RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive203

This is an archive page, last updated 24 June 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>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <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)

It's an oud, dude

I am looking to fill a hole in my musical knowledge; plucked strings from the Middle East and the Mediterranean. I know the oudists Simon Shaheen and Hamza al-Din. Does anyone know any good (preferably instrumental--vocals in any language throw me off when I'm writing, which is when I get a lot of my listening in) oud, saz, setar (not "sitar") or bouzouki music? Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 14:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

i was about suggest Nayim Alal but he plays a guitar, and sings sometimes as well. Sophie^Wilder 15:23, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure where this should go but it is pure wingnut class from Alex Jones.

Andrew Neil is not sure how to handle a wingnut in full flow. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

As someone said elsewhere, it's the full-on Alex Avalanche. ^gnostic 14:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Who the hell at the BBC thought that letting a foaming maniac onto their airwaves was a good idea? This wasn't even good TV, it was just somebody being obnoxious for the point of being obnoxious. Did they not know that's the entire extent of his schtick? Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 14:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

The beeb occasionally invites an oddball wingnut like this on a politics show, partly as a token gesture towards representing all viewpoints, & partly for a little bit of carnival atmosphere. As long as they don't do it too much, I find it pretty entertaining. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I love how it calls him a "Shock Jock". Putting him on the same level as say... Bubba the Love Sponge. --Revolverman (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Sophie^Wilder 07:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

New Claim About the Milgram Experiment

http://io9.com/how-many-people-really-went-through-with-the-milgram-ex-511597851 What do you think this says about the experiment?Ryantherebel (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I've always wondered about the people who were the subjects of the experiment and (allegedly) knowingly tortured people. When they were told that the whole thing was a set-up and that they were the subjects, did they do what I would have wanted to do and punch the lab rat informing them of this in the jaw? Did Milgram pay for the lifetime of therapy that I imagine people would need after such a traumatic experiment? Would any legit institution let a similar experiment pass IRB these days? I can't imagine they would... Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 17:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Some of those questions are addressed in this review, linked from the link above (& presumably in the book, which is as of yet only available on Kindle). Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, reproduction of the result would never pass a modern ethics committee, so we're left really just inferring from case studies where this sort of behaviour happens in the real world rather than controlled conditions. ^moral 20:45, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Not entirely true. Partial replications have been done, such as the one by Jerry Burger. I don't know why the original article seems to take the 65% figure as some magical number. We already know from Milgram's own replications that this varies due to numerous factors such as cultural context, proximity of the authority figure, etc. It does make the original results less dramatic, but it doesn't totally undermine them. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Not mention prior to the test, most psychologists figured less than 1% would get all the way to blackout.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. The take away is "People who do terrible things on the orders of an authority figure are not aberrant monsters, they're you and me" and that's just as true for these "revised" figures. The implication stays the same too, we must explicitly train people who might be exposed to this sort of order that they are both morally and legally obligated to disobey. Tialaramex (talk) 11:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Need advice? Past alcohol issues and United States politics

So I may work on a state legislative race. Potential opponent (to my friend) may have had a drinking problem, but no arrests. I think it should be off-limits, and I also don't think my friend has a shot to win (he has no campaign organization nor real fundraising.) However, in a longshot bid, he's thinking about using this information against potential opponent. I have a similar background to the potential opponent.

A few questions for the group (I think I've phrased the above question appropriately so it protects anonymity from search engines):

1. Should past drinking issues be a campaign issue if there were no arrests (let's assume this is conclusively known, which is fair to say - i.e. no George W. Bush scenario)?

2. What about past drug issues that went undetected by law enforcement (like our past 3 Presidents)?

3. Is it fair or unfair to assume that past alcoholism probably meant undetected lawbreaking (drink driving, intoxication in public)? Should this be an issue? Would this ever be provable generally in this described situation?

I don't think these should be an issue. I think campaigns should be won and lost on your credentials and your beliefs, not on straw men in your background. Of course, if a candidate was arrested, that should be explored I think, but where do we draw the line? ConservapediaEditor (talk) 05:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't see how any of this should be relevant to the campaign, & bringing it up would just look like dirty tactics (which is what it would be). Especially point 3: no, you can't assert that an addiction to a legal substance must have involved lawbreaking; that's in libel territory. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

1. No offense to you and your friend, but this is a race for the state legislature -- we're not talking about electing someone who has his metaphorical hand on the metaphorical button. Is that really worth destroying someone's reputation?
2. When you're talking about things like high-level security clearances, the investigators acknowledge people commit "youthful indiscretions". (If the government wouldn't grant security clearances to anyone who smoked a few times in high school college, they'd exclude a host of very talented people.) If its not a current issue, then its definitely off-limits. And if they did have a serious problem, acknowledging it and recovering from it is a sign of strength and character, not weakness.
   1. When the late, great Ann Richards ran for governor of Texas (successfully), she fully acknowledged she was a recovering alcoholic. There were rumors that she was also a recovering cocaine addict. She refused to comment either way on those rumors, because she felt it sent the wrong message to people with addictions: "even if you get clean, people will still use your addiction to harm you."
3. Absolutely unfair, and, as pointed out above, potentially libelous. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 11:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

When you say "longshot," what are the numbers?--^talk 12:27, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Ocean Flag

Coinciding with World Oceans Day a couple of days ago, my son and other colleagues launched Ocean Flag. Read all about it. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Pre-9/11 surveillance vs. NSA datamining

David Brooks, being David Brooks, argues that without the shit security agencies are currently pulling, "they will inevitably revert to the older, more intrusive eavesdropping methods." Any evidence in that? Osaka Sun (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Or... perhaps don't do it? --Revolverman (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Mandela's Law?

Speaking of Nick Griffin, there seems to be a growing number of people who blurt out "terrorist" when Nelson Mandela's name is mentioned, while at the same time have clear racist ties. Considering he might pass away soon, it would be interesting to test. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Terrorist my ass. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgcTvoWjZJU ħuman 04:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The man was a terrorist and racist against whites, you can't really argue with the facts. Ghost (talk) 13:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Really? Let's hear these "facts," scumbag. --PsyGremlin^Praat! 13:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Mandela was in favour of military struggle since peaceful protest and civil disobedience was getting nowhere. At the same time, he was always ready to talk. In the end, the white government voluntarily ended Apartheid mostly because they were able to hand the state over to a safe and reliable pair of hands who was not going to unleash an anti-white pogrom. To say he is a terrorist would be like saying George Washington was a terrorist. What annoys me most about this is that I didn't find a way to call Psygremlin the despicable odious dickhead that he is. MarcusCicero (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

And here I was thinking that for once I was going to agree with something MC said. --PsyGremlin^Sprich! 15:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't call me MC, you hateful cunt. MarcusCicero (talk) 16:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

*yawn* --PsyGremlin^Sprich! 16:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Whats all this then? --Revolverman (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

What is wrong with what MarcusCicero said? RachelW (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Psychics

I thought of RW while watching this. I find it strange there are actual people like this out there. --P3A58NT86 04:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

E=mc2, fact Ghost (talk) 13:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I discovered Educate-yourself.org

Good goat. I almost gave myself a concussion from all the facepalming.--Transitional Form^{Still Durbinating} 06:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

After that, try the Clues forum. Or, as known elsewhere, the Clueless forum.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

According to RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article?, in order for an article to be in RW, it must have something to do with one of these principles:

1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

Now, the problem with this list is that it is not wide enough, and says nothing about articles about skeptics. I think we should clarify, once and for all, the inclusion criteria for articles about skeptics/atheists, so we don't have to have to deal with them on a case-by-case basis. For example, of the articles about Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke, Mark Twain, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Algernon Swinburne, Phil Plait, Orac, which should be kept on RW, and why? I'm not suggesting we should change the mission, but just have a separate list of criteria (perhaps linked to in the Help page) for article inclusion.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 02:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, the wording is "Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:", so it is not excluding any of the topics you mention. However, I do think you identify a shortcoming in saying only what we are against and not what we are for. The only point that needs reiterating is that we are not an encyclopaedia and our biographical articles are not meant to match those of WP unless theirs is unusually insubstantial. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 02:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

We don't deal with them on a case-by-case basis -- I haven't seen any biographical articles on skeptics/atheists nommed for deletion due to lack of missionality. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Then you missed the minor kerfuffle over Stephen Fry & the ensuing exile to funspace of Douglas Adams, Terry Pratchett and Dara Ó Briain. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Really? Those articles being in funspace is incredibly stupid. We should move them back. — ^{(talk to)} /æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst/ 15:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, done. — ^{(talk to)} /æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst/ 15:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

+1 - David Gerard (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

They aren't deleted, they're just moved to funspace.

The site mission seems to regularly break down to "whatever Nutty and Smoke will allow to stay". If they're on board, it's on mission and stays. If they are opposed to it, it will be deleted. A good rule of thumb is anything that makes religious groups look stupid or talks about how awesome atheists are, preferably in a funny way. We are, afterall, the New Atheist SMBC.--Token Conservative (talk) 06:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever seen Nutty or Smoke make that argument. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

They don't make that argument, they just do it, and then tell anyone who disagrees to fuck off.--Token Conservative (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You should really point to some examples if you're going to keep mudslinging like this. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The same Nutty and P-Foster that have made full-time jobs out of cleaning up after Proxie's nonsense? Or are we talking about Bizarro RW? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what Proxima has done to earn the hate, same with Brx, but if they're dangerous enough to need someone dedicating a lot of their time to dealing with them, why not just ban them? That kind of seems like a really obvious solution.--Token Conservative (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Proxima is an example of a non-malicious, enthusiastic, but very inept contributor. Even if RW didn't have a strong anti-banning culture, even Wikipedia doesn't block outright people like her.

