RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive36

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>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <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)

Self-proclaimed experts

Has anyone told these self proclaimed experts that reading an article on Wikipedia is not the same as studying something in detail for years?

although I think Wikipedia is a good thing, reading and article at Wikipedia doesn't make you a better expert than a scientist who worked in the field for many years.

A lot of these pseudo-scientists think that reading a book or an article about something immediately makes you an expert. --193.198.16.211 13:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Do give examples. Mindless wisest Hoover! 13:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I mod a forum. Whenever there's some discussion, you know that people will act like they're experts and post crap they grabbed from Wikipedia and then say they are well-informed on the topic. Then, they'll insult anybody else who used wikipedia too, calling them out on it. It's always the same people too. I mean, wikipedia is a wonderful quick reference, but like an actual encyclopedia isn't instant-expert material. -- ENorman, too damn lazy to log in.

t'Internet is full of people who love the sound of their own voice - with the added bonus that they're isolated from real censure - not that there's any like that on RW (cue another of MC's sarky little tantrums)! Bob Soles 13:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed it for years. People claim intelligence when really they're just good at bullshitting and using Google. But you can usually tell the difference in how they apply the knowledge. Wikipedia is mostly quite bad at teaching, so odds are that if someone is backing up their quantum woo (just for an example) from WP, you'll see the cracks quite obviously. ^moral 08:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

MORAL PANIC!!!!!!

Oh noes!! ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ whats up? 16:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

AAAHHH!!!! AHH!! AAAAAAAHHHHH!!!

OMGDZ!!! ħuman 06:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hehehehe

http://notalwaysright.com/hell-in-a-handbag/2394

Me: “That will be 17.50, please.”

Customer: “Are you a Christian, dear?”

Me: “Why do you ask?”

Customer: “Are you?”

Me: “Well, no. Why do you want to know?”

Customer: “Oh. I would like to be helped by someone else, please.”

Manager: “Good morning ma’am, I hear you’ve been having a problem with the clerk?”

Customer: “Oh, she didn’t make any trouble, it’s just that I don’t want my money to be handled by someone not of the faith. You should be careful, she’ll probably nick from the till when you’re not looking.”

Manager: “You’re right, ma’am, I shall definitely have to reprimand her.”

Me: *surprised* “What for?”

Manager: “For failing to notice that the lady was not planning on paying for the three Mars bars and the map of Europe she must have put in her bag while you were fetching me.”

(The customer freezes for a second, then looks at her bag.)

Customer: “Good heavens! I must’ve been so distracted I didn’t even notice the devil putting them there!”

Although my Poe's Law sense is tingling with this site, why am I not surprised by the punchline? ^moral 17:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Armondikov - that site is evil - it's almost as big a time absorber as TV Tropes. ;-) Bob Soles 11:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, there's some great ones in there. I especially like the star trek fan at the IMAX one, though I can't find the link again now. Reminds me of my own frustrations with various call centres, but in reverse. If I have to explain one more time to my mobile phone company why it would be a really stupid idea for me to give them my PIN when they call me, I swear I'm going to go to the vodafone call centre and personally beat them with the cluebat. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. I lost the whole of yesterday afternoon to it. ^moral 13:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the Star Trek one. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 14:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Woot!

We're about to get our first rains of summer (sorry for everybody watching the cricket!). It's going to be a doozy methinks - you haven't lived until you've seen a highveld thunder storm. --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 18:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Man if only I could see that. You guys have the best of many worlds in Jberg. Great city that's close to all kinds of fantastic outdoors stuff. I'm totally jealous. 21:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If your talking South Africa it's JoBerg. And I have seen those storms, and saw some mean ones out in the velt. Ace McWicked^{Model 500} 22:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins, CNN's connector of the day

The comments are hilarious. tmtoulouse 21:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Not the worst in the world. There's the occasional piece of working brain there. "Prof. Dawkins,do you feel that the format of requesting questions from anonymous internet readers attracts a higher percentage of credulous idiots than other methods?" Nice. ^moral 09:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The fail to rule all fails.

Enough said. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ What the hELL is that P at the end of my sig?! 21:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I presume you're talking about the crap 'shopping. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 21:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sush! ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ I know Anonymous user balkanizes by necks. 03:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Flowchart jokes

We have all seem then, and in fact host a few on here. Those jokes about how a particular stereotype person will respond to a debate or question done up in a little chart. Some of them are pretty funny, but here is a link one that is amusing but not for the reasons the creator intended. The disjointed, overly complex, design and the ability to entirely miss the point of what makes such things entertaining points to some potentially interesting aspects of the woo mind. Or just schizophrenia as the case maybe. tmtoulouse 21:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Intriguing and quite funny at the same time. I "win" again!Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 22:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Can we get a Template:Wooquote going, for situations like these? --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 22:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What would it say or do? ħuman 01:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was massive, and then I scrolled down and saw it had more. And then scrolled down some more. It's like that healthcare thing for sheer magnitude of flow-chart-ness. ^moral 09:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Back in my day, our flowcharts had one exit per statement, damn it. And I'm not sure how this would fit into a woo quote, but it's a nice idea. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 23:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This example was so far from any sort of useful flowchart format I think that's part of why Trent brought it up. ħuman 23:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Vote for Freeman!

Gordon Freeman (a scientist !) is losing to Snake by just 20 votes after ~100K total votes: [1] Jaxe 00:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What? Why is there not a "greatest villain of all time" contest, and why have I not yet won that contest, as I am the most recognizable villain of all time? --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 01:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

My emperor... I am sorry to inform you that your apprentice is more well-known than you are... Please don't kill the messenger... ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ obscene cowbells bang me... 04:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And must I remind you of this guy? ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ thinking of what to say next 04:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

But it's Snake... ^moral 09:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just curious

Hands up who's lurking. Totnesmartin 22:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Not me! :) Rrose selavy 22:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Obama.

I am not here! ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ My computer has two mowses! 03:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm here. RagTop^{Gone sailing} 04:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Not me. ħuman 04:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I lurk at least once a week. It helps with the play I'm writing. (Theemperor and RA have inspired my protagonist) Lunacy 14:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Still around, just a little busy to post as often. The Foxhole Atheist 14:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Lulz

New xkcd is a funny xkcd. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ slippery Assflys execrate me... 12:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

When is xkcd not awesome? ^moral 13:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

xkcd is definitely the best webcomic around, but it's been a while since a really funny one. We need more Hat Guy! It didn't stop me ordering the book though. Signed. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 14:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That was a good one. Agree with more hat Guy (I plead the 3rd). I always get worried when their jokes go over my head tho - like the Lincoln - Douglas one. --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 20:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

xkcd does a lot of obscure stuff, and whenever it does, the Wikipedia article explaining it goes into lock-down because of people trying to add an "in popular culture" section. It's quite funny actually. ^moral 22:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

My favorite WIkipedia one was this. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 23:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well seeing as we have been enjoying flow charts and xkcd... - π 00:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Another flowchart-related one. --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 17:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Chain emails...

<rant>...are a waste of time and a pile of shit. I just checked my emails and I got the first chain email I've had in years, this one about drink driving. I glanced at it, and from the keywords, It's a cute poem about a girl who drives to a party, remembers what her mum says, then drinks a sprite instead of alcohol. End of the night, she gets in the car, drives home, and some drunk kid crashes into her, and (presumably) the girl dies. So the innocent girl dies as a result of drink driving. Then the chain email ends saying "if you don't sign this petition to help stop drink driving, your selfishness knows no bounds." Why? Because I don't add my name to an email "petition" which tries to get signatures by insulting it's readers? There are plenty of better/real ways to help the world, i.e. give money to the poor, give blood, do volunteer work, etc. Chain emails = a big pile of shite.</rant> SJ ^Debaser 22:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, let it out, dude, let it out. They are a massive waste of the world's bandwidth but they do often tell you a lot about the people who send them. Now, one of the big things that pisses me off is that people cc them to people, hence whether I like it or not my email address is getting spread around fucking everywhere!! ^moral 22:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! It's just the whole threatening aspect of them i.e. "do this, or this will happen." I remember getting one which said "if you do not pass this on, then your mum will die. I'm sorry guys, but I love my mum too much to let her die!" What kind of fucking jackass actually believes shit like that? In turn, if you were to send that on to someone else who then didn't send it on and their mother died, the person that sent the email would be responsible for the death of that person's mother. Real good friendship, that is. SJ ^Debaser 22:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure people do believe it, they just think it's harmless fun (well, there may be a minority that need their brains checked out). The ones people do genuinely believe are things like hoax virus warnings; I remember the most recent one regarding facebook that if you were tagged in a picture you'd get a virus (how the fuck does that work anyway?!?) and Sophos have guesstimated (although they admit not to doing real research into it) that hoax viruses, like the ones sent via chain-mail cause more hassle and damage than real ones because it causes people to take unnecessary and frankly silly actions. And of course, I've previously ranted here about the chain letter about some people getting knocked out and robbed by perfume sellers and them me being shouted at for mentioning that it's an urban legend (with hindsight, I should have damn well took that dumb bitch's face off for being a woo-peddling, scaremongering idiot rather than being nice about it and ignoring it).

You may also sympathise with this. ^moral 22:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I should go on cracked more often, they've got some funny articles there. Or I could try and get a life, but that probably won't happen anytime soon. I never got the facebook-virus threat though. SJ ^Debaser 22:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Forgetting chain mails for a bit, I personally think petitions are useless full stop. Allow me to explain. I recently was walking through the street when a woman thrust a clipboard in my face saying that the local school was closing down so they could build a huge school with larger class sizes, and so could I sign this petition to save the local school? I answered no, because I have no idea about the actual facts of this situation, for example, this new huge school may run more efficiently with better resources and greater funding. The local school may be stuck in the dark ages and have poor facilities for the children. The council might not be able to afford to keep the old school open. The building may be unsafe and has been condemned. I am NOT going to put my name to something as important as this just because you're trying to make me feel guilty about children being turfed out of their school. Give me all the facts from both sides and time to consider the arguments and I'll make my decision.

Example 2: I recall a while ago that on a gardening forum someone had set up a petition to "make the government do more to keep cats out of people's gardens". What the FUCK? What the hell is that going to do? You have not provided a breakdown of the issues involved, nor have you stated any workable resolutions. Despite this, about 100 people had already signed the petition. I pointed out that the person who started the petetion was a fucking moron and the people who signed it were brainless sheep, only to have the guy say he was going to sue me for defamation and he was going to see his lawyer that afternoon (thus confirming my accusation). As much as we hate them, this is why we need politicians to make decisions on our behalf, because people are too quick to just vote for something without considering all the facts. Rant over. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The e-petition for Alan Turing worked and got a response. And the one to remove Bishops from the House of Lords got at least some response (I blame the appalling wording of it for the hand-wavy way it was answered). So they do sometimes work. ^moral 10:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What a waste of the government's time that petition would be. There's a war in the Middle East, socialism's a-brewing in America, there's a global recession and the far right movement in Britain is stirring. Is the government going to give a shit about cats in gardens? I think Genghis and Toast would be most disappointed if legislation was passed about this. In my part time job (which, incidentally, my last shift is tonight as I'm moving to uni on Saturday) I'm forced to deal with snivelling little shitty teenagers all day long. The other day, my manager kicked some kids off the premises, during which they threatened to tell the Prime Minister about him. Bearing in mind these kids looked about 12/13 and looked as thick as shit, so I doubt they knew who the Prime Minister actually was. Either they thought they were making a real threat, or they had the PM confused with someone else, or they were simply stupid. Possibly all three. Either way, me and my manager had a good laugh at them afterwards. SJ ^Debaser 11:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting thing on e-petitions etc. Found it while searching for some other reviews: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/351670/do-online-protests-really-work ^moral 15:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Rob, Commie alert!!

