RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive22

This is an archive page, last updated 14 April 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

My hovercraft is full of eels

Just had a discussion with a foreign colleague about some English phrases which reminded me of the classic English as She Is Spoke by Jose da Fonseca and Pedro Carolino (published in 1855). This is a Portugese-English phrase book created by taking a Portuguese-French phrasebook and then using a dictionary to translate the French word for word into English. For those who might be interested, it is available here. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I watched an anime like that once - Demon Hunter Yoko, I think. Translated by two Chinese students who had a Chinese/Japanese and Chinese/English book. The results were... illuminating. ("We must awaken his burliness" is one phrase that will stick with me until the die I day.) --PsyGremlin_Whut? 11:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

May 4th Be With You

Happy Star Wars Day everyone! ^gnostic 11:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, may the fourth be with you, forever. ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ Give a man a face, and he will say what you want to hear. Give him a mask, and he will say what he wants 16:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Emperor for 'Crat

I, Javascap, hereby nominate Theemperor for Crat. Having seen him around the block for the last seven months, I believe he has enough of an idea as to how RW works to be entrusted with Cratship. Once again, I throw my complete support behind Theemperor for cratship, and I do hope the mob feels the same way.

Voting section

Fore

• Four Javasca₧ the most colourful sig on RationalWiki! 16:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• In favor OneForLogic 16:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• in vafour (Theemperor)
• Favor, I am in. ENorman 17:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Favour, why not? Flare^Talk 13:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Aginst

• Firmly against I would like to remind you that the he made very similar comments to mine on Stanek's blog. If I was desysopped for it, I do not see the logic behind making him a 'crat. Under different circumstances, I would support the idea, but these things should be enforced evenly. -- 19:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh get over it you baby. You were desysopped because you're a liability and your persistent failure to learn from your mistakes is creepy. The Stanek blog incident was but one example of your moronic asshattery. Opposing Emperor by comparing his conduct to yours and invoking some nonexistent policy that needs to be enforced for the sake of consistency is unsupportable and disgusting. Go fuck yourself. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to politely point out that

“”On RationalWiki, things are a bit "different" than on most wikis. As an editor once said, "where other wikis have editors, we have sysops. Where they have sysops, we have bureacrats". What does this mean? On RationalWiki, we trust everyone except "Fre" to not only edit, but to help keep the floor clean. Yup, we meant it when we said "janitor".

Last time I checked, other wikis don't ban users because of being a 'liability.' -- 20:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It does seem very CP-like to cite off-wiki actions in an administrative sanction... Neveruse513 20:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Note also that if I say 'Read wikipedia' while slamming someone, that does not mean that wikipedia condones their actions. I see no reason why RationalWiki should be the same way. -- 20:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Now now children, play nice. Let's stop overreacting everytime CUR breathes. EddyP 20:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Gotta love that CUR drama...it'd be a lot more boring without him. Neveruse513 20:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No Goat

• Abstain Nothing agin t'emperor. Don't think we need any more crats. _and marmite 17:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• abstinence Not enough experience here to vote on such things. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 20:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• No sex until marriage I agree with Toast - don't particularly think we need anymore. Promoting him won't do any harm - just won't do much good either. EddyP 20:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• I am happy either way. I like the emperor so don't really mind. Oh and @CUR, Would you like me to call the Whaaa-mbulance? Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 20:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• GOAT - Since when did people start asking before demoting people? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually we did, somewhere, agree that craterisaion should be talked over before acting. _and marmite 20:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Do we need more crats? Is there a backlog of jobs that only crats can do? I've been a crat for three months, and I've sysopped 2 or 3 editors and that's it. Nothing against Emp but... why more? Totnesmartin 21:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• See, I would, but... - He's decent and seems to know his way around the place, but I haven't been back long enough for an informed opinion. Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, what a lovely tea party!} 21:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Going off anywhere tonight? I sysopped someone a few days ago and I'm too worn out from the effort to have an opinion. ħuman 00:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• You mean... He wasn't one already? Haven't been around long enough for an informed decision. Just do whatever CUR says. SJ ^Debaser 08:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrapup

For the people too lazy to sort through piles of CUR's comments, I present

• 5 Support

• 1 Oppose

• 9 Abstain(Reason cited was "Don't need additional Bureaucrats)

Well not really much consensus, but seeing as Javascap has done it any way. Congratulations Theemperor on becoming our newest Bureaucrat. - π 02:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

three things

Someone else...

1. archive this bitch.
2. make an Andypants medal for teh laydeez
3. sign this post for me.

See! We need a better work ethic! How about a goal of half the edits being articles? -- 20:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Shut up CUR (my first time saying that n_n ). I don't wanna edit no articles! EddyP 20:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What you suggest seems dangerously similar to a 90/10 rule. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 20:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

CUR, you've got your own wiki RWW go & play there. _and marmite 20:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that:

1. We are RationalWIKI, not RationalFORUM.
2. This would be a plea to not spend all time on talk pages. It would not be a reqiurement, nor a guideline, merely saying that it would be kind of someone to do it. -- 22:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. You really are kind of annoying. Amin7b5 22:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

We should implement our own 90/10 rule. 90% of edits have to be to talk pages, rather than to actually articles. Alright, I'm way ahead! Z3ro^talk 22:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

We're rapidly approaching the 90% CUR related, 10% Other. STFU CUR!. _and marmite 22:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Toast you have been blocked for violating the 90/10 rule against CUR, CUR, CUR. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 22:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And rightly so. _and marmite 22:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The 99/1 rule is one of the holdovers from RW1. You are required to make 99 wandalisms/talks in order to be allowed to make one article edit. It was good policy then, and remains so. The talk, debates, and essays here are some of our best and most original content. Also some of our dopiest, but that's ok. ħuman 00:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Very well. I will do all the work. ^{— Unsigned, by: Anthropleurus / talk / contribs}

Nobody likes a martyr, CUR...Amin7b5 22:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