The animosity towards Brxbrx seems to stem mostly from the fact that he's an EDer, and that he tries (used to try?) too hard to be relevant without contributing much.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hamilton, I'm not a deletionist. Believe me. Believe people who know. Believe what you want. But good god your whole discussion is these broad statements that I don't think anyone who's chimed in even understands. Come up with examples rather than this "nothing I could show you would change your mind stuff," which is weak weak sauce and people might be able to wrap their heads around what you're even saying. ^{— Unsigned, by: Nutty Roux / talk / contribs} 00:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

So, random atheist/anti-creationist 'tubers = missional, widely read humanist/atheist authors popular even outside the Anglosphere = not missional? I am increasingly tempted to stop wasting my time here and leave it to the people turning it into a piss-poor Wikipedia clone.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Basically. Join me in plotting to change things come the next elections.--Token Conservative (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Elections of what? Also, "join me"? Are you Darth Vader now? ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Last I checked, RW has elections.--Token Conservative (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Of what? We elect moderators & RW Foundation board members. Neither has anything to do with this issue. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah and bringing up the fact that RW has a short shelf life because of almost hilariously terrible mismanagement seems like it would be most appropriate to bring up around then.--Token Conservative (talk) 06:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

**Sigh** Again, the Board does not have editorial control over the wiki, and the moderators have extremely limited control (only inasmuch as it resolves conflict). It's a self-policing concept, in effect the community is the management (i.e., have a discussion and come to terms with your peer editors). I think that skeptics could be included in "Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media" if you view media in a broad sense. ^talk 16:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

RW has a long shelf life because its editorship is its editorial board is a changing community of people with incredibly broad interests and skillsets who care. Re: elections. Sterile said it. Others said it. Moderators are not your leaders. They have no editorial control. The board has no editorial control. If you want to vote people off the board you don't like, don't. Vote for the right people for the right reasons. Ask anyone on the board right now what any of our contributions are and you're going to have a hard time deciding who to boot. The RMF isn't here to serve you. Service is not about appealing to wiki-politics. And it's definitely not about pleasing you. It's about trying to figure out how to devise and promote good projects and make money so we can do it more. This board is more proactive than any before. Vote your conscience. 00:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The idea of excluding people like Carl Sagan from our Wiki is about the stupidest idea I've heard since I joined here. Why is it that we have articles on people like Carl Sagan and Neil deGrasse Tyson? Simple, it's a part of that whole "analyzing and refuting" part of our mission. Part of analyzing and refuting a given topic is having articles on people who did a good job of it. Orac's blog does a fuck of a job going after crankery, so that is why it's included. Of course, this whole argument is really disingenuous given that the person who started it has declared his intentions for and hopes of RationalWiki going away. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

When and where Hamilton said that?

Anyway, the push to delte some biographical articles was started by Krej, not Hamilton. The OP in this thread is also Krej. As far as I can understand he didn't propose excluding Sagan and Tyson, though he had proposed some of the articles in his list for deletion, for example Asimov and Twain. Dara Ó Briain seems to be the only one deleted as off-mission so far.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, actually, when Stephen Fry was nominated for deletion by Hamilton (a suggestion which was then supported by Sophie Wilder), I just kind of assumed there was some unwritten rule on RW, so I created this thread. Personally, I did not actually want to delete Carl Sagan or any of the other articles.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 17:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This thread followed on from talk:Stephen Fry, which was an article written by Krej, who then brought up all those other examples when it was nominated for deletion. I assume RNS's comment about Hamilton relates to this tasteful comment. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Extend mission?

What say people to extending mission to include stuff that we are for and not just what we are against? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 04:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally I'd like it if our mission statement was made something like "Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and myths, and replacing them with science and truth". Too often I'll read an article and go "well it's great that now I know what evolution is not, but what the fuck then is evolution? Oh, I have to go to Wikipedia to find out."--Token Conservative (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No. No you don't. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 04:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that, but I always assumed that was covered implicitly in the mission. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Powder, I used evolution as an example. A lot of existing articles already work under the assumption that we're here to do more than debunk pseudoscience, but because it isn't codified, it can be really hard to (for example) create an article on GDP, because then people start bitching about "it isn't debunking pseudoscience, so kill it". Again, using GDP as an example.--Token Conservative (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you actually give an example of an article we should have, but don't, where that would be an issue? Especially since your examples totally undermine your argument. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 04:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I have this feeling like no example I could possibly give you would satisfy you, since you have already come to your conclusion.--Token Conservative (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for extending the mission. Here's what we do: instead of just having Main space and Fun space... we should create a Humorless Dicks space. That'd be the space where people can write dry boring-ass Wikipedia clone articles to their heart's content. How's that sound? --Inquisitor (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Like Citizendium. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

People who live in glass houses...--ZooGuard (talk) 08:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

"Stuff that we are for" is vague enough to be meaningless. If you mean things like atheism, feminism, social democracy, same sex marriage, the theory of evolution, etc., we've got a lot of that covered already. If it's an excuse for editors to write mainspace fan pieces about whatever bands or authors or anime or whatever they are into, I think it's best avoided. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't specifically define "stuff that we are for" but right now it's only stuff that we're against. I'm only too well aware of the range of articles that we have but if it's not already on mission then they are also open to deletion. I'm trying to see if there's enough support for defining what is on mission because the current squabbling is pointless and divisive. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 07:08, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

This is why Reference:space would be a good thing. It'd end this recurring argument. Sophie^Wilder 07:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Only if it's a free-for-all namespace for articles on any subject whatsoever. Personally, I don't think that's very desirable. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What, we'd get flooded with articles on Simpsons episodes and cricketers? I don't see that happening. Sophie^Wilder 07:50, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Flooded is an exaggeration, but we'd get random articles on random subjects. Plus it wouldn't really be an end to mission arguments, as there'd still be squabbles about what belongs in main & what belongs in reference; not much different from when pages are moved from main to essay or fun & back now. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Me too. First, articles put outside the main namespace usually end up badly maintained. One of the reasons is that it's hard to link to non-mainspace pages, even from pages in the same namespace.

Unlike Wikipedia, we don't have a large amount of users with miscellaneous fields of expertise to care for such articles, which means that most of them will remain in whatever state the original author(s) wrote them. (This, by the way, is somewhat of a problem even with some on-mission articles.)--ZooGuard (talk) 08:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

So if they're not on mission, they're best dealt with as essays. No need to reinvent the wheel after all. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I would object to a mission with the word "truth" in it, as that's a philosophical construct we don't want to get into. I also don't think all of what we deal with is science. I don't like reference space because I don't see a reason to partition off content, and I think it would lead a recurring asking of "does this belong in main or reference?" If there's to be reference articles, leave 'em in main. ^talk 16:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Aren't the articles about skeptics covered by point 4? As in, analysis of how the subject of refuting pseudoscience is handled in the media? When it comes to "reference articles", e.g. radiometric dating, they are related to point 1 of the mission. You can't refute something without providing facts and background information. --Tweenk (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

• Survival of the fittest: the fittest content survives. Mortimer Goth (talk) 23:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Who is this loser:Hamilton and what is their quarrel with this site? ħuman 04:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No quarrel, he just can't brook dissent and has temper tantrums when people speak to him directly. He's a self-righteous griefer with the social IQ of a potato. I guess we add him to the collection. 04:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I would say some sort of historical focus would be a good area to expand into, since there's a lot of revisionist bullshit out there from websites that don't look obviously extremist, and this creates a pommer's law problem. It's certainly within our goal to try to counteract that. Although we do seem to have debunking pseudohistory as a goal to some extent. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 04:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

So we should consider trying something we already do. Thanks for that analysis. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 04:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

We should have more awareness of this goal, or state it on the main page, because every time I work on something related to this, there's always several people who say it's off mission. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 04:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That would be because what you work on often is. --^Mikal_lakiM 04:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Not the stuff that isn't shit. Please stop inserting yourself into every conversation I have. <sarcasm>I realize that you need to fill the void in your life caused by the fact that no one loves you and that you will probably die alone.</sarcasm> –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 05:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

For a website on "rationalism", we seem to be exceedingly good at ad hominems. Not sure how anyone has the illusion that this is productive, but sticking to ideas and not persons would help tremendously. ^talk 14:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Self medicating

What the pros and coins in self medicating for depression? Specifically citalopram AMassiveGay (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

By "self-medicating", do you mean "going on the drug without consulting a doc and thus procuring it without a prescription"? If so, it's a horrible idea. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 22:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

that is exactly what I am saying. Going to the doctor is not an option for me. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, procuring prescription medication without a prescription is against the law, so you're jeopardizing both your own well-being and that of whoever is supplying you by doing so. More importantly, it's a serious drug with serious side-effects, so you're jeopardizing your health; some would also argue that medicating without talk therapy is not the best approach to dealing with depression. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 23:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

There is reasonable doubt the SSRI's are even that effective for most depressive symptoms, as well as very significant differences in reported efficacy and side effects. If you really want to try the route of medication sertraline is probably the best to start with. The dosage has to be ramped up appropriately, and side effects monitored. All reasons to strongly recommend managed care when taking (almost any) medication. However, what would your source even be? A lot of extra-legal sources for such medications, a la foreign pharmacies, offer serious issues with safety and quality. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

my flat mate has been prescribed them and has a lot to spare. I'm not entirely sold on the idea of medication for my many issues, but am prepared to try anything at this point and wanted a 'second opinion' AMassiveGay (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

