his death. I also still think the world would be a better place with more empathy for our fellow human beings and that celebrating the death of a human being is a horrible thing. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 02:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Except that Saddam was already out of power when he was killed. The government elected in his place reintroduced the death penalty so they could kill him. It's not like he was killed in action. Sophie^Wilder 10:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

As one who lived/worked through Thatcher in South Yorkshire in a mining related industry, I'd have rejoiced more if she'd died in penury like so many of her victims. Horrible person of whom we are well rid. No "respect for the dead" here. Scream!! (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

While I'm not partaking in any of the grave-dancing, I don't really object to it that much either (other than a few of the more malicious & misogynistic things that have been said). It's a necessary antidote to all the eulogising & glowing tributes we're seeing so much of from politicians & the press, which - for the many people who weren't happy with her government & its legacy - get a little sickening. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

For a site called the Rational Wiki, articles are pretty much entirely biased

Though I'm a skeptic and pretty left-wing, I'm really dissatisfied with how this wiki is run. The wiki is all about promoting the views of one particular group within the skeptic/rationalist movement while ignoring all other possible viewpoints, even within contentious issues among the greater skeptic community. This isn't as much of a wiki as it is a left-wing social group masquerading as one. It's pretty embarassing that you guys are on the front page of google, considering you don't even bother to provide any semblance of consideration for any other view points than your own. You're allowed to do that, but you're the most shit-brained "skeptics" if you want to do it while calling yourself the "rational wiki"^{— Unsigned, by: 70.29.253.92 / talk / contribs}

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 03:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

@BoN - have you got any specifics? Peter ^mqzp 03:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, what did you have in mind? We don't pretend to be neutral or balanced so we don't necessarily list the viewpoints of people that we disagree with - there are plenty of sites that can list their own opinions perfectly well. Damo^Hi 03:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Though I'm a skeptic and pretty left-wing, I'm really dissatisfied with how this wiki is run.
Friend argument. You are not left wing and you are not a skeptic/agnostic. You are a religious infiltrator attempting to get us to be more favorable to religious points of view. I've seen this before. Best one was the guy who questioned whether the SPLC is a hate group because it doesn't protect Christians from "liberal and atheist hate." –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It must be wonderful to be able to read minds IE. With your skill I expect you are a professional poker player. --Damo^Hi 04:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Damo, you have no basis for this hostility IE. And BoN, if you want things changed, do so. Our content is only as good as the people who contribute. Be the change you want to see. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 04:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, if you want things changed, you should do it yourself. This is a wiki. It's dumb when people complain about problems with wikis, yet they have never edited. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 05:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

"Left-wing" by what measure, exactly? We're not conservative, that's for sure, but please name any "moonbat" we've devoted an article to and haven't mocked. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

We seem pretty supportive of some assholes who think that nonviolence will work as a method of counteracting unfair governmental policies (like THAT would ever work). Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 05:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Given the whine about "one particular group", it's probably related to feminism/Thunderf00t/Atheism+. RW has been linked by the usual suspects in that area.

And since the whine has no specifics and no arguments, I suggest taking it as venting or flamebait. Both cases don't warrant a reaction.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Capturebot

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki:Technical support#Capturebot_2. Peter ^mqzp 08:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Irrefutable evidence that dinosaurs lived 30,000 years ago.

http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm Take that, evolutionists.^{— Unsigned, by: 99.199.53.35 / talk / contribs}

Gotta hand it to them. That's a lot of work for a parody site. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 17:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Metapedia on RationalWiki

"RationalWiki is a genetic-egalitarian race-denialist propaganda website that is run by Ontario resident Trent Toulouse. RationalWiki is a wiki founded by secular humanists in response to Conservapedia. They regard Richard Dawkins as their messiah. It is based on MediaWiki, like Metapedia. The wiki has around 4200 English pages middle of May 2010. The information is inaccurate and sparse. The wiki begs for donations. The site is extremely anti-Christian and anti-Conservative and promotes sodomy and gun restriction. Trent Toulouse has promoted like-minded people on the wiki to the rank of bureaucrat, and let them enforce the site’s propaganda and promote other like-minded people to bureaucrat, whereas Trent Toulouse himself does not directly enforce the propaganda. That serves to make Trent Toulouse appear blameless; the same tactic is used by Wikipedia owner Jimbo Wales. Trent Toulouse's primary surrogate is the user “Human”; Human has done much of the bureaucratizing that Trent did not want his name attached to. The following is the web of power at RationalWiki.org:

The website fraudulently portrays itself as being “rational”, and opposed to “pseudoscience”, yet promotes exactly the thing that they claim to oppose: the irrational spiritual pseudosciences of genetic egalitarianism and race denialism. On top of such deceptiveness, Trent Toulouse solicits donations (on the website’s main page) under these false pretenses. That fits within the definition of criminal fraud. The first members of the website were leftist editors that trolled on Conservapedia. The main Judaic propagandist on RationalWiki is a user named Nebauchadnezzar, who fills the website database with reels of spittle about "anti-cementic conspiracy theorists", up to and including shilling for the Rothschild family and George Soros."

That's just mean. Mikemikev (talk) 08:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

And? It's also very much out of date (especially the "web"), which makes it all the funnier. Peter ^mqzp 08:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Are we really pro-cement? That's something which has passed me by. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yay - Trent's a criminal. I wonder which prison gang he'll join. VOX^HUMANA 11:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL they regard Richard Dawkins as their messiah. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A pro Nazi website takes a dump on us. Not hard to imagine. I've seen the particular page here. Not really much unexpected though. The part about Richard Dawkins is funny though. There's also a German Nazi who's gone off calling our Warhammer 40,000 wiki a means for Jewish-Bolshevik indoctrination. Point is, Nazis just shit on everyone. It's funny to read their articles, but it gets tiring if they don't have anything new. I did find a video by David Duke ranting about Inglorious Basterds, and another one ranting about Israel building a memorial to the Red Army. The Red Army, unlike the Germans, actually tried to mitigate warcrimes while the Germans encouraged them against the Russians. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 14:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The Dawkins line always gets me. Also, about a week ago I was googling a particular term for ritualistic circumcision regarding a story someone posted on the facebook group (i.e. the bit where the priest sucks the penis to remove blood rather than using machinery). One of the top results? Metapedia. Polite Timesplitter ^{Let's move on to some other area of sodomy!} 15:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Metapedia? Sounds more like Meaniepedia!--Transitional Form^{Still Durbinating} 04:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ted Nugent

Should be either dead or in jail in 3 days' time. --PsyGremlin^{話しなさい} 15:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Care to explain? DickTurpis (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Either Psy's date is off, or this guy's is. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 16:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

17th by the first news story I could find but 12th by a blog post. Either way, sometime this month or sometime soon since we all remember him saying it. ^{d hominem} 13:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Are there any sane militia groups?

I mean some sort of group that actually wants to be read if the US is ever invaded, as opposed to a bunch of guys who just want to sit around with guns. I realize that there's a low probability of an invasion, but it's really a very arrogent, privileged, and elitist view to claim that the US is not going to be invaded. It's admitting superiority to all other countries that do get invaded. –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 16:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not really that arrogant considering the size of the United States military, the amount of money it spends on the military, and our geographic position giving us plenty of heads up. Really, invading the United States would probably be one of the stupidest things any country could try. I don't see this position changing for quite some time, barring some catastrophic collapse on the part of the US government. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 16:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

ECThere's these guys. From what I understand, they are ready to deal with the United States being invaded, and they don't just sit around with guns. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 16:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, they're a bunch of pussies. These guys are pretty hard core. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 16:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Snark aside, you are asking for the National Guard - people who wanted to play minutemen but were not paranoid wackos used to end up there. "Used to", because Iraq II and Afghanistan apparently spoiled the fun for everyone.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, no one told them Iraq and Afghanistan were part of the nation, so sending them there was a bit of a shock to them. --Revolverman (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Were I an American and in the National Guard when they told me I was getting shipped to Iraq, I would've deserted. That's not what I hypothetically signed up for, on purpose. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 20:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm in the national guard and we're all pretty sane... I would imagine there are some civilian militias that are more sane. If the Michigan militia actually did what they say they are for (disaster relief, assisting local and national authorities, defense against invasion, etc), the concept wouldn't be that bad of an idea. Perhaps there are some that aren't reactionary. --P3A58NT86 20:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It's Back