But everybody likes a person who will do all the work and leave everybody else to drink beer. . . -- 22:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You're confusing "like" with "barely tolerate." Amin7b5 22:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly CUR, dont get all woe is me. Everyone does there thing here and dont need you complaining about it. Secondly, Amin7b5, I appriciate CUR may be an irritant but your a little new to be so snarky towards him, no? Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 22:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Point taken ACE--what I was trying to say was not "I/we/they don't like you but barely tolerate you..." but more like "People tend not to like keeners in general, 'cause they try too hard..." Apologies and drinks all 'round. Amin7b5 23:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that cancels out the ten new articles I was going to make in the next week. Oh well. I'll have pineapple juice. -- 23:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries Amin, I just dont like to see CUR (or any member) have snark to deal with by someone who hasnt been directly irked by them ya know. CUR has personally fucked me and others off but I wouldnt want to see someone joining for the express purpose of harrasing CUR (or anyone. And I am not suggesting thats what you did - far from it). Make my drink and Vodka Tonic thanks. Ace McWicked^{The Liquid Room} 23:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Your drink, sir. -- 23:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Bloody Mary, svp. User:Theemperor/Sig/Sig 23:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Blood of Christ for me. None of this punk ass liquor. -- Yossarian^{The Man from the USSR} 23:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah Amin7b5 errr what Ace said. And get fucked. I'll have a caipirinha, Cur. Fresh lime. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 23:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh excuse me CUR. There seems to be some kind of giant millipede in my drink. Ace McWicked^{TK, TK, TK, TK, TK, TK, TK, TK, TK, TK ad infinitum} 23:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Throw it at him. Eleventy points if you can get it down the back of his shirt from here. User:Theemperor/Sig/Sig 23:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Cur for RW bartender, because he's slight less weird than Isaac from the Love Boat, but his fruit is fresher and he's more reliable because he can't drink. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 23:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Your drinks, gentlemen. The giant millipede appears to be of the prehistoric Arthropleura genus. Do. . . not. . . fuck with it. If you want it gone, see Fun:Arthropleura. -- 00:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

...This is the blood of Mithras. See if I leave you a tip. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 00:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I vote CUR for stockroom boy. Stockboy, fetch me some salted popcorn. SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 00:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

CUR My drink came with an incompetent cheetah in it. You know how I feel about that. User:Mei drinks Lemonade

Don't worry ma'am. I'll get you a gnu one. -- 00:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Macallan 18, hold the glass and bring the seatbelt. ħuman 00:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Off topic, but after reading this I have only one thought: CUR could you PLEASE change your signature image, it really looks like a cochroach on my screen, and it gives me the creeps - I can't even read this conversation without my skin crawling from the thought of "cukarachas" all over the place. On that note: does anyone else celebrate Cinco de Mayo? It's today! (Ole, Ole, Ole!) :p LOL. Refugee^{talk page} 20:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You heard the lady CUR. Can't have you scaring my girl ya hear. Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 20:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. My guy is so thoughtful - that's why I love him. :-) - Refugee^{talk page} 20:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Not only thoughtful but also tall, dark and handsome. Oh yeah. Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 21:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I am NOT going to change my signature image. That's an Arthropleura there, one of the most majestic, beautiful, cutest creatures ever to walk, er, crawl, the earth. -- 21:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Collection

Trent, could you install the Extension:Collection? -- 22:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's in Beta. _and marmite 22:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's used on Wikipedia. -- 22:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

A fine riposte if I ever read one, CUR. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 23:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

And what does it do, exactly? User:Theemperor/Sig/Sig 23:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Episode fucking Three of the 'Lets Install Extensions Nobody But Cur Wants' Show. Short term memory loss? User:Mei

Sureley you mean EPISODE VI: THE RETURN OF THE THERIANS
It is a dark and troubled time for the Rationals
Beset on all sides by Conservapedia Admins,
their only hope lies with the young Jedi Arthropleurus
However, his love interest, the beautiful Princess Mei-a,
has been captured by the evil Sith Lord Darth Fall Down. and his master,
the evil Emperor Theemperor

Not only are the Rationals fighting a war, but they
also face significant internal conflict. The top generals
of the Rationals, specifically General Toast and Admiral Ace-bar,
oppose the young Jedi's attempts to reform, such as
installing new extensions and instituting new rules. Torn between
his duty and his love interest, the young Jedi flees to the refuge
of the mysterious swamp-planet RationalWikiWiki to seek the wisdom
of the sage Jedi known only as the Weasel...

It's a stupid extension IMO. Aside from the collection part, which only serves the truly lazy, the PDF exporting stuff is a waste of drive space, bandwidth, and processor time. See here. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 23:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic. Could you make more of these? I'll take them to my swamp planet. -- 00:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This extension is for people who are using a wiki to collaboratively write material for publication. We are not making a book here. CUR one more stupid post and I am promoting you to vandal. Now I am going back to the dive bar to hang out with Ace and the Mexican gun runners. - π 01:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh no you won't. . . -- 20:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Human didn't make it in... but... but... but... ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ no hell below him 13:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sage Jedi? Not I, said the Weasel. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A topic more interesting than one started by CUR

Ace has made a change to the ATOW navigation template to include the Saloon bar. This is a bit pointless as the Saloon bar is always to the left there (you may need to scroll up/down a bit).

Any way my suggestion is why not ditch the template all together and have another little box between navigation and community for the WIGOs and ATOW, mentioned on the main page. - π 05:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Ace/Pi model is the best thing I have ever heard

• ListenerX^TalkerX 06:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• The Ace/Pi Model is an essential part of Quantifying your Openmindedness. Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 07:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• It is as obvious as 2+2=1 on the field $\mathbb {Z} _{3}$, that this is required. - π 07:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ace and Pi are starting to lose it

• Hmmm after a couple drinks I am of two minds.........Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 08:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

So you're three times ahead of where you started. However, a "couple drinks" is barely putting in the key and setting the choke. Why not wait until you're at least at a steady warm idle before interrupting this Very Important Conversation? Oh.... oops. ħuman 09:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Bahahahaha you foolish human. A couple of drinks whilst sitting down here you ignorant monkey. Jesus man, its 9:30pm. You think I could get here with only as much as "a couple of drinks"? Fool, FOOL! Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 09:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

• Too much clutter, IMHO --  Nx/talk  10:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
• Lightly against, the Saloon Bar link is on the left in the "community" section, so I think it only clutters it a bit too much. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ <insert witty comment here> 14:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

meh

Discuss at talk:main? Could be a good idea, might be cluttery though. ħuman 08:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Google Goats

Gentleman Kendoll! RationalWiki has learned that a certain search engine beginning with G has showed its support for the mighty goat. Ole! Ole! Ole! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Slight unease

I guess I'm feeling a little uneasy about my current plan for life (I'm 17 and in high school in the US). I do not plan on making a lot of money, and this fact alone seems to be slightly incongruous with my philosophy, which is a conglomeration of beliefs from humanism, liberalism, Buddhism, and other world views based on the intrinsic value of humanity and the importance of compassion based on the concept of the veil of ignorance.