If you haven't consulted a medical professional in person, you haven't even got a "first opinion" yet. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 23:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

going to a doctor fills me with all kinds of dread. If it were an option, I wouldn't be posting here. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Look, as a guy who suffers with depression/anxiety/the occasional crippling days-long panic attack, I totally empathize with you. But this route seems like a less-than-ideal choice. You need help, but the best source of help is something that puts you in a bad place. That's a motherfucker. But taking serious drugs without a consult can also be a motherfucker. Good luck. Stay in touch, at least there are folks here who've read the Cliff's Notes. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 23:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I really think it would be a terrible idea to start trying to prescribe for yourself. If you can't bring yourself to go see a doctor, then at least go see a (hopefully less-threatening) therapist. They can change lives - it's because of a year of therapy, ten years ago, that I am happy and healthy today.--^talk 02:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, the worst thing to do here is not to tell a professional. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Taking SSRIs without medical supervision is Darwinian stupidity. So by all means, do proceed - David Gerard (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Mate, seriously, go and see a doctor. Admitting to yourself that you may be suffering from depression is the hardest part of the process of treatment. Telling a doctor is much easier. You say it isn't an option but that's exactly what it is. GPs are trained in how to react to a patient trying to explain something that is intensely personal and very painful. If you don't like your GP for some reason, ask to see another. But please, whatever you do, do NOT take anti-depressants without them being prescribed to you. That is seriously risky and could make your condition much much worse. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Even if you do have depression, different people respond differently to medications, what works for your friend may be ineffective or even outright dangerous for you. Please, see a doctor, they are trained to monitor the effects of medication on a patient. If you have to bring a friend/family member/SO/stuffed animal/whatever makes you feel the most comfortable along for "moral support" then do, but please, see a doctor and don't try to self-medicate.Atheistcanuck (talk) 10:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

To echo what was said above - see your fucking doctor. Seriously. It took 15 years of medical supervision to get my meds right for me which, somewhat annoyingly, is about average if you suffer from bipolar disorder, but it was only possible because I was seeing a doctor. Everybody's reaction to medication is unique, and with the broad brushstroke approach that psych meds take you really do need an expert on hand to tailor a regimen that works for you.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 11:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The pro and cons of self medicating? The pros are not dying. The cons are crippling depression and hurting people around you before you die. It makes me sad to hear people object to going to a doctor. It always means they don't want to, not that they can't. If you're smart enough to post on a wiki, you can find free or sliding scale mental health care. Meds are not necessarily expensive. I pay $30 a month for mine. Please go to a doctor even if you have no intention of paying the bill. 11:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

You're not talking about money being the reason you won't go, are you? 11:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Probably not as I understand he lives in London and should have the NHS, although counselling services in the NHS are under a lot of pressure and have scarce resources. Whatever people think about counselling and therapy, actually being able to talk through with a non-judgemental, complete stranger is a tremendous step in the right direction. Oh, and just to reinforce everyone else's opinion, taking mood-altering substances when you are already depressed need to be supervised by a medical professional. If you're having problems and need to talk with someone soon then there are several charitable services and you could always call the Samaritans for a good chat. We men are renowned for not seeking help, don't match up to the stereotype; no professional will dismiss you out of hand or be critical. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Depression is a real illness but it is grossly exaggerated and medication is over-prescribed by vested interests such as pharmaceutical companies. Therapy won't work either, most quacks don't really know what they're talking about. You should engage on a voyage of self discovery. If you can, go traveling by yourself for a year and take up long distance running. Have sex regularly. Lose weight. I guarantee you your 'depression' will be a lot better. If you're still struggling, maybe then seek medical alternatives. MarcusCicero (talk) 11:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If you are seriously considering taking prescription medication that a mate has lying around, you are a fucking idiot. Go to see your doctor - they are experts in medicine! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:59, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

your mate has meds lying around ? doesnt he take them ? if he doesnt why should you. Get some skittles in a pill bottle, take a few every hour and play the "taste the rainbow" thing in your head. It cant be worse than doing nothing and its safer than anti-depressants. The side effects of the drug you mention are auicidal thoughts and heart problems. Also do not take with StJohns wort or tryptophan. I think that means no turkey dinner. SERSLY go see a Doctor. Hamster (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

To echo what others have said: please don't self-medicate with someone else's prescription drugs. There are many reasons for this. The dosage may not be right for you. The prescription may not be the best one for you. It may be contra-indicated for you for some reason that you are unaware of - certain drugs interact badly with other substances, including alcohol, over-the-counter medicines and herbal remedies. There is a reason they are only allowed to be prescribed by a medical professional. If you are determined to do something so ill-advised, at the very least, you should run your current medicines (both non-prescription and prescribed) through a "drug interaction checker" such as this one: http://www.drugs.com/drug_interactions.php or there are plenty of other drug interaction checkers online for free. But, it's just not a good idea to take this without consulting a doctor. And a final thought: you must also taper off certain medicines (I'm pretty sure that is one of them) because discontinuing them abruptly can lead to very serious consequences (psychosis, death, etc). This is not to be construed as offering medical advice without a license, it is intended to be a caution against doing something that can cause serious problems for you - please try to see a therapist and/or doctor, won't you? Refugee^{talk page} 11:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for all the advice. I have decided against self medicating, largely because I am opposed to taking medication for my ills. I don't think the risks of self medicating are any greater than taking purely illegal chemicals I already ingest (I wasn't planning to mix them - I am not that thick) AMassiveGay (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Probably chiming in too late, but the reason for doubt over the efficacy of SSRI's and other anti-depressants is largely the result of poor research methodology and over prescription. The DSM 5 and its predecessor failed to subcategorise major depressive disorder (into psychotic, melancholic and reactive types) despite a clear differentiation within research and clinical experience and the historical recognition of melancholia. There is a strong off the record view (at least in the UK and Australia) that this reflects the insurance based medical system in the US, where patients with a debilitating but reactive depression or anxiety would fail to access proper psychotherapy because these would not be seen as medical conditions. This has lead to most patients with DSM criteria depression being prescribed anti-depressants. When the research is considered separately, anti-depressants have a very good response rate in depression with melancholic and psychotic features, but are next to useless in reactive depression. Unfortunately the meta-analyses have only considered depression according to the DSM criteria, leading to the perception that anti-depressants are useless in all types of depression.

In short, if you're young, you can think of reasonable reasons why you are sad, your mood reacts to different situations (ie you become happy when doing stuff you enjoy) and you haven't been experiencing the more biological symptoms (appetite and weight changes, slowing of your thoughts and movement) then anti-depressants probably won't do much beyond the placebo effect. But you should certainly see a doctor for an assessment and psychotherapy (which is good for reactive depression).

There is a good reason why prescription medicines are only available on prescription - they have a number of side effects. Antidepressants can have metabolic effects, affect your sex drive, affect your cardiovascular system (rather benign changes but can increase your heart rate and reduce blood pressure) etc. The newer generation are fairly well tolerated, but can still interact with other medications. When used without supervision, they can be quite bad, including causing serotonin syndrome. Certainly would not recommend self medicating.

"The side effects of the drug you mention are auicidal thoughts" --> the most likely explanation for this side effect is that previously catatonic patients are now verbalising their desire to commit suicide. It's very unlikely that a mentally stable person who took an SSRI would begin thinking about suicide.

"going to a doctor fills me with all kinds of dread" --> why? Perhaps rather than taking your flat mate's pills you could talk to him about why you don't want to see the doctor and he can support you to do it. RyanC (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

And I'm really not meaning to come across as being judgemental, but alcohol/smoking/other drugs help in the short term with coping with the symptoms of anxiety and depression, but they will worsen the underlying condition. The sooner you can get off them onto a better path the quicker you will begin to overcome this. RyanC (talk) 07:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

wisconsin politicians go nuts ?

wisconsin (where I live) has apparently passed legislation that will require women to get an ultrasound before an abortion. They must believe the mother will fall in love with the lovely smiling infant and change her mind. Hamster (talk) 06:25, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that's the "official" or "feel good" explanation -- once they see the images they'll realise they're contemplating murder and stop it! But the real goal, IMHO, is to add barriers, in the form of getting access to the required things, mandatory embarrassment, and ideally to have enough hoops you have to jump through that by the time you're allowed to have the procedure done, it's too late and now illegal. If abortions after say 20 weeks are illegal and it typically takes two weeks to schedule an ultrasound, then effectively you've moved the cut-off to 18 weeks. --Editor374 (talk) 04:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Did you know about...

Earthing? Now you do. Sen (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

ooh, only £110.00 for an earthing mat. Where's my credit card? --PsyGremlin^Parla! 11:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Home page: With the advent of rubber and plastic soled shoes, and insulating mattresses in insulating houses, we spend our days and nights disconnected from the Earth. Products page: "Buy this rubber grounding mat!" Goat help us. Sophie^Wilder 14:18, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

If my crepitating memory is to be trusted, the capacitance of a human body is on the order of several picoFarads. The implications should be obvious. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

For those who spent their formative years studying arts and humanities, that means that even a small electric charge will raise the body's voltage by perhaps tens of thousands of volts. That's what allows a visible spark to jump through the air from your tender finger to a poor hapless door knob. (Dwellers in humid climates may only experience this on the driest of winter days.)

The further implication is that a trickle of electric current is enough to bring the body's charge into balance with local ground. It doesn't take a fat silver earth wire, but only a teensy smidge of conductivity, such as would be provided by some carbon black mixed into the rubber mat. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

so you dont want my custom plaited leather and copper ankle strap ? Hamster (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Not much use for it til Saturday or so. Just now little drops of water are falling out of the sky here, hardly a crackling atmosphere. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This whole Earthing business has a really odd tinge of foot fetish. They do not sell shoes with conductive soles, even though that would be both monetizable and obvious. Most Earthing-related materials contain many pictures of bare feet treading on sand, soil or grass, and when the "inventor" was featured in a magazine, they put a huge picture of his feet on the first page. [1]. --Tweenk (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it has much to do with a fetish, but instead the association between bare-footedness and naturalness. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 17:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly it, it's about connecting with nature. It feels nice, so it de-stresses you, but only if you're into that sort of thing anyway. Sophie^Wilder 18:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Obama & Columbia

I see the new thing - I assume it's a new thing - are claims that nobody remembers Obama from his days at Columbia, not even some legendary prof. Is this a thing, or one man's crazy ranting? --PsyGremlin^Hable! 18:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Not actually new. Also, Snopes. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll be buggered if I can remember more than a dozen people in the same physics course as me at university (out of the the 100+ who attended). Генгис^marauding 23:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a moment to talk about the Emperor?