Rob, my Grandmother broke her hip in NZ yesterday. Less than 24 hours later she has a new one for free. This is all under the RED TERROR of socialised health care. This must stop Rob, what can we do!?!Rad McCool 05:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Some poor guy in the upper 1% probably couldn't buy a new Aston Martin due to your grandmother's lack of self-reliance. You should be ashamed of yourselves.--الملعب الاسود العقل ^{Have you heard the news? The dogs are dead!} 16:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Kirk Cameron releases bastardized Origin of the Species, unbelievably hot Romanian woman does a brilliant refutation on YouTube, discuss

Wondering if any of you had read or seen this on Salon.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2009/09/24/kirk_cameron/index.html

And the video in question. I'm now in love (don't tell my wife).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmHN3JtyUXg

Junggai 08:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that Origin of Species (2009)? ħuman 08:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's the one. Cameron's going to be giving away free copies on 50 college campuses this fall. Junggai 08:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

We need to organize a counter protest. Also see intelligent rants on the article's talk page and feel free to offer suggestions. ħuman 08:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd personally recommend free box-cutters with a gigantic recycle bin set up at an adjacent table. The hot blonde in the video recommends asking Richard Dawkins to write a new "introduction" to the bible. Also a great idea. Junggai 08:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I can now forgive Romania for The Cheeky Girls. Totnesmartin 09:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the best thing that could be done is to hire a commercial shredder of the type that can shred phone books. Then, mix up a few gallons of flour and water paste and have a competition to see who can craft the best papier mache erotic sculpture of Jesus and friends. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely ace. We should get her on here.--Bob^{Not Jim} 09:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think ZOMGitsCriss is a regular on the free-speech/creationism/atheism drama scene on PooTube. But face it, if she can pwn Kirk Cameron without even trying, it's time for him to go back to what he's good at. As that's certainly not acting or high brow theistic philosophy... what is he good for again? ^moral 10:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Better ask Ray Comfort that one. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Criss has been pretty big for a while now. I think thunderf00t and DonExodus2 gave her a shoutout when she got hit by votebots. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this is unsettling...

I hope/imagine that we'll eventually find out that there's more to this story than what's in this report (like that the guy was murdered for some other reason and the "Fed" thing was a ruse), but this makes me wonder about the teabaggers/birthbaggers and the potential for real political violence in the US. Kinda spooky...RaoulDuke 11:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If Billo didn't get axed for the Tiller case, Beck won't get pulled for this. Unfortunately. Still wanna send the bastard an e-mail saying "this is what you have wrought upon America" ENorman 12:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Was Beck freaking out and crying about the census? Corry 13:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

He launched the 9/12 movement that the Teabagging is based on, and has made frequent cries to "take back America", and goes on several tirades against government agencies in general. ENorman 13:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Right- I was wondering if he has gone on any weird census conspiracy tirades, which wouldn't surprise me. He's unstable, that guy. The funny thing is that when he was on CNN I always thought "Well, I disagree with this guy, but he doesn't seem to be a lunatic." Once he went on Fox News he's always crying or something. Corry 13:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Beck never did anything directly, but he did host a bunch of census conspiracy loons on his shows. He'd try and back off, but would basically let the guest go off. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

How germane- Ames has a post about Beck today. Corry 15:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The insane Michelle Bachman (R-MN) might be in some warm water, since she's been ranting about the census lately... ħuman 00:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Dunno about this & don't know Mr Beck, but apparently he might be pushing his luck. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 00:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Two post about Beck from Ames today. RA will be around there poking him about it soon. - π 00:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

One of a kind

This article on the BBC site about Susan Travers marks her out as something special. Would make a good film most likely. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

WIGO upgrade

I've made several improvements to our wigo and bestof extensions. You can test the new versions at RationalBeta (don't be surprised if things suddenly break though)

tl;dr: wigo is prettier, also faster; bestof will be borken, we'll have to make a dummy edit to every page that has a vote tag on it to fix it.

stuff noone cares about

Aside from the visual changes, I've made some changes under the hood, related to the handling of bestof. Previously, bestof entries were stored as html in the database, and were saved every time a page with a vote or votecp tag was reparsed. Now, bestof entries are stored as wikitext and are saved into the database only when an article containing the vote or votecp tag is edited and saved. This change and the optimizations that it allows improve page loading times.

In my testing, rendering this (an almost current copy of WIGO:CP, sans templates) improved from 2.1 seconds to 1.6 seconds, and rendering this (a copy of Conservapedia:What is going on at CP?/0901) improved from 6.1 seconds to 2.8 seconds.

Because of the change in bestof, I'll have to delete all entries from the database. This isn't a big problem because we just need to resave the page containing the entry to reinsert it into the database. -- Nx / talk 14:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Vote

Voting will be closed when Pibot archives this section. -- Nx / talk 14:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Or whenever the rest of us decide it is closed. ħuman 06:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the new one

Pretty colours! Mindless wisest Hoover! 14:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A Simple yes Bob Soles 14:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 14:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Much nicer Totnesmartin 14:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, fancy! The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!}

Pinto's5150 ^Talk

Upgrade! ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ A sig not even he can predict! 16:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the new one, but do think they could be a lot narrower. --GTac 16:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm usually a non-conformist, but today's my day off. I like teh new one too. --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 17:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. I prefer the old arrows, in and of themselves, but the bar is neat and it's pretty uniform. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 18:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The two are separate and of course we could vote separately about the arrows (changing the arrows is pretty simple and any sysop can do it), but I decided to present it as a complete package to keep things simple. -- Nx / talk 07:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I love the upgrade, do it now. - π 01:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Love it. ^moral 08:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Shiny! I like! –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 07:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the old one

Huh, what was the change? 05:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh I see. Seems lame to me. No need to change "just because you can". Is there any reason for this other than "you can"? Is there a problem you are fixing? ħuman 05:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Because it makes it easier to tell at a glance the proportions of people who voted each way, and it looks prettier. It seems that you are in the minority on this. Mindless wisest Hoover! 14:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I hate change, the word reeks of liberal filth. Yorick 05:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I hate everything

Particularly mondays. --127․0․0․1 18:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't like Mondays. ħuman 06:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Tell me why. Totnesmartin 09:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I just want to shoo oo oo oo oo oo oot the whole day down! ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 15:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Monday morning seems to drag. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I love everything

Every day is like Sunday ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 15:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hell would be every day is Sunday. It's when the god-botherers enforce their will on the the rest of us. (At least in much of Europe.) Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you remember when the shops didn't open at all on Sunday? It was the very definition of suck. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I remember when the pubs didn't open in Wales. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

How about "Early closing day" Twas Thursday in Sheffield & most of the indoor market still doesn't open. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 15:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Surely it was Sheffield Wednesday? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 17:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This just in: Rationalwiki fails at music impromptu trivia game. The cirrect answer would have been a lyric from the song "Everyday is like Sunday" by Morrisey. In other news, the repeal of "blue laws" turned out to be a mixed blessing. I worked in a grocery store at the time the blue laws were in effect. We gated off the beer and wine aisle and dimmed the lights. Good times. 216.54.39.107 16:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Discuss

I prefer the new one, but do think they could be a lot narrower. --GTac 16:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I removed the padding. If anyone wants to get creative with the arrows, the svg is here -- Nx / talk 16:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

My only problem is you are replacing a 860 B image with a 7 kB image. Won't that create an additional drag on the server or does MediaWiki need to convert gif files first to display them? - π 05:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Old wigos are 850 + 852 = 1702 bytes (yes they are displayed as gifs), new wigos are 435+312+441=1188 bytes. You can verify this using right click->view page info->media inf Firefox. Where did you get the 7kb figure? -- Nx / talk 06:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

From that file you linked to above. If they are smaller and will save bandwidth then all the more reason to upgrade. - π 07:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, that's just the svg. Check the file sizes on rationalbeta. -- Nx / talk 08:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about the "under the hood" changes (as long as they make sense), but is there any need for the "what it looks like" change? I saw no recent complaints about how our arrows look and work. Or suggestions that we change them. ħuman 06:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think they are boring, old, unimaginative and ugly. Is that sufficient? - π 07:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

OMG it's fucking ugly. ħuman 06:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

New rule: anyone with a pink skid mark for a signature can't call anything else ugly. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 15:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your constructive criticism. Your opinion has been noted. -- Nx / talk 06:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't get what the point is of the bloody "0" vote option. It's bloody ZERO. It doesn't do a fucking thing. It doesn't go up or down, and therefore, doesn't record a vote. If you people vote zero, theres no point on voting on that particular WIGO at all!!!!! Discuss. --71.255.75.46 22:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

If you initially vote "yes", and then want to change your vote, the zero makes it as if you never voted.

You can consider it a "meh" vote, or you can consider it a way to undo your vote, the vote still gets recorded and increases the orange bar, but it won't affect the wigo's standing on bestof. Also, if you don't like it, you can hide it (in Special:Preferences, Gadgets, enable the two gadgets under WIGO tweaks), see the screenshot to the right. -- Nx / talk 08:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Final verdict

I am counting 12 13 yes to 3 (maybe 2) no. Is that good enough? - π 07:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

More than good enough. Don't forget to deduct points for pink-skidmarks. ^moral 22:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we discuss the appearance at all? That orange blob is a bit odd, how about a black or grey or brown "N"? ħuman 22:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I like traffic lights. - π 00:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Green = go, yellow = go faster, red = look carefully and go even faster? ħuman 23:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Must be cold in November

Now, this wasn't my idea, but it was sent to me and the result is quite interesting. Every year, there's a spike at pretty much the same time. http://www.google.com/trends?q=porn ^moral 14:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(And as an aside, the summer holidays seemed to have put us on the map, a massive spike as the site goes down and people start googling to find out what the hell went on, perhaps?: http://www.google.com/trends?q=rationalwiki&ctab=0&geo=all&date=ytd&sort=0 )

What a bizarre statistic! Fascinating indeed. ħuman 00:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Our one must be from people googling (to find out what went wrong) instead of following their bookmark. Totnesmartin 09:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Autotune the Sagan, feat. MC Hawking

This is all kinds of awesome:

--JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That video has billions and billions of win. ħuman 00:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Holy crap, that is amazing! Billions and billions of win indeed. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 00:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

PS that is what autotune SHOULD be used for, not some half-assed musician trying to sound like someone who works hard to hone their skills. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 00:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Phenomenal. Instantly my favourite viral video of the year. Genius. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Incredible. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 01:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

He sounds like Kermit the Frog. RaoulDuke 01:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Carl Sagan is God. HERESY!!! --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

One to add to the Carl Sagan page methinks? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The 46 year old virgin

I just found out this guy in my office is 46, a virgin, never had a girlfriend, lives with his parents and has never been in possesion of an ATM card to call his own. Every lunch time he catches a bus downtown to go to his branch and withdraw money for the day. Then he drinks a litre of tropical fruit punch directly from the carton and his mustache looks like a broom. He doesn't wear a suit either, he dresses like he has just come back from coaching his kids soccer game. People are weird. Ace McWicked^{Currently Lurking.....} 01:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"People are weird". Never a truer word was spoke. There's nowt as queer as folk. Take Heather, for example, who just emailed me out of the blue asking me to license her songs. Since her songs are Not Very Good, that seems remarkably unlikely, but Heather seems like an interesting person, no? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 01:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Heather does look interesting. Ace McWicked^{Currently Lurking.....} 02:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh my. Ohh god... it's so bad... I need a fuckin hundred beers. JS Leitch 02:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty phenomenally bad, isn't it? It's one thing to be arrogant and have some fucking talent, but when you're as shit as shit can be, honey, don't shout it from the treetops. People might just find out how shit you really are. Ahhh, the wonders of self-confidence. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 02:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It is really hard to judge people like that. He may have some sort of mild disability, like high functioning autism or something, that cause what you might see as erratic behaviour. Plus you do work for the government. - π 02:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

He is a really nice guy, I think he is scared of woman though. Ace McWicked^{Currently Lurking.....} 02:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel a little better about my life now.--Thanatos 02:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like Ace works with Ken DeMyer. DickTurpis 02:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi-tangential side comment: Issac Newton was a virgin at death. Sterile crack whore 02:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont mean to denigrate the guy, I like him and he isn't a homosexual. He is one of those people that go so long without female company that they just forget/don't know how it's done. I think it's weirder that he has no ATM card. Ace McWicked^{Currently Lurking.....} 02:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. Is he real meticulous or child-like? Could he be cast on The Office?--Thanatos 02:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't get my first ATM card till I was 23, and even now I almost never use it. Even working for a bank, I almost never withdraw cash. Z3ro^talk 14:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

<Aside> I hate moustaches </aside> ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 02:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Is he any of these guys? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC5BIuhQBy0

I don't have an ATM card. During college I realized having access to cash at 3:00 am isn't always a good thing, so I cut it up. I like to see the nice ladies at the bank, anyway. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a damn fine point. When you get your statements that show most of your transactions occur after midnight, it's not a good sign. ^moral 15:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Heather song

attention everybody: Though I'm not a big fan of his post Police work I firmly believe Sting should punch Heather directly in the face for what she has done to his song. Really. That was un-called for. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 14:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen what she'll do to a photo of yours if you send it to her? She'll treat it with a bunch of nasty filters, that's what she'll do! 15:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I know some HTML that must mean I'm a web designer (let's party like it's 1995). I've a workman-like understanding of PhotoShop that must mean I'm a digital artist. I did some student projects in various electronic media that must mean I'm an auteur. This stuff is easier than I thought! I've been letting my elitist ideas about "talent" and "competence" get in my way. I'm off to make my fortune. Who wants to buy some of my juvenilia? ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 16:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Free Wingmirror!!! WIN!