The problem, then, is that if I had a lot of money I would be in a better position to share it with others, and a lack of ambition to do so is evident of selfishness on my part. I don't really want money myself, I don't often lust for material objects or material wealth. I just want enough money to survive with a sense of security. I've even considered living in a tent, and have somewhat detailed plans for backpacking across western Europe for a year, after the end of my senior year.

I'm not sure what I want to do to support myself yet, but chances are it is going to be going to be something I don't mind, or even enjoy, doing for a long time. Something as pastoral as making quality cheese from goat(!) milk and selling it at fair prices for a small profit has even crossed my mind. More likely, though, would be working in the music industry or in a restaurant (preferably a restaurant that I had much stake in, e.g. chef), or any number of different occupations in which I have proficiency and might enjoy doing. I guess that one of my my main problems is that I've always been reasonably good at everything I do and I've never had to try too had. Yes, that was extremely conceited and stupid. Yes, it's ridiculous that I just said my problem is ability, whilst not creating a cloud of smug that will subsequently destroy San Diego (a la South Park). I think I should vomit on my own face now. But I guess I should at least try to be honest, and either I'm delusional about myself or I'd be presenting false modesty.

I also believe I should do the least amount of work possible to do what I want to do with my life. I'm dropping out of high school right before the end of my senior year so I can get my GED because instead of taking the classes I need to graduate, I am taking the classes that most appeal to my varied interests. Wood shop, AP Music Theory, maybe Psychology, playing guitar for my jazz choir, etc.: I place more value on my education than on my schooling, as Einstein may have put it. I'm going to community college or a culinary institute because I happen to live in a county with a very good community college (Yay liberalism, enabling the unambitious! ;D ), from which I can transfer to the state university if I want to after one or two years of good grades. I'm doing the least amount of work possible to please myself.

So again, my problem is basically selfishness. My philosophy dictates that I should be earning as much money as humanly possible given my ability so as to to give more money to those to have less: almost like a personal version of communism. Charity, in other words. Or even if I didn't give charity (for whatever reason) I'd still contribute more because I'd be paying more taxes. But I won't do this because I am care about my own happiness more than others. This goes against my philosophies and makes me uneasy. I have the right to the pursuit of happiness and I have the ability; the way is clear for me. I feel bad that I'm not giving more, though.

I'm not sure what I'm looking for. Consolation? Or maybe I just need to be reminded that latent guilt is part of everyone's life, and hence the indisputable existence of the Guilt God. (Douglas Adams hit it on the head. Again.) What's that thing called? Cognitive discord or something.

P.S. Sorry for the length... I'm not sure if this is even the place to bring this up. If I brought this up at a real saloon bar I'd probably get a lot of blank stares and, from the more conservative/fundie drunkards, some allegations of homosexuality based on open and unrepentant intellectualism. (I now repent for intellectualism.) I also noticed I've replaced my usual overuse; of semi;colons;; with; sentence fragments. But that is okay. With me. Clepper 10:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That's what you get when you make life decisions in a saloon bar. It sounds like you're a pretty typical teenager. Angry, insecure, confused. I wish I could tell you that's all going to pass, but I don't want to lie to you. Z3ro^talk 13:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that I'm angry at all, or generally insecure. I'm actually very happy with my life, and I've been in the process of making 'life decisions' for a long time; my whole life in fact. ;) And I'm not so sure I'm confused. As of right now, I'm willing to accept some inherent hypocrisy in my philosophy. Clepper 14:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the angry/insecure line is a quote from a movie. I'm too clever for my own good sometimes. Z3ro^talk 14:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh ah, haha. I wish I had that 'problem'. :) I didn't catch the reference. Clepper 14:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, neither did anyone else. --Kels 14:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It won a best picture! See if I try to be clever next time *huff* Z3ro^talk 15:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Charity is not your own version of communism--charity gives you, the rich person, the authority/power/agency to decide what is "good" and what is not, what problems deserve to get fixed, and which we can live with, what's important and what isn't. Communism--in theory anyways, means the people get to decide on those things. While I do not doubt the goodness of your intentions, charity takes agency away from the masses of people who are struggling to make their world a better place and puts that agency in the hands of their "social betters" who "know what's good for them." Charity is about the wealthy exercising power over the poor--which usually has a lot to do with how they got wealthy in the first place. Charity rarely addresses the roots of the problems it's dealing with--paying for people's medical treatments (...a good thing, yes) does nothing to deal with problems like why certain social groups/classes of people get sick more often--or how the effects of industrialization make us all sick; feeding starving kids in Africa does nothing to make governments stop starving their populations, and often works to make those governments stronger. You want to change the world for the better? Good. Getting rich, though, typically makes the world worse (people have to be paid less than their labour is worth for you to make a profit)--grassroots politics, not business, is where that happens. Amin7b5 14:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good point, I presented an illogical analogy. What I was trying to say was charity emulating communism; in essence simulating the conditions of true communism when actually living in a democracy. So in that way, pretending you are part of a communism and giving your money to the people (to the government as representatives of the people?) to do with it what they will. I'm still not sure I've made myself clear, but I guess the specific point was really not that important anyways. :) Point is, I accept your correction wholeheartedly. Clepper 14:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, wait, I think I misinterpreted your intentions. I think I was replying to your comment when it was in incomplete form. Jumped the gun. You raise a good point that profit typically must be made on the labor, and thus disenfranchisement in some form, of other people. But what about, say, people who make millions (what are they called, accountants? Fiscal managers?) in simply moving money around? It doesn't seem that it directly hurts anyone to do this. Even now, though, I can see some tenuous arguments against that idea forming in my mind... Clepper 14:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Financial managers are still creating the capital that leads to exploitation, and still playing an important role in keeping that capital out of the hands of most of the people in the world. I see what you want to do--use wealth to fix the problems. I don't think you can do that as long as the way that wealth is created (and there is, increasingly, only one model that process follows) is at the root of most of the problems you want to solve. Amin7b5 14:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Your question is deserving of a longer answer (we need a therapy/consulting room) but one thing to consider in the meantime is the role of money with regards to your long term health. As a fit young teenager it may not seem important but in a country without a decent state health-care system you may need some savings later on no matter how frugal your life-style. Without money you need to be part of an active mutually-supporting community so you can't be too self-centred and lazy. I remember visiting an Amish community in Illinois many years ago, they didn't believe in medical insurance so the whole community had a fund-raising event to pay the expensive medical bills for one of their own. Just sayin'. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 15:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Amin7b5, I believe the chord that your name is based off of sounds ugly. (I'm sorry! My opinion.) But you've succeeded, along with Javascap in assuaging much of the guilt I felt. Thank you! It helps that your arguments help me to believe what I wanted to believe anyways ;).

