|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive214
Why are we tolerating faggots?[edit]
Lets be honest with ourselves, nothing is more disgusting than two men locked in tender embraces, rubbing their penises against each other. Nothing is more disgusting than one pen inserting his penis deep inside of another, ejaculating into the ripped anal walls and spreading venereal disease. Nothing is more disgusting that two men kissing each other, touching each other on the chest, feeling each other´s penises. Nothing is more disgusting than one man licking out the anus of another. These are all disgusting and wrong acts. You cannot create a child by ejaculating inside an anus, so why do we pretend its ok? Its disgusting and its wrong. Its time to make faggotry illegal as its making the next generation weak and girly. — Unsigned, by: 37.14.154.211 / talk / contribs
- I bet you just cum when you finished typing thatAMassiveGay (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- For the same reason we toler-oh wait. No we don't tolerate you. I'm in to role-playing, but who in hell cares about what other people do in the bedroom? Zero (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Mmmm, faggots with gravy.
ГенгисGum disease
13:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Mmmm, faggots with gravy.
- For the same reason we toler-oh wait. No we don't tolerate you. I'm in to role-playing, but who in hell cares about what other people do in the bedroom? Zero (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Bahahaha because fuck you. Why Weepest Thou? (talk) 13:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- But seriously, you better watch out! The evil, Godless homosexuals are gonna get you! They're gonna recruit you with their nefarious homosexual socialist illuminati agenda! Why do I get the feeling that this is that Kevin Martin guy? Why Weepest Thou? (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why are we enhancing this troll's sex life by responding to him? --PsyGremlinTal! 13:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)\
- But seriously, you better watch out! The evil, Godless homosexuals are gonna get you! They're gonna recruit you with their nefarious homosexual socialist illuminati agenda! Why do I get the feeling that this is that Kevin Martin guy? Why Weepest Thou? (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Me while reading this. Oh goat I'm so sorry --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 13:57, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- @Psy - my understanding is that trolls feed of the anger and upset they cause. I doubt the fact that we are all laughing at him is doing his ego any good. He came to annoy and only managed to amuse. Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- More "straight" people who spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about gay sex. Ikanreed (talk) 15:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I fucking agree. What the hell have loose bundles of sticks done for us anyway? No one uses them anymore, not even to start fires camping! --Revolverman (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm just going to leave this here. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 17:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
So I was driving home yesterday[edit]
...and I went by an old Grand Prix with the back bumper falling off, rust holes, an unsecured front bumper and a dude driving with his seat fully reclined. The kicker? He had an Infowars bumper sticker. This isn't the first time I've seen something like this, so what's with conspiracy theorists and not taking care of their vehicles? Zero (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I would love to see a study that addresses the relationship between education level, income, and belief in conspiracy theories. Go after the guy because he believes stupid shit, but don't judge him because he can't afford a decent rig. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 14:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- That or the shit car is pumping CO into the cab and its strangling his brain slowly, ergo, losing critical thinking. --Revolverman (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Automobile mechanics are fronts for Communism! Oil change shops are fronts for Islamist terrorists! Autobody shops install undetectable Illuminati spy devices in your car! Compro01 (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- You should rather put in these special spark plugs, fill your tires with Nitrogen, put this crystal on your dash, put this metal thing on your fuel line and convert it to run just on water! Zero (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Regardless of what economic factors might also be involved, the kind of loony libertarians who go in for that kind of conspiracy-mongering also tend to be pretty big on defying regulations like driving laws and speed limits, which they see as an intrusive limit on their freedoms. Case in point (from an article that cites our Freeman on the land article). Wėąṣėḷőįď
Methinks it is a Weasel 18:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Regardless of what economic factors might also be involved, the kind of loony libertarians who go in for that kind of conspiracy-mongering also tend to be pretty big on defying regulations like driving laws and speed limits, which they see as an intrusive limit on their freedoms. Case in point (from an article that cites our Freeman on the land article). Wėąṣėḷőįď
- You should rather put in these special spark plugs, fill your tires with Nitrogen, put this crystal on your dash, put this metal thing on your fuel line and convert it to run just on water! Zero (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Another Obama Conspiracy[edit]
Some people believe that Obama catching a fainting pregnant woman was faked.--Cms13ca (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- You know, when I saw that video on the BBC site, the first thing I thought was that it looked a bit fake and how surely CP would have something to say about it. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:28, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
xkcd (and other webcomics) on WIGO:Blogs[edit]
I'm a big fan of webcomics, but a lot of the WIGO Blogs links to webcomics I see just aren't that important, or relevant, or have anything interesting to say beyond a silly joke. The recent link (Ayn Random) in particular, while funny, just isn't relevant to RW. I think we should refrain from linking to webcomics like xkcd unless they make a particular point about something mission-relevant. (This would be an example of making a point about something mission-relevant.) Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 05:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- It also annoys me when blogs are linked from WIGO:World. If you can't find a mainstream news report for something then it isn't really news but an opinion piece which belongs in Blogs or, if crap, in Clogs. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 07:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, my personal pet-peeves in order are 1) In-jokes to Conservapedia, particularly when it comes to disasters or tragedies and "I wonder how long it'll take for Andy to blame this on liberals". 2) Tragedies and disasters with comments like "Our hearts and thoughts go out to..." - hang on, we're a rationalist wiki that outright states that praying is just an exercise in trying to appear like doing something without actually doing something, that motive doesn't change just because you say "thoughts" rather than "prayers" 3) Pithy three word snarky comments that give no indication of what the news item actually is. 4) Blogs on WIGO:World rather than mainstream cited news sources (with rare exceptions for drawn out drama where a blog summarises it well). Linking to webcomics is hardly a problem.
gnostic 12:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with all those. Do you think we could we rip out some of the maudlin stuff from Holidayz? We don't need to commemorate every tragedy. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 13:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I personally dislike links to YouTube. 13:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- EC. All 4 of Armondikov's points are spot-on. Also, +1 on taking out a lot of the commemoration stuff from the Holidayz. Yeah, the London bus bombing, for example, was bad, but there have been dozens and dozens of 50+ victim terrorist bombing attacks of a similar nature in places like Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, etc. in the intervening years. Either we commemorate them all, which might make every day of the calendar a day of commemoration, or we move on. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 13:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- It sounds cold, but yes. If we commemorated everything, we'd never do anything. If we held a minute silence for everything, we'd never speak. gnostic 13:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Your #2. Isn't that a little cynical? Don't people say those sorts of things for all sorts of reasons? It doesn't automatically mean they are hiding behind not doing anything practical (although I'm sure some do). And I don't buy into the myth that people can't really feel empathy for something like earthquake victims because they are too numerous/too far away/unknown/etc. Sorry for the rant but that itself is a pet-peeve of mine. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- The question there is, "is Rationalwiki a suitable place to express said sentiments"? On the one hand, I can see an argument that it would be kind of weird to go up to a co-worker or the person behind the counter at Starbuck's and say, out of the blue, "my heart goes out to the people who were killed in the burlesque house mass shooting today. Can I please get a large latte and a scone?" It also risks coming close to that sort of corporate sympathy that reeks of insincerity, like when some golf course was offering 9 holes of golf for eleven bucks to commemorate 9/11. This really happened. It's not Sears or Barnes and Nobles job to mourn for the people killed when the tornado struck the home for unwed mothers. (in related news, we need an article on pinkwashing. On the other hand, RW is a community of sorts, and community is where one expresses such sentiments. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 14:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- That's another issue with it. I don't like when WIGOs make personal statements at a all. It happens with "so-and-so is a cunt" type ones because someone did something wrong - yeah, you might think that, but WIGO is a quasi-official extension of the RW brand, so it isn't appropriate at all. Bung it on the talk page and sign it. The same applies to "our hearts are with..." statements. narchist 14:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, yeah. Agreed. Still, won't anyone think of the children? Ajkgordon (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- And that's why I'd like them to learn that real caring is more than about liking a FaceBook post or forwarding somebody else's faux emotions. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 18:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- And that's why I'd like them to learn that real caring is more than about liking a FaceBook post or forwarding somebody else's faux emotions.
- Actually, yeah. Agreed. Still, won't anyone think of the children? Ajkgordon (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- That's another issue with it. I don't like when WIGOs make personal statements at a all. It happens with "so-and-so is a cunt" type ones because someone did something wrong - yeah, you might think that, but WIGO is a quasi-official extension of the RW brand, so it isn't appropriate at all. Bung it on the talk page and sign it. The same applies to "our hearts are with..." statements.
- The question there is, "is Rationalwiki a suitable place to express said sentiments"? On the one hand, I can see an argument that it would be kind of weird to go up to a co-worker or the person behind the counter at Starbuck's and say, out of the blue, "my heart goes out to the people who were killed in the burlesque house mass shooting today. Can I please get a large latte and a scone?" It also risks coming close to that sort of corporate sympathy that reeks of insincerity, like when some golf course was offering 9 holes of golf for eleven bucks to commemorate 9/11. This really happened. It's not Sears or Barnes and Nobles job to mourn for the people killed when the tornado struck the home for unwed mothers. (in related news, we need an article on pinkwashing. On the other hand, RW is a community of sorts, and community is where one expresses such sentiments. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
- Your #2. Isn't that a little cynical? Don't people say those sorts of things for all sorts of reasons? It doesn't automatically mean they are hiding behind not doing anything practical (although I'm sure some do). And I don't buy into the myth that people can't really feel empathy for something like earthquake victims because they are too numerous/too far away/unknown/etc. Sorry for the rant but that itself is a pet-peeve of mine. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- It sounds cold, but yes. If we commemorated everything, we'd never do anything. If we held a minute silence for everything, we'd never speak.
- EC. All 4 of Armondikov's points are spot-on. Also, +1 on taking out a lot of the commemoration stuff from the Holidayz. Yeah, the London bus bombing, for example, was bad, but there have been dozens and dozens of 50+ victim terrorist bombing attacks of a similar nature in places like Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, etc. in the intervening years. Either we commemorate them all, which might make every day of the calendar a day of commemoration, or we move on. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
- I personally dislike links to YouTube. 13:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with all those. Do you think we could we rip out some of the maudlin stuff from Holidayz? We don't need to commemorate every tragedy.
- Well, my personal pet-peeves in order are 1) In-jokes to Conservapedia, particularly when it comes to disasters or tragedies and "I wonder how long it'll take for Andy to blame this on liberals". 2) Tragedies and disasters with comments like "Our hearts and thoughts go out to..." - hang on, we're a rationalist wiki that outright states that praying is just an exercise in trying to appear like doing something without actually doing something, that motive doesn't change just because you say "thoughts" rather than "prayers" 3) Pithy three word snarky comments that give no indication of what the news item actually is. 4) Blogs on WIGO:World rather than mainstream cited news sources (with rare exceptions for drawn out drama where a blog summarises it well). Linking to webcomics is hardly a problem.
Since this seems to be opening up beyond WIGO, one of my biggest pet peeves in terms of RW content is mystery meat links (like this) in mainspace - they're a really weak form of snark, usually link to worthless content like irony meter or argumentum ex culo and are just generally discourteous to the reader, who shouldn't have to keep following links to other pages or mouse-hovering over words (not even an option when viewing the site on a lot of mobile devices) to understand what an article is saying. I also agree with Armondikov's #3 above for the same reasons: when a WIGO entry just says "woah" or "oh shit, not again" or whatever, it's just poor navigation & no use to the reader. Another navigation peeve: inline links to Wikipedia using the [[wp:]] format without making it clear that this is a link to Wikipedia; again this is poor navigation: readers show know whether they're being linked offsite. Another peeve: quotecruft in or at the top of articles, especially quoting blogs or bottom-of-the-internet comments as if they're notable & quotable sources. I also really dislike the horribly reduductive good/bad/ugly or "reasons to like/dislike" format that seems to be used in a lot of articles. Also side-by-side formats used in contexts where it isn't useful or appropriate. That's all for now; I'll probably think of some others later. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Thought I was alone in disliking a lot of this stuff. (Just who the hell is this Tim Minchin guy that is quoted in several of our articles?) While it would be great to get rid of some of this, let's do make a point of keeping the good attempts at dry humor, well-crafted snark, and the like that makes RW different from Wikipedia. Doctor Dark (talk) 00:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, and overused
witty commentsstrikeout snark. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 07:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, and overused
- I agree about most cases of links-that-don't-go-where-the-label-says, especially when it's single words/terms or when they are used as an editorial comment ("Someone said something the writer thinks is bullshit."). I can even point a finger to a repeat offender. :)--ZooGuard (talk) 09:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Worth pointing out that there is absolutely nothing wrong with any of the above... in moderation. Also, stacked sidebars, >1 cquotes at the top of articles (or both cquote and hatnote, or or t'other, please), refs that are actually snarky footnotes, and refs that are just plain http links or reduced to plain numbers - stop doing that. Oh, and articles that are nothing but lists, and that require a full prior knowledge of the subject to understand. Case in point.(also this one, although at least this is just the first revision and it's got a lot better since) gnostic 13:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Adding another pet peeve: Articles that exist solely to document one moronic comment made by someone, somewhere, e.g. Pete DeGraaf or Lynn Forester de Rothschild before it was merged. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, yes, footnotes that look like a reference for a statement but are actually some kind of comment, making the claim look sourced without actually being so. And to add to Nebuchadnezzar's, articles that get hastily created as a reaction to a current event and then left to rot without follow-up or editing, resulting in outdated and/or poorly written article.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- When I was doing BlightyNet, I split footnotes and references into separate categories in MediaWiki. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 21:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Footnote comments were one of the charming features that attracted me to RW in the first place. When I want a dull grey po-faced style of writing and citing, I edit Wikipedia. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- When I was doing BlightyNet, I split footnotes and references into separate categories in MediaWiki.
- Oh, yes, footnotes that look like a reference for a statement but are actually some kind of comment, making the claim look sourced without actually being so. And to add to Nebuchadnezzar's, articles that get hastily created as a reaction to a current event and then left to rot without follow-up or editing, resulting in outdated and/or poorly written article.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Adding another pet peeve: Articles that exist solely to document one moronic comment made by someone, somewhere, e.g. Pete DeGraaf or Lynn Forester de Rothschild before it was merged. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Worth pointing out that there is absolutely nothing wrong with any of the above... in moderation. Also, stacked sidebars, >1 cquotes at the top of articles (or both cquote and hatnote, or or t'other, please), refs that are actually snarky footnotes, and refs that are just plain http links or reduced to plain numbers - stop doing that. Oh, and articles that are nothing but lists, and that require a full prior knowledge of the subject to understand. Case in point.(also this one, although at least this is just the first revision and it's got a lot better since)
Okay, which one of you is Randall? Vulpius (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Anybody else watch the movie Gravity?[edit]
I've just got to ask. I watched it this afternoon and it blew my freaking mind. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 09:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not here until November but eagerly waiting for it. Please, no spoilers! Ajkgordon (talk) 10:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Darth Vader is Luke's father. Kevin Spacey is Keyser Soze. Snape kills Dumbledore. The woman in The Crying Game is actually a dude. The missing little girl is one of the walkers in the barn. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 17:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 18:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn.