Last week I rather clumsily parked my new car in a side street and nearly crunched the passenger side wing mirror against a power pole. I drove forward a bit, parked and walked around to check the damage. Seeing as there was none, save for a few grazes on the plastic, I congratulated myself and opened the passenger side door to retrieve the beers that I had purchased. When I stood up I overbalanced and fell over in the gutter. During my inevitable slide downward I grasped for something to halt my fall. Unfortunately I grabbed the wing mirror which slammed heavily into my side, smashing a rib. I then proceeded to tear the glass out which then shattered on the concrete next to my prone body. Mrs McWicked was understandably upset by this episode of extreme tomfoolery and placed the blame and associated costs squarely upon my broad shoulders.
I made a few enquires and as I had actually pulled the glass away from the unit as opposed to merely breaking it I was looking at a cost of $500.00. It is expensive to get parts for a Peugeot 206 Sports Edition apparently. So the company I enquired with was going to send a technician around to view the damage and give me a proper quote. As I was at work I just gave them address of the car and left it at that.
This morning I received an email from the company advising that there was a miscommunication between the head office and the technician they sent out and that they apologised for any inconvenience but they hope I am happy with their work. Intrigued by this development, I called the office and what happened was the technician, obviously misunderstanding his orders, had gone around to the car and fixed it up straight away before reporting back to his superiors that the job was done and the wing mirror unit had been replaced.
Due to the fact no quote was given and no authorisation to go ahead and complete the job was given by me, the owner, I received a free wing mirror and installation. Saving me $500.00.
WIN!!! Ace McWicked^{Currently Lurking.....} 03:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

But at what cost Ace? Look at all that beer you lost. - π 03:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't spill a drop. Last summer I fell down a cliff when holding two open beers and cut my leg open but again, didn't spill a thing. I know my priorities. Ace McWicked^{Currently Lurking.....} 03:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you're a Beer Jedi. JS Leitch 03:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

More Ace Classic. Some things never change... one hopes... ħuman 03:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

A friend and I were leaving my parent's house for a party with a an open can of beer one time when we were 17, and the ground outside was frozen. My friend managed to slip on ice and do the most incredible triple backflip in the world, landing in a crumpled heap, but with his beer acting like some kind of gyroscope and he hadn't spilt a drop. Where's a camcorder when you need one? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

EPIC WIN. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ the can opener of all centrifuges! 12:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't want to sound negative here - but how's the rib?--Bob^{Not Jim} 16:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

lowering age of consent

Hey, just came across what appears to be a new anti-gay allegation by the far right, and as far as I can tell no one's gotten around to refuting it yet. They're claiming that, because of gay activists, many first-world countries are lowering the age of consent so that gays can legally go after our children. I'm guessing that, like most of their claims, this is a wild distortion of something or other. Any idea where they got that from?--Mustex 02:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Gay groups back in the 70s fell in with a libertarian groups that supported the idea there should be no uniform age of consent and instead whether a person can give consent should be judged based on the individuals ability to make decisions. The ultra-right pretty much hated the idea, because back then they still wanted to out law sex between unmarried people. - π 03:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've heard them talk about NAMBLA, but is there any truth to any countries lowering age of consent?--Mustex 03:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Most are going up. Canada is raising theirs from 14 to 16. I think Japan and Russia (13 and 14 respectively) are also looking at raising theirs. Where I live they are looking at lowering male-male sex from current 21 back down to 17 (or 16) to bring it in line with male-female and female-female. - π 03:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Mustex, what the hell are you talking about? No links? "just came across what appears to be a new anti-gay allegation by the far right" should surely be linked? Oh, and by the way, the link you left on my talk page in response to a similar query (http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/1270.asp--) is dead. ħuman 03:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it was a link to the chick.com page about a book called "Hot Topics" and a list of things it would discuss. Try the FSTDT page on it: http://fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=54390 --Mustex 03:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You really phail at linking to what you are talking about, sorry. ħuman 04:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that link worked for me. If you really want to see it go to fstdt.com and do a search with "Jack Chick" listed as the fundie, and all the other lines blank. It'll be a few posts down.--Mustex 04:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No. One click or no shopping. You understand Jack Chick is a total fucking loon, right? And most of us, well, I, anyway, could care less what his latest tract says? ħuman 04:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

So I think I did some of your homework (hint: when leaving links on talk pages, ckick "preview" and make sure they work) http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/1270.asp might be what you meant on my talk page? Although I still don't really see what you are talking about there. ħuman 04:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually did test the second link after posting it, and it worked, so I don't know what's going wrong on your end. But, what I was referring to will be under the bold heading "Home Alone." And yes, I know he's a loon, but weren't you involved in a wiki devoted to discrediting loons a while back...what was it called again (J/K)? --Mustex 05:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mustex. When you say "new anti-gay allegation by the far right" I guess that you had in mind someone a little more sane and significant than Jack Chick. Do you think you could you give us a link to them? Thanks. --Bob^{Not Jim} 10:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently Focus on the Family says the same thing: "There is a highly coordinated international effort to redefine marriage, lower the age of sexual consent for minors, secure the rights to adoption by gays and lesbians, teach pro-homosexual concepts to elementary school children, gain control of high school and college curricula, achieve special rights regarding hiring and firing, guarantee taxpayer-funded marriage benefits for homosexuals, eliminate restrictions on military service, and pass laws that penalize and silence citizens who are morally opposed to the gay lifestyle. Most importantly, activists want homosexuality to be seen and sanctioned as the moral equivalent of heterosexuality." http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:bk8u_SYpXlcJ:www2.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000804.cfm+homosexual+agenda+lowering+age+of+consent&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us --76.18.115.165 13:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. So a letter some guy wrote in 1998 is a "new anti-gay allegation" then?--Bob^{Not Jim} 14:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, the basic idea of this post was just to ask if any developed countries actually are lowering age of consent, and if so how the fundies came to the conclusion that it was caused by the gays (I mean, I know they also blame 9/11 on them, but still...), not to debate something. I mentioned that I thought it might be a new argument merely to explain where I heard it. So, if I was wrong about it being "new," I was wrong.--Mustex 19:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

When you say "how the fundies came to the conclusion that it was caused by the gays" - you mean in 1998, yes? Or do you have some later date now?--Bob^{Not Jim} 19:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, several countries have reformed their homosexual age of consent laws within the last few years, to bring them into line with the equivalent heterosexual age of consent. E.g. in the UK, heterosexual age of consent has been 16 for a long time, but until a few years ago homosexual activity was only legal for those over the age of 21. Changing attitudes & pressure from gay rights groups got this changed to 18, & then finally to 16, matching the heterosexual age of consent. It's not "gays going after our children" because there's no reason why 16-year-olds should be more vulnerable to homosexuals than heterosexuals, & because the whole point of an age of consent is to recognise at what age a person can be regarded as making a responsible decision about sex, & that should apply equally irrespective of whether they go for men or women. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.--Mustex 18:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Serious pockets of humanity

The people of Wal-Mart. 'Nuff said.^{— Unsigned, by: JS Leitch / talk / contribs}

It's always good to make fun of people who look, dress, act and live differently than I do. Especially when they're poor. RaoulDuke 18:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that what the internets are for? Z3ro^talk 19:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Raoul, it's great. I fear that which I don't understand, and I only know how to react with lau I try to be open-minded about different people, especially those who never had the priviliges I've had - I agree that some of those are kind of exploitive. But come on - Swastika Girl? What about the shirt that says "WHILE YOU WERE READING THIS... I FARTED"? The mom looking nonchalant while her kid plays "spaceman helmet" with a plastic bag? Gold-paint-face-man? This bodes ill for the future of the Republic. JS Leitch 05:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So then what you're saying here is not so much "'nuff said," but "these pictures point us to some pretty complicated and troubling things that we as a society have to deal with?" Oh, and as I wrote this, I farted. RaoulDuke 15:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's not as funny when you put it that way. JS Leitch 16:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Pi, is this you?

At the 50-second mark? RaoulDuke 19:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Not me, it is an unsurprisingly generic handle. - π 05:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the question was kinda lame, so I figured it wouldn't be--but given the subject matter, thought I'd take a stab...RaoulDuke 10:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Liveblogging Rugby League

I won't, but, what a sport! Thanks, "spike tv" (yelevision for real men, or something like that). Complete athletes executing subtle maneuvers for 80 minutes of agony. That is all, please ignore. ħuman 05:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Who plays league? - π 05:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Some Aussies from towns with English names, apparently. They do like to touch each others bums a lot, though. We should warn PJR. ħuman 05:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I take it you are a Union fan? Or perhaps prefer "cricket", where there is little opportunity for subtle bum-touchery? ħuman 05:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Only New South Welshman play League, everyone else play Union. - π 07:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

And good northern (some southern) English of course. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 15:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the Welshmen your scouts used to nick from the outside halves' factory. --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 15:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Doonesbury

Not sure how many people here read it, but here is the text for todays Doonesbury

The Nazis... created a brutal repressive society, left half the world in flames, and methodically murdered millions. They were the most evil force in history. Understandably, the current parallels are frightening ("The bill is stalled sir") ("That does it - I'm giving a speech!")"- Doonsebury, September 26, 2009)

ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ sysop and 'crat! (does it matter?) 15:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Because, certainly, the best thing to do when legislation stalls is nothing, of course. Z3ro^talk 16:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That's strange, I just went to the site and the current "thread" is about burning medicare cards. Do you have a link? Are you sure it wasn't a parody doonesbury? ħuman 18:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll bet Javascap's newspaper publishes the Sunday funnies on Saturday, like my old hometown paper did. Wait 'til tomorrow and see...RaoulDuke 23:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Need confirmation.--Thanatos 01:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I do indeed get the colour funnies on Saturday. ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ edits from 55.251.29.192 03:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. By the way, they're all in color on the web... ħuman 03:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Here it is. I've been reading Trudeau since I was, like 12--and he'd already been doing the strip for nine years at that point. Not a lot of comics guys have been able to keep their work so fresh and relevant over a 40-year span of time. He's the best there is, IMHO...RaoulDuke 14:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and, yes, Garry is awesome. That strip lost a mite in the transcription above ;) ħuman 19:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm Bored

I have nothing to do... I'm bored... does anyone know where I should look for a program that lets me run exe. programs on a mac (for free)?-- 忍者  ^{N I N J A A A H ! ! ! ! !} 00:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's called "pirated windows". Arrr! --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 01:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

WINE, Bordeaux, CrossOver. They were written for Linux but I think all three have ports to Mac. Not sure how well they work. Secret Squirrel 01:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