Ghengis Can and Will: (Important note: The following is based mostly on past experience and not copious amounts of knowledge. Warning, ignorance may abound.) I've thought about the importance of savings before, and I agree with you that a pretty good amount of money should be kept aside for emergencies of all kinds. Many medical emergencies, though, simply take all of your money and then put you on Medicare. Then, once you start getting money again, you're ineligible for Medicare/Medicaid and they take you off, so you have to spend all of your money again. I'm not sure this is always the case, nor do I know how much money they let you keep (or if it actually has to do with sources of income. I'll look into this after I post... admittedly, the incorrect order of things), but I know that when my grandma started having medical problems my grandparents started losing a lot of their savings, really fast. Luckily my grandma was saved by my grandpa's Social Security in the nick of time. Experiences like that have kinda polarized my views against the current health care system... even though my grandpa saved up a lot of money and was always very prudent in his financial decisions, all that money was eventually swallowed up by the system for what I see was an arbitrary reason. Just because people have money doesn't mean the government should take all of it first. If they know they're gonna put someone on Medicare anyways, why wait until that person is nearly bankrupt to do it? As you can see, I'm a big supporter of government-sponsored free health care (with the option for corporate alternatives, of course). It seems unfair that when someone realizes they have cancer they must also realize it means they will have less money to pass on to their children. It is probable that most of the things I asserted or assumed are false, though, and I'd love to be proven otherwise. Clepper 15:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Finally, someone gets closer to what communism is all about by using it to "assuage guilt" for being selfish! (Incidentally, Clepper, making profits does not require shortchanging workers, as anyone who runs a one-person business can attest.) ListenerX^TalkerX 15:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you are imposing that on the discussion... I stated that I believe in the philosophy of humanism, and I also believe that socialism stems from my beliefs. (I say socialism here and not communism... it was an error to bring up such a polarized word as communism). So I do not at all think socialism is all about using it to assuage guilt, as you put it; I simply believe it is moral. I would not feel guilty in the first place if I did not believe socialism was moral, obviously. Your other point, implying that running a one-person business does not short-change workers, also assumes that 'workers' means 'workers employed by said person', when in reality most would take it to mean any workers at all. There are obviously many ways in which a person running a self-operated business could profit off of the labors and injustices of others. A simple and extreme example would be someone who kills other people for money. Amin7b5 seems to believe that all forms of making money (at least, for a profit) are subject to at least minimal forms of exploitation, and after consideration I am inclined to agree with that. Clepper 16:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

...Listener, even if one were working for him or herself as something a little less tendentious than a hitman--a cabinetmaker, let's say--that person would still be tied (via his or her suppliers, transportation, and the origins of the money that they get from their customers) into an economy that is fundamentally exploitative. I get the feeling from looking at some of your posts that you're of the libertarian bent--it seems that Clepper has figured out the first thing about libertarianism--that it's based on the idea that I'm better off without you than I am with you. That's no way to run a society...Amin7b5 16:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Needless to say, I agree. My main problem with libertarianism is that libertarians are almost always on the right side of the veil of ignorance, and they refuse to look at it from the perspective of those on the wrong side. This, to me, is morally objectionable; it refuses to look at both sides to an argument. Although morals are commonly believed to be outside the realm of rationality, I think this failure to account for different situations in life is irrational, in a philosophical way. Clepper 16:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Having seen many of Listener's posts in the short time I've checked out the various debates and essays in their respective RW sections, I already know that he and I would disagree about many things we would probably not be able to change our minds about. For that reason, there's no point debating. I say this to forestall what may be a developing Libertarianism or Learner X's philosophy vs. Other-ism debate, which would be pointless and also would not fit in the context of the Saloon Bar. It's probably obvious, but just sayin'. Clepper 16:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. This idea that making a profit is "explotation" is just wrong. Many times, we pay for something we could do, but chose not to, because we'd rather pay to have it done. That is not explotation, it's capitalism. Z3ro^talk 17:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

But the point is that you are paying for this service with money you received from a corrupt system. At some level you are interacting with a system that exploits somebody, even if the level of exploitation is apparently extremely small. Chances are when you go to the fast food chain you are ordering your food from someone who is only there because they need the money to survive. The point that Amin7b5 was making was that everybody who makes a profit or, and this is my interpretation of his idea, even interacts financially with someone who uses exploitation to make a profit, is ultimately working against the cause of less exploitation. Exploitation is inherent to the system of capitalism. This may or may not be bad, but Amin7b5 showed me this so as to help me realize I shouldn't spend my life blindly chasing after money to help the poor or disabled, because obtaining that money hurts the poor or disabled in the first place, in some way. Javascap also had some insights that I found agreeable, but they're on his talk page. Clepper 17:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Running for safety as soon as one's beliefs are challenged is not exactly the best way to convince people that they are correct. A disproportionate number of Reds have fled the debate in this manner (hiding behind their guns, for the most part).

And I am not a libertarian. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand me; I am not running. I am not afraid of defending my beliefs if I believe it serves a purpose. If you really want to debate, let's take it to the appropriate channels; I've seen templates for debate. Also, I was consciously open to the chance that you may not be a libertarian; hence saying exactly "Libertarianism or Learner X's philosophy". But if looking at the previous RationalWiki debates concerning the subject (Liberal Beliefs is the primary one) has taught us anything, it is basically that Libertarians and Liberals have looked at the exact same arguments and have still come qto different conclusions. If you have arguments that are not libertarian, or offer a new perspective on libertarianism at the least, then show them to me. If you have arguments that are contrary to my philosophies that are not addressed already in the Liberal Beliefs debate or other debates on RationalWiki, then I'm willing to entertain the notion of a debate on the off-chance that I may learn something new. I appreciate learning. I do not, however, appreciate allegations of cowardice... Clepper 17:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