If anyone does not accept the Emperor as a profit of the Machine God and their lord and savior, this world will be subject to the holy fire of exterminatus. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 06:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Say What?--^Mikal_lakiM 07:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Everyone who's been married is familiar. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 07:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I think teh Emperor is a pretty cool guy. Eh wears invisible suit of clothes & doesn't give a phuck. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"profit"?--ZooGuard (talk) 07:40, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Accept unspecified Emperor as lord and savior
2. Make incomprehensible Saloon Bar comment
3. ????
4. PROFIT!!! Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Ehrenstein, walking in the countryside is a nice thing to do, but those mushrooms aren't like the ones in the shops. Sophie^Wilder 09:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Those ones taste like shit, but oh! What bubbles! --PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 12:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Sophie you need to get better shops :) Tialaramex (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hah, she lives in Totnes, not Bournemouth. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

A few years ago there were some growing out of a park bench outside my house. 10:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Who pinched my name? Sophie^Wilder

You need to get better shops. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 13:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea what this thread is about. We need more of these. Doctor Dark (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Get back into your metal bawks. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Let me spoil the fun for those who don't get it.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Terrible website colors fo actual reading. --^Mikal_lakiM 17:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to explain the marriage comment. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This is their response to people complaining about it: http://forum.lexicanum.com/showthread.php?tid=488 It's also not even close to the only time that people have complained. In their defense, it does work well for the grimdark theme. Changing it is also a simple matter of adding ?useskin=vector to the end of the URL, minus the AddThis tracker. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 18:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The list of things i care about does not include making some website for a thing i dont care about readable. Nor is that a good solution to the issue--^Mikal_lakiM 18:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It's the grim darkness of the grim and dark far future, of course the CSS is going to be black on black. ^bomination 19:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Then don't read it. Not everyone here is talking to you. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 18:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

What planet do you come from, Ehrenstein? Sophie^Wilder 20:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Warning! Ableism –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 03:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Warning! Cluelessness. Sophie^Wilder 11:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. ^bomination 19:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

My job is so shitty I wish I could overthrow my boss. It’s like this oppressive regime where only true believers in his management techniques will stay around. I work marathon-length hours and he’s made all these changes that have made it the worst architecture firm to work at in Manhattan. Like he moved the office to the Financial District and fired my assistant. She was the only one who knew where the blueprints were! I need access to those blueprints to complete my job! F my life, right? And he keeps trying to start all these new initiatives to boost revenue, but seriously we just need to stick to what we do best. There’s only one true profit center. I seriously feel ready to go on strike at any second. I just read this article about how these free radical particles can cause the downfall of good health and accelerate aging. These could actually cause death to millions of Americans. If these particles are flying around undetected everywhere, does that mean we’re all radicalized? Have you seen the second season of Breaking Bad? I just finished it. I couldn’t believe that episode where they poison the guy with ricin! That was the bomb! I won’t say any more because I don’t want to reveal the earth-shattering events to come. Oh! So I’ve been planning a big trip for the summer. I’m thinking of visiting all of the most famous suspension bridges in the United States. So probably like the Golden Gate Bridge, The Brooklyn Bridge, and the Verrazano Narrows Bridge. I’m gonna bring my younger brother and I know he’ll want to go to bars, so I’m thinking of getting him a fake drivers license, but I hope that doesn’t blow up in my face. Okay, I gotta run! I’m late for flight school. I missed the last class where we learn how to land, so I really can’t miss another one. Talk to you later!--Transitional Form^{Still Durbinating} 05:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This entire thread makes me feel confused and frightened Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 10:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Whoa!

*Rushes in breathlessly and points at link* → New Star Wars Battlefront Link.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 12:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The seventh movie will be set on Hoth? Interesting.... Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 13:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I kinda hate the fact that most people talking about the EA conference were jizzing themselves over shinier Battlefield 4 footage without thinking of the announcements of Star Wars Battlefront III or Mirror's Edge 2. Polite Timesplitter ^{Let's move on to some other area of sodomy!} 13:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I get the sense that you're not talking about movies, or have they already announced titles for episodes 7 and 8? Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 14:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Star Wars Battlefront is a video game series which is about large (online by intent) battles in space and on planets from films but not the expanded universe (hence Hoth). There were 2 PC and console games, then a bunch of handheld meh spinoffs, then the third game was cancelled halfway through development and now they're handing it over to another developer. But on the topic of the films, if this game comes out before Episode VII, chances are it will include a sneak peak of a new planet (the first game showed Kashyyyk before ep 3 came out)...and speaking of which, perhaps they'll bring in planets from the expanded universe (there are a TON of books) rather than create new ones for ep 7. /ramble Polite Timesplitter ^{Let's move on to some other area of sodomy!} 17:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

My nerd dream is they about face and just make the thrawn trilogy into movies. Also, given it's EA whos making the game i have a hard time being excited for it. Im going to get it on PC and... PC means origin, and origin means Terrible. --^Mikal_lakiM 17:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Republic Commando 2 or EA can get stuffed. And they'd probably mess RC2 up too. And the ME2 announcement trailer was mostly fighting and combat and that was the WORST PART OF THE FIRST GAME WHY MAKE MORE OF IT. It's a first person parkour game! That was the fun part! X Stickman (talk) 18:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm also unenthused about anything that EA publishes. I bought Sim City because, well, it's Sim City. That was a complete load of arse. And because it was a complete load of arse they gave me Dead Space 3 for free, and that was a load of shit too. I think collectively I got about an hour's worth of "entertainment" for my 40 odd quid. Fuck those guys. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:00, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Relevant. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, that article didn't give any fucking hope – "We know what the problems are, and the problem is gamers not understanding what we're doing." No, we know what you're doing, you price-gouging, DRM-riddled, unable to create a game that actually works out the box, pieces of shit.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 10:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Kashyyyk wasn't a new planet. It first appeared in the Holiday Special. - LucidFox (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Which means it was a new planet. ^sshole 12:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

1. There is no Holiday Special. 2. You shall never speak of the Holiday Special. --Tweenk (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

What "Holiday Special"? ^moral 18:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

This one?, though to be honest I genuinely enjoyed it more than Attack of the Clones (though it may have been because of the hilarious 1970s commercials inbetween segments) Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 10:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

By posting this link, you have committed a great crime against all the sentient races of the Universe. --Tweenk (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

A weird 'philosophy' if I've ever seen one

I want to share something with you RWikians, especially the more philosophy-minded of you. I stumbled on this page not too long ago, a rather odd website calling itself Orgy of the Will, and among other things, a 'philosophy of the future'. Considering that the page is extremely long(and that's just the intro!), the intro itself is a series of disjointed and quite inflammatory paragraphs so pretentious it can barely be called philosophy (real philosophers these days AFAIK try to make their points succinctly), the general design and slant of the whole thing is seriously apeing Nietzsche hard(i'm not much of a philosopher but AFAIK real seminal thinkers are at least somewhat original), and the largely empty discussion forums are behind a 30 euro paywall...this seems to me like a textbook case of the Time Cube Law. Yeah, not a real big fan of this. Maybe Nietzsche could get away with stuff like this back in the day, but things change (and he was rather intelligent). Granted, some of it seems to make sense, but that's probably more due to the whole 'broken clock is right twice a day' thing.

Also, the author is a hugely egotistic, psychopathic criminal dickhead who views himself as the next overman, who views anyone who disagrees with him as subhuman and who also writes diatribes about video games.

I want to know what you lot think; and I admit I am quite curious as to what you...well, think. It might even make a decent article one day. --Trar (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Scrolled down randomly to get a feel for it. Stopped and found "No woman has yet been touched by any genuine philosophical concern whatever." This could be one to tackle in bits and pieces. ^moral 23:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Ctrl+F for woman turns up a number of objectionable comments. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Did... we really need all that? Atleast cover it up. --^Mikal_lakiM 00:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I forgot the template for that. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 01:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Fixed that for you. --Tweenk (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not a discussion, and it isn't closed. I'm pretty sure there's a similar template somewhere that doesn't include that text, but i don't know what it's called. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 18:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

There was a template called "trolltop" but it was blanked, apparently because of "abuse". --Tweenk (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

So you guys think there's reasonable, uh, reason for an article? It would fall under the grounds of refuting crankery/fascism (he's pretty much a neo-fascist), and I believe it would do good to have an analysis of this...thing...RationalWiki style. 'Sides, it would piss the guy off. That's worth it by itself *chuckle* especially when he sees it and tries to make a derogatory 'rebuttal' post or somesuch. --Trar (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It's pointless, but sure. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 16:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to see if someone on here would do it. I feel this can't really go without some sort of analysis, if not a rebuttal. --Trar (talk) 17:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Is it something that gets referred to or commented on much? If it's just some guy's blog that nobody else reads, it might be better not to give it the attention. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Nope. This screed is not even finished yet (take a look at the subheading links). There's nothing here to refute -- it's just some dude ranting about his pet peeves in a pretentious, pseudo-philosophical style. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

In that case, an article's pointless. But maybe it can be linked on the webshites page. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Liberals love scum

Anyone else remember that time when trolls actually tried to be either amusing or enraging? god I miss those days. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 10:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I could try to be a troll if you want.

You're a faggy cunt.