Blake's 7 has finally been commissioned for a return.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 18:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

13 hour-long episodes? Who could sit and watch a single episode for that long? ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 19:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, someone at the BBC fails at punctuation. 147.138.87.241 (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No, no. They are episodes 13 hours long. We were hardcore back in the eighties and don't believe we should wimp out for today's lightweights.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 19:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

So we've become less of obese catatonic couch potatoes over time? ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 19:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it has more to do with the rampant use of cocaine. I mean, that's only explanation I can give for condoning the styles of the 80s or even worse, hair metal. *shivers* Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 19:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

What, you don't think this is awesome? ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 19:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The level of overcompensation is reaching critical mass... Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 19:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think the BBC's puncutaion is correct. For the episodes to be thirteen hours long it would need to be something like "thirteen-hour-long episodes" or "thirteen-hours-long episodes". As it is, "hour-long" works like an adjective which describes the (single-hour) episodes and the number of the episodes (13) comes first.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You're correct about how it should be written if they really meant 'episodes that last for 13 hours', but the way they wrote it is still ambiguous. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 20:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

No. It's not. The hyphen in "hour-long" shows that it's one concept which works to describe the noun "episode". The lack of a hyphen between "13" and "hour-long" shows that it not part of "hour-long" but represents the number of hour-long episodes. It is only ambiguous if you don't understand this.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 07:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, now this is official, ITV can get around to pissing on Gerry Anderson's memory by remaking Thunderbirds. ^postate 13:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Though, for the language pedants above, the actual press release says "the 13 x 1 hour series", which castrates your ambiguity. ^moral 13:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand it, but it's not as ironclad as you make it out to be — hyphens aren't used very often, so "13 hour long", "13-hour long", "13 hour-long", and "13-hour-long" are all variations i could see happening within Standard English. The ambiguity would really be on the part of the reader — if your were fastly reading the article you could easily confuse the meaining like i did at first glance (although in this case the context makes the meaning obvious). ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 13:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

"hyphens aren't used very often" - well, that may be the case in your neck of the woods, but the BBC is UK-based and hyphens are still-thriving entities over here. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thought it's well-known that the over-use of well-loved hyphens is a much-misused mal-practice. ^postate 15:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

National Socialist Freedom Movement

"We are The American Nazi Party." Seen this mob? Only saw 'em when their twitter account got suspended. Scream!! (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

...and I just clicked on the link. Guess that means I'm now on yet another government list.... Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 22:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks like one guy spent a half-hour making the 'party' and the site.

You know what i think has a really good chance of working? Turning America exactly into Nazi Germany. It's a bit of a stretch, but the public is receptive to white supremacist and socialist ideology at the moment. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 22:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The Nazis were about as socialist as Stalin was Marxist. Nazi ideology is rabid nationalism + hate speech. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 23:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The "25 points" talk about national healthcare and similar. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 23:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, but these are incidentals to the furthering of the German race and the nation of Germany. Hitler wanted a healthy, strong army for conquest and businesses that followed his directives. Corporatism and state-benefits for the sake of the state and the leader, rather than for the welfare of the people are hardly socialist ideas. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 23:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't mean the neo-Nazis can't pretend. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 23:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

"Leben ist Kampf"
WAT?
I like it when Nazis and closet Nazis try to speak German and write stuff that's completely unintelligible. That sounds like the sort of thing that Skärkrow would write on the side of his "Todth" Jagdmacht tanks. He's the one responsible for "Bericht an ihren örtlichen" and "Aufgabe ist vorgeschrieben." –Inquisitor Sasha (Talk | contribs | block) 15:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

On behalf of all Canadians

I am sorry that this person exists. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Guess it was a slow news day. A celebrity has become so self-centered that they can now only relate to tragedy through their own fame? How shocking... Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 22:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Remember that this celebrity has an army of teenagers that spit death threats whenever he's criticized. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Death threats from teenage girls? Oh the horror... Vulpius (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

God, this kid just keeps digging and digging himself a deeper hole. --Revolverman (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit self-centered, yeah, but i don't think it's offensive. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 22:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's self-centred, don't forget that since he was 14(?) he has been the ONLY important person in his life. He doubtless doesn't know what the world is really about. It's his management who're really to blame. Scream!! (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

What, you have a vendetta against him? ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 02:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Are people really this fucking stupid?