All right. On this thread, it has been repeatedly stated, without corroborating argument, that the current economic system is "exploitative," "corrupt," etc., etc. I dispute this. I further dispute the idea of placing a certain sort of "worker" in the category of "exploited" without so much as a by-your-leave, as the manner was. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Note about below text! I did indeed use the word corrupt. I meant to say exploitative. I revoke what I said about it being naturally corrupt, and instead put forth the observation that it is often corrupt in practice (Enron, anyone?). I do not wish to imply that the free market is morally bad; in this way, I no longer identify it with the word corrupt, and I never had sexual relations with that woman. Maybe. Clepper 19:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh ah, thanks for clarifying. I don't see 'corrupt', and I think 'corrupt' is a vague word. Corrupt implies that the free market system is bad based on the idea that the free market system is exploitative. I passed no judgment based on the morality of a free market system. But I also think that the free market is exploitative. It seems you assume I believe exploitation to be bad. If this were true, if all exploitation were bad, then there would be no desire to create a more competitive product. Exploitation of peoples' senses is shown through advertising. Most people think advertising is a good thing, even though it exploits the nature of human beings to lust after things. Advertising is a way of spreading information, and the free market occurs when different sources have competing information. This is largely the reason for human progress. Where would we be without the Industrial Revolution? And yet somebody had to put in the back breaking work of shoveling coal. Without that, there would have been no progress. A free market economy promotes innovation and human progress at the costs of exploitation. I am not associating exploitation with being bad, and I think this is where you misunderstood me. In the free market economy, people are never forced to do back-breaking work, it is simply the only alternative to starving. Because the only way for them to live is to work, they are being exploited. The free market occurs when someone gains something at the cost of someone else. With mutual exploitation there is always mutual benefit. An example is a man trading hard labor for the money he needs to support his family. But there is still exploitation inherent in the system. What liberalism is based on is an equality between exploitation and benefit between two parties. This occurs when people are granted basic freedoms; when they can choose the method of their own exploitation that is most agreeable to them. It is also important to realize that not everything is a zero-sum game; it is possible that the net benefit of a transaction is greater for both sides. A simple example is the sharing of information. This will always occur at the cost of exploitation, however. All exploitation is voluntary, but sometimes the choice is eighteen hours a day of hard labor or death by starvation. Liberals simply don't believe this is a fair choice.

It becomes obvious that 'exploitation' carries connotations that are bad. Do you have an alternate word that carries the same meaning but would not have such connotations?

Also, if you have counterarguments please state them, but I am of the opinion that we simply had a misunderstanding of terms. I am willing to redefine the terms, but except for when I explicitly state that a certain view is typically liberal, it seems from what I have read of your philosophy on debates and talk pages that we share similar views about the free market. Do correct me if I'm wrong. I've tried to be clear in my logic and examples, but language is ever the obstacle of communication. :D Clepper 18:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I am very confused now. You said, "[S]ocialism stems from my beliefs," yet you seem to think we hold similar views regarding the free market.

In responding to Z3ro above, you said, "But the point is that you are paying for this service with money you received from a corrupt system" based on exploitation. You talk about exploitation as a "cost." Yet you insist that you are not "associating exploitation with being bad."

You said that, "The free market occurs when someone gains something at the cost of someone else." But you then said immediately, "Not everything is a zero-sum game." ListenerX^TalkerX 22:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm obviously not communicating clearly, and that's my fault. I think we hold similar views about the nature of the free market, but we differ on the effect to which it should be implemented in society. We have this thing called the 'free market economy' that exists, and we both seem to think that it is basically a good idea. My philosophy just proposes more limitations on it. I was under the impression that the free market can co-exist with socialism in a limited capacity. Maybe I pulled that out of nowhere? At any rate I believe our views are indeed similar. We have two different shades of gray here, is all. I don't know what exactly what you believe, but it seemed you thought that a basic need for government in the economy might be necessary somethimes; e.g., laws against worker exploitation (in the traditional sense which I totally misused) and the like.

In a fit of moral high ground I started painting the free economy with an immoral brush, which was ridiculous. I stand corrected. The fact that it has corrupt parts is not at all based on it being based on exploitation. I'm sincerely looking for another word to replace this word 'exploitation'. Maybe I still haven't stated it clearly enough... I mean it more like 'use', or 'to use'. When people barter they use each other to different ends. Perhaps the word 'use' avoids the negative connotations of exploit? If so, it doesn't change my examples, methinks. It just makes them clearer. I'm sorry for my poor word choice. I don't think anybody denies that there abundance of non-zero sum games in the free market economy, it's just that people 'use' each other to reach mutual benefit. As in, two people each possess half of a key to escape their cell, and they must 'use' (not exploit. what was I thinking using that word choice? It was horrible) each other and each other's possession to escape the cell. Perhaps that clears it up. It seems I originally painted the free-market economy in a bad way, leading to contradiction and misconception (all my fault) and this is where your argument stems from. I hope I have at least partially corrected for my massacre of the English language. I thank you for correcting me. But it seems my problems have been overcoming my retardation in language. Hopefully now I've made myself clearer.

P.S. Isn't it frustrating to argue with someone who changes their position halfway through? I'm sorry about that. But it's a good indicator that your (e.g., Listener X's) ideas are right. :) Clepper 23:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A slight issue with respect to people "using" each other. In a voluntary trade, I would say they instead use each other's labor, or knowledge, or talents — using the person is reserved for the likes of chattel-slavery situations. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Whew, it seems I've finally conveyed my ideas. Sorry it took so long. I agree with your interpretation, that's what I meant. I'm not sure what you could use a 'person' for other than eating... so I meant a person's labor, ideas, etc. like you said. Clepper 22:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Random thought

Am I the only one whose heart leaps just a tad bit when they see their user name posted at them from some cleverly-scripted auto-generator thingy-mabober? Like when they use that assquote thing. My first reaction is a very brief moment of 'How/why the hell does this person have a random note for me on a page I've never even visited before?!?!!!111oneeleventyone' If it was an IP address it'd be different, but people actually (occasionally) call me Clepper in teh real worldz. Maybe that's why.

It's a very minor, very brief equivalent of walking down some creepy cave passage when a neon light flashes "Be very, very afraid, Clepper" with a contemptuous flourish. I don't know why Douglas Adams is on my mind so much.

I'm not complaining, just saying it seems weird to me, being new to RationalWiki and all. :D

All I have are random thoughts. Like the other day I was watching the Golden Girls and I thought it would be much better if the show had focused more on Dorothy. Ah, Bea Arthur. Of course, it would have been even better if they had actioned it up a bit. All of the ladies should have had Katanas and in each episode they should have needed to defend Miami from hordes of water moccasins and zombies dressed in burlap sacks.

-- Deadpool Everybody, protect me!

I second the above xD Lynad ^{...Agh! Don't hurt me!} 15:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Curious about new articles.