- The Bruce Willis character has been dead ever since the opening scenes. 68.116.195.252 (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, and the whole thing is a dream. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 18:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oh well, I there's no need to watch The Crying Game now. What movie does the missing girl bit come from? --PsyGremlinTal! 18:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I believe that would be the walking dead. The real spoiler in that one is that it is wank. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Don't forget -- Rosebud was his sled. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I believe that would be the walking dead. The real spoiler in that one is that it is wank. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oh well, I there's no need to watch The Crying Game now. What movie does the missing girl bit come from? --PsyGremlinTal! 18:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, and the whole thing is a dream. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 18:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Darth Vader is Luke's father. Kevin Spacey is Keyser Soze. Snape kills Dumbledore. The woman in The Crying Game is actually a dude. The missing little girl is one of the walkers in the barn. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
I thought it was pretty good, but the excessive hype was unwarranted. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm imagining the epilogue right now. "We just lost half a trillion in technology, the lives of four astronauts and the ability to launch space missions for a generation because you wanted to shoot down a fucking satellite?" Osaka Sun (talk) 04:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting order of priorities there, OS. Innocent Bystander (talk) 12:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Don't forget: something similar actually did happen! China blew apart a satellite with a missile only a few years ago, creating a big cloud of debris. It could have - but didn't - endangered other satellites or even missions.
- Check out a map of the orbital debris we track... it's terrifying.--
talk 12:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I saw it, and enjoyed it. But then again I'm a space nerd. It was interesting to finally see a space thriller that didn't involve an asteroid or aliens for a change. Plus, it was personally sort of strange seeing hardware that I personally helped build, getting digitally destroyed. --Inquisitor (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Blood Donation[edit]
I know we have the article on bloodletting. But I gave blood an hour ago and remember reading it can be useful to the body as a form of weight loss (or something). Is there any hard science on the effects of regular blood donation? (Two gallons given in my lifetime sofar) Zero (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- You mean besides very regularly = death, right? --PsyGremlinTal! 16:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- But of course. Eight weeks between donations. Zero (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- you lose about a pound for every pint you lose ;-) Your blood pressure may go down for a short time. The body produces fresh new blood so thats better than the old worn blood. Hamster (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- You get the warm inner glow from knowing that you have done your bit and saved a life, maybe. Innocent Bystander (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Up to three! But I always feel rather fresh once I'm done giving. A bit more spring in my step, I guess. Zero (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- None of us can give blood in France because we lived in the UK in the 80s and 90s. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I can't even give blood in the UK, too much time in the nasty tropics. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 19:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I can't give blood because I had Hodgkins (and thus, chemotherapy, I am not actually sure which of them means I can't donate). It took a surprising amount of work to get a definitive "No", nobody was willing to say "Yes" but they kept referring me until eventually an actual doctor was brought in and they said "No, of course not" which I suppose means it should have been obvious somehow.
- The former. There no way to guarantee that there aren't trace amounts of cancerous cells still in your blood stream or if you've suffered a relapse that hasn't become symptomatic yet. Compro01 (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I would actually wager that it is due to the large percentage of abnormal blood cells that are often a side effect of chemotherapy. Pinto's5150 Talk 06:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- The former. There no way to guarantee that there aren't trace amounts of cancerous cells still in your blood stream or if you've suffered a relapse that hasn't become symptomatic yet. Compro01 (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- My sister can't give any more because she kept fainting. I think she literally faints from lack of blood, presumably the amount of "spare" varies and she just doesn't have enough. Never was much of her, but I've seen smaller women give without any trouble. Tialaramex (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I can't give blood because I've been a filthy sodomite. My organs are apparently fine though - David Gerard (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I can't give blood because I had Hodgkins (and thus, chemotherapy, I am not actually sure which of them means I can't donate). It took a surprising amount of work to get a definitive "No", nobody was willing to say "Yes" but they kept referring me until eventually an actual doctor was brought in and they said "No, of course not" which I suppose means it should have been obvious somehow.
- I can't even give blood in the UK, too much time in the nasty tropics.
- None of us can give blood in France because we lived in the UK in the 80s and 90s. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Up to three! But I always feel rather fresh once I'm done giving. A bit more spring in my step, I guess. Zero (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- You get the warm inner glow from knowing that you have done your bit and saved a life, maybe. Innocent Bystander (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- you lose about a pound for every pint you lose ;-) Your blood pressure may go down for a short time. The body produces fresh new blood so thats better than the old worn blood. Hamster (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- But of course. Eight weeks between donations. Zero (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Of course it could be used for weight loss. Creating new blood isn't free. Supposedly the Red Cross claims that it takes about 650 calories to replace a unit of blood, though I can't find any direct source for that. Compro01 (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- That's not all that many; like one meal's worth. Doesn't sound like it could play much of a significant role in any sensible weight loss programme. WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 23:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Man...I eat twice that in cookies after donating.--199.189.231.196 (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- My doctor told me that donating a pint of blood burns 650-750 calories. Therefore, donating blood on a regular basis is the equivalent of a vigorous 60 minute workout for the day that you donated it. While this is does not mean you are assured to lose weight, it could be argued that the calorie burn does count for something in that department. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- That's not all that many; like one meal's worth. Doesn't sound like it could play much of a significant role in any sensible weight loss programme. Wėąṣėḷőįď
Double whammy[edit]
This week I had to travel to the other end of the country for a memorial service for an old friend's wife. She was diagnosed with breast cancer about a year after Mrs K had all her treatment for myeloma, and later she had a brain tumour. Lately she had been very weak and wasn't even well enough for more chemotherapy, so she was sent home and the doctor gave her some morphine to take in case the pain was too bad. The next morning she wouldn't wake so my friend called the emergency services and they advised him to put her in the recovery position until the ambulance arrived, shortly after, her heart stopped and although the paramedics managed to get it beating again she had been "dead" for at least 5 minutes. They took her to hospital but the doctor offered no hope for her because of the length of time without oxygen and she was taken off life-support and certified dead shortly afterwards. About 2 hours later my friend was arrested by the police on suspicion of murder, questioned and spent 5 hours in a cell before finally being released on bail. No wonder he's been stressed out for the past 2 weeks. 
ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 12:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Wait, he got arrested for murder for somebody with a brain tumor? This poorly reminds me of the whole fetal murder laws that had been floating around. Zero (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Fuck the police. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 13:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- She'd had the tumour removed/treated several years ago and following her breast cancer she'd already had a complete lymphectomy because it had spread to the lymph nodes; so she was certainly not a well woman at the end. They had attempted more chemo but they couldn't get a line into her veins. He's still on bail and won't know what's going to happen until the coroner's report next week. Mrs. K has expressed in no uncertain terms that she does not want any violent resuscitation and doesn't want any unnecessary prolongation of her own life so I wonder if I could end up in the same situation. Генгисmarauding 13:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm really sorry to hear about your friends, and I hope you wife is doing well; your original post made it sound like the cancer was a thing of the past. I am really hoping that in the next bunch of years, as it becomes more and more likely that I'm going to hit the end of the line, my government does something positive on the question of freedom to end one's life. But I doubt it very much. Fuck the police. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 13:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- The doctors will never say you are "cured" of cancer, it's always "in remission". My wife is exceedingly fortunate to have had an identical twin sister so that she could receive an unadulterated stem-cell transplant. Генгисmarauding 13:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- you can get a form from the hospital (in the US) that is a statement of your wishes about how far they go with life preserving acts. Be careful about Do Not Resusitate. Mine said DNR if there was not going to be a reasonable quality of life. It makes it clear your spouse (or whoever) didn't snuff you. Its doubtful that a murder charge could be supported although an overdose of painkillers would be a problem Hamster (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Khant, for statistical purposes you're often counted as "cured" if you live five years‡. But from a practical point of view it's not true that cures are just "remission" unless you'd also say that a headache was in remission, or an ear infection, or indeed a broken leg. For some cancers, when caught early enough, we have what amounts to a cure. We can take a patient who would die in a few months or years, treat them, and when we're done assure them that their risk is now normal for the population. Could they get cancer again? Yes, but so could anyone. They aren't more likely than anybody else to get cancer, and for all practical purposes that's a cure. This is true for some skin cancers for example and it was true for my Hodgkins.
- ‡ NB This means 100% isn't achievable, even for an itchy nose you wouldn't hit 100% on this basis, because of that one guy who gets hit by a truck the week after diagnosis. Sure, we know intuitively that the truck accident was unrelated, but the statistics can't show that or it'd screw up in other ways. If you tell the average old school surgeon that he's got stage IV small cell lung cancer he won't die of it - he knows it's going to be a protracted painful experience, so he'll sidestep that, maybe use pills or a self-inflicted gunshot while he's still got the choice. So, the statistics always show how many people died within a certain period after diagnosis and ignore the "cause" of death. 92.30.33.40 (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed. My wife had an early diagnosis of skin caner a few years ago and was treated as an outpatient. She needs to be more careful about the sun but for all intents and purposes she is "cured".--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- you can get a form from the hospital (in the US) that is a statement of your wishes about how far they go with life preserving acts. Be careful about Do Not Resusitate. Mine said DNR if there was not going to be a reasonable quality of life. It makes it clear your spouse (or whoever) didn't snuff you. Its doubtful that a murder charge could be supported although an overdose of painkillers would be a problem Hamster (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- The doctors will never say you are "cured" of cancer, it's always "in remission". My wife is exceedingly fortunate to have had an identical twin sister so that she could receive an unadulterated stem-cell transplant.
- I'm really sorry to hear about your friends, and I hope you wife is doing well; your original post made it sound like the cancer was a thing of the past. I am really hoping that in the next bunch of years, as it becomes more and more likely that I'm going to hit the end of the line, my government does something positive on the question of freedom to end one's life. But I doubt it very much. Fuck the police. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
- She'd had the tumour removed/treated several years ago and following her breast cancer she'd already had a complete lymphectomy because it had spread to the lymph nodes; so she was certainly not a well woman at the end. They had attempted more chemo but they couldn't get a line into her veins. He's still on bail and won't know what's going to happen until the coroner's report next week. Mrs. K has expressed in no uncertain terms that she does not want any violent resuscitation and doesn't want any unnecessary prolongation of her own life so I wonder if I could end up in the same situation.
- Fuck the police. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
Now's the time to panic and look out the window at Russia.....[edit]
Be afraid. Be very afraid. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 18:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Not even close. I'm so ready to jump for joy. Her return insures a 2014/16 Democratic victory. Zero (talk) 18:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- "She is the most important endorsement in Republican politics today, by far," - which sums up everything that is wrong with the GOP today. In any sane country, Palin's endorsement would be the kiss of death for a campaign. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 18:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Palin won't make a serious run for office, but she will, like Trump and that pizza guy who banged all his secretaries and couldn't remember what Uzbekistan was, use the campaign for higher office as a vehicle to increase her personal brand awareness and sell more books. And the fact that one can do that, my friends, is for me one of the biggest signs pointing to a thoroughly broken political culture. Also, this:" Palin's standing as a serious political figure, already tenuous, has seemingly been in decline ever since she decided not to run for president and saw conservatives sidelined as Mitt Romney captured the Republican nomination, only to lose to President Barack Obama." If the Romney-Ryan ticket was one that "sidelined conservatives," there is a severe gap between my understanding of the word "conservative" and CNN's. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 18:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Palin won't make a serious run for office, but she will, like Trump and that pizza guy who banged all his secretaries and couldn't remember what Uzbekistan was, use the campaign for higher office as a vehicle to increase her personal brand awareness and sell more books. And the fact that one can do that, my friends, is for me one of the biggest signs pointing to a thoroughly broken political culture. Also, this:" Palin's standing as a serious political figure, already tenuous, has seemingly been in decline ever since she decided not to run for president and saw conservatives sidelined as Mitt Romney captured the Republican nomination, only to lose to President Barack Obama." If the Romney-Ryan ticket was one that "sidelined conservatives," there is a severe gap between my understanding of the word "conservative" and CNN's. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
- "She is the most important endorsement in Republican politics today, by far," - which sums up everything that is wrong with the GOP today. In any sane country, Palin's endorsement would be the kiss of death for a campaign. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 18:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
If you had to make a final stand.....[edit]
What song would you blare out of your speakers?--The Madman (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)The Madman
- "Rip It Up" by Little Richard. Yeah, I'm old... Doctor Dark (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I need a bit more information. What are the chances of surviving? Are you going into a fight of some sort, or just jumping off a cliff or something? Why Weepest Thou? (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Prancing Dad. Zero (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Disc Wars - Daft Punk, Tron Legacy soundtrack... Makes taking out the garbage epic Danoso (talk) 23:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
- Mars, The Bringer of War by Gustav Holst. Barring that, When The Levee Breaks by Led Zeppelin.--199.189.231.196 (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, I decided that, since it's too hard to pick a song, I would just write one. And so I wrote a 40 minute long progressive-alternative-funeral-death-power-thrash doom metal song, with neoclassical elements and influences from punk and blues. It was epic. I called it "The Last Stand of The Madman". Why Weepest Thou? (talk) 09:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- Probably Professional Griefers by deadmau5, or Vindicate by Excision & Datsik. Or maybe Mississippi Queen. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 04:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Steve Earl - Copperhead Road. Them thar's fightin' music. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 16:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- On the assumption that I am making my final stand during the Zombie Apocalypse, I would go down singing the chorus to this. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 16:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- On the assumption that I am making my final stand during the Zombie Apocalypse, I would go down singing the chorus to this. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
- Steve Earl - Copperhead Road. Them thar's fightin' music. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 16:36, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Der Ring des Nibelungen. I intend to make a hell of a last stand.--talk 12:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- 'baby' - Justin beiber. I don't need to pretend I am some kind of badass. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Lol. Just lost my shit. Why Weepest Thou? (talk) 10:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- 'baby' - Justin beiber. I don't need to pretend I am some kind of badass. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Rationalwiki Reform Society - New Strategy[edit]
Many months have passed since the leader and founder of the reform society was elected as a member of the moderati, despite an active campaign against him by the existing power structure. MarcusCicero, once the President of the separatist organisation RRN (Rationalwiki Resistance Network) thus became an advocate for peaceful revolutionary change. Having disbanded the RRN he devoted himself to provoking dialogue and a campaign of civil disobedience against the regime. Along the way he has faced ridicule and loathing, but he continues to fight the good fight for freedom and justice.
The Rationalwiki Reform Society is now actively seeking members of the Moderati to switch their allegiance from the fascist faction to the reform faction, as led by Cicero. We are seeking candidates to run under the reform banner in the impending elections. All candidates will be thoroughly vetted and approved by our sophisticated electoral advisory team.
The Rationalwiki Reform Society exists in order to promote freedom, dialogue and liberty amongst all Rationalwikians.
MARCUSCICERO
- I've received many interested mails thus far, I will keep you apprised of further developments. MARCUSCICERO
cool story, bro. --Revolverman (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Shouldn't you be helping to look after the baby? Steven Kavanagh (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Occassionaluse, MarcusCicero and his rants are back! Now, rejoice. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 03:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- The RationalWiki Reform Society is still around??? Or is it still around in the same sense that the Reform Party is still around? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh hai there. I see you're one of the inferior working class getting all uppity. Get back to editing, PEASANT!--The Madman (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)The Madman
Corporate abuse of the (only?) free encyclopedia[edit]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-10-09/News_and_notes
Comments? -Brenden (talk) 06:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- If this is news to you, you're an idiot. -- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 06:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I had no idea this was so extensive, although I knew that it was certainly happening on many individual pages, and that many corporations had people who had wiki-whitewashing as part of their job.--talk 12:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Doing career research, I've noticed many less-prominent firms' articles are straight copy-pastes of their website's "about" pages.
Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, but I was shocked at the extent. Oh well, I suppose I'll be going back to ignoring corporate pages. 172.218.56.70 (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC) (Brenden, not logged in)
- Doing career research, I've noticed many less-prominent firms' articles are straight copy-pastes of their website's "about" pages.
OH MY GOD IT'S FULL OF HUMOR! That was what I said upon seeing the sockpuppet. Then I realized what I was talking about.--The Madman (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)The Madman
Let the voting for MadmanJohnson's Cunt of The Year Award begin![edit]
This award is for the idiot that pisses off the voterbase more than the rest! The cunt of the cunts! The asses of the asses! So let the voting begin 3 days before that the evilest of all holidays! Vote for your least favorite!
- Assfly
- Louie Gohmert
- Any of the sysops.
- Cierco
- Richard Nixon
- Pat Robertson
- The Madman
- Madman Johnson
--The Madman (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)The Madman
- Let's not & say we did. ωεαşεζøίɗMethinks it is a Weasel 15:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's easy to see that Marcus is back.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 17:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Fuck Jared Diamond[edit]
We need to have a funspace article on these kinds of journal articles. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- What's your problem with the article? Which arguments do you have a hard time with? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 22:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- What's wrong with the JARED DIAMOND — Unsigned, by: 174.95.168.162 / talk / contribs
- Was that supposed to be English, what you just wrote? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- I has read jared diamond book, what is wrong with him — Unsigned, by: 174.95.168.162 / talk / contribs
- Apparently you didn't bother to read the linked article. I did, a bit, and I don't care what the author thinks is wrong with him. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- i agree, there is nothing wrong with the jared diamond, this articles are crapp174.95.168.162 (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- The first page of the given article sparked no desire to pay thirty-seven dollars read the rest, which appears to be a typical grievance-building exercise from the world of identity politics. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, it struck me as stereotypical of "______ Studies" political correctness, with the obligatory citations to Marx and such. Still, I've found that Diamond's books have serious errors in things that I know about professionally, so I wonder about the credibility of the rest. Doctor Dark (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- The first page of the given article sparked no desire to pay thirty-seven dollars read the rest, which appears to be a typical grievance-building exercise from the world of identity politics. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- i agree, there is nothing wrong with the jared diamond, this articles are crapp174.95.168.162 (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Apparently you didn't bother to read the linked article. I did, a bit, and I don't care what the author thinks is wrong with him. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- I has read jared diamond book, what is wrong with him — Unsigned, by: 174.95.168.162 / talk / contribs
- Was that supposed to be English, what you just wrote? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- What's wrong with the JARED DIAMOND — Unsigned, by: 174.95.168.162 / talk / contribs
- I have a PDF of the article if you want to e-mail me for it. It's not an exercise in identity politics at all; it's a critique of environmental/geographic determinism, and Diamond's inability to account for power, human agency and choice. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 15:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- What's funny when people accuse this kind of criticism of being "Marxist" is that Diamond's theoretical methods are decidedly Marxist themselves. I don't see much different from Marx's materialist history and Diamond's brand of geographic determinism, both are reductionist (without being overly greedy IMHO) and deterministic. On the other hand I don't see why some on the left have such problems with Diamond's thinking; accounting for the existence of oppressive systems doesn't always have to come up with the answer, "they're a bunch of evil capitalist pigs." --Marlow (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Everything Diamond does is motivated by an environmental determinism that takes the physical environment, including the climate, to be a determinant on human society." You don't say! I find it mildly amusing that anybody can work themselves into such a lather of egalitarian dudgeon that they find this a telling blow against the hypotheses of Guns, Germs, and Steel, rather than a truth almost too trivial to point out. It is another example of the human exceptionalism that underlies left-creationism. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- I just found it hilarious that an article with a title like that would get published. And we thought "The Theory of Interstellar Trade" was something. Osaka Sun (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- What's funny when people accuse this kind of criticism of being "Marxist" is that Diamond's theoretical methods are decidedly Marxist themselves. I don't see much different from Marx's materialist history and Diamond's brand of geographic determinism, both are reductionist (without being overly greedy IMHO) and deterministic. On the other hand I don't see why some on the left have such problems with Diamond's thinking; accounting for the existence of oppressive systems doesn't always have to come up with the answer, "they're a bunch of evil capitalist pigs." --Marlow (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
This article is based on marxist ideology, not any rational argument. These are the same kind of politically correct woman/negro/mestizo/whatever studies people who like to "critique" evo-psych and it's painfully obvious it's from their ideology.70.29.27.161 (talk) 16:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- "politically correct woman/negro/mestizo/whatever studies people who like to "critique" evo-psych" And this is when people stop taking you seriously. Osaka Sun (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- this is really just bullshit identity politics70.29.27.161 (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- So is your face. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 12:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- So is your face. Wëäŝëïöïď
- this is really just bullshit identity politics70.29.27.161 (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
- Which only goes to show that gene expression is dependent on the environment. We are all ugly in an ugly world. (Although in the kingdom of the blind.. etc etc..) 24.253.64.178 (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Is it worth buying…[edit]
Dream Theater's new album? I wanna check it out, but I'm not sure if its worth it. Also, does anyone happen to have the tab for any Mournful Congregation songs anywhere? I can find Slow March and Epitome, but that's about it. Why Weepest Thou? (talk) 10:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Lol, why are you asking here? I don't think it likely that many here will have checked either of these out. You should try metalstorm.net or something. Nullahnung (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, good point. I just was here and I thought "Meh, why not?". But yeah, I'll check out some other places. But if anyone here does happen to know the answer to either of those, feel free to tell me. Why Weepest Thou? (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- One of my sibling's sprogs is an organiser for the Dream Theatre fan-club in the UK. When they got married the tables were all identified by Dream Theatre album titles. I'm sure they would say "buy it". ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 13:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- You'd be surprised at the vast musical tastes of the userbase here. Considering the several Dream Theater albums I have listened to, I find it hard to believe the newest album would be any better/worse than the rest. Aboriginal Noise Theist, barely hanging by a nail 15:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Get a Liquid Tension Experiment album instead. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- You'd be surprised at the vast musical tastes of the userbase here. Considering the several Dream Theater albums I have listened to, I find it hard to believe the newest album would be any better/worse than the rest. Aboriginal Noise Theist, barely hanging by a nail 15:48, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- One of my sibling's sprogs is an organiser for the Dream Theatre fan-club in the UK. When they got married the tables were all identified by Dream Theatre album titles. I'm sure they would say "buy it".
- Hmm, good point. I just was here and I thought "Meh, why not?". But yeah, I'll check out some other places. But if anyone here does happen to know the answer to either of those, feel free to tell me. Why Weepest Thou? (talk) 12:00, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
250m Americans Infected[edit]
Anybody see this garbage? Zero (talk) 11:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- It took more time to get to the point than I was willing to give it. If "heart attacks" jumped from 10% to 30% from 1900 to 1950, I'd blame stuff like smallpox, yellow fever, and tuberculosis for slacking. The responsible outfit pushes green coffee bean extracts and similar nostrums.
- Those who died of heart disease, died of old age. Those who died of cancer, died of old age. Etcetera. Nature never really intended for anyone to live much past 50; menopause makes you invisible to natural selection. Public-health moralisms that blame people, telling people that they caught the degenerative diseases of old age by Not Living Right, are a public nuisance and no way to treat your neighbors. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Nature never really intended... - Nature doesn't intend anything. However, if you're saying that we're not naturally selected for longevity then, well, most of us make it over fifty by quite a long way. Those that take a certain number of precautions - nature never intended us to inhale carcinogenic fumes, for example, or nature never intended us to live on a high fat diet whilst maintaining a low exercise lifestyle - do tend to live a trifle longer and avoid burdening the NHS. Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well I have so far avoided a diet of whisky, cigarettes, and a full English breakfast, so I expect to spend my last 20 years suffering from senile dementia in an old people's institution (fully funded by the NHS).
- 24.253.64.178 (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- The entire public-healthist belief system is an attack on charity. It tells people suffering from old age that their suffering is All Your Fault. It invites people who pay taxes for their care to resent and blame them. But I suppose that's a small price to pay to give other people the opportunity to gloat smugly over their dull and sober habits. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- It benefits the survival likelihood of the community, into which older people have presumably passed on some of their genes, to have some post-reproduction age people around to impart knowledge and wisdom and to fill roles like judges, leaders, and babysitters. Weorthe (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- "judges, leaders, ... babysitters" and gossips. One function of a mother-in-law is telling her son whether his mate has been fooling around with other males during his absence. They're partly MIL's genes too, you know. A case could be made that keeping up a steady chatter is adaptive in a social group, with info being spread around in a more or less timely fashion. Some anthropologist could make a career quantifying the signal to noise ratio of garrulous old sorts. Alec Sanderson (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Nature never really intended... - Nature doesn't intend anything. However, if you're saying that we're not naturally selected for longevity then, well, most of us make it over fifty by quite a long way. Those that take a certain number of precautions - nature never intended us to inhale carcinogenic fumes, for example, or nature never intended us to live on a high fat diet whilst maintaining a low exercise lifestyle - do tend to live a trifle longer and avoid burdening the NHS. Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Without gossip there would be no shame, and no morality, heh. Weorthe (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- I thought that was the function of the mother. The main advice from the MIL is saying 'doesn't he look just like his father despite the black skin' 24.253.64.178 (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Widen your view, and you'll see than one man's mother is another woman's mother-in-law. Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- I thought that was the function of the mother. The main advice from the MIL is saying 'doesn't he look just like his father despite the black skin' 24.253.64.178 (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Without gossip there would be no shame, and no morality, heh. Weorthe (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
250m Americans Infected or How I love being stupid[edit]
Censorship rules ok. 24.253.64.178 (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Stupidity and censorship walk hand in hand. I often think in the wee small hours of the morning, which drives which. Which maybe explains why you have banned me again. --24.253.64.178 (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Roma families and blonde children[edit]
Anyone been following this story? The couple in Greece have now been charged with abduction which might well be the case, given that they've changed their story after the DNA test & made assorted false reports about their children. Nevertheless, the racist undertones of the coverage are disturbing (repeatedly referring to "a blonde child", pale skin, blue eyes, etc. to remind us how suspicious it is for gypsy folk to be seen with fair-haired/skinned children), as are the unrelated follow-on cases in Ireland: blonde girl taken by Police from a Roma couple in Dublin, child taken from a couple in County Antrim & returned the next day, and now it turns out the Dublin child is actually related to her Roma parents after all. The whole thing reminds me somewhat of the case in USA early this year when a mixed-race family aroused suspicions at WalMart because of father and daughters being different colours. It also draws on age-old canards about dirty gypsies stealing children from honest white families. WėąṣėḷőįďMethinks it is a Weasel 21:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- When it turns out that this child actually was stolen from a normal family, all your PC bullshit will look really silly. Look, normally I'm a little reticent about things like this, but there is no chance in hell that the girl is a blood relation of that Roma family. Its not racism, its genetics. If my girlfriend popped out a mixed race baby I would understandably have some 'questions' to ask, it wouldn't make me racist! P.S - of all the communities in the world, Roma gypsies make me question my liberalism above all else. Their values are almost fundamentally different to practically every other ethnic group in Europe. Marcus Cicero SPQR
21:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I wonder what my Roma friend on Answerbag thinks of it. Yeah, it's genetics, but it's also an excuse for the nazi shitheads to pick on innocent Roma.
Talk to Civic Cat 21:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Which is a completely different problem. You cannot excuse what are self evidently bad traits within the Roma community just because they're exploited by far right groups. Frankly, the European Roma community needs to evolve and change itself AND integrate more, thats never going to happen so long as people make excuses for them. It is a big problem. Criminality is inherent in most Roma communities, its part of their culture. What I really hate is when people make excuses for it. And yes, I know I look like the bad guy, but facing uncomfortable facts is a big part of maturity. Marcus Cicero SPQR 22:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- If your girlfriend popped out a mixed-race baby, I too would have some questions to ask, the first of which would be "how the hell did Marcus get a girlfriend?" PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 22:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I suspect it would be about 250 an hour. --Revolverman (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've never had problems getting punanny. My unique brand of mischievous charm merged with poetic sensitivity has always made me a sterling and utterly viable candidate. Marcus Cicero SPQR 22:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Cool Story, Bro. --Revolverman (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- [an] utterly viable candidate. This is how you describe horse breeding, not dating. A question, MC: when you meet someone new, do they ask to check your teeth first? Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 15:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- [an] utterly viable candidate. This is how you describe horse breeding, not dating. A question, MC: when you meet someone new, do they ask to check your teeth first?
- Cool Story, Bro. --Revolverman (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've never had problems getting punanny. My unique brand of mischievous charm merged with poetic sensitivity has always made me a sterling and utterly viable candidate. Marcus Cicero SPQR
- I suspect it would be about 250 an hour. --Revolverman (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- If your girlfriend popped out a mixed-race baby, I too would have some questions to ask, the first of which would be "how the hell did Marcus get a girlfriend?" PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
- Which is a completely different problem. You cannot excuse what are self evidently bad traits within the Roma community just because they're exploited by far right groups. Frankly, the European Roma community needs to evolve and change itself AND integrate more, thats never going to happen so long as people make excuses for them. It is a big problem. Criminality is inherent in most Roma communities, its part of their culture. What I really hate is when people make excuses for it. And yes, I know I look like the bad guy, but facing uncomfortable facts is a big part of maturity. Marcus Cicero SPQR
- "Their values are almost fundamentally different to practically every other ethnic group in Europe." I feel I'm living in the early 20th century again. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- I wonder what my Roma friend on Answerbag thinks of it. Yeah, it's genetics, but it's also an excuse for the nazi shitheads to pick on innocent Roma.
Here's Arisztid's profile on Fluther. Here's an answer to a question I just pulled from Google. Even Conservapedia's article on Roma is more enlightened and tolerant. Marcus, why don't you edit the Roma article? Share your wisdom and sourcing.Talk to Civic Cat 23:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why do all these horror movies have gypsies cursing people?Are Gypsies really like this or is it just stereotyping?.Talk to Civic Cat 23:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
- There's a lot of mixed ideas and terminology here. The Roma are now largely confined to Eastern Europe and while there are some Roma in Ireland and the UK they are distinct from the Irish traveller community. The Roma themselves evidently originated from India and have a lot of mysticism within their culture, so that's where the fortune-telling and cursing comes from. The traveller community who have reclaimed the "gypsy" tag--something that was declared non-PC--are largely Catholic and certainly engage in a lot of unhealthy behaviour because of lack of education and adherence to an idiosyncratic culture. The average lifespan of a gypsy in the UK is more than 10 years less than the rest of the country. The travelling lifestyle of course doesn't help with education as the kids are moved from school to school although many travellers have now moved into fixed caravans. A lot of my information about the travellers comes from my sister who teaches traveller kids in a Catholic school and a nurse-friend who was awarded an MBE for services to the traveller community over 30 years and was involved with some of the Channel 4 Big Fat Gypsy documentaries. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 08:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- Less of the "largely confined to Eastern Europe" if you don't mind. There are a lot of Roma in Spain. As the WP article states - without self identification it can be hard to tell where the Roma end and the Spanish begin in the south of Spain.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 08:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- There's a lot of mixed ideas and terminology here. The Roma are now largely confined to Eastern Europe and while there are some Roma in Ireland and the UK they are distinct from the Irish traveller community. The Roma themselves evidently originated from India and have a lot of mysticism within their culture, so that's where the fortune-telling and cursing comes from. The traveller community who have reclaimed the "gypsy" tag--something that was declared non-PC--are largely Catholic and certainly engage in a lot of unhealthy behaviour because of lack of education and adherence to an idiosyncratic culture. The average lifespan of a gypsy in the UK is more than 10 years less than the rest of the country. The travelling lifestyle of course doesn't help with education as the kids are moved from school to school although many travellers have now moved into fixed caravans. A lot of my information about the travellers comes from my sister who teaches traveller kids in a Catholic school and a nurse-friend who was awarded an MBE for services to the traveller community over 30 years and was involved with some of the Channel 4 Big Fat Gypsy documentaries.