A precompiled Mac version of Wine can be found here; if you're a real man you download the developer toolkit and compile it from source. Mindless wisest Hoover! 20:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Kids can't touch kids/goats

Well, I moved into university yesterday, went out with my housemates last night and had a very good time! Luckily I'm one of those people that can drink a lot without feeling too bad in the morning while still remembering the details of the previous night. Anyhoo, I got up this fair morn, had breakfast and made a couple of my new housemates some tea (we haven't got a teapot yet so we have to make it in the cups, which is an abomination, but I might go and try and find one today) while one of them read Clarkson's column in the Sun. According to Clarkson (although it is in the Sun so I don't know how verifiable it is) Gordon Brown's trying to stop kids from petting goats. SJ ^Debaser 10:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

although it is in the Sun so I don't know how verifiable it is - but I think we can guess. It appears to be a health and safety recommendation that under-5's wash their hands after touching farm animals. So yes, the prime minister is banning it. Totnesmartin 11:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's been a recommendation that you wash your hands after touching farm animals for a long, long time. I think the outright bans were only a temporary thing in a few farms where the risk was deemed quite high. So yes, the Prime Minister is banning all pets for everyone. ^moral 11:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not looking forward to next years elections. Labour are going to get fucking slaughtered. SJ ^Debaser 11:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think they will, and the Tories will be free to take people's wheelchairs away to pay for golf courses again :( Totnesmartin 11:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

And we'll still be stuck with this asshat party system where in-fighting and politics-for-the-sake-of-it rule supreme over actually running the country. And thanks to this, we get shits like the BNP suddenly looking like a good idea. ^moral 12:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The petty infighting within New Labour is the worst thing about them. They just don't realise that people hate it - it's partly why John Major's lot got thrown out. Totnesmartin 12:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Typical as it sounds, people need a united party to run the country, and that's where the Conservatives appeal. Of course, it's also been Labour for twelve years now, and as no one voted for Brown - and he came to the country at a bad time - he hasn't been a very popular leader. SJ ^Debaser 12:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that 12 years is about enough for any ruling party. I used to think that the party in power made a big difference but lately I've changed my mind. Two reasons for this: 1. In the EU any government is obliged to follow some broadly centrist policies. They like to make it look like there are big differences but in reality I don't see it. 2. While the objective of government should be to make the country better, in reality the real objective is simply to get re-elected. This also tends to make party policies similar. If anybody has a really good idea then the other party simply pretends it's theirs. --Bob^{Not Jim} 14:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's pretty much what I see. You also get the problem that with representation, the representatives have to tow a party line rather than do what they, or the people they represent, ant to do. And you essentially get stuck between voting for Tweedly-Dum and Tweedle-Dee. But until someone works out a system where a dictatorship has no choice but to be benign, efficient and accountable in a way that doesn't involve just being unelected, this is the best system we can have... perhaps something along the lines of the Public Exploder in Gilbert & Sullivan's Utopia Ltd., or "Democracy by Dynamite". ^moral 19:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

An idea

I had the idea of having a bot which would read a page on the wiki and execute it, possibly in a purpose-built language. This would give an easy way to do simple maintenance, like changing instances of a link, and would mean that people would not have the hassle of setting up a bot on their local machine and then dealing with connection problems.

Is this a good idea, and has it been done? Have I not made it clear? Mindless wisest Hoover! 20:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

So the bot resides in the website and anyone can use it? Nice idea in principle, but...i dunno... open to abuse? accidents? Totnesmartin 20:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Protect the executed page, don't give the bot sysop rights. It's just as easy for someone to get a sysop account and run a bot on that. Mindless wisest Hoover! 20:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

But we don't protect pages. Totnesmartin 20:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I mean protect the page from which the bot reads instructions. Mindless wisest Hoover! 20:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This getting out of my depth, I don't do tech stuff. Why have it on site for anyone to make merry with? What about people who think it'd be a fun toy, but then does something crap with it all over the shop? Sorry if I'm pissing on your idea :( Totnesmartin 21:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Make it very clear that this should not be used unless you absolutely know what you're doing. Most people won't do it if there is such a clear warning, and there will always be a big red button in case it goes wrong. Mindless wisest Hoover! 21:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Anyone who can program in python or perl or whatever and create a bot can and will set up a working environment for themselves. The only people who would benefit from this are those who want to run existing bot scripts, e.g. those provided in the pywikipediabot distribution, but can't set up python and pywikipediabot on their home machines. IMHO if they can't install python and set up pywikipediabot, they shouldn't be running bots.
2. Making a bot that treats a wiki page as python and executes it is trivial and also a very bad idea.
3. Creating a limited, sandboxed language/environment is too much work for something that is unlikely to be used by many people (see 1.)
4. If you really need to do a lot of repetitive edits, you can either do it manually to boost your e-peen edit count, or you can ask me (or anyone else who volunteers). See here for a list of what can be done. -- Nx / talk 21:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Why am I apparently on trial here?

Ok, just had a talk in Bob M's talk page, where he's admitted to distrusting my motives for posting here, apparently not thinking that "amusing myself" is enough reason to start a game mocking creationists, and apparently wants me to post a citation every time I come across an insane theory, and ask about certain claims it makes, and that this citation must prove that people who believe it exists, as well as proving that it came about in the period I claim it came about in, and when asked for citations (by Human in that case), trying to comply by looking for some is somehow a problem. Does this really seem like appropriate requirements for posting a fairly straight-forward question ("Are any developed nations lowering their age of consent, and if so how have the fundies come to the conclusion that its because of the gays?") in a casual discussion page? What about my motives seems so suspicious? What have I done that makes you doubt me? I've been posting here for a while, on and off, and I've been reading for a long time. Is there something wrong with me trying to learn by asking questions? (edit: oh, and looking back, he also apparently thinks that there's something wrong with me admitting I was wrong about something. Gee, sorry I made the erroe of believing myself to be fallible. Also, sorry for thinking that an argument I had personally never heard before was "new") --Mustex 23:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's just that dropping two rather dense entries on Saloon bar & almost demanding that they be responded to isn't the way we behave. If anyone thinks they're worth it, then they will (respond that is), otherwise they'll just wind up archived. No-one's on trial. Most such things are created as Essays and the talk page is used to discuss them (if I've read them right that is: they're a bit tl;dr for me I'm afraid). Don't get your knickers in a twist about it anyhow. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 23:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Not having an axe to grind this particular situation but as an outside observer it may be because you jumped straight in with some interesting angles as if it had been something you had thought about for sometime before posting - you have some interesting takes and come across in a familar way, familar to some other posters we have had here in the past. That's just my take and I ascribe no ill will on your part. Ace McWicked^{Currently Lurking.....} 23:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, if I offended people by being over-zelous or too long-winded, I apologize, I just object to Bob, if I understood correctly, accusing me of being a creationist trying to get you guys to do my work for me. As for me having put thought into this, I'm taking a grad bio anthro class, I kind of thought that angle up when I was kind of bored, and came up with the idea for the game.--76.18.115.165 00:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I agree with Ace, here. Jumping in like that often reminds people of the bad times that have happened but I'm not into the mudslinging by naming who/what it was. But it's not an excuse for numerous people to be needlessly (and repeatedly) abrasive asshats; mostly established users who should know better but have completely forgotten what it's like for people who are relatively new to an Internet forum. ^moral 12:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

One for Andy and his God Squads

I'd sent a friend the Sagan clip from above, and he reminded me of the brilliant Ascent of Man, which he and I were big fans of at the time. Here's a wonderful clip that's perfect to unload on Schlafly and Co when they start their HitWin bullshit. . DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice quotes

While trying to find the quote that ends with "it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the Bible", I came across this. It's nice to see all the best quotes from some truly great people in one place. I really like the I Am Caesar one at the end: http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070525021737AAXjuuS ^moral 12:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Good collection indeed, but alas the Caesar one is made up. –SuspectedReplicant^{retire me} 13:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that post signed it as "anonymous" so that's acceptable enough I think. ^moral 13:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with yahoo answers is that it's so distracting. I just saw a question about whether God or Foghorn Leghorn has a higher IQ and made this up: God is eternal and all knowing. IQ is a differential of age against intelligence. As God is infinitely intelligent and infinitely old, his IQ is exactly 100 - the perfect average. Forghorn Leghorn was in 28 cartoons in his first 17 years (1946-63), which usually consisted of the rooster outwitting various attempts to eat him. While IQ cannot be quantified from this data, he was clearly developmentally advanced in his early years, and thus must have had above-average intelligence. Therefore, Foghorn Leghorn is more intelligent than God. Totnesmartin 15:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That's genius. ^moral 16:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Eats, Shoots & Leaves

Overheard on a newscast moments ago: "The guards is (sic) accosted by two men armed with an AK47 and a woman." --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 17:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Which one had the gun and which the broad? ENorman 18:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft Forums

Fucking hell. I don't know why I bother asking for help on the MSDN forums any more. Here's a typical thread:

Me: I'm having problem X. I've Googled around and found that it's usually due to Y, but I tried A, B and C, none of which helped. Can anyone help?
Answerer 1 (Usually Chinese or Indian for some reason): Hello, the problem is Y. Just do A.
Me: Thanks, but I've already tried that, see my first post. Can you think of any other reason?
Answerer 1: It's quite simple really, you just need to (explains A in a very broken down way)
Me: Tried that already. Anything else?
Answerer 1: All you need to do is B.
Me: Tried that as well. Read my OP
Answerer 2 (usually an MSFT (MS Employee)): Hello, (posts a 4 page response about how to do A, B, and C)
Me: Nevermind. I'll just work it out myself.

And then realise that had I spent the time I wasted posting on the forums tinkering around with the problem I would have fixed it by now. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Did you try restarting the computer? -- Nx / talk 10:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried not using microsoft software? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Nx is right. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpmLrz_lSuE ^moral 10:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and yes. Developing .NET applications on a non-microsoft platform is quite difficult, and converting the entire project to a java application and the server framework to a Tomcat/JBOSS configuration and then retraining all the developers to Java would involve far more effort and money than working out a few windows / .NET issues. Oh, and anyone who says that Linux is more secure than Windows has probably never managed a linux server in their life. I've done both, and trust me, I've never had a windows server hacked, but had several linux boxes compromised (despite vigilant patching and monitoring).

Also, do you really think that moving from .NET to another development platform would actually solve any problems? PHP is fucking shit and is for n00b dickheads who don't know how to code properly, Java is probably the most inefficient and difficult to debug framework in history, and Perl is as about as consistent as my boss's mind. I've never coded professionally with Python though. Might give that a go! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

haha...ur totally Microsoft's bitch. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 13:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That thing you said about PHP hackers, that's what the rest of us say about you web monkeys. See, there's a hierarchy that goes a bit like this:

You can move up the ladder to escape the Microsoft trap. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I am unaccustomed to web programming, but if Windows is superior, why do Google and WP, among others, use Linux? Mindless wisest Hoover! 14:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

More to the point why does Microsoft use Linux. This goes back to what I said on the Operating system wars, all computers are basically shitty. - π 14:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the point, all OS's are just as good and bad as each other. The people who claim that Linux is more secure than Windows know fuck all. If you move platform you aren't making yourself more secure, you're just shifting the target. It just so happens that more people make viruses / worms etc for Windows because (1) the client base is larger, (2) the variability between machines is lower (as opposed to the 400 different distros of linux), and (3) you get no kudos for attacking free software. I don't hate linux. On the contrary I would choose it over Windows if I was running a Tomcat or xAMP server because those apps run better on it. I manage a few linux servers. I just hate the dickheads who are all "no way man, linux is much better that micro$oft lololol!!!11" because they think people are going to think they're some fucking computer masters because they've denouced Microsoft. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:02, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Very true. I remember reading somewhere about why viruses haven't spread through mobile phones; it's not that the viruses don't exist, they just can't propagate for the reasons that you've said. So basically, as Apple get their so-called "virus-free" macs out there to a larger number of people, the odds of mac-to-mac transfer increases to the point where their concentrated enough for viruses to cut through them. And because people think "oh, I have an Apple Mac, they don't get viruses!" they're going to crash down even harder. I'm just waiting for the iPhone to reach that critical market penetration so I can laugh as practically every single one on the planet dies at the same time leaving their smug-faced owners looking like total idiots. (Though, speaking of MS hating nerds, even they like Windows 7, and some of them are even coming away from their Firefox circle-jerks and appreciating IE8!!) ^moral 22:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There are no viruses for my Colecovision Adam. It just takes ten minutes for the tape drive to load. Corry 04:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Just don't load any tapes from other people unless you really trust them... ħuman 04:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

@Armond: Funny thing is, the iPhone had the best ever vulnerability which allowed anyone to turn your phone into a covert listening device (can't find a link, bear with me), so someone could bug you using your own phone. This, combined with the other two serious vulnerabilites found would make the whole world go fucking nuts if it was a Microsoft product. But because it's an apple product it's no big deal. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...Microsoft....it's like The Black Hole of Dorkdom. I mean, have you seen this video showing you how to host a Launch Party for Windows 7? Did you know they made over a hundred other videos like this? I rest my case. BTW, I do recommend having a party to watch these videos. Fire up the keg, hit the bong hard, and laugh like a drain. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Not as good as the spoof of the Microsoft Surface video. Search YouTube for Microsoft Surface and watch the original, then search for the spoof. "The future is here, and it isn't an iPhone. It's a big-ass table. Take that Apple." Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I note that Apple have had to pull their latest iPod aimed at the younger audience off the market because of a naming issue. Apparently "iTouch Kids" wasn't acceptable. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Those damn kids and their cough syrup...