I'm just curious. Do you think it's better to write a stub about something that is worthy of an article but you know little about... or leave it a red link for someone to maybe someday get around to but hasn't for months? I'm always torn on that.--En attendant Godot_{"Such is life."} 14:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It depends if you think the stub will stimulate activity. I'd rather have a red link than a stub, so if no one edits it after you, you haven't really accomplished anything. So, to answer your question, I don't know. Z3ro^talk 14:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I did that for Information theory, just filling in as best I could and actually leaving a message asking for help on an appropriate page (WiGOaSK in that case). It's probably fine as long as you call attention to it, and only do it once in a while. --Kels 14:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nods, that's why I'm torn. On WP, there are so many editors that if you start something, even in "ed poor style" it will quickly get edited and revised and improved. So it's useful to start any stub. Here, I don't know if people are more likely to edit something that sucks but exists, or find it by a random redlink search. I know some redlinks have just stuck around forever, cause they get lost in the 3000 some odd non-legitimate reds we have. Maybe a good way to highlight them would be to make empty redlinks all over the place, so they bump up on the list? :-) --En attendant Godot_{"Such is life."} 15:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There's several things people can think:

1. that's wrong, better correct and amplify it;
2. aha, something I'm interested in and know about, I'll amplify it;
3. I don't know anything about that, I'll investigate and add my findings;
4. Yawn:

_and marmite 15:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I did that months ago with Ted Stevens, and it's still shite. Totnesmartin 17:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny that my first visit here should find this. I was thinking of starting an article on the probable inaccuracy in the Wikipedia entry on popular ex-BBC Radio2 dj Jimmy Young. It seems likely he was actually born in 1923, not 1921 as stated.[1] It's nice that at least one editor at the other place seems to share this knowledge.LateralQuercus 01:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Not real our thing "probable inaccuracy in a Wikipedia article on some guy". - π 01:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

We'd get swamped if we started that. best to bring it up on the WP talk page, in which case one of three things will happen: it will get fixed within a day or two; it will remain ignored for months; or a huge flame war will ensue, until somebody whines for help. Totnesmartin 08:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my subtleties are obviously too subtle, or I'm just too old LateralQuercus 13:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

For the Americans

Next time a right wing idiot complains about all the freedoms that Obama is going to take away, show his this and slap them very hard. SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 16:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm kinda meh about this story; I agree with the premise, that we don't need huge name-chains for last names, but maybe not the way they go about it. Z3ro^talk 16:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see the reason, although I think it's rather harmless. My larger point is that don't complain that Obama is establishing a facist regime while Germany is legislating name length. SirChuckB^{BATHE THE WHALES!!!!} 16:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Germany seems pretty justified. I think it is obvious some names should be banned, but I also believe the banning of many names in European nations are controversial in that the names aren't as controversial. Judas, for instance. Judas seems to me a much, much more reasonably name than Drew Peacock. (No offense to Drew Peacock)

Not just name length, there are lists of *first names* you are allowed to name your child. You can't name your child an "unapproved" name. And there is no justification for banning *any* name. The name Fuck, honest to god, is a Vietnamese name. Most VN will spell it Phuck in the us, cause.. well you get why. But it's not right to tell someone what they can or cannot name themselves or their child. Also, who decides what name is appropriate and why? If i want to name my child Hitler, after my great ancestor and *not* after the Murderous leader of Germany, why can't I honor that *for me*? --En attendant Godot_{"Such is life."} 16:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Woah now, hey now, let's use some reductio ad absurdum. What about the name 'AAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSADFTEGSDFSFFFFFFFFFFSEEEEEEESAAGKJDGHKDJGHGHKG!!!!!!!!!' ? That first name would cause a lot of problems for data storage as well as more obvious things like pronunciation. On a more practical level, nobody would deny a Vietnamese person from having the name 'Fuck', and they might not even deny it of someone who truthfully wants to have a Vietnamese name. (Like Japanophiles, whatever the technical term is for that, that are mega-obsessed with anime characters) But if someone wanted that name for the obvious reason of promoting discord, e.g. someone choosing the name Holy Fuck, then people would be concerned. The point I'm making is that context is very important for these things, and there's no reason why individual names couldn't be taken up with a reasonable court if they were unheard-of or otherwise controversial. That may not be the case in Germany, but maybe it should be. Clepper 16:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Er. When I meant when I said 'nobody would deny...' in the above edit, I actually meant 'less people would deny...'. The point was relativity. That was a brain slip on my part.

It's all the difference between an actor shouting 'Fire!' during a play and an audience member yelling 'Fire!'. Same name, different connotations. Clepper 16:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

See, I still find that idea offensive to me as a "name giver" or name taker. If your data program cannot handle my name, then deal with it. But if it's my name, it's my name. My husband, a Vietnamese French guy has troubles all teh time cause "data systems" cannot handle 3 tiered names. In Europe, we have "first" (important), "last" (most important) and "middle" (only really useful if there are two of you. But in some asian countries, there is a family name, a generational name, and there are two equivalent but different last names, and they are used in different ways at different times. VN people in the states have to decide then, "which is the formal last name" or "will I hyphnate" or "which is my real first name". You adapt, and deal with lots of errors... but it's not right to make a law that says "we cannot handle your name, so we will make you change it or do it our way". There was a State Rep from Texas who just got into trouble with the Asian community for saying, in court, "Why don't you people just take normal names or change your name. Or why don't we just make a law setting the standards". bad mojo followed. --En attendant Godot_{"Such is life."}

Hmmm, I'm willing to compromise a lot when people find something offensive. I'll have to think about this further, because although civil liberties are great, people always have the habit of taking them to extremes, and having no laws let them get away with this. I'm trying not to into reductio ad absurdum with names that are 100,000 characters long and things like that. I think every single name, even if it has seventeen equally legitimate parts, can be broken down in a way that allows easy identification between individuals. An example is that many last-name string variables allow only ten characters; they simply cut off the last characters. You could do the same thing with 'extra' names, using only names that are necessary for data storage purposes. It doesn't have to be a decision on the part of the surveyed, it can be on the part of the surveyor. It is not right to force people to have to jump through hoops just to get their name on official documents, but I think that is a different question than the original. I realize I raised the point when I talked about absurdly long names. I stand corrected by the example of your husband. But it still doesn't account for names that aren't just long, they can also be considered offensive or hateful. Do you believe a group of militant anarchist mothers should be allowed to name their children (ironically) "Fuck Free Speech"? People petition to name their children this or change their name to similar names all of the time. I'm saying there are legitimate reasons letting them do so would be a bad idea. Clepper 17:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

17:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC) No matter how strange the discussion, there's an XKCD cartoon for it. Totnesmartin 17:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn't one of the Scandinavian countries some time ago force a change in loads of surnames because there were two many, Johanson or similar, I dimly recall. And doesn't France have a list of approved forenames? _and marmite 17:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Sweden stopped a couple from calling their son Superman and New Zealand recently banned some names including Fish and Chips, Yeah Detroit, Stallion, Twisty Poi, Keenan Got Lucy and Sex Fruit but did allow Number 16 Bus Shelter, Benson and Hedges (twins), Midnight Chardonnay, Hitler, Cinderella Beauty Blossom and Violence. There is also a 100 character name limit (allegedly). Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 18:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Sweden thing was actually for a couple who wanted to name their kid "4real", number and all, and the country basically said you can't inlcude a number in a name, so they went with superman. Z3ro^talk 18:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I heard that some guy on the internet called his daughter Phyllis Schlafly. How cruel can you get?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That's f**king disgraceful... ^gnostic 18:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