- Why do all these horror movies have gypsies cursing people?Are Gypsies really like this or is it just stereotyping?.
Can someone explain to an ignorant USAian what the basic situation is with gypsies in Europe? A couple Italian friends were independently robbed last summer and the good liberal in me was taken aback by what they had to say about gypsies afterwards. My impression is they're a fairly poor and unintegrated group who commit a disproportionate amount of crime (as a statistic, I don't mean to suggest that this is a consequence of culture rather than poverty). Is this much accurate at least? I gather conservatives want to expel/prosecute/whatever the gypsies to deal with this -- what's the liberal approach? Try to integrate them, try to help as much as possible without changing the way of life, or just let them be? --MarkGall (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- there does not appear to be any official 'liberal' approach. Its all about moving them on or preventing them appearing in your neck of the woods it seems. Their itinerant lifestyle makes it difficult to effect any integration or help that doesn't fundamentally change that lifestyle. It is of note many Irish travellers these days tend to live fixed caravans rather than travelling, but the recent dale farm debacle does not prevent them being moved on, and nor has it prevented any of the discrimination. I do not know if this is in anyway similar to the Roma on the continent. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know if gypsies (Roma, Irish travellers, etc) commit any more crime than any other ethnic group but certainly anecdotal evidence has convinced many people that they do. But it's not just perceived criminality that make people want to move them on. It's also some gypsy groups' habit of making camp on private or publicly used land. Station car parks, roadside picnic areas, land plots and so on. Many local authorities have taken to building permanent camp sites for them to alleviate this problem and there is evidence to suggest that they do become more integrated as a result - their children go to the local schools for longer periods, people marry outside the gypsy community, and so on.
- What many people, like Marcus above, do is to generalise negatively about gypsies and then judge the individual based on that. I think that's commonly called racism, isn't it? Ajkgordon (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- looking through this happy list makes MC's 'telling it like it is' sentiment particularly abhorrent. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Europe" is a big complicated place. Roma certainly represent a disproportionate percentage of the population of Spanish prisons. Of course there may be many social explanations fort this.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 16:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- "I don't know if gypsies (Roma, Irish travellers, etc) commit any more crime than any other ethnic group..." You know what group does get accused of/arrested for/convicted of crime more often than other groups? Poor people. The Roma are an ethnic group, but they're laso largely members of a class group that is at the losing end of things. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 17:27, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- "I don't know if gypsies (Roma, Irish travellers, etc) commit any more crime than any other ethnic group..." You know what group does get accused of/arrested for/convicted of crime more often than other groups? Poor people. The Roma are an ethnic group, but they're laso largely members of a class group that is at the losing end of things. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
- "Europe" is a big complicated place. Roma certainly represent a disproportionate percentage of the population of Spanish prisons. Of course there may be many social explanations fort this.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 16:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- looking through this happy list makes MC's 'telling it like it is' sentiment particularly abhorrent. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
This just in[edit]
Marcus Cicero is a dumbass--"Shut up, Brx." 14:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- That news came in about five years ago, I think. There's good reason he prefers to interact with trolling: aside from the narrow topics of Edmund Burke and historical Irish nationalism, he's laughably ignorant and has the critical thinking skills of a mushy apple.--talk 21:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd prefer not to be grouped with him.Us trolls have a sense of honor and finely-honed intellect unlike our friend.--The Madman (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)The Madman
- I am yet to witness any troll displaying either of the traits you mention. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Baby McWicked[edit]
RationalWiki: The Next Generation has a new member. Send Ace congrats, champers, cigars, goat pilaf. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 08:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Was going to make a post here about this myself but less about my own spawn and more about public healthcare and the sheer insanity of the US system as it currently stands. We have received top-notch health care - all government funded. I have posted here before about how the public health system provided for my mother before she died but this, again, shows how a public system operates efficiently and professionally. Everything is provided for and nothing costs a cent. Top notch doctors, a private delivery suite, post-natal care (baby was 5 weeks early), kind and knowledgeable midwifes, drugs, on-going care, community nurses that visit, home visits that is, new mums to see how things are going in the weeks following birth, free classes regarding correct breast feeding techniques, nappy changing - you name it, it is there. A full support network from conception through to kindergarten. All free and better than the US system. I cannot get my head around why any other country would want it any other way and fight so strongly against it. Oh yeah and when putting my babies name into a phone the auto-correct changes it to Ace. Perfect. Acei9 08:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Alice? ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 09:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I wondered when Baby Ace was going to arrive. Congrats! Baby Damo (AKA Susannah) is 6 and a half weeks old, having been born on 11 September. I would reiterate everything you say about the healthcare at all stages of the process. Fucking brilliant, and I don't know how we would have survived without it. --DamoHi 09:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats to you too Damo.
- If we were poor in the US without health insurance both my wife and child would be in a very serious situation indeed with the possibility of both dying being a real concern. Unless I got myself into debt up to my eyeballs of course. Acei9 09:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats, and good timing, my granddaughter was born four weeks ago. It seems to be kids all round.--
Jabba de Chops 10:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Excellent, many congrats! All our three were born in France with pre- and post-natal care in the UK. Perfect service all round. Completely free with almost minimal paperwork. Like Papa Ace says, why a country would resist it so much is beyond reason. Ideology, I reckon. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ideology, I reckon. Quite right. But I couldn't express the point more strenuously - the healthcare system enjoyed by myself, Damo, and AJK makes perfect sense and is of great benefit to all concerned. USA - get your shit together. Acei9 11:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, but we're all communists. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I miss RobSmith posting here, The good ol' days...Acei9 11:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- So, where are the pickies? In the modern world where everyone has a camera in their phone I can't believe you haven't got the most adorable shots to share with us. Innocent Bystander (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- There is a point where online pseudonym hits the real life boundary. Acei9 11:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Innocent Bystander (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- And that boundary is the book that bears my face? Генгисmarauding 12:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- a picture is unnecessary because, as my uncle often points out, all babies look like Winston Churchill AMassiveGay (talk) 12:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- And that boundary is the book that bears my face?
- Fair enough. Innocent Bystander (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- There is a point where online pseudonym hits the real life boundary. Acei9 11:58, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- I miss RobSmith posting here, The good ol' days...Acei9 11:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, but we're all communists. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ideology, I reckon. Quite right. But I couldn't express the point more strenuously - the healthcare system enjoyed by myself, Damo, and AJK makes perfect sense and is of great benefit to all concerned. USA - get your shit together. Acei9 11:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations!--talk 12:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats, Ace. May you raise her with creationist values so that she turns out right!
talk 12:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats, Ace. May you raise her with creationist values so that she turns out right!
- Excellent, many congrats! All our three were born in France with pre- and post-natal care in the UK. Perfect service all round. Completely free with almost minimal paperwork. Like Papa Ace says, why a country would resist it so much is beyond reason. Ideology, I reckon. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats, and good timing, my granddaughter was born four weeks ago. It seems to be kids all round.--
- I wondered when Baby Ace was going to arrive. Congrats! Baby Damo (AKA Susannah) is 6 and a half weeks old, having been born on 11 September. I would reiterate everything you say about the healthcare at all stages of the process. Fucking brilliant, and I don't know how we would have survived without it. --DamoHi 09:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Alice?
YAY ACE!!! Way to go. send my congrats to the lovely Mrs. McWicked as well! PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 13:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Congratulations to Ace, wife & baby, from this weasel. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 17:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats to you Ace, and of course Mrs Ace and Ace 2.0! Trilobites in aspic all round! SophieWilder 17:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Won't someone think of the poor hapless trilobites? On a lighter note, plenty of gin and cigarettes from an early age keeps them small and easily buffaloed. Oh, the fun you'll have... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Congrats to you Ace, and of course Mrs Ace and Ace 2.0! Trilobites in aspic all round! SophieWilder
Control the crotchspawn, will ya?--The Madman (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)The Madman
Best wishes for the new girl! Charlene Darwinia McWicked? --larron (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- best wishes Ace, the real fun starts in about 4 years when she notices boys.
I nominate PJR for godfather. Hamster (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Not such a perfect day[edit]
My poor elderly kitty gave me a scare today when she collapsed and seemed to be in really serious pain in one of her back legs. One expensive trip to the out-of-hours vet and she seems like she's ok now, but I get home and apparently Lou Reed has died. Sigh. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 19:07, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry about your cat, but I have to ask, after seeing all sorts of references today, what was so great about Lou Reed? DickTurpis (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- He was one of the founders of wp:The Velvet Underground, a highly influential band in the late 60s and was also a big influence in experimental rock in his solo career. Compro01 (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I know, but the question is did he actually make any really good music? DickTurpis (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. Yes he did. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 02:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- So I hear. Anything in particular? I mean, there's the quintessential "Walk on the Wild Side" but that hardly musters up any strong feelings in my loins. I know "All Tomorrow's Parties", mostly by the Nick Cave cover, which actually seems better than the original. What's a good example of what makes Lou Reed this epic figure, and not just some guy who wrote some decent tunes? DickTurpis (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Solo Reed I've always liked The Last Shot and Rock and Roll Heart. Velvet Underground faves include White Light/White Heat and Rock and Roll. Plus probably my most listened track Oh Sweet Nuthin'. Because I'm self-indulgent like that. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 06:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Giving those a listen, it seems to confirm what I suspected all along: I'm simply not a Lou Reed/Velvet Underground fan, and while I can see why people may like them, I'm a bit mystified that they're held in such high esteem by so many. I admit I do like the song Perfect Day, however. DickTurpis (talk) 12:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Solo Reed I've always liked The Last Shot and Rock and Roll Heart. Velvet Underground faves include White Light/White Heat and Rock and Roll. Plus probably my most listened track Oh Sweet Nuthin'. Because I'm self-indulgent like that. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 06:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- So I hear. Anything in particular? I mean, there's the quintessential "Walk on the Wild Side" but that hardly musters up any strong feelings in my loins. I know "All Tomorrow's Parties", mostly by the Nick Cave cover, which actually seems better than the original. What's a good example of what makes Lou Reed this epic figure, and not just some guy who wrote some decent tunes? DickTurpis (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. Yes he did. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
- Yeah, I know, but the question is did he actually make any really good music? DickTurpis (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- He was one of the founders of wp:The Velvet Underground, a highly influential band in the late 60s and was also a big influence in experimental rock in his solo career. Compro01 (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
The Hindenburg disaster[edit]
What caused the disaster is an intermittently discussed topic (including 'it #is# rocket science/fuel/the dope that did it' and St Elmo's fire). Anyone care to do more than a cut-and-paste-from-WP entry? 171.33.222.26 (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Only for the metaphorical value of a big bag of gas that went down in flames. Doctor Dark (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Rush Limbaugh? Генгисevolving 20:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why should we have an article? Apparently there's a conspiracy theory (but there's one about every bloody thing these days) but nothing else RW-ish. We don't really do historical mysteries. See, for example. Talk:Richard III. SophieWilder 21:05, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why should we have an article? Apparently there's a conspiracy theory (but there's one about every bloody thing these days) but nothing else RW-ish. We don't really do historical mysteries. See, for example. Talk:Richard III. SophieWilder
- Rush Limbaugh?