I bought some cough syrup today, because my lungs are coming out in small chunks, and the clerk at Walgreens ID'd me. The kids, apparently, just love to OD on that shit and trip balls. Do people wonder if this has something to do with the ever-increasing price of weed? JS Leitch 03:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

In NZ you are treated as a hardened criminal if you purchase anything with codeine or ephedrine in it. Ace McWicked^{Currently Lurking.....} 03:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Man, I could use some codeine right now... dextromethorphan is CRAP. JS Leitch 03:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it has more to do with high costs of LSD or mushrooms than weed, that's probably closer to the crowd it attracts. It's actually been behind the counter for a while where I live, even before Sudafed was back there. At high enough quantities that stuff will completely detach you from reality.--الملعب الاسود العقل ^{Am I asleep or awake?} 05:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

They were making DMX from dextromethorphan in NZ for awhile until the maker went nuts, thought the clouds were speaking to him and was shot by police. people kinda lost interest after that and got some acid instead. Ace McWicked^{Currently Lurking.....} 05:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I went to the pharmacy yesterday to buy some citric acid crystals for my homebrew wine (cheaper at the pharmacy than the LHBS), and the woman said "May I ask what it's for?". I explained and we had a quick conversation about homebrew. I then remembered that when I used to buy citric acid from the pharmacy when I was a kid to make sherbert they used to ask me as well. I therefore used a search engine starting with G to find out why and found this on Wiki: "Citric acid is commonly used as a buffer to increase the solubility of brown heroin. Single-use citric acid sachets have been used as an inducement to get heroin users to exchange their dirty needles for clean needles in an attempt to decrease the spread of AIDS and hepatitis. Other acidifiers used for brown heroin are ascorbic acid, acetic acid, and lactic acid; in their absence, a drug user will often substitute lemon juice or vinegar.". Ah, so that's why. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

LSD is bad stuff. A mate of mine took some and it triggered his underlying Bipolar condition. Tried to kill himself the week after he took the stuff. Another guy I know hallucinated his dead grandmother crawling up his leg with a knife in her mouth. (OK, that last one was out of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, but that book hardly makes you warm to hard drugs.) But anyway, if little kids want to OD on Cough medicine it leads me to think there's a pretty good chance that they'll be the same kind of people who will be desperate to try the likes of Ether, Mescaline, Ecstasy, LSD etc. I've tried Ecstasy and its fucking great, but still. There's a difference between being frightened to take a third pill and gobbing down your eighth! Lunacy 09:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

We used to down bottles of some kind of upset stomach relief (can't remember the name, but it abbreviated to JCB, which we thought was funny) because it was basically peppermint oil, alcohol, and fuckloads of morphine. More than enough to get mashed. Made your breath minty fresh as well. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be Dr. Collis Browne's mixture (as I used to know it) but now available as John Collis Browne's. There seems to be some discrepancy win the spelling of Brown(e). Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be weaker now. I'm sure it had more than 20mg / bottle back in the day. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 07:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

God of the Gaps Challenge!

Ok, I have a challenge for everyone. We've all heard the standard God of the Gaps and Watchmaker arguments from creationists, and it occurred to me today just how pathetic they really are. Its not just that they misrepresent science, but that they misrepresent science at such a simplistic level. Of course, for most of their followers, that's all that's required, since their followers are scientific illiterates. It occurred that, if you were dealing at a higher level, there are so many better arguments to be made (still wrong, mind you, but at least more reasonable). Any fitness valley could be explained away via God of the Gaps, and would probably end up sounding more plausible to someone who knew what they were talking about than their claims of "Irreducible complexity."

Ok, and on to the challenge. I'm challenging everyone here who has any basic idea of science at even a college level to write a God of the Gaps argument that isn't simplistic, and is above the level of scientific illiterates. I came up with mine today, when it occurred to me that someone doesn't make complete sense to me, based on my Physical Anthropology college and grad classes (to be honest, I'm not sure what the solution to this particular argument would be, but I accept that I'm primarily a cultural anthropologist, and I don't think I've stumbled across something that destroys evolution, nor that I would be qualified to assess it if it did...but I think it sounds better than Kirk Cameron).

On another note, I thought I might as well make my personal beliefs clear: I know that most of the people here are probably either atheist or agnostic. I am, in fact, a Christian. However, I accept that God gave me no evidence that my beliefs are true, so I don't expect anyone else to accept them, and my faith is strong enough to stand without a 2,000-year-old book be infallible. I also don't believe that God is sadistic enough to torture people forever for not believing in him. That, however, is a discussion for another time. I just wanted to say this to make it clear that I'm not making fun of Christianity or religion (although, I suspect many of you will, which is fine with me), but simply creationism. And so, on to my argument:

Ok, we know that the female body is adapted to spontaneously abort embryos and fetuses that show signs of low fitness, since those are not in their best interest to carry to term. This is perfectly reasonable from the perspective of evolution or design. However, they virtually always maintain a ratio of male-female births only slightly in favor of females (who have better constitutions to deal with childbirth). However, you have to consider the fitness gap among above and below-par males vs. females. While a male is, theoretically, capable of having many times as many children as a female, they are limited by the number of females, while females are not limited by the number of males (one can impregnate many). Because of this, there is a much wider gap in fitness between an above-par male and a below-par male (assuming both survived to adulthood, the former might, just throwing numbers out, have a dozen kids with several females, while the latter might have none at all), than between above-par females and below-par females (if they both survived to adulthood, both could have a child every time they stopped weaning the previous one, and while the children might be less likely to survive with the latter, she is almost certain to have some children, and the above-par female is heavily limited in her maximum number, even if those are VERY likely to survive, so the gap of fitness is much smaller). For this reason, it would be selectively advantageous to maintain most female pregnancies, while aborting all but the most exceptional males, which means we should see a much wider gap.

This brings us to the question of why an intelligent designer would want an equal number between genders. Well, he also designed concealed ovulation which, in a society with roughly equal numbers among the genders, encourages males to form pair-bonds with a particular female, so that he can guard her from rivals. This reduces in-fighting over sex among fertile females, and helped make the establishment of our society easier, by making us more cooperative and strengthening familial bonds.

(btw, the part I'm not actually sure about is why males aren't more likely to be spontaneously aborted if their fitness is low, if anyone knows please tell me, along with your response to the challenge)--Mustex 03:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sweet, you found it! Here, have a Black Russian on me!Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 03:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'd appreciate your response alot more? (how long should I reasonably expect people to come up with responses? I mean, since this requires actual thought.)--Mustex 03:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Give it a little time, probably, at least, a few days. I will, most likely, answer your challenge tomorrow when I, myself, am not intoxicated. I suspect the first people to answer you will be the usual suspects, though.Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 03:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

One fault in your argument. Male births are higher. - π 03:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok, thnx.--Mustex 03:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And you expect us to care... why? ħuman 03:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, for starters, it would amuse me if anti-creationist could make intentionally bs arguments for creationism that are more scientific than actual creationist arguments.--Mustex 03:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would be amusing to you, I suppose. But why would it be interesting to us? A mental exercise? ħuman 04:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much, yeah. Also, the bragging rights for whoever comes up with the best bs argument (I was planning on turning this into a poll after we have a decent number of responses to decide a "winner").--Mustex 05:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably being dense here, but when you say you are challenging us to come up with a "God of the gap's type argument", I'm not sure exactly what you mean. The "God of the gaps" is the result of science gradually explaining more and more of the physical world with the result that God is limited to the parts (the gaps) that science has yet to explain. On that basis one could pick up any presently unsolved scientific issue and confidently state "God did it". For example "Dark matter is an expression of the power of God." But I get the impression that you have something else in mind - I'm just not sure what.

The example you posted didn't help me much as I'm not quite sure of the point you're making.--Bob^{Not Jim} 10:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, its simpler than that: You don't have to present something humans can't explain, you just have to present something your average college graduate who's taken a few science courses and paid attention couldn't explain easily. Also, part of the challenge is making the argument more complex and nuanced, and in general scientific-sounding than most creationist arguments. Technically, going off physical anthropology, you could name any fitness valley and declare it proof of God, however that would still be simplistic (even if above the minimum level for the challenge)--76.18.115.165 13:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Yeah, but then that isn't a god of the gaps argument then, is it? You need a gap in human understanding to ram god in to. It sounds like what you're looking for is additive arguments, like theistic evolution or that pulsars are guidance beacons for flights of angels. Arguments that are plausible, but totally unnecessary to explain what we already know. God of the gaps arguments are reductive, they take something we don't already know and try and use goddidit as a (non-)explanation for the phenomena in question. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(Back to the OP)Just to throw this out there at the OP, you have the idea of evolution all wrong. It's not some deity that decides what should or shouldn't be done. Life is more akin to legos, putting blocks together. Males, as have been pointed out, are born more frequently because sperm carrying male dna is physically lighter than sperm carrying female dna, thus getting to the egg first, thus more likely to be born male. Nothing magical, nothing planned or special, just simple mechanics. Z3ro^talk 14:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

True, but you have to remember: Magical or not, if the underlying mechanisms are there, you can make an educated guess about what is likely to happen. There's no question that human females have the mechanism to abort pregnancies in which the child is not likely to have high fertility. Given this, it seems likely (to me at least, speaking at a college-graduate level, since I am one) that there would be a tendency to give female fetuses more of a break than males, since differential reproductive success is greater among males (meaning: a good male could have far more children than a good female, but only a few males can have that many children, and a bad male is likely to have few or no children at all, where even a bad female is likely to have a few if she makes it to adulthood).--Mustex 19:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