“”Jamie Oliver and wife Jools leave the Portland Hospital, central London with their newborn daughter Petal Blossom Rainbow, their third girl after Poppy Honey and Daisy Boo

—Photo caption Daily Telegraph, Quoted in Private Eye 1235; Pseuds Corner

_and marmite 18:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it interesting that they ban naming the kid something purely gender neutral. --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 18:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't it Bob Geldof who called his daughter Pixie FrouFrou or am I thinking of 'Celeb' from Private Eye? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 18:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I know Geldof's kid is named some thign "odd". I always remember Dwezel and Moon Unit. On the other hand, translations of many names from other cultures are odd to us. hubby is Victory at War of Duc, son of Thien. Our close friend from japan is "Beautiful snow falls and melts". By the way, what about symbols in names? I think of prince, but also those chinese who use their characters for many offical documents... Is that allowed around and throughout Europe? Does someone who is Chinese and doing business here in the states, have to have a Roman Letter transliteration for his/her name? oh the things to ponder.--En attendant Godot_{"Such is life."} 18:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have my own "chop" which I had made in Hong Kong but I've never used it for official documents. It should also be remembered that most western names "mean something", those baby-name books often list all the meanings, frexample Phyllis means "green branch", Andrew means "manly" and Terence means "mean-natured". Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that, with a few exceptions like April or joy as first names, and Baker, Scott, or smith as last names, American names *meant* something, not "mean" something. That is, my middle name is Sue, and I'm sure it had meaning once, but all it is today is a name. --En attendant Godot_{"Such is life."} 01:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hah! my first name's "Regina"!!!! How horrid is that? _and marmite 02:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, you are the Queen Gentleman. Many names "meant" something and became hereditary (esp. last names). First names are funny, as they go through cycles of popularity - there seemed to me to be million Jennifers and Michelles of a certain age - due in no doubt to the songs of the late sixties. Hell, the Clintons named their daughter Chelsea after a song! So meaning there is less semantic than associative. Surely some languages/cultures still use "current meaning" in naming conventions? ħuman 04:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I are surprise no-one has haz mentioned this classic but tedious MP sketch and if ye did I apologize for reposting it. CЯacke® 18:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

mediawiki question embedding quicktime videoi

I want to look into embedding .mov files into wiki pages. I've seen the extension. Does anyone have an experience with it? Do we have it here? Can I see it in action? ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 19:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

pages with embedded videos slow my comp to a standstill. So do ones that auto-play audio. Please don't. ENorman 19:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to use it here, silly goose. I just know there are some wiki-nerds about who might have some experience with it

We have one for flv format. One is available for ogg. Try searching MediaWiki's extension list; ask CUR he knows where it is. - π 02:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

One exists for quicktime, but I can't find anyone who has used it or any wiki where it is in use. I don't actually have the keys to the instance of mediawiki where I'm interested in applying it.

Concerning this

I see that those of you who attempted that little exercise were led, (sheepishly), to the fleecing rooms above the slaughter house.

They ye go trusing authority agin.

1. "1. Sally likes 225 but not 224..."

Who gives a shit what Sally likes?

2. The typist thing...When was the last time YOU saw a typewriter, (that wasn't under that pile of papers on you desk and filled with catshit, or at a flea market reeking of catshit?)

3."If it were two hours later, it would be half as long until midnight..."

Splain this to me regarding closing time at the bar and I'd solve it in ten seconds (binary).

8. The fruit box math thing...whoever designed this test is an obvious theist, rating a fucking banana HIGHER than an apple.

9."Two men, starting at the same point, walk in opposite directions for 4 meters..." I had expected some shootin' to be going on but when I finded out there wasn't I got bored with the question.

The Killer: 19. Only one other word can be made from all the letters of INSATIABLE. Can you find it?

"No" should oughta be an acceptable answer to this "question".

If you need me I'll be in rehab. CЯacke® 19:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC) PS I got 29

Does anyone give a monkeys that I vandal binned MarcusCicero?

Earlier today I vandal binned MC for being a stalker, making exciting edits like this and being an all round general prick. Now he's bitching about it on my talk page. Does anyone actually care? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Err ... now, what should I say? _and marmite 21:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

He edited an Archive? Persecute! PERSECUTE!! Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 21:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem whatsoever. He wasn't even trying to contribute. You'll have to desysop him, though. -- 21:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No problemo. The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 21:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I care. you did the right thing. If someone's just being an arsehole they get vandal binned. MC's been here long enough to realise that. Totnesmartin 21:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Can't beat the hive mentality. Look it, he didn't ban for being a stalker or anything like it, he's throwing that in your face as some sort of justification, which it isn't. To be a stalker I'd need to be doing something more than every two weeks or a month. The fact is that I'm a barely interested cynic who finds a quite a few things round here ludicrous. Such as JeevesMarkII here. Quite sad. No grounds for being vandal binned - especially when I get around it so easily as I'm doing right here.

I'll put it like this, unvandal bin me and you probably won't see me for a couple of weeks, and only then the odd comment here and there. Permanantly vandal bin me and I'll become an obsessive, constantly editing in this place under IPs generally being more active. And I'm sure no-one wants to see me more active. So have a bit of sense and un-vandal bin me, the entire charge is pathetic.

Well blackmail is a good reason for a vandal bin.--Bob^{bing up} 21:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We already have someone who does that- Fall down. The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 21:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Paroled. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you actually buy MC's bullshit, or are you just doing it to shut him the fuck up? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't think he's a vandal to any great extent, & being a prick really isn't enough of a reason for the vandal bin. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I can smell Jeeve's disappointment! ^{— Unsigned, by: 86.45.204.255 / talk / contribs}

At least he had the balls to bring it up here and let the mob decide. ħuman 09:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Cop on, its nothing to with balls whatsoever. He is an anonymous user of an internet website. Oh the balls! Jeesh. He wanted an excuse to get rid of me, and snapped it up when he had a chance is all. Simple elimination, thats all. Hardly any balls in that.

Did I ever mention....