Does anyone get annoyed that people can't engage in basic pattern recognition? North Korea's entire MO for the past 60 years has gone as follows:

1) Rattle Saber 2) Collect Aid and/or other items desired

The people who keep talking about a potential nuclear strike act as if North Korea was foolish enough to fire at us or any other military power capable of wiping them out. Between China becoming more and more reluctant to defend them and the heightened tensions over North Korea's continued nuclear program, I highly doubt they would try anything that would give the US a valid pretext for invasion. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 23:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Much of this crisis has been due to the presumption (due to UNSC sanctions) that step 2) will no longer be guaranteed. Plus, nobody even knows where he is right now. Never mind. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Everyone needs a holiday, OS. Peter ^mqzp 00:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The point is, I'm pretty sure that we will hit North Korea harder than it could ever dream of hitting us. China won't do jack shit if North Korea provokes the attack and the North Koreans know it. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 00:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You base it on the assumption that all the players in the NK government are rational actors, and will act in their best interests, objectively considered. I have some doubts as to whether that is a valid assumption. Damo^Hi 01:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm basing it on the fact that for all the saber-rattling of the past they have almost never acted on it. They have certainly toed the line, but never crossed it. Each incident that got them close saw no further escalation. In short, despite the change in glorious leader, the overall level of rationality has not diminished much over the years. And while they may act stupidly from time to time, from the secret underground tunnels to the shooting at Japanese boats, I highly doubt those at the top believe their own propaganda. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 01:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That was back when The first two Kim's were in power though. Un might have ended up drinking the Kim kool-aid. --Revolverman (talk) 02:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I am driving at Revolverman. The last two Kim's were rational actors, Un might be, but he might not be either. He might be a loon who is prepared to risk his country's existence for a chance at glory. Damo^Hi 02:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm less worried about the leader being a rational actor than I am about the general staff being rational actors -- at the end of the day, they're the ones who will decide to fall in line behind a plan or to take care of things their own way. If the thunder don't get you/Then the lightning will. 02:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, at the end of the day, Kim Jong Un still has to convince his advisors and military leadership (whom no doubt are aware of their strength relative to the United States and North Korea's tenuous relationship with China) that nuclear war is the correct course of action. I wouldn't be surprised if we had a coup d'etat before we saw nukes launched, though the resulting civil war would be less pleasant to imagine. Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 03:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Why would the military leadership be any less brainwashed then anyone else? They've had about 65 years of pure propaganda and I sinseriouly doubt you rise the ranks in the NK military with ability or competency. --Revolverman (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Because they've been a part of the aforementioned system. There's no evidence that the military leadership is as crazy as we like to make them out to be. They follow a pattern: Need food or aid, rattle saber; new leader ascending needs legitimacy, rattle saber; international community looking to side with South Korea, rattle saber. I think this piece explains it better than I can, but they're not going to do anything: http://www.reporternews.com/news/2013/apr/13/north-koreas-belligerence-isnt-as-crazy-as-it/ Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 05:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I hope you're right about this man. --Revolverman (talk) 05:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty confident, and even if I'm not, my face will be too melted to hear you say 'I told you so.' :P Captain Swing (bringer of nachos) 06:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

If a country of 300 million people is barely able to elect sane people to the highest offices, than why can't the government of the DPRK be full of loons? A large difference between now and the past is, I think, that NK is now able, or close to being able, to employ very deadly weapons, of which two were enough to end the second World War. Also, where will it end? Today they are able to create nuclear bombs, tomorrow they'll be able to put nuclear warheads on ICBMs. When will they think they have enough of such weapons available? I think it's wholly reasonable to believe that many high ranking DPRK government officials believe that one day they'll be able to defeat the US, or that they already believe they are already very near to being able to do so. In Dutch we have the saying "a cornered cat can make strange moves" (een kat in het nauw maakt rare sprongen). Nobody knows what's next and I have the feeling that the Korean cat is feeling increasingly cornered. -Strangelove (talk) 21:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)