So your challenge is to take "Black matter cannot be explained therefore God is doing it" and wrap that up with some more confusing words so that it sounds like science even though it isn't? Is that the idea?--Bob^{Not Jim} 14:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the general idea. Another way of putting it would be that, since most God of the Gaps arguments don't involve a lack of understanding either (we understand alot of them just fine, its just that laypeople don't know the reasons), we can say that their "gaps" only apply to someone with a highschool education (and, often, who didn't pay much attention), where the challenge here would be to come up with "gaps" at a college level.--Mustex 19:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that "God of the gaps" refers to real gaps, and not gaps in education - tell us again why we would want to create pseudoscience?--Bob^{Not Jim} 19:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Because what better way to call bullshit on creationists than to show that we can do what they do better than they can without even trying. Also, yes technically it does refer to "real gaps," but creationists often pretend that because they don't know something and can't be bothered to do the research, its a true mystery (ie Michael Behe and the human immune system).--Mustex 18:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the general idea here is to show that it is possible to generate much more realistic and plausible "problems" with evolution than creationists can. Creationists arguments tend to over-simplify and over-extrapolate and are essentially working with strawman versions of evolution that intentionally feed their purposes. In this case, however, the challenge is to try to poke a hole in evolution without using such strawman simplifications. In fact, this is what science tends to do. People with the expertise will shred your theory until it's either considered to be right and their convinced by it, or it's thrown out and you're convinced you're wrong. I don't really have the biological expertise to do this from scratch for evolution, but I can imagine that the problem of altruism - which has lead to group selection and other similar theories such as ones that utilise game theory - is one of the most real and non-straw problems with evolution as it stands in the simple sense. Namely, why does it make sense for a creature to work and sacrifice itself if it personally won't reproduce? Of course, when I say "problem" I mean "challenge" and there's a lot of ideas going around to explain it, some good and some bad, some nicely accepted, some no longer accepted. It was covered in quite a good article I read in Science today. So really, what Mustex is asking for can probably be found in numerous bioscience articles scatted throughout the literature. ^moral 18:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly, I'm asking for arguments that are bullshit, but that sound better to the average person than most creationist arguments. While its true egalitarianism would be part of that, and thus would fall into the category, it seems a bit weak to me because: 1) Its not complete bullshit, at least in the sense that we have some trouble explaining it, and 2) the arguments for it (ie group selection, generalized altruism) could be fairly easily explained to the average laymen, or so I believe ("Those with tendency to help others tended to live together because they were related, so they mostly had the same genes, and the gene itself reaped the benefits"/"We evolved to help those who also help us, and spite those who don't.")--76.18.115.165 19:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see. It's not difficult to dress up creationist claims in fancy language, though. In fact, the whole concept of Irreducible Complexity is just the same personal incredulity stated in William Paley's Watch Argument. It's just dressed up in the language of genetics. I doubt you can actually dress it up further than creation "scientists" already have as some have written very flouncy papers that have that cargo cult science feel to them. I think we even discussed one here a while back from ARJ because I remember reviewing it. ^moral 19:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but this isn't about dressing-up arguments more, its about building arguments based on scientific data that most creationists aren't even aware of, which shows just how little they actually know. To use my earlier example: It would never even occur to a creationist to wonder why human females have concealed ovulation, nor would they likely be aware that it might have played a role in the evolution of pair-bonding, which might have helped us form more tight-knit groups (or, in their case, "Goddidit so that we'd form more tight-knit groups"), and they CERTAINLY would never ask why God didn't cause women to spontaneously abort more boys than girls (because that leads them to the uncomfortable question of why he causes miscarriages at all). To use a boxing metaphor, its like some guy off the street challenged the heavyweight champion of the world, and a month before the match the champion, to show how little chance his opponent stood, went down to see his opponent and told him all of his weaknesses ("I tend to tire around the eighth round, go for the knock-out then...Try to keep your distance, I'm a good slugger, but you have longer arms...").--Mustex 20:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Then, as I said before, take any issue on which there is presently no scientific consensus - and there is no shortage of such things. Then say "Hey, scientists don't agree on this, therefore God did it". It's what creationists do all the time anyway. And it's classic "God of the gaps".--Bob^{Not Jim} 20:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the point here is to do it better than they do, thus making them look dumb. If you're not interested, then don't do it.--Mustex 20:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sort of convenient edit

(un-indent)I see what you're getting at but it certainly isn't that easy to do. Really, when you start getting into more complex things that "creationists aren't aware of" it's a lot more difficult to get into challenges against it that are bullshit. This stuff that "creationists aren't aware of" don't - and in many cases can't - challenge or reinforce evolution or natural selection as concepts and principles; they affect the very small minute details of the operation of the theory. You can only make the bullshit arguments when there's an agreed consensus that blatantly shows it up as bullshit, and as Bob said, if you get into more detail, specific disagreements and lack of consensus become 10-a-penny and you can't make a bullshit argument because you've actually made a real argument. In principle it's a nice idea to show up the idiocy and amateurism of most creation science - I've certainly thought about it myself at one point - but in practice it's not very easy and maybe not even possible. For example, I know a relative feck-load about nuclear magnetic resonance - enough to convince any "NMR skeptic" that it does exist (the fact that this isn't a real "controversy", like evolution, is irrelevant, all that matters is that I have the relevant knowledge to do this in a particular field). So, while I couldn't do what you ask regarding evolution with my current knowledge-base, I could do what you ask regarding NMR, in theory. So, a basic "creationst-like" argument against the existence of NMR would be "but you've never seen atoms actually spin, have you?" and this is a bullshit argument on a very basic and misunderstood level. However, the very fine details and very cutting edge of the science (the mechanism of transfer of spin polarisation from p-H₂ to heteroatoms in a low intensity magnetic field, for a specific example) that you would need to create a "more intelligent" BS argument against it can only support the existence of the NMR phenomenon - in fact, you wouldn't have this more advanced concepts if it didn't exist. So they can't be used to cast doubt on whether it exists in the first place. So you can only challenge the overall existence of a phenomenon (which is what creationists do with evolution) using very basic and non-specific features of it. So, in short, it's probably not possible because most of the advanced arguments against evolution you're looking for require evolution to be true first. ^moral 13:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose this makes sense. I guess I'll have to think up some other game. :(--Mustex 22:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Shakespeare

I have just returned from watching the Chicago Shakespeare Theater's production of Richard III. It, quite frankly, blew me away. I have never seen the play before, and I was just stunned watching it. Has anyone else seen it? --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No. We liberals all hate Western culture, remember? We're too busy writing gory comics, listening to death metal, and smoking PCP for that boring, archaic crapola. JS Leitch 02:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

EC) Many (many)ⁿ years ago. Rather good but a bit long - 3½ hours if I recall (RSC @ Stratford) You know now why he is so lauded. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 02:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, the play was blatant propaganda. Elizabeth, queen at the time, was persecuting playwrights. So, in order to curry favor, Shakespeare writes a play portray the greatest archenemy of the House of Lancaster as a evil, deformed villain, and Henry VII as the savior of England. It's a great play, but historically inaccurate. For example, it is thought that it was Henry not Richard, killed the young king. After all, they were a greater threat to him than Richard. Great play, though. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Peter Sellers did a beautiful Rich III. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 02:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you know who else did? Ian McDiarmid! Do you know who else he played? That's right- Palpatine! --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Saw all the "comedies" & many of the "histories" in my teens/twenties -- I was a culture vulture back then - I have difficulty remembering which was which now. Favourite: Merchant; least favourite: Lear. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 02:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Favorite: Bloody MacBeth, awesome production with no scenery changes, and the snarky sisters watching every scene. Front row seats and all. Also like Midsummer Night's Silliness, wherein a friend played some wizard or something. Puck was hot, and everyone agreed. Trouble with most of the Bard's works is they run to seven hours long, which was worth your penny in the day when everything smelled bad, but now we are accustomed to 90-120 minute dramas. ħuman 04:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Favourite comedy: Shakespeare in love. Favourite actor: Obi-Wan Kenobi; Favourite wrong quote: Quoque tu, Brute?. Abused (wrong) quote: To beer or not to beer. Favourite music: Rota's Love Theme from Franco Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet (1968). Editor at CP^{Oh, Finland! Why?} 07:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Though I normally detest "modernized" versions of Shakespear, I did love the Ethan Hawk version of Hamlet, especially the duel scene, where Hamlet says "bring your best violence" and Laertes comes at him with a gun. Great interpritation. Z3ro^talk 15:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to have a favourite Shakespeare play since so much depends on the production. Richard II is a good one.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 08:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Facebook

I still don't understand.

I used to have my doubts about this facebook thing the kids are into these days (mind you I'm 18 and a CS major; friend making isn't exactly my strong suit). Constantly being in contact with people seemed like something to be avoided. I mean they can't spell, most of them enjoy Dane Cook, a lot of them correctly think I have abandoned them, and worst of all they might use it as an excuse to try to coax me out of my lair. But today I realized why facebook is so great. Firstly I don't have to smell them and they don't have to smell me, secondly I can find out when the girls I like are single, and lastly exchanges like this. Yorick 05:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Facebookers are young? I'll just print that off and frame it. Totnesmartin 08:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sooo the hip thing right now is to act like some old fart who's painfully unaware of 15 years old netspeak? Vulpius 08:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You, my dear Vulpius would be spot on. Your powers of deduction are unmatched in the halls of history. A veritable Holmes to my poor Moriarty. Yorick 08:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait a sec -- there's a reason Prof. Moriarty was Holmes' nemesis in the first place and appeared in so many, at least non-canonical, Holmes stories. He was a badass. 15:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It's remarkably useful. Although in recent months they've been trying to turn it into Twitter and encourage "every little shit thing you say is meaningful" attitude, but it's still quite good once you've hidden all the crap you don't want and ramped your privacy settings a little higher. Particularly for organising events as you have this framework where people get invited, you can keep them up-to-date on the start/end times and dates, what's going on and attach maps and so on. Seriously, when they first marketed it as a "social network tool" they weren't wrong. ^moral 09:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Are people on friendface all on poppers or something? In every conversation they appear to be pissing themselves laughing throughout. "Haha, yeah lol. I went to my gran's funeral lol and the preist had a white collar pmsl lololol!!!!!11" Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what the "hide" button is for. But yeah, it has gone that way since it became open to all rather than student exclusive. Basically, all the people from MySpace came over because they were sick of how crap MySpace was and turned Facebook into MySpace and are now getting sick of how crap Facebook is now that they've turned it into MySpace. ^moral 10:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

MySpace is just awful, with the exception that it gave my band a free website to display our shows, music, and whatnot. Facebook is more tolerable, but is spiraling downward. It can get pretty buggy as well. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 22:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am completely against having a FriendFace^TM account, mainly because (without wanting to sound like an arse) I can't be bothered to sit and deal with friend requests from people who I wasn't really friends with in the first place, and the people who I was actually friends with who (for some reason) are now either drug addicts or on bail (usually for armed robbery). If one of my 'friends' want to get in contact with me then they can call me. If they don't have my number then a quick google of my name will get them my email address. But they don't, because they arn't interested in being friends. They just want me as another collectable face on their friend list. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You do know that you can either reject them or set it up so that no one can send you requests? FB's privacy options are amazingly powerful, so most of the things people say about it regarding your privacy are flat-out wrong. If it wasn't for the over-abundance of cynism on our social networking websites article, I'd happily put this in as a real rational response to a load of woo and hype. ^moral 08:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not moaning about privacy, I'm moaning about the fact that if I have a facebook presence then either (1) I leave it so people can send me friend requests and get irritable as explained above, or (2) disallow friend requests in which case everyone bitches at me for not allowing them to be my friend ("You have Dave as your friend and I've known you longer than him" and all that shit). Seriously, I lived my life for quite a while without it and I'm sure I'll manage just fine for a bit longer. As I said before, my friends are welcome to contact me anytime. They just choose not to. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Republican Poster-Boys/Girls

Is it just me or is th Republican party running out of poster-boys/girls? with Mark Sanford & Bob Jindal no longer very popular, and sarah Palin being ridiculed all over the place (or do they still have faith in the Palinator?)-- 忍者  ^{N I N J A A A H ! ! ! ! !} 19:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

How about Joe the Plumber? Funny things is, those moron conservatives would somehow contend he has more experience than Obama and vote for him. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 19:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, what happened to Joe?--Bob^{Not Jim} 19:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

They were "proud to introduce him" at that TakeBackAmerica conference thing discussed above. Can't remember what he was talking about, probably presenting a workshop on "How to Apply Right-Wing Rhetoric to Any-Old-Shit You Have ZERO Qualification to Discuss" ^moral 19:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I htink its hilarious that conservatives suddenly think a plumber is qualified to engage in serious politcal discourse because he once spoke against the president. Liberals should go find that guy that told Cheney to get fucked. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 20:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Conservative seam sweating and pipe soldering techniques 101. 23:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What happened to Michael Steele? I thought he was being built up as the poster-boy for a while, but then he apologized to Limbaugh and I haven't heard from him since. Anyone know anything on him?--Mustex 23:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Mittens v. Pawlenty, cagematch at eleven. ħuman 04:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Looking up Lenski

I googled Lenski and found this little pamphlet. Get it while the sale's on, I say. Totnesmartin 19:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Shit, someone must bring this to Andy's attention. He'll have a fit. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 19:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Any relation? I'm not sure that he'd understand it. It all looks pretty dense to me.--Bob^{Not Jim} 20:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the Assfly should write and demand the manuscripts he originally worked from. The people have a right to know the truth about this liberal so-called "Bible" --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Lenski, I notice in a few places you state 'Psalms not show', I want access to the Psalms!" Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 20:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Refusing to show the Psalms in a book about the New Testament is Liberal Censorship! Totnesmartin 22:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

@Jeeves - one would assume a man of Andy's caliber engaged in a bible translation would already have the Greek, nu? 23:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think a man of the Assfly's calibre hsa a whole scriptorium staffed around the clock with homskollars dressed in sackcloth, copying and exquisitely illuminating his conservative bible. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

New WIGO voting

The new up/down voting system is pretty sweet. That is all. Fedhaji 04:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I like that you can mouseover the bar to see the tally of comments in each direction. It makes for some quite interesting viewing. on WIGO CP there's one quite a bit down the page with 7 (8 up, 1 down), and then a little bit up there's one with 0, yet which has 32 votes total - 16 either way. It's good that now you can see whether one was relatively ignored or whether there was a lot of interest but varied opinions on it. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 13:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeesh, creepy.