I think i've won. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 15:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Underground Health Reporter

http://undergroundhealthreporter.com/ At a glance, it looks like woo to me. Maybe we could use more articles about underground medicine? --Trar (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Just giving it a few quick clicks, it doesn't look terribly different from NaturalNews or Mercola.com. They also seem to have difficulty with correlation and causation...e.g., this article about psoriasis and diabetes seems to be written from the perspective that psoriasis causes diabetes, when really it's a (possible) symptom of diabetes or other illnesses. "Related links" on that article include some bullshit about improving tans using flowers, Ayurvedic medicine and something about "Argan oil" as a wonder drug. I'm going to defer to Tim Minchin on alternative medicine for debunking this one, and go further to answer that this site has TONS OF ARTICLES on "underground medicine". --Seth Peck (talk) 18:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Breatharianism/Inedia experiment fail

As if there was any doubt it wouldn't... --Seth Peck (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Jesus drove the money-changers out of the Temple. Apparently He was okay with the Hollywood publicists

"...And then the sermon includes stuff about the themes and ideas of Man of Steel, after which the pastor is encouraged to say, 'Let’s take a look at the trailer for Man of Steel.'" Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 23:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Considering the reviews that dreck is getting, they're going to need god on their side to fill the cinemas. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Xbox One

As some of you know, a new Xbox is coming out with required Kinect. A big/small portion of Reddit is convinced that Microsoft is headed toward Big Brother territory, claiming that they work with the NSA to tape you via the Kinect, among other things. I can't really tell how many are serious, and how many are only making fun of the first group, but the existence of /r/braveryjerk shows how...rampant this viewpoint is. At first, I thought it had some degree of legitimacy, but the more people talk about it, the more it sounds like paranoia.--DoomTay (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't mind shoving one up your xbox (nudge nudge wink wink :)) Ghost (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

There are many reasons to say a required Kinect is a fucking terrible idea, Orwellian spying is not one of them. ^bomination 19:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why it's a bad thing if they bundle it with it. The Wii requires a motion sensor so you can use the controllers. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 19:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

@Armondikov. It is a legitimate concern. At the very least, stuff like laptop webcams are regularly hacked and video taken without consent. And frankly, with the shit that the NSA is pulling now, why exactly is this concern unreasonable? So, pulling in records of every email, skype, etc., is totally reasonable, but pulling in videos from xboxs isn't? I don't see your argument at all. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming that Xbone controllers don't connect through Kinect, so I don't understand what Wii has to do with this. Vulpius (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming the NSA is really not going to spend much time checking who's playing the new Star Wars game on their xbox. Sophie^Wilder 20:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm assuming that no one is going to buy the Xbox One, given that the PS4 is cheaper, doesn't require a constant connection to the internet, can play second-hand games, is going to be region-free for games, and looks like something from Tron. Or there are, of course, the Android versions, which look interesting.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 20:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

PC > either of them, although i'm getting a Wii U for first-party Nintendo games, when friends come over, and Netflix & Hulu. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 20:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

PC's a given, but I'm still a FF fan after all these years, so PS4 as well, plus it acts as a back-up Blu-Ray and player for me.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 20:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

From what I understand, the opposition to the XBone's Kinect isn't that it automatically comes with the console, but that it can't be turned off or covered up or else the console won't let you do anything. I don't even know if that's actually true but every discussion I've seen about it seems to be around that issue. Plus that combined with those other patents microsoft filed ages ago for technology like actively forcing you to watch/interact with adverts before the advert will go away and let you carry on playing a game/watching a film etc... has made people uneasy, understandably really. I've been out of the console world since the original playstation and I was thinking about buying back in with this new generation, but neither the Xbone or the PS4 seem good. The PS4 merely seems less bad in comparison to the Xbone. Xbone xbone. X Stickman (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with the PS4? — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 00:32, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It eats your Alpha waves when you are asleep… Wibble. ^{Jabba de Chops} 09:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Hits keep rolling for the Xbox One. Will only launch in 21 countries, and thats a hard Region lock, as the Xbox Live network it needs to work won't even be picked up outside those 21 countries. A MS exec also said yesterday, para-phrasing, "If you don't have stable broadband internet, just buy a 360". --Revolverman (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Have they confirmed that you'll still need to pay for Xbox Live? Because, sort of weirdly, that's nearly a dealbreaker for me. Not that i'm going to get it anyway. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 17:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to pay to get Live, you just have a Silver account, which (on the 360) has very limited access to social features but can still play games, purchase content from the Xbox marketplace (game DLC, XBL Arcade titles, etc.), and so on. You only have to pay the $60/year for a Gold account if you want the premium features, like online multiplayer. I expect the same is going to occur with the Xbox One, only you do have to give it internet access so it can conduct its daily license check.

Also, if you get banned from Xbox Live for any reason (including just putting gay slurs in your profile), you lose all your licenses to your games library, so an online ban is effectively a bricked console unless you want to start over with a new account and buy all your games over again (or sell it). To be fair to Microsoft, this is how services like Steam and Origin already work, but home consoles traditionally gave retail discs the First Sale doctrine, so Microsoft's got some bleeding to do with the shift to revocable licenses on all content.

On top of all that, there have been numerous reports that Microsoft employees have showed up at Best Buy locations around the US to interfere with WiiU demos and pitch Xbox Ones to people in line. One even showed up in a Microsoft polo. They aren't even trying to hide it. It's so over the top, I almost want to suggest Poe. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 22:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Fascist Pledge?

I find it interesting that Rationalwiki has never formally disavowed fascism. Perhaps now is the time for Rationalwiki to formally reject fascism and everything it stands for. Its failure to publicly reject fascism raises a lot of uncomfortable questions about Rationalwiki's true motives. MarcusCicero (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I won't - I plan to embrace fascism, have sex with it and make fascist babies. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Disavow fascism? Why, we haven't even stopped beating our wife yet. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 23:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I have. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 23:34, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't even started yet. You're so ahead of me. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 16:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Boring--^talk 23:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I like that idea. For one, I'm very anti-fascist, for two, I think we could benefit by making a public or at least half public statement. Provided we get a vote in for it, though I doubt anyone here sympathizes with fascists...--P3A58NT86 01:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and let's all vote against mass murder, thermonuclear war, and kicking cripples. Doctor Dark (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Other than wingeing concern trolls has anyone ever mistaken us for a crypto-fascist site? The idea that one should publicly take stands against issues - and that if you don't, then you must somehow be sympathetic to them - is redolent of McCarthyism. Personally, I would welcome it if the trains always ran on time. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 01:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

is fascist related in any way to fascia ? cause I am in favor of facia, my house looks nice with it. Hamster (talk) 02:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Anti-fascism is un-American. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:39, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I, for one, am so anti-fascist that I think they should all be fed to crocodiles. I think this site is composed of good, god fearing ant-fascists, but I urge everyone to keep an eye on each other and report any strange behaviour through to MC. Tielec01 (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean vote on the issues morally; I mean vote on whether or not we make a statement of condemnation or something--P3A58NT86 04:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I was about to say that I would take an anti fascist pledge, then I saw who wrote this. RW does not need to make a specific position about fascism. Working on debunking Nazi pseudohistory makes that clear enough. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 07:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Your last sentence in the OP is even crazier a conspiracy theory involving Nazis than I would make up, and that's saying something. Even if I were to make up a conspiracy about Nazis, it would be to take advantage of Pommer's Law against them, and I wouldn't actually believe it. Note that it would be directed at actual Nazis, not people you want to make a Godwin's Law attack against. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 07:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Son, those are the words of a fascist. I'm gonna go get my pitchfork. Tielec01 (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Dunno what all you guys are talking about. I think a good old fashioned fascist junta ruled by Rationalwiki users would be awesome... so long as I was in charge of the whole thing Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 10:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm amused that many people seriously considered including an anti-fascist pledge in the front page. Like those dickheads on twitter who announce 'I am an atheist' or 'I am a liberal' all the time. Or like Hamilton, who can't cross the road without screaming about how conservative he is. There is something very juvenile about the way people throw labels about. Personally I believe it is tied up with their own identity and sexual issues. MarcusCicero (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe instead of an antifascist pledge, we make everyone sign a loyalty oath before they edit an article, and TWO loyalty oaths before editing their talk pages! RachelW (talk) 17:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Anti-fascist pledges are simply a cover for crypto-fascism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk)

Why is the jackass who suggested this idiocy criticizing the people who agreed with him?--Token Conservative (talk) 20:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Because you smell. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I just got done with a run, leave me alone.--Token Conservative (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

MC, keep posting so I look normal in comparison. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 20:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Another big story, another conspiracy theory.

Edward Snowden, Chinese spy. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 23:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, he did decide to leak that the US government was spying on its population and sought freedom from this in China of all places. If you want freedom from government spying, moving to China is about the second stupidest thing you could possibly do.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

In China you have a reasonable expectation to monitored and spied on by the state. In the USA that is not a reasonable expectation. Therein lies the difference. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 23:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

"In the USA that is not a reasonable expectation." Does the fact that nothing about the revelations of the past two weeks or so came as the least bit of a surprise make me somehow unreasonable then? Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 23:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Nah, just a conspiracy theorist proven right. But in a free society it is the expectation that is unreasonable not the person making it. Генгис^{Gum disease} 23:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

He's in Hong Kong which is still very much a different kettle of fish from the PRC at large. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

He's not in a country that doesn't spy on its population, so he's still being a hypocritical moron, and if he admitted to being a Chinese spy I would not be at all surprised. --Token Conservative (talk) 02:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Nah, he's just a kid who thought he was doing the right thing, with maybe a dollop or two of narcissism on the side. And I'd say HK was a sensible choice for him. He needs a place that isn't on good terms with the U.S. and yet is developed enough for him to be comfortable. HK fits the bill in that it's highly developed and politically a part of the PRC, but at least for now has greater civil liberties than mainland PRC. Hypocritical, maybe, but smart from a pragmatic view. Doctor Dark (talk) 04:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

at least for now has greater civil liberties than mainland PRC.