What caused it is quite simple. Hydrogen is quite flammable, especially when combined with oxygen. The Hindenburg just had the unfortunate job of being a vehicle fueled by hydrogen. Plain and simple.Yes, I know this is quite brief but I think it does the job.--The Madman (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)The Madman
- That's what let the whole thing burn so vigorously (note: the Hindenberg used hydrogen to generate lift and diesel to power its engines), but that doesn't answer the question, "what started the fire?". Especially since there were plenty of other hydrogen-filled airships that didn't burn. Perhaps best known is the Graf Zeppelin, which made 590 flights over nine years. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Especially since there were plenty of other hydrogen-filled airships that didn't burn" Yeah, and there were plenty of other oil tankers that didn't spill like the Exxon Valdez. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Which is why we don't say that the mere presence of oil in a tanker is enough to generate a major oil spill. Rather, an oil spill has some proximate cause, such as the tanker striking a reef. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- We'll probably never know the cause for certain. But plenty of other airships went to fiery deaths before the Hindenberg (says Wikipedia). Doctor Dark (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- The use of hydrogen as a lifting gas is a necessary condition for a a major airship fire, but on its own is not sufficient (as hydrogen is not hypergolic with air, and there would have to be a leak or other trigger even then). Things like lightning strikes, electric discharges, or arson are each sufficient to explain a fire in a hydrogen airship, but without specific information relating to the circumstances of a particular fire, one can't justifiably claim that one of those necessarily took place. Since sufficient information isn't available for the Hindenburg fire, the cause is fodder for discussion and debate, but saying that it was caused by hydrogen adds no information to the discussion because it is obvious to everyone that the hydrogen burned and that something out of the ordinary caused the hydrogen to burn (it is equivalent to saying that buildings caused the Great Chicago Fire). It is this misinterpretation of "cause" that I was objecting to, because it doesn't do the job requested. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Last week I was driving down the motorway and passed a Range Rover and trailer on the hard shoulder that were burning merrily away. I'm pretty sure that the intensity of the fire was due to the 100 litres of inflammable hydrocarbons in its fuel tank. I have a friend who has had three Range Rovers and not one of them has caught fire. I see Range Rovers carrying similar amounts of fuel around Britain's roads and have never seen another one on fire. Was this one fire caused by someone with a grudge? Perhaps one of the occupants was a Muslim and the MI5 had conducted a dirty tricks operation. Or there's a very remote chance that could it have been faulty wiring: or a fuel line leaking onto a hot exhaust. I think Occam's Razor applies here and I can dismiss the vehicle fault to conclude that it was definitely the work of a MI5 hit squad. Of course the government will cover this up nobody will ever know the truth. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 11:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Almost all modern fatal accidents have a great number of causes, some proximate and others less so. This week's railway accident investigation concerned a man who was hit by a train and died. Why was he hit by a train? Because he was standing in front of the moving train. OK, well, why was he standing in front of a moving train? He had been stood in a dangerous place, merely too close to the train but not in its path, and then stepped back, apparently heedless of the danger, into its actual path. Why was he stood there? We suppose he was supervising the work being done by the rest of his crew and had become distracted from his intended task which, ironically, was to look out for oncoming trains. It would be easy to write this off as "idiot steps in front of train, dies" but that doesn't prevent future accidents. The investigators found that this same man (a controller of site safety or COSS) had been involved in two serious incidents recently. Each incident resulted in an internal investigation, and each time the interim recommendation was that the COSS should be prohibited from working as a COSS until his involvement had been fully understood and any retraining undertaken. And each time nothing was actually done. The manager responsible for decertifying the COSS was a friend of the COSS, and obviously if you interfere with your friend's means of earning a living that will have social repercussions. So one cause of the accident was that a manager was too close to their workers to take necessary steps to ensure the safety of those workers. But, why didn't anyone notice that this manager hadn't taken the recommended action? There was no monitoring in place to ensure that action items were enacted, it was trusted that if the manager had been told to do something, they would, with no subsequent audit or oversight. So, another cause was that the paper system of working in the company did not ensure that managers did their jobs properly. Finally, several of the work gang at the site of the accident were experienced rail workers, trained to the same level as the victim. Each of them should have known (and some agreed in interview that they did know) that the COSS had chosen a method of working which was unsuitable. They all had a right in law and an obligation under company policy to insist on a safe alternative being used, if necessary aborting the work and returning another day when the safe method could be implemented. None of them took the opportunity even to mention that there was a problem, they silently agreed to undertake a needlessly dangerous task, presumably because the COSS was a friend, and because they believed any delays would result in a negative assessment of his performance by the company. So one last reason cause was that his friends trusted him and wanted to help him. Tialaramex (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Those sorts of considerations influence the risk of accidents, and are important in devising policies to reduce future accidents (and assigning blame when they are ignored), but how does that relate to the Hindenburg disaster? Were there institutional failures that led to the Hindenburg disaster? Perhaps, and possibilities like that are included in discussions about it. However, the use of hydrogen was an intentional design decision because helium was not available, similar to how many automobiles use (even more flammable) gasoline because of various economic considerations, and the risk is minimized within pracicality. Highly flammable fuel creates a risky condition where the barriers to a fire are lowered (compared to diesel fuel, say), but that risk is the baseline against which anomalies (behavior, defects, and design failures) are judged. If there were no deviations from the baseline condition other than the presence of something that caused a spark, claiming that things other than that caused the accident does not provide insight into why the accident happened when and how it did, nor does it help prevent similar accidents in similar situations. Why did the Titanic sink? Because it was built from materials that were denser than water, or because of risky practices? Why did the WTC towers fall? Because they were built in a gravitational field, or because they were hit by fuel-laden jumbo jets? Why was there controversy about the Ford Pinto's gas tank? Because it held gas, or because it allegedly held gas poorly? What's the controversy here about? Do you all believe that "because hydrogen is flammable" is a sufficient explanation of the Hindenburg disaster? Because I see some lengthy replies that aren't actually disagreeing with what I'm saying. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well what is the controversy here about? I don't really see what bearing it has on the modern world. WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 20:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding the Hindenburg, whether or not to have an article about the disaster, apparently. I agree with Sophie above that something could be said about conspiracy theories, but they don't seem to be very influential. Is there much drama between inclusionists and deletionists here? I disagreed with Madman's statement about the merits of looking for causes besides the presence of hydrogen, and some others chimed in along that tangent. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well what is the controversy here about? I don't really see what bearing it has on the modern world. Wēāŝēīōīď
- Those sorts of considerations influence the risk of accidents, and are important in devising policies to reduce future accidents (and assigning blame when they are ignored), but how does that relate to the Hindenburg disaster? Were there institutional failures that led to the Hindenburg disaster? Perhaps, and possibilities like that are included in discussions about it. However, the use of hydrogen was an intentional design decision because helium was not available, similar to how many automobiles use (even more flammable) gasoline because of various economic considerations, and the risk is minimized within pracicality. Highly flammable fuel creates a risky condition where the barriers to a fire are lowered (compared to diesel fuel, say), but that risk is the baseline against which anomalies (behavior, defects, and design failures) are judged. If there were no deviations from the baseline condition other than the presence of something that caused a spark, claiming that things other than that caused the accident does not provide insight into why the accident happened when and how it did, nor does it help prevent similar accidents in similar situations. Why did the Titanic sink? Because it was built from materials that were denser than water, or because of risky practices? Why did the WTC towers fall? Because they were built in a gravitational field, or because they were hit by fuel-laden jumbo jets? Why was there controversy about the Ford Pinto's gas tank? Because it held gas, or because it allegedly held gas poorly? What's the controversy here about? Do you all believe that "because hydrogen is flammable" is a sufficient explanation of the Hindenburg disaster? Because I see some lengthy replies that aren't actually disagreeing with what I'm saying. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Almost all modern fatal accidents have a great number of causes, some proximate and others less so. This week's railway accident investigation concerned a man who was hit by a train and died. Why was he hit by a train? Because he was standing in front of the moving train. OK, well, why was he standing in front of a moving train? He had been stood in a dangerous place, merely too close to the train but not in its path, and then stepped back, apparently heedless of the danger, into its actual path. Why was he stood there? We suppose he was supervising the work being done by the rest of his crew and had become distracted from his intended task which, ironically, was to look out for oncoming trains. It would be easy to write this off as "idiot steps in front of train, dies" but that doesn't prevent future accidents. The investigators found that this same man (a controller of site safety or COSS) had been involved in two serious incidents recently. Each incident resulted in an internal investigation, and each time the interim recommendation was that the COSS should be prohibited from working as a COSS until his involvement had been fully understood and any retraining undertaken. And each time nothing was actually done. The manager responsible for decertifying the COSS was a friend of the COSS, and obviously if you interfere with your friend's means of earning a living that will have social repercussions. So one cause of the accident was that a manager was too close to their workers to take necessary steps to ensure the safety of those workers. But, why didn't anyone notice that this manager hadn't taken the recommended action? There was no monitoring in place to ensure that action items were enacted, it was trusted that if the manager had been told to do something, they would, with no subsequent audit or oversight. So, another cause was that the paper system of working in the company did not ensure that managers did their jobs properly. Finally, several of the work gang at the site of the accident were experienced rail workers, trained to the same level as the victim. Each of them should have known (and some agreed in interview that they did know) that the COSS had chosen a method of working which was unsuitable. They all had a right in law and an obligation under company policy to insist on a safe alternative being used, if necessary aborting the work and returning another day when the safe method could be implemented. None of them took the opportunity even to mention that there was a problem, they silently agreed to undertake a needlessly dangerous task, presumably because the COSS was a friend, and because they believed any delays would result in a negative assessment of his performance by the company. So one last reason cause was that his friends trusted him and wanted to help him. Tialaramex (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Last week I was driving down the motorway and passed a Range Rover and trailer on the hard shoulder that were burning merrily away. I'm pretty sure that the intensity of the fire was due to the 100 litres of inflammable hydrocarbons in its fuel tank. I have a friend who has had three Range Rovers and not one of them has caught fire. I see Range Rovers carrying similar amounts of fuel around Britain's roads and have never seen another one on fire. Was this one fire caused by someone with a grudge? Perhaps one of the occupants was a Muslim and the MI5 had conducted a dirty tricks operation. Or there's a very remote chance that could it have been faulty wiring: or a fuel line leaking onto a hot exhaust. I think Occam's Razor applies here and I can dismiss the vehicle fault to conclude that it was definitely the work of a MI5 hit squad. Of course the government will cover this up nobody will ever know the truth.
- The use of hydrogen as a lifting gas is a necessary condition for a a major airship fire, but on its own is not sufficient (as hydrogen is not hypergolic with air, and there would have to be a leak or other trigger even then). Things like lightning strikes, electric discharges, or arson are each sufficient to explain a fire in a hydrogen airship, but without specific information relating to the circumstances of a particular fire, one can't justifiably claim that one of those necessarily took place. Since sufficient information isn't available for the Hindenburg fire, the cause is fodder for discussion and debate, but saying that it was caused by hydrogen adds no information to the discussion because it is obvious to everyone that the hydrogen burned and that something out of the ordinary caused the hydrogen to burn (it is equivalent to saying that buildings caused the Great Chicago Fire). It is this misinterpretation of "cause" that I was objecting to, because it doesn't do the job requested. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- We'll probably never know the cause for certain. But plenty of other airships went to fiery deaths before the Hindenberg (says Wikipedia). Doctor Dark (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Which is why we don't say that the mere presence of oil in a tanker is enough to generate a major oil spill. Rather, an oil spill has some proximate cause, such as the tanker striking a reef. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 03:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- "Especially since there were plenty of other hydrogen-filled airships that didn't burn" Yeah, and there were plenty of other oil tankers that didn't spill like the Exxon Valdez. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
(reset) Sabotage was a theory at the time but can probably be excluded ('whoever' would want to ensure that they could get away from the scene - or have a manifesto readily available) so 'natural causes of which electrical activity and large quantities of hydrogen were the primary components' is the answer.
Perhaps there should be a page for all 'conspiracies etc relating to transport by balloons, dirigibles, and suchlike with a passing mention to the novel The Twenty One Balloons'
And - it was probably impossible to do a risk assessment for William Husskison's death. 171.33.197.73 (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- "99 Luftconspiracies"? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 19:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Looking for lawyers to help with a page[edit]
I'm going to do one on common legal misconceptions and any associated woo. –Aleksandr Ehrenstein ЯR 17:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Here. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 17:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- There's more stuff that might be addressed beyond pseudolaw, strictly speaking. For instance, there's the familiar scene in which family members gather at a lawyer's office for the "reading of the will", a ceremony with no legal significance and in my experience no basis in precedent or practice. I've had clients ask me to schedule this gathering. I usually ask them if a photocopy will be enough. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not keen on articles that are miscellaneous lists of "woo" linked together by some theme but otherwise not really connected. It seems like something we've already got too much of, and doesn't serve the site missions very well. If a subject is relevant enough to cover at RW, we should have an article on it. If it's trivial, like the example above, I don't see much point. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 19:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree... unless we're talking about a pretty big group of pseudoscientific ideas, let's not make a page like this. Those ideas like freeman on the land that are truly of note deserve their own page, and the others probably do not. I would imagine that a law woo page might be interesting if such a thing represented a coherent movement or important bloc, but neither is true or likely to become true. I might be speaking from ignorance, of course (and thus might be demonstrating why the article is actually very necessary) - is any of the above mistaken?--talk 21:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- I mostly agree with what's been said, but I do see a distinction between "pseudolaw" and "common legal misconceptions". Pseudolaw stipulates bizarre claims about straw persons, and shadow accounts and such. It's a completely false legal construct. While on the other hand, there are simple misconceptions about the actual law that don't quite fit into that category. Off the top of my head I'd use as an example the urban legend that undercover police officers have to identify themselves if challenged. Stuff like that. --Inquisitor (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds like what we're talking about is a page on legal folklore. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Folklore is a good word, but I'm not really interested in seeing page on it. It'd end up just being a coat rack for legal odds-n-ends. With a talk page cluttered with "What do you mean? That's not illegal here in _________ ". I was just pointing out that I see a distinction between psuedolaw and folklore. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm a lawyer and I'm not going anywhere near this as long as the word "woo" is associated with it. The pseudolaw article is adequate. Common legal misconceptions belong on a skeptic wiki? No, they don't. Also, go away.
00:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Don't be so hasty, Nutty. I'm sure much of that legal woo is germane to our core topics of Nazis and rape. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 00:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- [Like] 04:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- [Like]
- Don't be so hasty, Nutty. I'm sure much of that legal woo is germane to our core topics of Nazis and rape. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
- I'm a lawyer and I'm not going anywhere near this as long as the word "woo" is associated with it. The pseudolaw article is adequate. Common legal misconceptions belong on a skeptic wiki? No, they don't. Also, go away.
- Folklore is a good word, but I'm not really interested in seeing page on it. It'd end up just being a coat rack for legal odds-n-ends. With a talk page cluttered with "What do you mean? That's not illegal here in _________ ". I was just pointing out that I see a distinction between psuedolaw and folklore. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- Sounds like what we're talking about is a page on legal folklore. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- I mostly agree with what's been said, but I do see a distinction between "pseudolaw" and "common legal misconceptions". Pseudolaw stipulates bizarre claims about straw persons, and shadow accounts and such. It's a completely false legal construct. While on the other hand, there are simple misconceptions about the actual law that don't quite fit into that category. Off the top of my head I'd use as an example the urban legend that undercover police officers have to identify themselves if challenged. Stuff like that. --Inquisitor (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
- I agree... unless we're talking about a pretty big group of pseudoscientific ideas, let's not make a page like this. Those ideas like freeman on the land that are truly of note deserve their own page, and the others probably do not. I would imagine that a law woo page might be interesting if such a thing represented a coherent movement or important bloc, but neither is true or likely to become true. I might be speaking from ignorance, of course (and thus might be demonstrating why the article is actually very necessary) - is any of the above mistaken?--
- I'm not keen on articles that are miscellaneous lists of "woo" linked together by some theme but otherwise not really connected. It seems like something we've already got too much of, and doesn't serve the site missions very well. If a subject is relevant enough to cover at RW, we should have an article on it. If it's trivial, like the example above, I don't see much point. Щєазєюіδ
- There's more stuff that might be addressed beyond pseudolaw, strictly speaking. For instance, there's the familiar scene in which family members gather at a lawyer's office for the "reading of the will", a ceremony with no legal significance and in my experience no basis in precedent or practice. I've had clients ask me to schedule this gathering. I usually ask them if a photocopy will be enough. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Legal folklore exists plentifully: the various compilations of uncited "obsolete funny laws", a host of courtroom folktales, and various folk beliefs about law and legal procedure of the "reading of the will" type. I'd consider very little of it "woo", though, and actually falsifying it would be laborious but futile. There are bits of bogus legal lore that might qualify as "woo" without being the obviously false legal ideas of the tax protester types. "How to avoid probate" kits qualify, being expensive estate plans that don't work oversold on fear. They're sold on overhyped fear of probate expenses and procedures, which no decedent ever has to endure themselves anyways. There is no magic document you can sign that will allow your heirs to claim your assets on death without hassle automatically: family quarrels, not lawyer fees, are what makes estates messy. These plans typically work by establishing trusts to run your assets through; in theory, the trust pays out everything to the heirs on death. And in theory, the kind of people who can afford to hire lawyers, accountants, and trust managers can use these devices to avoid probate. I'm not quite sure they qualify as legal "woo"; they can be made to work, just not for ordinary people in the real world. Ordinary people just screw up their estates royally by moving assets into a living trust. They then forget about the trust, buy and sell cars and houses, all the time having this trust out there and leaving behind a will that leaves their assets to the neglected, 20 year old trust. Sometimes the trust documents get lost. In any case, distributing property through a trust may mean that you lose some of the hard deadlines and procedural protections of probate. Claims against probate estates have to be brought within three months of the publishing of a newspaper notice. Claims against trusts get six years in this state. You just made family quarrel litigation that much easier. I hate those goddamn things. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
One of the examples that I'm thinking of is the idea that people can get away with making threats if they put a "but I'm not going to do that" disclaimer on it. If it happens, tough shit. You're going to prison. See Love-shy.com for a very privileged example. If you go visit SociallyInept IRL and beat the fucking shit out of him for the amount of fucking male privilege in his statement, Fastzander is not responsible for that. I support making outing people on the internet a felony, but this fuck challenges me very strongly. –Aleksandr Ehrenstein ЯR 13:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- You mad bro? WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- What? –Aleksandr Ehrenstein ЯR 02:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I understood all the words..... Ajkgordon (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- But can you sing along with the music? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- I understood all the words..... Ajkgordon (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- What? –Aleksandr Ehrenstein ЯR 02:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
What is this strange feeling I have?[edit]
It's a bit warm in my chest, like an expanding nice feeling - it happens when I try to remember the last HCM or last time we used the coop. I've never felt it before, maybe it's this concept I hear of called 'pride' or 'affection'? It won't last I'm sure but in any case well done to us. Tielec01 (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Go fuck yourself. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 02:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- This site is so boring nowadays. It reminds me of a gulag, a pernicious band of moderati keeping an eye over the masses, forcing them into dull drudgery. The curiosity, the twinkle in the eye, the anti establishment mentality. Its all gone. Its been replaced by authoritarian conformity. Rationalwiki needs a great fire, we need to burn the whole thing down and rebuild. Freedom. Marcus Cicero SPQR 11:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Or you could start your own wiki. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 12:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
--Seth Peck (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Boredom is a blessing, for it makes life seem long. I yearn for the day when RationalWiki is left lorn, bereft of the glittering throngs of Ciceronian adherents, no longer awash with the relentless tide of contrarian bons mots sprinkled in their trail wherever they go. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Or you could start your own wiki.