This is by far the creepiest photo I have ever seen. Random walks through WP can produce disturbing results. Quadrupeds/bipeds good, octopeds/hexapeds bad. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Creepiest picture ever? ORLY? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

See, no, that's inspires hilarity/pity in me. Not "What the fuck is that? KILL IT! KILL IT WITH FiRE!" xenophobia. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Why the fuck are fake guitars in that picture? Did he think the guns and clips weren't quite awesome enough and a video game guitar would just push it over the top?--الملعب الاسود العقل ^{Boredom will die, ears will bleed} 17:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Those aren't fake guitars. They're real Guitar Hero guitars. The guy obviously knows how to have a good time. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 17:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I humbly submit my nominee: [2] DickTurpis 17:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Coconut crabs are also cute. --127․0․0․1 19:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Has the clawed snake showed up anywhere else yet? That's pretty cool. --Gulik 00:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

you bunch of amateurs... Totnesmartin 19:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

We should make a creepiness competition, with votes and everything. The winner then wins a... well, wins. --127․0․0․1 20:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

GENTLEMEN!!! Corry 23:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Gentlewomen? Dendlai 06:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

'nuff said. PS If I ever unexpectedly encounter a Coconut Crab, I think the men in white coats will have to cart my gibbering self off to the farm. --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 10:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Jesus camp

Holy shit. I'm watching it now. I'm scared. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 19:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

After Eraserhead, Jesus Camp is the most disturbing film ever made. JS Leitch 23:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess you haven't seen Irreversible... ħuman 23:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Why is there so much "Army of God" crap with fundies? They would lose. They do not have access to nukes. Anything they could do would be a terrorist action.--Thanatos 23:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but sadly they could still do plenty of damage. My personal hope is that Texas decides to leave the Union and become a "Christian nation." Then we can offer refuge to all the blacks, gays, and immigrants, while all the fundies flock there. Once everyone I actually give a damn about is safely out of Texas, let the carpet bombing begin!--Mustex 23:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Camp scares the Galactic Emperor and Lord of the Sith. You heard it here first.ENorman 01:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say stop watching because it's not worth it, but you need to see these people and how serious they are. ^moral 11:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I must admit JC is one of the better horror movies. 2 questions - who's the talk show host guy - he sounds fairly decent. And second, does anybody know who the lardass is leading the kids when they do the cup smashing thing. Because he sure as hell sounds Sauff Effricen to my ear. --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 12:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the many funny things I've heard about Jesus Camp is that when the people in it got to see it, they were very happy with it. "It's about time someone gave us a fair shake!" They don't (didn't?) have the faintest idea how SCARY they are to Non-Believers.... --Gulik 01:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the parade of nine year olds repeating almost verbatim that they came to their faith as a personal choice and no one goaded them into it. Hello. They're in Jesus Camp! ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 13:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Meatloaf on TMF

Anyone who hasn't made love had sex to the sound of Bat Out of Hell hasn't lived. Discuss. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 23:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

From what I understand the Bat Out of Hell album is all about risky, one night stands and the like. Ace McWicked^{Currently Lurking.....} 23:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup! But then that was pre-AIDS (my age is showing) ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 23:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

At one time I dated a deaf guy who did drag shows.

(For those so sheltered as to not know what goes on at these events...a bunch of performers get dressed up [usually as a disco diva but it's not necessary] and lip-sync [or, god forbid actually try to sing] standards from oh, say, 1966 to present day pop songs.)

For Chris, who was completely deaf from birth, he had to ask the proprietors of the shows to crank up the bass ALL THE WAY passed 11, so that he could feel the beat and do his dances, which were fetching.

He made squeeky sounds during sex that I'm not sure he knew about. 00:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC) CЯacke®

I wondered where that was going, crackhead. Now I wish I hadn't... ħuman 00:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

During sex I make honking sounds and caw like a seagull during the apex. Ace McWicked^{Currently Lurking.....} 00:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Once left a tape recorder recording. The squelchy noises are quite off-putting. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 00:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ye gods. Now you've got me thinking about what prompted you to post this thread. And I thought Ed liveblogging teen comedies was bad. Still, I have to say bat out of hell sounds like a risky sex CD to me, since paradise by the dashboard light is ideally positioned, post-coitally speaking, to kill the mood. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 06:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume a very good night prompted this thread. You can either annoy the neighbours with the sound of Meat Loaf, or you can annoy them with the sound of squeaky mattresses and handcuffs rattling against bed posts... I may have said too much. ^moral 16:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It was that Meat was on t'telly & I was taken back to a particular night in 1980(ish). Bat always reminds me! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 23:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to pretend that none of you, my internet friends, have ever had sex, you're always fully dress, none of you live in the same state as I do and that there is absolutely no way you'd ever recognize me in public. I love you all virtually and would prefer to keep it that way (unless you are 25-45 female, human and passably hot, in that case shoot me a line, baybee . . . ) ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 19:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ageist! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 23:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Just btw - I'd been on the merlot last night: the mind works in strange ways at times: sorry ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 23:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That's not embarrassing. **** * **** ** ***** *** **** ****** and then she ** ** **** ***** ***** ***** **** *** * ***** **** while *** **** **** **** ** ***** **** and the hangover was legendary, is embarrassing. ^moral 07:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone else seen the commercial with Meatloaf on the stepladder with a giant bottle of A1 singing "I Would Do Anything For Love (But I Won't Do That)" to a huge slice of meatloaf or was I momentarily delusional? The Foxhole Atheist 22:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Smoking

While we were on holiday at Teflpedia I went to the hairdressers - first time for about ten years (various reasons) 'cause my other half wanted to treat me. Both the shampoo girl & the stylist had apparently just been "out the back" for a ciggy. They'd subsequently sucked on some sort of mint but it was really noticeable. Their breath quite turned my stomach. No tip! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 02:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Shit, you'd hate for me to cut your hair. Not just because of the smoking either, because I would be more than likely drunk and make a real hash of it. Also I wouldn't stop talking and I'd forget what I was doing halfway through. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 03:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If the hair came out well, please to tip them, even retroactively. Also, feel free to exercise your speech and say why (next time) you were disgusted (last time). At least they minted up, it just wasn't enough? ħuman 04:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Pliz not to use "hair" & "came out" in same sentence. I complained three times & was taken to be old cow who' doesn't like young people. This I know 'cause an aquaintance entered just as I was leaving & was privy to subsequent conversations. Re tipping: it's not so much part of the culture here as in the US although hairdressers are commonly tipped. It was OK, but the treat was spoiled for me & my other half. No tip! ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm stopping smoking now/drastically cutting down. Now I'm out of a job and a uni student I can't facilitate both smoking and drinking. Gotta prioritise. SJ ^Debaser 12:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As a smoker I find myself increasingly agreeing that it's a disgusting and unjustifiable habit. When I smoked unfiltered cigs my fingers were stained yellow. I have to bleach my teeth. My clothes, skin, and hair smells like smoke. I just washed the walls in my living room with soapy water and had to change the wash water several times. My mirrors and tv get a haze on them. The final straw ought to have been when I unpacked my suitcase at my mom's place to notice that clothes I had washed mere hours earlier smelled like smoke. Not to mention the fact that I can't run 5 miles anymore and that no non-smoker wants to date or marry a smoker. Cigs cost $8 or more a pack here in Chicago. They're $4.50 in NW Indiana, but since I despise myself for smoking I never think to reward myself by being frugal. I'll quit soon. Human and Ace will quit soon too, they just don't know it. 15:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that cigs here are up to £6.00/pack - about $9:00? ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

PS: nice to know that you wash your clothes before going to mother's, Nutty. (rather than going to mother's for her to do it. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

$9 a pack?! I'd pretty much have to quit if they got up that high here. Either that or cut out a meal. --PitchBlackMind ^{I guess a guess is the best I'll do} 17:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget: they don't go from $4.50 to $9.00 in one go; they sneak up by 5% -10% /year & you don't notice. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

It's slowly moved up every year for the past five or so. When I first started college they were $25 a carton, now they're around $45. $9 a pack is still unthinkable though, I don't know how anyone smokes at that price. --الملعب الاسود العقل ^{Eerie whispers trapped beneath my pillow} 17:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh! I don't know how anyone smokes. ^{I am eating} _& honey^chat 17:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You've got to put it into the perspective of other indulgences. You'd probably have a hard time getting a beer for less than $4 in Chicago. Two beers = 20 cigarettes. Think about how long they last and how much satisfaction you get out of each. It's not that bad. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Cigarettes in NZ a really expensive also. I mitigate the cost by rolling my own and rolling small ones. I never smoke inside and have cut down drastically a lot a little but still, I have a nicotine patch, chew the gum and have a cigarette. Sometimes all at once. My doctor says I am about this --> <-- close to having a coronary. Doctors don't know shit. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 19:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I think smoking is great. Smokers pay more taxes than me and later claim less pension from the government because they die younger. As long as they don't smoke near me what's not to like? (Government warning - There may be an elements of irony or sarcasm in this post.) --Bob^{Not Jim} 19:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

However, if a smoker buys an annuity they are likely to receive a higher income because they don't think they'll last as long, even though some smokers make it to well in their 90s. Silly twit 15:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll bet that the insurance companies are quite happy to take the the hit from the small minority who make it compared the the vast majority who don't.--Bob^{Not Jim} 18:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I quit smoking 38 days ago and have been off of nicotine replacement (gum) for 25 now. I was a pack-a-day smoker for 15 years and what kept me from quitting before was a fear of withdrawals. Once I realized that and compared it to other things I had been through that legitimately warranted fear it became a no-brainer and I had all the motivation I needed. The gum, medications (Chantix worked for me) and the like helped, but it was the behavior modification that was key. </soapbox> The Foxhole Atheist 18:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is good news. Congratulations TFA. If you put the money you've saved every day into a savings account for your kid, thanks to compound interest it'll probably pay for her college bills, or something.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I want my fucking coffee back.