Highlighted the key phrase for you--Token Conservative (talk) 04:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

How is the future of civil liberties in Hong Kong relevant to Snowden? You look like you're just throwing a bunch of shit and hoping it will stick. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 05:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any hypocrisy. The NSA spies on Americans because Americans are people and the NSA spies on people. The thing that has surprised me over the past few days isn't news of the NSA spying on Americans, it's the reaction from Americans who seemed to imagine that some ill-defined mechanism was prohibiting this or should act to prevent it in future. This is what spooks do, by all means rant and rave about getting rid of spooks (I have a vague feeling somewhere in Europe tried that, like England getting rid of the monarch it was not all it was cracked up to be and they hired more spooks again) but why believe something so obviously fatuous as that a magic forcefield (whether of policy or technology) shields Americans from their own spooks? Most of what the NSA does isn't "Merchants of Light" stuff, sovereign science and industrial espionage to prop up US interests, it's more about people because ultimately people are always the weak point and there is no reason to believe that "US citizenship" is negatively correlated to threat. Tialaramex (talk) 11:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Because we have the concept that" X is a thing they do out there, not here in america.". people know to some extent interior monitoring goes on and that they might be watched, its the scale that bothers them.--^Mikal_lakiM 17:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowden is Winston Smith made flesh. I really am enjoying all these right wing nutjobs running around claiming he is guilty of treason or whatever. The cost of liberty is eternal vigilance. I believe in a hundred years time, if we haven't succumbed to a totalitarian super state (an increasingly slim possibility), we'll be celebrating Snowdens disclosure every year, as the pivotal event that began the process of citizens taking power back from the faceless, all consuming, all corrupting state. MarcusCicero (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

More likely we'll be asking "Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?" Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 17:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Fun game. List enemies of the state who we "celebrate every year". Not anniversaries once in a lifetime, and not people who died in living memory, because we're talking about a whole century here. Closest I can come for the UK is the annual burning in effigy of Guy Fawkes, which survived in the public consciousness until it morphed into rather generic "Fireworks Night" or "Bonfire Night" celebrations towards the end of the 20th century, almost 400 years later. Though, it's hardly a "celebration" of government defiance since this annual event was made law by the parliament that Fawkes had supposedly tried to blow up, and it's celebrating his failure, V for Vendetta not withstanding. Tialaramex (talk) 22:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

That's an easy one: Christmas. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 22:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Martin Luther King day, la Fete des Patriots in Quebec. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 22:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Bastille Day in France, Independence Day in the US. But your point that there are fairly few people who defy the government and are celebrated for it is true enough.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Most of those who are celebrated for defying governments are those who founded the present system; heroes of the revolution so to speak. Guy Fawkes was different in that it was meant to keep those damned papists in their place. However, I think MC's point is not to be taken literally. There doesn't have to be a public holiday to remember the person, just that their name is forever remembered in the history books. I can't remember the name of the Serbian student who assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand but Osama bin Laden will probably be a name that is remembered. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 00:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin, Jewelry Thief

Apparently Putin stole one of the Patriots' (American Football) championship rings. For your reading pleasure. Transitional Form^{Still Durbinating} 04:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

We should replace all world leaders with college students

It seems that they have solutions to all world problems that no professional leaders have been able to come up with after decades of work. What are we waiting for? We need to put the people into office! –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 07:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I call russia. --^Mikal_lakiM 09:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Dibs on China. Anyone want to buy Tibet off me? Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 10:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Not until you've done your homework. And that lawn needs mowing. Sophie^Wilder 10:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Will there be toga parties? And hazing? Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The only hazing is having to down a double beer bong of ultra cheap cider while clad only in furry panties, and toga parties will only be permitted if underwear is worn under the togas. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 14:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

That's a terrible idea. They'd hand everything in late, use Google to do all their research, and still expect a good grade. (Although I suppose that's not different from the current situation.) ^talk 16:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Come to NEW russia, where corporate whoring and product placement is king! (Think mystery men)--^Mikal_lakiM 17:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

But then who would work at Starbucks and used record shops? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Is that like New Coke? Transitional Form^{Still Durbinating} 23:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

You did get my point about 20 year old kids thinking they have solved problems that professional leaders and analysis with decades of experience haven't been able to solve? –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 20:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes however it was boring so we ignored it. @Durb, no! new coke was an abject failure! The NEW russia is sleek, modern. Delicious. --^Mikal_lakiM 21:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You did get my point about 20 year old kids thinking they have solved problems that professional leaders and analysis with decades of experience haven't been able to solve? I often think that when I see some of the stuff written here. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 00:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

There's quite possibly a large overlap between atheists promoting liberal and secular agendas and rich, elitist, closet racist northern liberal kiddies. I also get the feeling that some of the stuff here is written by people I would characterize as extremely liberal. Some of the people I encountered at Gender Identity Disorder indicates strong intolerance. I have a problem with liberals who try to act like anyone who doesn't agree with their views on gays is like a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. I've met people who accept gay people and who don't have a problem with them having a legal marriage but didn't want it to be "marriage," and I'm not going to act like those people are "ignorant" or promoting hatred of gay people. Even if someone accepted that people can be gay and live together and have buttsex but wouldn't want them to be able to marry, I wouldn't consider that hateful. I'd consider it bigoted to consider that that hateful. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 03:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

That is the stupidest post I've read on this website in ages. Seriously. You're basically arguing that somebody who calls you out for your intolerance is a bigot. This may come as a surprise to you, but "ignorance" is not a protected subject position like race, gender or sexual orientation. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 04:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Your argument smacks of intolerance for any position than your own. I think that gay marriage is gay marriage. When it comes to changing the definition, the definition of marriage has changed many times already, and I see no problem with including gay couples in the definition of marriage. That said, I wouldn't care if it's called marriage as long as they have the legal rights as marriage. Yet, you are trying to claim that such an arrangement would be "ignorant" and "intolerant." Please explain how it is hateful for someone to want gay people to have the rights of marriage and but to not want to call it marriage? I refuse to view such people, who clearly accept the right of people to be gay, as intolerant because that would be bigoted. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 04:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course I'm intolerant of views that differ from my own, when those views have to do with the question of treating everybody equally and fairly and not condemning people who don't conform with some random standard of behavior as having a "disorder." Jesus, are you so full of yourself that being called out on your bullshit feels like discrimination? If I knew the way/I would take you home. 04:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I also have intolerance for people who promote intolerance, however, I only hate people who actually spread intolerance, such as the Westboro Baptist Church, Nazis, and the KKK. Not people who merely have a different opinion than my own. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 04:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You see, normal people at this point would have realized that they should stop. but not you, you just keep on going. --^Mikal_lakiM 04:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Saying "normal people" to users on the Autism spectrum? So you're going to be an ableist prick? You realize I would consider you a sexist pig for your abortion views if I followed his logic, right? Abortion is a right of women, no different than the right to vote. I don't consider you sexist because as you also say, you aren't against it, and so I'm not going to be intolerant and hate you over that. Although if you did say women shouldn't be allowed to vote I would be openly intolerant against you for that. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 05:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Listen you little shit, Theres very few things i don't tolerate, but accusing me of prejudice against my own fucking brother is not one of them. I dont care what problems you fucking have or pretend to have to hide behind your own stupidity, i dont care what causes you think your aiding. Shut. The. fuck. Up. You are annoying, you add nothing, you learn nothing, and why you are even here is a mystery. --^Mikal_lakiM 05:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Ehrenstein, the only person on the gender dysphoria page showing "strong intolerance" was you, saying that trans people are weird, have a disorder & should conform. You've made a series of homophobic & transphobic comments in the last few days, & when people call you out on it you cry ableism. You need to try & get some perspective & look at why people are getting annoyed at you: it has nothing to do with having a disability; you are posting opinions that people find objectionable. & It wouldn't keep happening if you weren't always so keen to jump up on your soapbox about issues you obviously don't understand very well. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Rationalwiki articles in other languages

I notice that someone is generating more user content for our French pages. That's fantastic. What I'm wondering, though, is the extent we've thought about consistency. Is there any mechanism in place to ensure that an important change in a central article (reflecting new findings, or a new consensus view on the part of the hive about a particular issue, say) is then reflected in the corresponding French/Russian article, which are, largely, the efforts of a very small, if not singular, number of contributors. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 15:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Nope. AFAIK, there isn't such a mechanism on Wikipedia either or other wiki projects that have multiple language manifestations; they pretty much operate as separate entities & it's down to individual editors to translate from one edition to another, or not. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:39, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

why is someone writing articles in a different language? 15:51, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Why shouldn't they? I think, though, the French stuff can go into its own wiki now. Sophie^Wilder 18:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I think keeping multi language variants separate is a good idea. They're separate communities and it prevents cascading errors where someone translates without fact checking the original sources. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 20:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Sophie, that's a super idea. Someone should go start their own wiki with half a dozen short articles in French. Like I've said, The RWian community on the whole has repeatedly proven to be all sizzle and no steak so I won't hold my breath waiting for people to do more than talk about how other people should do shit that will never happen. Considering we already do a pretty crummy job of keeping the content we already have up to date, there's no good reason to waste a microsecond setting up infrastructure to support another language unless you've got someone with a well-demonstrated record of being devoted to the project like Bertran. With a small number of editors being able to read and write in French, you'll end up with a tiny and random selection of articles the majority of editors are effectively cut out of collaborating on and giving editorial scrutiny. 20:53, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Why the sarcasm? There's already a Russian one. Sophie^Wilder 21:36, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not being sarcastic. There's like an 80% chance that any talk of actually doing stuff here is bullshit artistry. Re: Russian RW, I just said that. We've got Bertran, who's a serious person who makes product. As it is here, we've got a few French articles on random topics; I'll bet $20 you don't even if they're passable quality. Anyway, this is a waste of time. I'm going to get back to stuff that makes me happy. Laters. 22:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ FWIW, speaking as a pretty much totally bilingual Quebecois (ie, a man with no mother tongue and two second languages), the French translations are pretty solid recreations of their English forbears. That being said, if we're going to have alternate-language material, we need either a. for it to be a totally different domain, a la Russianalwiki, or b. closely integrated into English RW with a dedicated core of good RW editors willing to monitor it. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 22:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd say we should start fr.rationalwiki.org. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 03:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

If we don't start a new wiki, we should do something like MediaWiki.org does for language variations. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 03:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Why not start fRactionalWiki? Генгис^unbelieving 05:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like Ancap bait... Transitional Form^{Still Durbinating} 07:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, on Facebook

• Other person: Look at this news story about GM grass killing cows in Texas! Ban GM crops!
• Me: This other story says the grass wasn't GM, and the cows were killed by badly stored sorghum.
• Other person: Don't confuse the issue! It could happen one day so we need to ban them!