- This site is so boring nowadays. It reminds me of a gulag, a pernicious band of moderati keeping an eye over the masses, forcing them into dull drudgery. The curiosity, the twinkle in the eye, the anti establishment mentality. Its all gone. Its been replaced by authoritarian conformity. Rationalwiki needs a great fire, we need to burn the whole thing down and rebuild. Freedom. Marcus Cicero SPQR
- I'm pretty happy about it. Most of our stuff has gotten sorted out and we have established norms in place, and so a lot of drama has gotten channeled without breaking out into the old wheel-wars. I think articles are also improving and we're re-assessing some things we'd been ignoring. There's the usual school-year-slowdown, but things are looking up.--talk 23:48, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Recent Chick Tracts[edit]
With the most evil holiday just around the corner, has Chick made anything at all?
- Most evil holiday just around the corner...Christmas? Thanksgiving? LOL. Yeah, he did, but it's rather tepid compared to his usual Halloween fare, see http://chick.com/reading/tracts/1073/1073_01.asp Secret Squirrel (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- A holiday is a day upon which you get to relax and do what you like. Christmas and Thanksgiving are not that. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, that's your definition of a holiday, the etymology would suggest otherwise. ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. 08:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have expected an argumentum ad dictionariam from such a worthy source. Besides, as any fule kno, a "holiday" is a spot the painter missed. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 11:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Man, I expected much more insanity from Mr. Chick. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 13:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have expected an argumentum ad dictionariam from such a worthy source. Besides, as any fule kno, a "holiday" is a spot the painter missed. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 11:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Well, that's your definition of a holiday, the etymology would suggest otherwise.
- A holiday is a day upon which you get to relax and do what you like. Christmas and Thanksgiving are not that. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
What to do about this Paul Elam fuck[edit]
So I just found out on Manboobz that this fuck from A Voice For Men and their hate shite Register Her (a website for rapists to register victims as false accusers) is now doxxing and slandering feminist college students because of his own stupid fucking MRA hate campaign, and encouraging other MRAs to do the same. It has clearly been stated that he is putting their lives at risk. Therefore, it would not be libel for me to make a website about him exposing him for "encouraging people to rape and murder young girls" because "young girl" is a subjective term and Manboobz has said that those are the threats that they have been receiving. I'm really fucking tempted to go all out on this one and get behind Tor, make a GitHub account, and use their web editor to make a website with the most defamatory stuff I can think of and encourage other activists to download and upload it to their servers, in order to ensure that this fuck never gets a fucking job.
If you want to know one of the reasons I'm so angry, it's because due to the nature of online interactions, I would not at all be opposed to making outing people on the internet a felony with a mandatory minimum of one year in state prison for a first offense. At the very least, these doxxing fucks put people's lives in danger for their own stupid fucking reasons. I've considered making a registry of dox on people who have posted dox, but that would be abused in a rather obvious way.
The only reason I haven't done this is because I don't do shit out of anger, and there's the slight possibility that I might take it too far and I'll morally regret it. I really, really, really want to return the fucking favor to this fuck. I've thought it over, and the best way to go about it if I do anything would be to make a website and without libel, just spin all his shit in the worst way possible.
–Aleksandr Ehrenstein ЯR 12:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned, when someone posts dox, their protection of their own information is forfit. –Aleksandr Ehrenstein ЯR 12:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Just for the record, that Manboobz post is from Decembe 2012.
- As for "I don't do shit out of anger" - I'm not sure what you mean by "do shit", but you have clearly posted this out of anger. It may be just venting, but if I were you, I wouldn't post revenge plans on a publicly accessible website...--ZooGuard (talk) 12:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't think it was that new. By do shit in this case, I'm referring to making a website where I hoist him by his own petard. And anyway, I probably won't make a website about him. I feel really bad about just thinking about doing something like that, even if it would likely be clearly justified. I do wish though that he would end up in state prison for doxxing people. –Aleksandr Ehrenstein ЯR 12:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Wait, it wouldn't be libel because "it has been said" that he is putting their lives at risk?
- Golly, what a high standard. Should hold up in court nicely.--talk 12:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- He is putting their lives at risk. It's also always a very bad idea to sue over the truth. Plus I have very little money right now, so it would be his loss. –Aleksandr Ehrenstein ЯR 13:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- You do realize that you will still have to pay eventually even if you have no money now, don't you? Th. BernhardDas Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist. 13:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is a great idea and you should immediately action the website. Don't wait, or even think twice about it; just go with your feelings. Tielec01 (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, I'm not taking any action against his bullshit. I have a very strong "don't be a dick" complex that makes me think hard about stuff like this, and he's not worth any thought. –Aleksandr Ehrenstein ЯR 13:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- So you think hard about him, yet you don't think about him. Interesting.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 13:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- He's not worth thinking about. He's bad and something should be done. It's not my job to worry about all the bad people in the world. –Aleksandr Ehrenstein ЯR 14:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- So you think hard about him, yet you don't think about him. Interesting.--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 13:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- No, I'm not taking any action against his bullshit. I have a very strong "don't be a dick" complex that makes me think hard about stuff like this, and he's not worth any thought. –Aleksandr Ehrenstein ЯR 13:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- This is a great idea and you should immediately action the website. Don't wait, or even think twice about it; just go with your feelings. Tielec01 (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- You do realize that you will still have to pay eventually even if you have no money now, don't you? Th. BernhardDas Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist. 13:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- He is putting their lives at risk. It's also always a very bad idea to sue over the truth. Plus I have very little money right now, so it would be his loss. –Aleksandr Ehrenstein ЯR 13:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't understand anything you post. Is it just me? Ajkgordon (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Goat[edit]
https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1385242_10152139116576055_1665422345_n.jpg
–Aleksandr Ehrenstein ЯR 16:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Opinion of Paranormal?[edit]
So, One of the most outspoken, major atheists i know in my town, Also Believes in the paranormal. So Rationalwiki, what is your opinion on The paranormal?--Mikal | lakiM 17:43, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- What is your opinion on capitalization? Okay, seriously, I think "paranormal" is a pretty broad term -- what does this person believe in? Ghosts and goblins? Bigfoot? Voudon? That people turn into lions at night to settle local disputes? That ambulances and fire trucks collected blood from people? There are lots of ways that people use stories to explain things they don't understand: which ones does your buddy deal in? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 17:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- In addition to what PSaL wrote: "gods" are a subset of "the paranormal", so while lack of belief in the paranormal means automatic lack of belief in deities, the reverse is not true - it's not logically inconsistent to believe in "the paranormal" while being an atheist. Consider a practitioner of religion that postulates reincarnation (paranormal), but not deities (atheism). But yes, without details about what your person believes we can't say anything about the (in)consistence of their beliefs.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think paranormal and supernatural are entirely synonymous although I have a hard time differentiating them. I might say that supernatural, being an older word (?), refers more to ghosts, spirits, Gods, life-after-death and so on. Whereas the paranormal refers more to lay lines, ESP, crystal energy and all that guff. Perhaps paranormal might sound to some as if it might have some sort of explanation. So I would imagine it's quite easy for an atheist to believe in a load of new ageism. It works the other way, of course. There are plenty of very religious people who are completely rational in every other way. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've always operated on the overly simplified definition of: paranormal is the unexplained, while supernatural is the unexplainable. --Inquisitor (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think paranormal and supernatural are entirely synonymous although I have a hard time differentiating them. I might say that supernatural, being an older word (?), refers more to ghosts, spirits, Gods, life-after-death and so on. Whereas the paranormal refers more to lay lines, ESP, crystal energy and all that guff. Perhaps paranormal might sound to some as if it might have some sort of explanation. So I would imagine it's quite easy for an atheist to believe in a load of new ageism. It works the other way, of course. There are plenty of very religious people who are completely rational in every other way. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- In addition to what PSaL wrote: "gods" are a subset of "the paranormal", so while lack of belief in the paranormal means automatic lack of belief in deities, the reverse is not true - it's not logically inconsistent to believe in "the paranormal" while being an atheist. Consider a practitioner of religion that postulates reincarnation (paranormal), but not deities (atheism). But yes, without details about what your person believes we can't say anything about the (in)consistence of their beliefs.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have not seen any significant research or evidence to suggest that magic, ghosts, fairies, or other things of that nature are real. I am open to the idea, of course.--talk 19:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- My opinion is that the paranormal makes for some excellent (e.g. Dresden Files) and some excretable works of fiction, but does not appear to have any basis in reality. Compro01 (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've always "believed in" ghosts, UFOs etc... poltergeists especially due to personal experience. My feeling is that science will explain it one day, and that it's a mistake to say we know everything. There's been some interesting discoveries about how perception is conditioned by non-consciously-sensed energy etc, especially infrasonics, so explanations will come. SophieWilder 20:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- An atheist doesn't believe in God or gods. They may have have different reasons for this lack of belief, and they may believe in any other odd thing they like - though usually they don't. Typically a rationalist only believes in things for which there is evidence and for this reason many, and perhaps most, self-identified rationalists are also atheists. But atheists don't have to be rationalists--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I've always "believed in" ghosts, UFOs etc... poltergeists especially due to personal experience. My feeling is that science will explain it one day, and that it's a mistake to say we know everything. There's been some interesting discoveries about how perception is conditioned by non-consciously-sensed energy etc, especially infrasonics, so explanations will come. SophieWilder
- I've always said that if "paranormal" things existed they'd just be called "normal". Describing something as "paranormal" immediately puts me off because you're making a statement about how valid it is right there at the beginning. That said, I'm also scared of the dark because monsters might be in it, so my brain shouldn't be trusted. X Stickman (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have seen some experiments in psychic abilities (far seeing, telepathy, precognition, levitation and fire starting) Some were very interesting while others failed as the setups were changed. I have never seen a convincing seance or medium aththough Sylvia Brown puts on a great show. There have been documented cases of really wierd events in horrible situations which could not be reproduced in a lab but for which there were witnesses and even film. These tend to be in a class of "amazing human abilities" like a woman lifting a car off a child, Man carrying his wife out of a burning building (with him being already severely burned). It makes me like the saying, its not dead till you cut off it's head. Hamster (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
The limits of "serving at the pleasure"[edit]
As mentioned in WIGO:World, Canada is experiencing its mini-Watergate. The one thing that's puzzling, however, is the silence of the PM' chief of staff, who has all but disappeared from the face of the earth after resigning in May and whom Harper is suddenly heaping blame on.
Wright was filthy rich before he entered politics, so we can assume he wasn't paid off (and as such, can pay for any defamation case). And he's (reportedly) devastatingly smart, so he's probably recognized the effect that this will do to his reputation. So has anyone heard of an official in recent years who has been perfectly willing to make himself a pariah in the history books in the name of partisanship? Osaka Sun (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, the only qualification to work in the PMO is suicidal loyalty to Emperor Steve I. That or he's letting Harper set his own dynamite around him as he preps whatever fuse he's quietly working on. --Revolverman (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
- Glory to the first man to die! Compro01 (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Speaking of, it appears that the Cons are fine with taking their time dealing with the three senators now. A nice little 180. I wouldn't have been surprised if they discovered enough decent in the upper house that they would have lost the vote on the suspension if they held it right now --Revolverman (talk) 08:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Glory to the first man to die! Compro01 (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
OsakaSunWiki[edit]
Seriously, WTF? (click on the arrows to sort the September column in descending order)--ZooGuard (talk) 13:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Why is Sophie Wilder's name in italics?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 13:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- LOL I'm number five and I've barely been editing recently. –Aleksandr Ehrenstein ЯR 13:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- She forgot to remove the bot flag the last time she used it? The only other italicized names are bots.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Is there a way to see those numbers broken down by what space edits are in? I feel like at least half of my edits are "welcome" templates, "unsign" templates, reverting spam, and other similar maintenance stuff. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 17:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Ok, even I'm surprised. (I left for half a month.) Osaka Sun (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Better link. As I pointed out above, the last stats are for September, not last month. LArron updated the list today, and October is not over yet.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
100 to 9. I made a pretty steep drop off. :/-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 13:42, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Is this real? Kids taught to obey government officials?[edit]
See Infowars.com: school test teaches kids commands of government officials must be obeyed by all. I know the source is questionable but the pic is somewhat convincing and I tend to think that would be bad...--Barryjon (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Jesus dude, it's infowars. Here is the page in context (it's passages taken out of a book). Tielec01 (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- The 'context' here doesn't change anything though, does it? Children are being taught to be uncritical of government action and submissive to government authority. I'd be just as concerned if government officials was changed to God and nation was changed to congregation. I really don't think this is something that's drummed into kids.
- "5. The commands of government officials must be obeyed by all."
- "6. The wants of an individual are less important than the well-being of the nation."
- --Barryjon (talk) 10:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Obamacare = Slavery[edit]
Google it. No, really, see the person trying to argue it. 173.32.30.79 (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- This from the guy who said
“”What I would like to see more often in this nation is an open and intelligent conversation, not people just casting aspersions at each other. I mean, it's unbelievable to me the way people act like third graders. And if somebody doesn't agree with them, they're this and they're that and, you know – it comes from both sides. And it's just so infantile.
|
- Yeah, comparing Obamacare with slavery is "open and intelligent conversation" and not infantile at all. Innocent Bystander (talk) 10:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- You are a crack. Keep posting for our entertainment. –Aleksandr Ehrenstein ЯR 04:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- What else is new? Taxes in general get called "slavery" and "theft", so why would one expect these people to change their tune for the PPACA? Compro01 (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Should new users pay for the hosting?[edit]
Should we after a certain time require new users to acually buy accounts rather than simply create them. This is acually done on the Something awful forums and by making the posters pay for the hosting, it cuts down on trolling. So would doing the same on a wiki alos cutrail edit warring, and even something called wikisquatting?-- myrtonos@ 05:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, a RationalWiki Gold Membership? How about no? Why Weepest Thou? (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- New users should be banned from editing until they provide photographic evidence of themselves hugging a goat. Or gerbilling a jerboa. --PsyGremlin講話 06:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- GREAT IDEA!!! LET ME PROPOSE IT TO THE TRUSTEES!!!! Or, of course, I could not propose it and discard the idea outright.... Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- While you're at it, I never heard back from them about my proposal to merge RW with the Discovery Institute. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 07:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- And IP editors could provide their bank details so that we could charge them by individual post.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 07:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- I support anything that makes it as painful as possible to contribute to RationalWiki (though I fear if we went all the way, we'd just end up like Wikipedia). Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 08:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- But if we did that, we wouldn't wind up like Wikipedia. We'd be like Citizendium!!! Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- I support anything that makes it as painful as possible to contribute to RationalWiki (though I fear if we went all the way, we'd just end up like Wikipedia).
- And IP editors could provide their bank details so that we could charge them by individual post.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 07:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- While you're at it, I never heard back from them about my proposal to merge RW with the Discovery Institute.