....not sure if I have ever brought this up before but did you know that I am an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church Modesto, California? I can marry people as long as I check in with my local registry office. A bit of Ace trivia. Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 21:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I am an official Pope of the Discordian religion. The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 21:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

And i'm a messiah. I've got the card and everything. Totnesmartin 22:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the messiah. I'm just a very naughty boy... ħuman 23:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Where's your messiah now? --Yossie^{Spring in Fialta} 00:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

ANTI-CONTROL

Reject all and you won't have you're "head in the clouds!" Protect and nurture you're PERSONALITY and reject everything that seems to be ABSOLUTE BLOODY BULLSHIT.%>&>

Are you feeling alright? Ace McWicked^{Disco Jesus} 22:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the BoN has been reading too much Time Cube. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(link added by The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 23:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC))

Holy crap. That stuff blew my mind.^{— Unsigned, by: Clepper / talk / contribs}

Fact- Timecube is a rejected rough draft of the Necronomicon. You read it here first! ENorman 23:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Time Cube 'nother link. ħuman 23:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Places of interest other than Conservapedia

For a while, I was planning on enacting a return to Conservapedia after some absence, with the intent to start some articles that were essentially kosher but would still raise eyebrows, as well as raise a few debate questions. However, with the return of a certain attentive, alert sysop over there. But I've still had itches to raise certain topics among certain mindsets, and I was wondering if there are any less block-happy sites that people have been contributing to in some matter or other. At this point, I'd really prefer to leave A Storehouse of Knowledge alone. 71.193.206.116 00:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And you are...? The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 00:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? Wow, that's a lot of a responsiblity to just give to a guy. 71.193.206.116 00:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 01:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You forgot the question mark and it confused the BON. ħuman 01:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry.

I just found this place called AllAbouTheJourney.org it's been bugging me on my searches for Marxism and evolution with it's subgroups AllAboutScience.org Allaboutphilosophy.org and for some reason they have an allabouttheoccult domain reserved too. These various Christian apologetics sites have a weird format that works on a gradient from sanity to evangelism. like Truth-truth-truth-halftruth-truth-halftruth-halftruth-lie-lie-lie-fallacy-do you love jesus yet? I find the articles fun because if you read closely you can tell when the theme starts sinking into bullshit. the Theory of evolution article gives two pages of solid information before going completely Hovind. It's like Conservapedia if it were written by people with a sense of subtlety. ^{He is the} Painkiller 03:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Try Tinwiki.org--it's a repository for conspiracy theories, so you'll REALLY have to work at it to out-crazy the sincere believers. --Gulik 04:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Swine 'flu redux

This made me go "aah!"

“”KABUL (Reuters) - Afghanistan's only known pig has been locked in a room, away from visitors to Kabul zoo where it normally grazes beside deer and goats, because people are worried it could infect them.

--PsyGremlin_Whut? 07:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The only pig in the entire country? Those crazy muslims. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Think of all the tasty bacon they're missing out on. Z3ro^talk 15:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Bacon - the vegetarian's nightmare. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 18:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This is your brain on drugs with a side order of bacon. Mega 19:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I recall hearing bacon grease referred to as "liquid cancer", on HBO, yeah the movie/show people, when they did public affairs types of stuff....20 or so years ago. CЯacke® 20:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Google quote of the day

My home page is google.co.uk and I get a list of 'quotes of the day' - one that might amuse this site is A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel. - well that's us guys through and through. Silver Sloth 10:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't, you missed the whole fucking point. I would explain but am too broadminded to give further offense than I already have. Carry on! CЯacke®

Fishes and Aliens

Have any of you ever considered that to animals that live a fully aquatic life, we humans would count as aliens to them? What if, to a fish, the experience of being caught and returned to the river was similar to the alleged experiences of humans being captured by aliens, and "released" (returned back home?) The allegory is appalling, we as humans cannot live in space, and in the similar vein, fish cannot live on land, hence, with the exceptions of the individuals who can breath underwater (SCUBA diving) fish have no contact with the "human" world, and with the rare exception of those who live in space, humans have no encounter with the "outside" world.

So what would this mean? If a fish was captured and returned, and if it is capable of communicating its experiences, would it be met with the same derisive mockery humans who claim UFO encounters are met with? ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ My computer has two mowses! 15:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Uh, fail? (as you mentioned, fish are joined by use when we swim or scuba dive, and can see us through the water) Z3ro^talk 15:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I know, but there are some places where it is illegal to swim, hence, the fish in the body of water would have no human encounters. Javasca₧ secret trainer of pillows! 15:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

True, but if they were intelligent enough to be able to communicate, they should eventually develop technology which would enable them to talk with other communities that did have contacts, and would thus understand what was happening (and would eventually become our overlords). Z3ro^talk 15:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

EC) The % of fish who have seen a human underwater must be miniscule: on a par with UFO sightings. _and marmite 15:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it should also be noted that fish live in comparable "planets", in this case, bodies of water that are separated from eachoter in a way that cannot be bridged, so even if there is a pond that is frequented by humans to the point where it no longer disturbs the fish, the fish who live in "no swimming, fishing allowed" lakes who have seen humans would be, as Toast said, a small minority, and the fishes from other ponds who have seen frequent human contact would be unable to communicate that humans exist and are rather common... (argh, now my head hurts) Javasca₧ don't cast the first stone, and I won't throw it back 15:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Has someone been watching Finding Nemo? Генгис^{Gum disease} 17:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Give an alien a man and he eats for a chronon. Teach an alien to man and he will eat for an entire aeon. Mega 18:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hehe... nice one. ħuman 00:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

*spittake*

So I was browsing around the internet when I bumped across this game. It reads your mind Javasca₧ bruagh bhrnr murgh bruagh graaaah! 16:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the arithmetic of multiples of 9, methinks. _and marmite 16:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Damn you Toast, now you've gone and spoiled it for me. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 17:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Take any two digit number. Let x be the value of the first digit and let y be the value of the second digit. Note that 0<x<10. We may express this value as 10x+y. The prompted computation can there for be expressed as (10x+y)-(x+y) which simplifies to 9x. Based on the restrictions on the value of x, x={9,18,27,36,45,54,63,72,81}, which are all the same symbols on the mind-reading page. Jorge 18:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Aw, don't spoil it for everyone... :( Javasca₧ My computer has two mowses! 19:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Idiot. User:Mei

The "psychic test" on MSN (WIGO) was much better. It gave me -shock horror- a "you probably have powers!" result at the end. ^gnostic 08:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rogue

There was a bit of discussion not too long ago about Rogue. This is a history of the game as published at Gamasutra... they don't have the iphone version on there (heretics!) but it is otherwise quite complete with ancient computer screen shots. --Shagie 16:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)