Sophie^Wilder 14:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. These anti-GM Nazi's make me sick. The world is going to have 10 billion people someday, how the fuck are we going to feed them? We've been genetically modifying crops since we started settling down and civilising - the only difference is that now we have the ability to do it on a much greater and more efficient scale. Unless they want to get all NWO on our asses and wipe out 90% of the population, I really do not see how we can reconcile food shortages and 10 billion people. With the ecological damage these extra people will cause, it makes the case for GM crops even more urgent. I'd love to show these preachy twats images of dying children in the developing world and tell them if they persist with their idiocy they are directly causing the death of innocent children. They need to grow the fuck up and realise that their privileged western fancies and follies are luxuries that the emerging billions cannot afford. MarcusCicero (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

MC is taking it to extremes, but generally the opposition to GM crops, particularly in Europe, has caused a lot of harm and postponed significant advances in agriculture. Hundreds of GM varieties with important benefits to consumers, developed with public funds, have been delayed by many years or entirely suppressed because of the grotesquely absurd regulatory system and anti-GM superstitions. Meanwhile you can breed whatever radiation mutants you want and sell them with no oversight whatsoever. (And it hasn't caused any problems.) --Tweenk (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Also that story was from last year. I remember reading the back-and-forth when it originally happened. It has a date right on it. Tialaramex (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

European agriculture businesses leverage antiglobalist and anti-American sentiment to stir up animosity and prejudice against domestic and foreign competition from more efficient GM food producers. Groups funded by European business groups inflame superstition and fear with anti-scientific claims (e.g., more study is (always) needed to prove safety). This does not bode well for future hungry populations around the world. Weorthe (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Those of you who find the "creation v. evolution" debate interesting....

...might want to give this guy some scrutiny. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 00:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Skipping over the usual lightly-altered PRATTs regarding Genesis/etc., he makes one direct falsehood about science, for one. He says that humans (due to our possessing souls, an upgrade no other species gets) are the only species capable of speech. Shown up by some prairie dogs. Now, of course, you can weasel out of it by narrowly defining "speech" to exclude animal forms of communication, but to do so is to deny the entire field of animal intelligence. And while you aren't likely going to encounter a bear that can debate Plato with you, we have a lot left to learn on how to recognize intelligent life when it differs from our own.

I don't know about his assertion that humans (thanks to the soul unlock) are the only ones able to visualize the future, but intent and future-thinking is difficult to assess in creatures you can't communicate with. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 01:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The Salem Hypothesis at work! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"Remove all warning labels"

Googling those four words will produce several results to remove all warning labels, and let people's common sense sort things out.

I have never been directly confronted with this, but I'd like to know what would be a good thing to say if someone tells me it would be a good idea to remove any warning of dangerous chemicals or NSFW material? How can I refute that such a thing is a horrible idea, and not just because it's borderline illegal?^{— Unsigned, by: DoomTay / talk / contribs}

Many companies put warnings on labels in order to avoid future lawsuits (a CYA tactic), not because they were required to do so by law. --Seth Peck (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The stuff I got when googling this phrase mostly looks satirical, especially as phrases like "let natural selection take its course" appear a lot, à la the Darwin Awards. Can you cite an example that you think looks like somebody seriously advocating this position for real? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It's possible; there really are people that short-sighted out there. EVDebs (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

A lot of Right Libertarians are for removing requirements for warning/ingredient labels thinking that it's a consumer's responsibility to find out is in their goods, and if they don't and end up drinking gallons of formaldehyde its their own fault. And the ones who do not say that, don't call out the ones that do.--Token Conservative (talk) 02:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I am in favor of removing labels that give no useful information to the consumer. For instance the EU has mandatory labelling of food with GM ingredients, but the label conveys zero useful information and its only purpose is to provide leverage to pseudoscientific fear mongering and boycotts. (Similarly, putting the race of the farmer on food would convey no information and be useful only to racists.) It would be OK if the label listed some useful information, for instance what transgenic traits are present and that they were approved as safe by EFSA.

Removing risk and safety phrases or the warning pictures from chemical products is just stupid. Even professional chemical supplies have those, because chemists prefer to look at the bottle rather than checking the hazards of each new substance in some database. People who want to remove those labels are just being misanthropic assholes. --Tweenk (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

If some consumers prefer to avoid GM food, why shouldn't they be able to? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Conversely, what if consumers specifically want to buy GM food? Labeling would make that alot easier. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 19:42, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

See Tweenk's point about the race of the farmer. This isn't a measurable property of the food, so it would come down to traceability. What's the status of traceability? Well, the system is supposed to trace which cow is in which frozen lasagne. The computer says "Daisy" and the actual answer turns out to be "Oh, that's horse meat which we bought cheap without any paperwork from a guy whose name I've conveniently forgotten". I can stomach a budget increase to have the traceability requirements spot-checked. But why would I pay to do such checks in the name of pseudo-science? Was the cow in my burger really a Scorpio? Were these carrots properly grown on a ley line as stated? Were the proper sacrifices made to the Corn God before planting this cereal crop? I don't care, and nobody will spend any money checking, which means in fact the labels will just reveal how much suppliers are willing to lie to you, like my "organic" mineral water or the "environmentally friendly" detergent my sister gave me. The product isn't different, but the smaller supplier is willing to risk lying because the potential slap on the wrist if they're caught will be softened by the piles of cash they're making meanwhile. Tialaramex (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Last I checked, genetic modification was a real science not a pseudo one. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a technology, rather than a science. Think fuel injection rather than physics, but I understand that the line is fuzzy. The objections though are pseudo-science, of the same character as the people who don't want "chemicals" in their food. Mostly they rely on a hazy intuition rather than any deep understanding of what's going on. And there's a general theme of neo-luddism in there, "I don't understand it, therefore it's bad" which you could most charitably characterise as naive. Tialaramex (talk) 02:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Same question: if some consumers prefer to avoid GM food, why shouldn't they be able to? You seem to just be saying "because I don't like their reasons". Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding GM food labels largely seems to be because "I don't want to grow a second mouth were my anus used to be". It encourages, or at least allows, some of the most irritating pseudoscience around currently to happen.--Token Conservative (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Weaseloid: Same question? Same answer. But actually you've changed the question, and the answer to your new question is "Sure, they can avoid GM food if they like". But it leads back to how they'll know what a "GM food" is, which I've already answered. They can only really know if the rest of society is willing to spend a lot of money on the associated regulatory regime, which it has no more reason to do than verifying the astrological charts of chickens or whatever. Tialaramex (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

There is zero consumer demand for the astrological charts of chickens. These idiotic red herring strawman analogies really aren't helping. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Demand isn't enough. GM isn't a special case here. The UK investigated whether it should legally control the phrase "freshly squeezed" concerning fruit juices (as it does the phrase "fruit juice" itself). There was significant consumer demand, but in the end the investigators concluded that there wasn't anything they could usefully achieve, the "demand" reflected a bunch of vague notions that freshly squeezed juices were inherently superior, not any specific concerns that could be reflected in legislation nor anything measurable. The tobacco and alcohol industries both have a lot of experience of this, you can take something irrelevant and give it prestige through marketing. Instead of saying "Buy Foo brand dog shit" you say "Foul-smelling dog shit can help keep your mouth healthy" and then change the packaging of Foo brand dog shit to make a big deal of how foul smelling it is. Customers think they're making an independent rational choice about quality, when actually they're just eating dog shit because you told them to. Tialaramex (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Eating dog shit. Right. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right. What sort of crazy world would we live in if people were so stupid that they'd willingly buy a product that's obviously bad for them? Or where marketing people would do something like make health claims for such a product. How cynical would you have to be to advertise a cheaper to manufacture and less healthy product as being superior? Those people would be monsters, right? OK, well it did happen here a little bit, but that's ancient history, like racism or poverty, we got rid of it and now we can go back to watching TV knowing we're smart than those people from the bad old days. It is a bit weird though, that marketing still exists. Now that we're all too smart for it to work on us you'd think it would go away. Tialaramex (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I was in a bar fight last night

So I was out with my chums, had a few lagers. Noticed a group of lads who were up no good. I went up to said lads and told them to leave, they were messing up the tone of the place. Said boor punched me in the face. I recovered, and called him a fascist collaborator. Next one of my chums swung a bar stool and smashed the mans jaw in. I proceeded to fisticuff one of his accomplices. Later, when the police arrived, we explained our predicament and the unprovoked nature of the assault, and after handing over a crisp fifty euro bill, the said gentlemen allowed us to leave in good grace. The scoundrels with whom we fought spent an ignominious night in a jail cell, presumably they all now suffer from a painful sphincter. Just another example of my crusade for liberty and justice. MarcusCicero (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

So: violence, bribery, schadenfreude & vicarious rape. Liberty & justice are really scraping the barrel these days. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You're the wrong sort of berk Marcus. Генгис^unbelieving 13:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Thats a very English insult Genghis. What did I do wrong? The above has a certain amount of literary licence but essentially that is what happened. (I really did call him a fascist too, it was great). The only thing is though, I've been kicking myself all day that I didn't get to say 'obscenity thy mother' to him, a bit of Hemmingway and I would have this guy on the ground begging for forgiveness. MarcusCicero (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Prison rape jokes are the classiest jokes.--^talk 18:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Who said anything about rape you sick fuck? I just said they presumably have a painful sphincter, whatever more you read in to that is all inside your own twisted, devious head. MarcusCicero (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Had they been eating vindaloo? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

No, they just happened to have painful hemorrhoids. This trivial bit of information, discovered when MC found a pharmacy receipt by chance, should have been perfectly obvious from subtext. Their inability to use top-quality toilet tissue, as they'd been accustomed, has exacerbated their condition. It was not at all a thoughtless joke, made because it's socially acceptable to laugh at the long-running and global problem of prison rape. If you think that's the case, then there's something wrong with you, as his immediate and vicious response should make clear.--^talk 19:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

AD, you have a suspicious mind, forever casting dark clouds over people's character. It is an unbecoming trait. Perhaps you should consider the deeper resonance within my parable, for I rarely tell a story, that isn't in fact a story within a story, within a story. These enigmatic passages, which contain various clues to help decode them, could easily be uncovered by simple deduction and arithmetic. I applaud your attempt to get a rise out of me, but you have failed absolutely. MarcusCicero (talk) 21:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not too hard to figure out. You recently read For Whom the Bell Tolls, that masterpiece by Ernest "Hemmingway," and you possibly went out drinking one night. Beyond that, I'd say a large-to-total percent of the rest is poorly-wrought fiction that simultaneously evokes "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air" and "Frasier" by trying to be both roguish and priggish. It's one of your usual attempts at chumminess, dishonestly clad in obscurity so that you can stage one of these immediate retreats ("You're just misinterpreting my cleverness! I'm the puppetmaster!")