- GREAT IDEA!!! LET ME PROPOSE IT TO THE TRUSTEES!!!! Or, of course, I could not propose it and discard the idea outright.... Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 07:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- New users should be banned from editing until they provide photographic evidence of themselves hugging a goat. Or gerbilling a jerboa. --PsyGremlin講話 06:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Oh yes, lets use ideas from SOMETHING AWFUL. More so the idea that has been proven complete bullshit. (You also forgot to point out you need to pay AGAIN to get things like REPORTING TO MODS. Nothing like putting THAT behind a second paywall.) --Revolverman (talk) 08:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- This idea is soooo horrible that I'd almost argue that we should put it to a "Pointless poll" vote to see who agrees with it. Unfortunately, knowing RationalWiki, it would get a million socks voting it up, and then the community here would take it seriously as an idea. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Putting the Coop behind a paywall? Now there's an idea. ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you. 08:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
My aforementioned point is thus proven. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Putting the Coop behind a paywall? Now there's an idea.
- Revolverman, can you expand more on how it proved "complete bullshit"? I don't use SA but I got the impression that this practice had somewhat worked for them. That doesn't mean it would work here, or that it's a good idea even if it would work. I have mentioned the SA approach to people running other systems and I'd certainly want to pass on to them anything important that I didn't know about. Tialaramex (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- SomethingAwful's policies work great... for SomethingAwful. It should be noted that the $10 admissions fee does not eliminate trolls. What it does do is cut the forum's spambot count down to zero and severely curtail sockpuppeteering (yes, there are still particularly stubborn people willing to churn through a dozen accounts, but for the most part, the number of people willing to spend $100+ just to keep arguing is quite limited).
- Furthermore, SA was already monstrously successful and internet-notorious by the time they started charging for sign-up. SA remains a sizeable hub of activity on the web, large and well-known enough (at 14 years old) to still attract enough new contributors to negate, or even exceed, their attrition rate. RationalWiki is decidedly not in this position — we're still hungry for contributors and content.
- On top of this, SA has a strong "fuck off" culture. That "GET OUT" frog is their unofficial mascot for a reason: they expect you to be able to handle yourself, without any hand-holding or babying. (Fun fact: their mobile app has a button called "All your dreams" that, when pressed, logs you out. And if you lose your password, the replacement they email you is a full 32 character-long letter-number string, that, until a few years ago, you had to type in manually.) This is something, as a wiki relying on the dense, difficult MediaWiki way of creating content, we just can't afford to do. If we were to take pride in alienating newbies like they do, we'd become Citizendium rather than a forum for tens of thousands of contributors.
- Tl;dr, we shouldn't emulate SomethingAwful because aren't motherfucking SomethingAwful. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 12:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- I really hope this was trolling.
- If not, you can't be expecting people to pay money just to edit. This isn't a big enough site for people to be willing to do that. A few years ago, I installed Extension:ConfirmAccount on Sturmkrieg and kept it there for a long time because it prevented spam and reduced trolling. Lexicanum is another wiki on a similar topic that uses the same extension. They started using after I did, and it seems to work for them; they still get registrations. When we had it, we got virtually no registrations. The reason is that they have been around for a long time, and so people know who they are and are willing to go through more effort to join, whereas people coming to us were trying to find out what we do, and were not willing to give that effort. –Aleksandr Ehrenstein ЯR 13:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- This idea is soooo horrible that I'd almost argue that we should put it to a "Pointless poll" vote to see who agrees with it. Unfortunately, knowing RationalWiki, it would get a million socks voting it up, and then the community here would take it seriously as an idea. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh god. This Myrtanos apparently goes from wiki to wiki making pointless templates and JAQing off with questions that include himself as part of "we." He's not a troll. He's nuts. Suffice it to say that proposing something that I doubt any of us has ever seen a single wiki do that's antithetical to RW's policy of open editing is at least indistinguishable from trolling. Or whatever. It doesn't matter. Safely ignore. 18:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'd quite like my "hotsing" paid for. Do people drink it with ice?--Weirdstuff (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hey not fair! The heading has been changed from "Shuold new users pay fro the hotsing?". This original was way better!--Weirdstuff (talk) 08:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- No it hasn't. Doctor Dark (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- That's because reality is a flexible thing on wikis.--Weirdstuff (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- No it hasn't. Doctor Dark (talk) 15:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Hey not fair! The heading has been changed from "Shuold new users pay fro the hotsing?". This original was way better!--Weirdstuff (talk) 08:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The New Message from God[edit]
Has anyone got a sense of what this is about? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe I should check my junk mail folder -- I didn't get a message. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 16:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- You are one of the new CHOSEN ones ! or you need a better spam filter. "The New Message is here to prepare individuals and nations for the reality, danger and opportunity of encountering a Greater Community of intelligent life in the Universe." THE ALIEN INVASION IS COMING !! You would think God could start smaller like a quick "Be Nicer" or something, not 25 years and lots of books. Hamster (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- the site says they are a non-profit, with a building in Boulder. Anyone live in Boulder ? Hamster (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Phil Plait, the last time I paid any attention to him. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- the site says they are a non-profit, with a building in Boulder. Anyone live in Boulder ? Hamster (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- You are one of the new CHOSEN ones ! or you need a better spam filter. "The New Message is here to prepare individuals and nations for the reality, danger and opportunity of encountering a Greater Community of intelligent life in the Universe." THE ALIEN INVASION IS COMING !! You would think God could start smaller like a quick "Be Nicer" or something, not 25 years and lots of books. Hamster (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- "New message from God?" That's odd. I haven't left a new message to anybody. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 18:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Looks new agey, a la the Urantia Book. Channeled material, I take it? Secret Squirrel (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- I can tell this is totally legit. That's Trajan Pro! - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- I like the part where it says "9160 pages". --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 19:40, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- I can tell this is totally legit. That's Trajan Pro! - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Looks new agey, a la the Urantia Book. Channeled material, I take it? Secret Squirrel (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Goats in trees[edit]
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/1451517_695128267174854_249175984_n.jpg
–Aleksandr Ehrenstein ЯR 22:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The universe is part of a simulation and God accidentally a glitch. –Aleksandr Ehrenstein ЯR 22:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Fun fact: in Assassin's Creed III you can pet goats. Seems like a RWan was working on it. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 03:29, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well I wasn't going to pre-order it, but now... Shadow of Lords talk 17:50, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Rome Viharo/Rupert Sheldrake[edit]
Looking over recent changes the past little while, the Rupert Sheldrake article has been there on a regular basis; now there's a article on some other guy who's involved with that guy. Can someone who's 1. an established editor and 2. familiar with these guys re-assure me that our wiki isn't being used as a forum for some internet dick-waving contest? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 19:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- The new article might be a bit premature. I got the impression Viharo was a Hollywood wannabee actor/writer who enthusiastically trolled JREF and a number of other forums until he reinvented himself as a "social media consultant", flogged his wares in a TED talk, met Sheldrake at TED, took up Sheldrake's cause on WP as Tumbleman, got banned, and is subsequently revered as a Martyr For The Cause by kooks upset they can't get their fringe stuff into the encyclopedia. More of an opportunist/scammer than a legitimate woo. My 2 cents. Leuders (talk) 19:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I have actually heard of Viharo before - I had encountered his writings on JREF (example) and I've listed his talk in my perpetually-unfinished article about TED (User:ZooGuard/TED). Since he has some other crank-ish ideas (that tri-positional logic thing, etc), he's on mission, though he is a relatively minor figure compared to Sheldrake. But if we have an article about Mensur Omerbashich...
- As for the genitalia-waving contest, that, unfortunately, is not mutually exclusive with the Holy Mission. There are skeptics who get a lot more personally motivated than it's healthy to be.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Don't know about his tri-positional logic thing, but if you're talking about his "OS012" opus, then a comment on The Bad Science Forum described it best: "It looks as if someone took a philosophy text book, cut it into lots of tiny little pieces, and then stuck them back together at random." Leuders (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- As it stands, the Rome Viharo article just says he's a guy who trolled Wikipedia a lot & trolled some other forums too. It doesn't look interesting or significant. If he's known for other stuff, then that's what the article should be about, & some of the trolling & sockpuppetry could be worth mentioning in this context. But if he's mostly just an obscure internet griefer, I don't see much point in giving him undue attention. ЩєазєюіδMethinks it is a Weasel 22:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- As it stands, the Rome Viharo article just says he's a guy who trolled Wikipedia a lot & trolled some other forums too. It doesn't look interesting or significant. If he's known for other stuff, then that's what the article should be about, & some of the trolling & sockpuppetry could be worth mentioning in this context. But if he's mostly just an obscure internet griefer, I don't see much point in giving him undue attention. Щєазєюіδ
- Don't know about his tri-positional logic thing, but if you're talking about his "OS012" opus, then a comment on The Bad Science Forum described it best: "It looks as if someone took a philosophy text book, cut it into lots of tiny little pieces, and then stuck them back together at random." Leuders (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Honest question about the energy spent making up "science" to refute evolution?[edit]
Why? Just why? And to think that all that energy could be put to good use?!--Barryjon (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- Money. For the professional creationists, it's their job. That's all those cats do. They simply can't allow any piece of science that threatens their customers' worldview (and by extension, their own paychecks) to go unchallenged. --Inquisitor (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- how can you say that ! Modern science has been built on the foundation of the Christian church from tenets of God hisself. All the great discoveries were made by TRUE CHRISTIANS (tm). In moden times the earthshattering findings of Creationists like the R.A.T.E team, Browns Hydroplate Theory, the related Lunar Bukkake Theory of NephilimFree (he only has 5 fingers on each hand) and such toilers in the Lords fields like Mike Behe and that Dembski feller has brung EVILUTION to its knees. REPENT before the RAPTURE ! Praise little Baby Jesus !
(I am temporarily banned from aSK ) Hamster (talk) 23:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- The money angle is probably, in the words of a great song; "Sad but true". BUT, do you really think all of them are really just on the take? And I guess that begs the question (ya, I know that's not what it means); why is it SO important that the bible be the source of science? Why can't it just be the source of faith/revelation? It kinda seems to me, that by insisting on the absolute inerrancy of the bible on temporal matters, that they end up making the rest of it look dumb too. (btw this question was inspired when I saw this) --Barryjon (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's about more than money. Yeah, some folks -- a very small number -- make a living off of creationism. But most people who are invested in it don't. This is an ideological question, so the stakes are all-consuming. For the people who base their personal and political lives on a fundamentalist reading of scripture, there is no tolerance for any cracks in the system. If we cannot prove that a literal scriptural account of creation is true, then everything based on that foundation -- notably the sexual mores that are at the heart of a conservative worldview, but also a particular understanding of what a "Christian nation" should look like, politically and economically-- are open to question. So we need something that resembles verifiable science to patch any holes that the boat may spring. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 23:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I find that genuinely quite sad. But that's a very good answer PS&L (is that an allowed abbreviation?) That said, I can probably relate a little to the difficulty of letting go of closely held belief. And I don't think I will ever quite let go of the last vestiges of my faith/belief/woo but I like thinking and trying to make sense of the world in a consistent, reasonable and rational fashion.--Barryjon (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- "If we cannot prove that a literal scriptural account of creation is true... And that right there is my biggest problem with creationism. They extend almost zero effort in trying to prove creationism to be true. Instead they invest all of their time trying to prove every other idea to be false. Creationism is peddled and believed by people who fundamentally do not understand that disproving your opponent's position does not automatically prove your own. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- "Proving creationism" isn't exactly the point. They already have the Bible, which is the word of God, so no further proof is needed. The challenge is dealing with stuff that contradicts it & finding ways to disprove these things. WéáśéĺóíďMethinks it is a Weasel 02:23, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I sorta gathered that. --Inquisitor (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- "Proving creationism" isn't exactly the point. They already have the Bible, which is the word of God, so no further proof is needed. The challenge is dealing with stuff that contradicts it & finding ways to disprove these things. Wéáśéĺóíď
- "If we cannot prove that a literal scriptural account of creation is true... And that right there is my biggest problem with creationism. They extend almost zero effort in trying to prove creationism to be true. Instead they invest all of their time trying to prove every other idea to be false. Creationism is peddled and believed by people who fundamentally do not understand that disproving your opponent's position does not automatically prove your own. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- I find that genuinely quite sad. But that's a very good answer PS&L (is that an allowed abbreviation?) That said, I can probably relate a little to the difficulty of letting go of closely held belief. And I don't think I will ever quite let go of the last vestiges of my faith/belief/woo but I like thinking and trying to make sense of the world in a consistent, reasonable and rational fashion.--Barryjon (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think it's about more than money. Yeah, some folks -- a very small number -- make a living off of creationism. But most people who are invested in it don't. This is an ideological question, so the stakes are all-consuming. For the people who base their personal and political lives on a fundamentalist reading of scripture, there is no tolerance for any cracks in the system. If we cannot prove that a literal scriptural account of creation is true, then everything based on that foundation -- notably the sexual mores that are at the heart of a conservative worldview, but also a particular understanding of what a "Christian nation" should look like, politically and economically-- are open to question. So we need something that resembles verifiable science to patch any holes that the boat may spring. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
- The money angle is probably, in the words of a great song; "Sad but true". BUT, do you really think all of them are really just on the take? And I guess that begs the question (ya, I know that's not what it means); why is it SO important that the bible be the source of science? Why can't it just be the source of faith/revelation? It kinda seems to me, that by insisting on the absolute inerrancy of the bible on temporal matters, that they end up making the rest of it look dumb too. (btw this question was inspired when I saw this) --Barryjon (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
To me the question is incredibly interesting - but it's wider than just creationism. Denialism comes in many flavours - vaccine, climate change, round earth, astrophysics, economics etc... Not all of these are religiously motivated. Why in the fuck do people refuse to face facts? What maladapted part of our psyche is responsible for burying our heads in the sand, covering our ears and singing "lalala" as loud as possible? I know some research has been conducted on the issue, but it quickly becomes politicised and untenable; some researchers are plowing ahead though and I look forward to reading more findings. Tielec01 (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- the only response to this I can make is to point people to www.astorehouseofknowledge.info for PJR and his version of reality (try recent changes and the talk pages Do not get into debates with Awc.) and youtubes atheismexamined channel. Its possible he is a long term poe because noone is that batshit insane. Hamster (talk) 05:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
- I've come to think of it as a sort of variant on authoritarianism, although in this case not so much that they want to be the one in charge, but they want someone in charge of them. So they cling to a comforting hierarchy (even a damaging one) and desperately support whatever ridiculous ideas prop them up. It's that "the man in charge cannot be wrong ever" attitude that ends up with people supporting everything from Ken Ham to George Bush with all their might. --Kels (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- Good point about denialism more generally. And one I wonder about too. I have an intelligent friend who I'm pretty sure rejects creationism and its various guises but totally reject AGW. I am equally at a loss to understand why he has decided that it's a conspiracy. He reads the right wing press, which must be part of it. I really just don't get it. Though I do plan to use RW to try to get through to him both by pointing it out and using some of what of I have learned on here.--Barryjon (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, just as there are people who like to believe in something and take comfort in it, there are also people who like to be sceptical for the hell of it, who take comfort in the thought that it's all bullshit, and don't look too closely at the facts. Your friend reminds me a bit of a Geophysicist I met who does not believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming (is that what AGW stands for? I'm going to assume it is). His reasoning was that he had read some articles in some newspapers like The Guardian or somewhere else about scientists in the UK who used false data about global warming, and therefore, CLEARLY, the whole of Anthropogenic Global Warming is most likely just a bunch of fake bullshit (nevermind the fact that the scientific community as a whole agrees on the effects of greenhouse gases and that this is a research field so big that it isn't constrained to a bunch of false data in the UK). Basically, any story by the general media that casts doubt on something (and you know how the media feeds on this sensationalist scandal stuff) will get a variety of extremely sceptical people to perceive bullshit whenever that something is brought up, being too lazy to investigate the finer details of the topic. Nullahnung (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, AGW=Anthropogenic Global Warming, I'm a lazy typist, especially on my fondle slab. My friend claims there is loads of money in researching to prove that climate change is real and none the other way round. I've added a question about this [Page]--Barryjon (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Recall Hume's dictum that "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." @Nullahnung: Your friend is probably referring to the alleged misconduct at the CRU of East Anglia. If so, then there was no fabricated data at all. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Ah yes, that was it, then. Also, it seems to me that reason and passion go hand in hand. After all, we don't really think about things that we don't care about... and vice versa. Nullahnung (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Recall Hume's dictum that "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." @Nullahnung: Your friend is probably referring to the alleged misconduct at the CRU of East Anglia. If so, then there was no fabricated data at all. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, AGW=Anthropogenic Global Warming, I'm a lazy typist, especially on my fondle slab. My friend claims there is loads of money in researching to prove that climate change is real and none the other way round. I've added a question about this [Page]--Barryjon (talk) 12:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well, just as there are people who like to believe in something and take comfort in it, there are also people who like to be sceptical for the hell of it, who take comfort in the thought that it's all bullshit, and don't look too closely at the facts. Your friend reminds me a bit of a Geophysicist I met who does not believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming (is that what AGW stands for? I'm going to assume it is). His reasoning was that he had read some articles in some newspapers like The Guardian or somewhere else about scientists in the UK who used false data about global warming, and therefore, CLEARLY, the whole of Anthropogenic Global Warming is most likely just a bunch of fake bullshit (nevermind the fact that the scientific community as a whole agrees on the effects of greenhouse gases and that this is a research field so big that it isn't constrained to a bunch of false data in the UK). Basically, any story by the general media that casts doubt on something (and you know how the media feeds on this sensationalist scandal stuff) will get a variety of extremely sceptical people to perceive bullshit whenever that something is brought up, being too lazy to investigate the finer details of the topic. Nullahnung (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Good point about denialism more generally. And one I wonder about too. I have an intelligent friend who I'm pretty sure rejects creationism and its various guises but totally reject AGW. I am equally at a loss to understand why he has decided that it's a conspiracy. He reads the right wing press, which must be part of it. I really just don't get it. Though I do plan to use RW to try to get through to him both by pointing it out and using some of what of I have learned on here.--Barryjon (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I've come to think of it as a sort of variant on authoritarianism, although in this case not so much that they want to be the one in charge, but they want someone in charge of them. So they cling to a comforting hierarchy (even a damaging one) and desperately support whatever ridiculous ideas prop them up. It's that "the man in charge cannot be wrong ever" attitude that ends up with people supporting everything from Ken Ham to George Bush with all their might. --Kels (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
- the only response to this I can make is to point people to www.astorehouseofknowledge.info for PJR and his version of reality (try recent changes and the talk pages Do not get into debates with Awc.) and youtubes atheismexamined channel. Its possible he is a long term poe because noone is that batshit insane. Hamster (talk) 05:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
It's also consequences. "The sky does not interest me," said Akaar (Star trek). If the fundy is wrong about science: oh well, doesn't matter to him/her. To his/her followers, however, particularly those who wish to do well in such, such might be different. That's why, children, it's so important to supplement your Conservapedia diet with WP & RW.Talk to Civic Cat 15:58, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Guys…[edit]
One of my best friends is threatening to commit suicide. He has been struggling with mild depression for the past 3 years, and last week, his girlfriend died in childbirth, and the baby didn't make it either. Obviously, he's been very upset about that, but when I went to his house today, he was about to hang himself. He said that he can't find a signal reason to live, that he doesn't care about anybody else anymore, that the deaths were somehow his fault, and that he just wants to stop thinking and feeling. I've tried talking him out of it, but he honestly just doesn't care about anything I say to him, and I'm worried he might try again. I don't know what to do. Does anybody have any ideas? Should I call a suicide hotline or something, or should I just stay with him for a while, until he's better? Any suggestions? And deserved doom shall be unto you (talk) 09:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- If you know anyone who's ever come out of suicidal depression alive before, it might help if you get their advice. I know this seems kind of unhelpful/too obvious and such, but really, one of the reasons it's so difficult to get through to a depressed person is because you don't fully understand what he/she is going through (understanding the circumstances doesn't count).
- I've heard of a case where someone came out of suicidal depression just because another person who had previously experienced it said something to the effect of "I understand". As in, that person didn't even try to talk her out of it. Just "It's hard, I know". Nullahnung (talk) 10:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- I've had a few bouts of severe depression. The first of those was to the extreme described. My boss noticed things weren't right and got on a train to a pschy hospital with me where I was seen by a psychiatrist and admitted. I had good health insurance that covered a nice private clinic so it wasn't awful like on the movies. The tablets help, but they are not instant so it was good to have the therapy too. I'd recommend at least getting your friend to a GP if not a psychiatrist. Death is not better than the needless stigma of mental health issues. Whatever you do, don't say "pull yourself together" or words that could be understood that way. Depression, like other illnesses, isn't a choice. Good luck and hopefully your friend makes it through. Good luck and hopefully your friend makes it through. --Barryjon (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- If he has a plan and the tools to do it, then yes, you should call a suicide hotline. talk 13:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- They'll tell him to call the police if things have gotten that far. Depending on the state, this is one of the rare it instances someone can be involuntarily committed and the system treats people much more respectfully. Usually a judge must approve it based on an affidavit and you can go back to have the record sealed to protect your privacy. 17:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Nuclear option. If he is ready to act and you're in the US, call his shrink. He will have him taken in to the hospital and put under observation for a few days. 15:15, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Backing up Sterile - the Samaritans (or local equivalent) will know what to do far more than a bunch of internet lurkers. Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Samaritans FAQ. Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- It bears repeating that you're not a shrink and you're not responsible for or qualified to deal with your friend's psychiatric issue. That's what expressing the intention to commit suicide is. We need not brook any discussion of when it's ok to commit suicide in principle. It is an indication of psychiatric distress in reality and you will find that any suicide prevention outfit will say you take all attempts or expressions of intent dead serious. Call his parents. Call his shrink. Call the cops. He will spend a few nights in the hospital and feel a lot better. Why the fuck are you asking a bunch of random people on the Internet for advice. There are better resources. Wise up. 17:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- It bears repeating that you're not a shrink and you're not responsible for or qualified to deal with your friend's psychiatric issue. That's what expressing the intention to commit suicide is. We need not brook any discussion of when it's ok to commit suicide in principle. It is an indication of psychiatric distress in reality and you will find that any suicide prevention outfit will say you take all attempts or expressions of intent dead serious. Call his parents. Call his shrink. Call the cops. He will spend a few nights in the hospital and feel a lot better. Why the fuck are you asking a bunch of random people on the Internet for advice. There are better resources. Wise up.
- Samaritans FAQ. Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Backing up Sterile - the Samaritans (or local equivalent) will know what to do far more than a bunch of internet lurkers. Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- They'll tell him to call the police if things have gotten that far. Depending on the state, this is one of the rare it instances someone can be involuntarily committed and the system treats people much more respectfully. Usually a judge must approve it based on an affidavit and you can go back to have the record sealed to protect your privacy.
- If he has a plan and the tools to do it, then yes, you should call a suicide hotline.
- I've had a few bouts of severe depression. The first of those was to the extreme described. My boss noticed things weren't right and got on a train to a pschy hospital with me where I was seen by a psychiatrist and admitted. I had good health insurance that covered a nice private clinic so it wasn't awful like on the movies. The tablets help, but they are not instant so it was good to have the therapy too. I'd recommend at least getting your friend to a GP if not a psychiatrist. Death is not better than the needless stigma of mental health issues. Whatever you do, don't say "pull yourself together" or words that could be understood that way. Depression, like other illnesses, isn't a choice. Good luck and hopefully your friend makes it through. Good luck and hopefully your friend makes it through. --Barryjon (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay. So I talked to him, and got him to agree to go to a therapist and go to the hospital for a while. Hopefully, with a bit of support, he should get better. I've had on and off depression since I was twelve, so he understood that I could empathise. The only reason I didn't already call someone was because, well, I was worried if it would not really help, as when I called a suicide hotline a couple of years ago, it honestly did hardly anything for me. Thanks for all your advice. And also Nutty, just pointing out that I was not at all stating that suicide is ever okay. The only reason I was asking here was because I honestly had no idea what the right thing was to do, and I couldn't find answers anywhere else. So once again, thanks everybody. And deserved doom shall be unto you (talk) 07:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Oh no, Messiah! I didn't mean to suggest what you think. I was trying to preempt the abstract discussion that sometimes happens here and keep things on point. I'm so glad your friend went to the hospital. I know you were suffering and asking for help because you didn't know what to do. My father is a psychiatrist. I've seen his sadness when someone didn't get to safety. I also have personal experience with how those things shake out — i hope your friend doesn't have to worry about repercussions — email me if he would like some general legal insight into handling any of the attendant legal issues of go into the hospital. I hope my bluntness didn't hurt you. 07:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Nah, that's fine. Also, I live in Australia, but I'm pretty sure the legal stuff should be fine. Thanks, again! And deserved doom shall be unto you (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
what the heck Texans - ?[edit]
From the Creation Hall of Fame "News flash: The Creation Science Hall of Fame recognizes the following Creationists on the Texas Panel for Biology Textbooks: Daniel Romo, David Zeiger, Ide Trotter, Raymond Bohlin, Richard White, and Walter Bradley. We here at the CSHF are proud of Creationists who are not afraid to stand up for the Truth." Hamster (talk) 22:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's Texas, so what do you expect? Sometimes I think rationalists need a "Texas" tag, like Fark has one for Florida. Doctor Dark (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- There's a Creation Hall of Fame? Cool. What did these guys create? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Nonsense. They created nonsense. 121.220.212.163 (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's Terry Hurlbut and friends, so you can imagine what a turd pile it is. ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 16:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's Terry Hurlbut and friends, so you can imagine what a turd pile it is.
- Nonsense. They created nonsense. 121.220.212.163 (talk) 09:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- There's a Creation Hall of Fame? Cool. What did these guys create? - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Vaccine denialism as a title[edit]
I'm sick of waiting for replies on this. Can people please weigh in on what the title of our anti-vax article should be? Thank you. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- So why wait? The fast way to find out is to actually rename it. If nobody comments, SCORE! Chances are they will. (Should probably stick with something like "Vaccine Hysteria," but "Captain Plippy-Ploppy's Weasel Teat Farm" would work.) --199.189.231.196 (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Anti-vaccination already redirects to Vaccine denialism, so I don't see anything broken enough to need fixing. RNS, I trust your judgement, and am unlikely to object to whatever action you choose take about this. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Bullshit I heard on HLN[edit]
While watching the news(This was on some shooting I could care less about,possibly the LAX.), I heard a anchor say that all they've been reporting on is 20-year olds and lapse into a rant about how "They're not developing right!". Thoughts?--The Madman (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)The Madman
- HLN isn't serious news anymore. I nicknamed it the Trial Channel since that's all they seem to report on when I walk by them at work. Zero (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Election Day[edit]
A reminder to get out to vote. Also, my election was really whacky. Only Republicans, Conservatives and Independents were running for everything (save two token Democrats for town council). The punch? The RCIs were all the same guy! So it wasn't much of an "election" so much as "winning by default". More important to me was the referendums on the back. I also should mention I vote at an evangelical creationist church. What's your story today? Zero (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- The RCIs were largely the same pol here, too. The exception was one Democratic Judge was also the Conservative and Independent Ticket, but not the Republican.
- My County Legislator ran unopposed, which was extremely galling. Four years ago, his opponent sold out for an appointment and stopped campaigning in September. Two years ago, my friend was the challenger, and I volunteered for his campaign -my friend lost, of course. The district is locked up and the Legislator always wins with over 60% of the vote -it's a waste of time and money to even bother.
- It's a double-edged sword, though... because of the way the congressional districts are drawn, my Legislator constantly fails to achieve higher office. The same process that makes sure he's safe from all challengers in this pissant community ensures he'll never be a congressman like his grandfather was.
- --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 16:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Stuff Yo -- Fox News seems to have lost it.[edit]
Not quite sure what Fox News is saying with this headline. Stuff, yo. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 19:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Lock Icon Next to a link?[edit]
On my user page I see a lock icon next to outgoing links to FB & Twitter. What does this mean?--Barryjon (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- It means those links are locked, and you have to pay to see that content. Send me an e-mail and I'll give you an address where you can send a cheque or money order. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 19:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Do you take bitcoin? I'd want to make sure I had full protection if I was transferring the money to some random on da net. Pretty sure bitcoin would be the only thing that could offer such protection. --Barryjon (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- No. It just means the site is using secure connections. Like this one. Or this one. Or even this one! Zero (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- For a much more detailed explanation: it means the site has an "s" directly after their "http". I'm a computer science guy, you can trust me. Shadow of Lords talk 20:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- (EC) It means you've posted a 'secure' link, using https instead of http. Change the link to http instead and you'll see the lock icon disappear, but the link will still work the same (though theoretically not as secure). It's just a quirk of MediaWiki to display https-formatted links like that, and makes no difference whether the linked site actually uses a secure connection or not. E.g. I can link to https://conservapedia.com and the lock appears, even though Conservapedia actually doesn't have a secure connection (& therefore the link doesn't work unless you change it to http). ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐMethinks it is a Weasel 20:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- ah that makes sense. Thanks all. I use https everywhere so I usually connect securely by default. --Barryjon (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's all Sir Tim's fault again. The Right Thing™ was to use SRV records and handle encryption and authentication transparently. Everything on the web would then be secure (to a greater or lesser extent, but at least not trivially snooped by someone's teenage son). But Tim didn't know about a lot of that stuff, he just wanted to build something quick and dirty. So SSL-enabled HTTP gets its own separate protocol handlers, on separate TCP ports, and people have to explicitly spell out that they want encryption because it's not the default. The crappy state of passwords on the web today is also largely Tim's fault. He's a nice guy though, total nerd. Still, it reminds me... Tialaramex (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- ah that makes sense. Thanks all. I use https everywhere so I usually connect securely by default. --Barryjon (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- (EC) It means you've posted a 'secure' link, using https instead of http. Change the link to http instead and you'll see the lock icon disappear, but the link will still work the same (though theoretically not as secure). It's just a quirk of MediaWiki to display https-formatted links like that, and makes no difference whether the linked site actually uses a secure connection or not. E.g. I can link to https://conservapedia.com and the lock appears, even though Conservapedia actually doesn't have a secure connection (& therefore the link doesn't work unless you change it to http). ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
- For a much more detailed explanation: it means the site has an "s" directly after their "http". I'm a computer science guy, you can trust me. Shadow of Lords talk 20:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- No. It just means the site is using secure connections. Like this one. Or this one. Or even this one! Zero (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Do you take bitcoin? I'd want to make sure I had full protection if I was transferring the money to some random on da net. Pretty sure bitcoin would be the only thing that could offer such protection. --Barryjon (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)