Boring.--^talk 21:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

There's that arrogant side of you seeping out again, its in your blood or something you can't help yourself. Its so effortless. So what if I mis-spelt Hemingway, why do you need to be such a Nazi all the time. You nevertheless remain a worthy adversary, my nemesis. MarcusCicero (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

tl;dr you stayed home and had a wank, but thought about drinking a beer - David Gerard (talk) 22:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I have my doubts about this story. Said boor punched me in the face. I recovered, and called him a fascist collaborator. That sounds like the kind of think I would say, yet I don't. Even I see that as weirdly over the top anti fascist. And I'm extremely weirdly over the top anti fascist. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 22:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Methinks the gentleman protesteth too much. Tielec01 (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Techie help needed

I'm looking to install either Cyanogenmod or Kineology for my Kindle Fire HD 7, but apparently need the later version of TWRP than I've currently got installed. No problems finding the download page, but I've noticed that they've got two versions, Blaze and Otter. Does anyone know the difference between the two?-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 13:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Fire in space

I look forward to seeing the result of this experiment. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 01:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

There's videos of candles burning inside an orbiting spacecraft [2] etc. CS Miller (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I've repeatedly told myself not to read the bottom half of the internet. Why oh why don't I listen? Ajkgordon (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Today a little ball of flame. Tomorrow SPACE STEAMPUNK! Sen (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Snowden truthers

The inevitability of conspiracy theories. Limited hangout is the most obvious of the bunch. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Lumines strategy

I'm trying to get 210 squares erased in the 180 second time attack of Lumines Supernova, but I can't go any higher than 160 erased. Does anyone have any tips? --TechCheese^kvetch 17:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what these words mean.--^talk 23:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Lumines is a falling block puzzle game franchise, a bit like Tetris/etc. However, the saloon bar is not exactly the most hopping place for game tips. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 07:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I read the title in recent changes and thought Lumenos was back. Sophie^Wilder 08:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Let the party begin

I will be gone for two weeks. I will be back just in time to murder a bunch of goats and eat some delicious babies for the 4th of the July. Who's bringing the chips and dip to the "Hamilton will be gone" party? Smokeless, I think?

Oh, and someone make sure to let me know if RW finally gets the collective intelligence to permanently ban Marcus.--Token Conservative (talk) 22:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hamilton. Hope you enjoy your holiday. Pleasant trip. MarcusCicero (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Make it two months Hamilton, you aren't taking the wiki seriously enough. Tielec01 (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Sally Morgan

The publishers of the Daily Mail have just caved in to Sally Morgan and agreed to pay substantial damages over their article which told people she is allegedly a fraud. Oldusgitus (talk) 10:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Mail published (and repeated) a specific allegation that they apparently couldn't or wouldn't prove in court. If they'd just said she's an old fraud they'd be untouchable (saying that somebody is a fraud has been interpreted as a character judgement, while of course accusing them of fraud would be libellous because fraud is a matter of fact). Tialaramex (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we covered our arses in our article about her. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It was effectively a procedural error, but god damn if it doesn't make me feel uncomfortable for the rest of the day that I'm having to feel sympathy for the Daily Heil for losing a libel case to a psychic. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 01:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Exodus International

Exodus International, the "ex-gay" group, has apologized to the people it hurt and is shutting down. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 11:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The guy really does sound like he's sorry for the last 25 years of douchebaggery. On the other hand, it was over 25 years... --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The human brain's able to maintain cognitive dissonance for much longer periods than that. Just look at Fred Phelps. Personally, I don't really know what else the guy could really do to say sorry except to complete the 180 and campaign against his former self's platform, and that's a lot to ask for someone who's only recently been prepared to publically accept that they'd had the epiphany that they were completely wrong. I don't know that just saying sorry is "enough," but I want to give the guy credit where credit is due. He went from actively hurting people to not hurting people and publicly apologizing and expressing regret for his actions. It's proof he's still human, at least. And you bet your ass that a whole lot of lawyers just got phone calls. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 02:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Back on the road to Wigan Pier

It's been almost 100 years, so I guess it's about time this came around again. Does that sound familiar to anyone? It pains me that these fucknuggets still exist, and probably always will. Having a look at that list, I can only assume that that wankstain has never cooked for himself in his life. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

-shrug- It seems to me that there is goal-post moving going on here. If the argument is "Oh, well sure, anybody can beat this challenge, that's not hard but if you also set the following additional requirements ..." then why set the challenge the way it is? FWIW I lived on about £1-2 per day of food when I was actually poor, today I spend a bit more than that, I visit an expensive employee-owned store to buy groceries, I buy premium brands that I like rather than the cheapest substitute, etc. and so the overall cost is higher, about £4 per day. But of course the author of this article would disparage my diet too. If the poor are trying to avoid being sneered at then doubtless a far larger food budget is necessary. Tialaramex (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You really don't see the problem with someone telling you that you should live off tinned rice and beans? Personally I spend about 3.70 quid per person per day on food and drink. That's a pretty no frills diet with pretty much no animal protein and drinking mostly water. I probably could cut a quid a day out of that and still eat OK-ish, but it'd be a pain in the arse. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you would probably be constipated. Генгис^marauding 00:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You haven't known constipation until you've lived off pasta and sweetcorn. I know from whence I speak. NEVAH AGAIN. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the food choices on the shopping list are rather poor, but the author of the article is undermining her case:

"I am admittedly very lucky, because I have the ability to go to local farmers' markets and buy organic produce and I'm willing to pay a little more to buy organic milk to keep unnecessary chemicals and hormones out of my kids' systems" - I don't see how this snobbery fits into an article about people who can't afford food. Cutting food aid is deplorable, but the author is recycling of Snopes-level myths. See organic food and bovine growth hormone.

"For children, this is exactly the kind of diet that will stunt brain development" - This is false. My cursory research indicates that brain development can be adversely affected by iron deficiency and undernourishment (e.g. starvation), but not by high-carbohydrate diets. There is however some link between such diets and obesity later in life.

PS: I am convinced we need an article on pesticide residue, which is a major selling point of organic food, even though it's rubbish. The levels of pesticides on conventional food are less than 1% of the reference dose, and this in turn is 1/100 of the smallest dose that causes detectable effects in lab animals. [3] --Tweenk (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

So, to follow on from a previous convo

Sexism and sexuality in games, a talk given by David Gaider of Bioware.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 22:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

RE: A weird philosophy if I've ever seen one

I was going to mention that the guy's only finished the intro of his...thing..., and it pretty much hasn't received exposure apart from on this site. And yeah, it's pretty much a blog at this point in time. (FYI, his video game stuff and the four books he's published on the subject so far aren't exactly all that famous either; only marginally more so and even then mostly on more obscure gaming sites.) It'll be a while before he finishes it, if at all, so I agree that an article should wait until then. By then it may have very well received more attention, especially if he or his 'fans' decide to start promoting it, or if he turns it into an actual book. Doesn't mean we can't snark on it while it's being written...

I want to see (and quite possibly write; don't think I'm pressuring any of you into doing it for me because I might just be the one to have to do it) an article on it for these reasons: to refute the notions that it is even philosophy (if it turns out to be yet more ranting), to see if any of it holds merit and to allay the effects of the inflammatory tone by providing a more rational observation. Basically, I think that if it's going to be presented as philosophy, no matter how bad it is it should be treated and criticized as philosophy. (keyword being criticized)

An article, if it's written, doesn't even have to be that long; a point-by-point rebuttal would mostly consist of the identification and refutation of bleedingly stupid cruft with the occasional semi-valid point. Might be fun, though. Think of it as fish in a barrel, if you will. I can't blame you folks for not wanting an article about it, but I'm prepared to agree to disagree. At the very least, it should go on the webshites page (and the author could go on the kooks page).

To be honest, though...I kind of want to see the author react to a potential article. Kind of. --Trar, the one true Scotsman (och, talk to me laddie) 20:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"i just want to see them react" Because thats a wonderful reason, not anything good, but to get people to react. good on you. --^Mikal_lakiM 20:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

One of the more interesting qualities of the Internet is that there are so many people with so many weird beliefs and a slight bit of articulation that there are just too many pages crammed full of craziness at which to marvel. People who honestly believe Final Fantasy is secretly real, people who believe that every international group is a front for the Bilderburg Group, and so on. At this point, I think I'm so jaded that it takes a truly unique and cleverly crazy thing to really make me interested - or else something only mildly crazy that is thoughtlessly espoused by millions (like Twilight's basic plot).--^talk 01:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Rebuttal would be a waste of time, giving it excess publicity is a waste of time. Post it, laugh at it, let it die or come back the next time someone stumbles on it. Don't immortalise it in an article - it might just disappear without a trace. Author is even less notable than Archimedes Plutonium, which is saying something. I've dropped a mention of it on Timecube Law where it's relevant and interesting. All it's useful for is picking out the weirdest quotes. ^gnostic 17:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

@ Mikal: Told you I didn't like him. But yeah, in retrospect it would serve little purpose. @ Armondikov: I agree that an article is unnecessary at this point, and it will probably stay that way. A couple mentions on articles is all we'll need here. I'll probably get around to putting this on the webshites/loons pages sooner or later. --Trar, the one true Scotsman (och, talk to me laddie) 15:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I kind of want to see what he has to say in the chapter titled "Vancouver", being that that's the largest city in this portion of Canada. I'm curious what kind of crazy is lurking in his mind, ready to come out then and only then. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 23:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)