So I am sitting at my desk, abusing Nutty Roux via email and drinking a strong black coffee. The cup I am using is just one I found in the ktichen and it has some pithy remarks stamped on the side of it about "John". You know the ones - It says JOHN vertically down the side with "J is for your jubilance" etc. The sort of crap you expect to find in a standard, run of the mill, government building. So I'm drinking away and accusing Nutty of all types of heinous crimes against humanity when this large angry looking woman who I have never seen before appears at my desk and proclaims in a loud, pissed off voice "That's my cup!". She stabs the air with her ham-fist and extends her greasy sausage finger at the JOHN mug sitting on my coaster.
I looked up her with my standard grimace of contempt and said "What? Your name is John?"
"No" she cried as she desperatly tried pushing the words between the flaps surrounding her gaping maw that some might refer to as 'lips', "It's my husbands name!"
Before I could react she swooped down, grabbed the cup with my coffee in it, and fled to the sanctuary of her own department which I believe is some sub-level I wasn't aware of where they keep the rest of the Gammas.
I am still to shocked by this incident to get another cup of coffee for myself. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 23:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You were mugged! ħuman 00:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel raped. She'll be downstairs now cooing over the mug and wrapping it up in the thin, sticky film that she produces from pores lining the inside of her fingers while others scuttle around dragging egg sacks from the malformed thoraxes. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 00:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just don't let them lay their eggs in your flesh when you aren't paying attention. They'll hatch and crawl under your skin up to your brains and eat them and then escape to pupate in your ear canals. ħuman 04:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Just made me think of Dr Statham: "Decant it! Decant it into an alternate recepticle!" Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the phrase `gaping maw`. Thank you Ace. Steve Kay 10:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the bigger problem here is your coffee mug kleptomania. For all you knew, she kept the mug poisoned, just waited for someone like you to come along and drink out of it. Maybe it's time to bring your own mug into work. Z3ro^talk 13:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Like when you steal purified capsaicin from the chemistry teaching labs and take it back to the halls-of-residence and smear it all over the food you own so you can catch people out... ^moral 14:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ouch! ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 14:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, I kinda see her point (although taking the cup back was a bit extreme) - back when I worked in an office I hated walking past somebody's desk and seeing them slobbering all over my 'never mind the bollocks' cup. That's why I always used to spit in it before putting it back in the cupboard. --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 18:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Tsunami

So I left work sick almost as soon as arrived, just got home and switched on the news to see that a Tsunami is expected to hit my city around 10:45am. Which is in 1 hour 45 minutes. Exciting. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 20:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You'll be safe at the nearest church. These natural disaster things never hit the faithful. --Concernedresident 20:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Exciting indeed. Any latest news?--Bob^{Not Jim} 20:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

heres the latest. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 20:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It looks like American Samoa suffered some loss of life. A bit too exciting for them I fear.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:52, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Pst, what happened? Did it hit? How bad was it? Did any of your booze get destroyed? ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ In Soviet Russia, the hot dishwasher speaks YOU! 17:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ruh Roh

Having this come from Faux News made the gears in my irony meter grind, but it's not really surprising news. --SpinyNorman 20:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

So the number without religious affiliation has doubled to 15%! Time to panic, religion is obviously on the way out. For some people I guess only total control is what matters.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"The number of Christians has declined 12% since 1990, and is now 76%, the lowest percentage in American history." - Wow, were all those Injuns mainly Christian as well? I never knew that.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What's your problem with Fox News? Everyone knows they're the only fair and balanced news company that reports and lets you decide!Conservative Punk 21:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

They report, and I decide - to change the channel. Paddy Chayefsky must have had a crystal ball when he wrote Network. --SpinyNorman 00:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I got a bit of a kick earlier this year out of Glenn Beck actively playing up the comparison... Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No, no, the Injuns were all Jewish. Don't you read your Book of Mormon? --Gulik 02:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

less than 1% atheist and less than 1% agnostic? I hope that's a little off... I can see the questions they asked now... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 12:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Back online

My router blew up on Saturday and I've been having 'net withdrawal symptoms ever since. Thankfully the replacement arrived this morning and I'm reconnected to unreality once more. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Home sick

Being home sick is a real eye opener. I have discovered several things I wasn't aware of previously, some good, such as college football. However, the amount of woo they sell on morning tv is astonishing. My personal favourite though is the 48hrs rapid detox program, which you can trial free for 21 days. How the hell does that work? - π 00:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha I am home sick also. I nearly bought a magna-sleep magnetic mattress and some bee pollen pills! Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 00:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The are lots of Kiwis, who are not convincing actors, trying to give me free skin bronzer for some reason on tv. - π 00:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Something must be going 'round. I was home sick last week, blowing through paper tissues like they were made of grade-A cocaine. I ignored TV, and watched WWII movies, like A Bridge To Far. "It's a big bridge Sah, and it's too fah!" "Never mind, Cap'n, let's die for England, shall we?". "Certainly Sah! More tea?" DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I just took a quick drive and picked up some beers and codeine based pain-killers. Should be feeling great in about 30 mins. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 00:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that you know what you're doing Ace, but some codeine based pain-killers contain paracetamol and that rather limits the number of beers you should take.--Bob^{Not Jim} 07:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Codeine is the single greatest discovery of man. - π 00:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

LSD was pretty good discovery. Though not so good as a pain reliever. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 00:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The big problem with those bee pollen pills is I kind of secretly hope they will make me better and so contemplate buying them. - π 00:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think those day-time TV ads target us credulous and weak-willed women while the hubby is out of the house. Of course if I actually believed that any of the woo worked then I'd buy it like a shot as it all seems so appealing. Until then I'm detoxing on cranberry juice and Smirnoff Crystal.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

See, this is how you know there is no god. If there were, then his chosen people would have been instructed that home exercise equipment will not make you thinner, nor shall pills make thy penis bigger. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You're talking crazy Ace. LSD totally cleared up my chest infection. I completely forgot I was sick for hours. Rad McCool 10:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My fascist government

I am finally sick of being sick so I went to see the doctor, who I got to choose, cost me nothing. He gave me a script for antibiotics. They cost me $7, from the pharmacy I picked, as I forgot my Medicare card and they couldn't check what reduction I might be able to get. Gave it to me without asking for any ID to show that I was the person the medication is for. Typical socialist Nazi fascist government trying to control me. - π 03:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You're lucky the libruls decided to let you live. You must have voted correctly. Corry 04:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Creationist called on quote-mining

Sorry to waste your time if you've already seen this, but I think its pretty funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF31ypJhf7E What amazes me is that he's actually reading from the book, and not from something he printed out off Answers in Genesis. I'm not sure if that gets him more points for not being completely willfully ignorant, or less points for being outright dishonest.--Mustex 22:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I have never seen that video before but they kicked serious ass. Next time I am arguing with Ken I am giving him that video seeing as that is how he communicates. - π 22:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm one of FFreethinker's subscribers, so I saw that back at the beginning of the year. I'm willing to throw a 10 internets wager down that that is in fact our beloved retard Ken, due solely to the similarities in argument. The Foxhole Atheist 23:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to dig up the links, but he doesn't use that quote as Answers in Genesis told him to to. He is always completely in awe of authority. - π 23:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Here. Didn't take long he has so few talkpage comments. - π 23:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Meh. I guess you're right. Here are your internets. And my dashed hopes of that actually being him. Have a nice day. The Foxhole Atheist 23:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What I loved was that not only did the cretardist have the actual book - or at least more than the simple quotemine - but that he could not understand the sentences that followed the quote he was using. Nice post... ħuman 23:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It is how willing creationist are to be dishonest that surprises me the most. Well maybe not, they know they are right it's not their fault the evidence points the other way. - π 23:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What's so interesting about the whole concept of quote-mining is that people are expected by the miner to be infallible. It's like someone giving you directions, and when it becomes obvious that the directions were inaccurate, you just conclude the place must not exist. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 23:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Science races forward

I know I've been told many times how quickly science is moving forward, but it rarely smacks me in the fact that we now have the answer to something that was a mystery such a short time ago. The Grandmother Hypothesis came up in my class yesterday. Two years ago, in my undergrad, they were still scratching their heads, because the benefit of ending reproduction early for the sake of grandchildren still didn't balance out against the advantage of having more kids. And now, they've figured it out (if this is more than a 2-year-old discovery, I'm going to go smack my old teacher): Human's DIDN'T shorten reproduction, mammal eggs are only viable for about 40 years, and nothing short of a complete overhaul of our reproductive systems could change that. Instead, we extended our lifespans for the sake of our grandchildren. (this is definately a case of "hindsight's 20/20" since female elephants also live past reproductive age, which I'm sure has many scientists smacking themselves).

I thought the extension of human lifespans past reproductive age was more a product of modern science and health care. I never heard the theory that we live longer for the sake of grandchildren; that's interesting. JS Leitch 16:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Grandmother Hypothesis is an attempt to explain menopause in women. And medical science certainly reduces the number of infant deaths, and helps reduce deaths from many diseases, but even in hunter-gatherer societies there are plenty of old people.--Mustex 16:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems obvious when you think about it. Although yes, we live longer on average due to modern technology/medicine, the lack of it doesn't necessarily put a cap on our age limit and it wouldn't explain why we stop being reproductive before death. ^moral 16:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, but the point here is that until recently they were having trouble justifying it in simulations, because they were asking the wrong question ("Why do we stop reproducing?" rather than "Why do we continue to live after we stop reproducing?").--Mustex 16:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I figured that - I'm just referring to the fact that while we do live longer due to modern medicine, the fact that we can live longer still has to be due to more genetic factors; i.e., we've always had the potential to live to 100 (I'm not convinced we can go much passed that on average). It seems like a great example of what can happen when you turn a question on its head. ^moral 16:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Blasphemy Day

Apparently it's International Blasphemy Day today. Happy Holidays!! ^moral 10:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The holy spirit licks balls, Allah was raped by a donkey, Muhammad was a gay pedophille, if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him, and Yahweh/Jehovah licks his son. (did I get all of the major ones?) Javasca₧ stupid zealots sniff me... 12:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. ^moral 12:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to anally rape Krishna with his own flute, and to wish Ganesha to choke on a peanut. And possibly to tell Ahura Mazda a paradoxical statement to make his head explode. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What about the FSM tentacle raping the IPU? Wait... that's probably the actual theology of FSM so you can't really blaspheme against it that way. ^moral 13:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Dawkins is a paedo who wars a paedo hat.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 13:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I can't be bothered to watch The Wire but I saw a bit of one episode and it looked dull.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 13:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Was that blasphemy? I don't even know what that show is about, so I couldn't comment. On the other hand, I'm sure if I said that Kirk was an oversexed showoff and Picard a wigless baldy slaphead, that'd royally offend some true believers. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah, that wouldn't be blasphemy as we all know that Janeway was the man. (but yes, I've seen the "true believers" in this sense, the "10 reasons why Star Trek (2009) sucked were priceless). ^moral 13:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Earth is not flat, and it is not the center of the Universe! Oh, wait. That is just heresy. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 14:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Apple products are a pile of badly designed donkey dung bought by narcissistic poseurs.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Windows is better than Linux. Mindless wisest Hoover! 15:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have crossed a line there. Z3ro^talk 15:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I predated the great amoeba and the great nachos. Yorick 17:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Both the Harry Potter Series and The Twilight Series are poorly written pop culture shit. (that may not seem like much, but I have students and co-workers who would kill me if they knew I typed that). SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 17:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

(I have a wife and her friends who would be willing to publicly execute me for simply reading what you just wrote. Fortunately, this is my refuge from them. Mwah Ha Ha Ha Ha!) The Foxhole Atheist 17:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Does it count as blasphemy if it's true? Z3ro^talk 17:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Blasphemy isn't necessarily falsehoods from an objective point of view. Just offensive to people who consider the subject matter sacred. But it is very clear that both Twilight and Harry Potter are shit and just masterpieces of marketing (Twilight being for angst-ridden teenage girls with a fetish for "dishy" boys, and Harry Potter for everyone who wants to discover that they're a special person in a world just outside our own) rather than awesome writing. And to be honest, that's true of Lord of the Rings too; you have to be special to put up with reading that. ^moral 11:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that is blasphemy. Mindless wisest Hoover! 11:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but have you read it? The first 200 pages or so are like a gay musical and the rest is just a load of just Tolkein going "ooh, look how nerdy I am making up my own languages!" It's just fundamentally boring. The only duller book (and this is blasphemy) is Terry Pratchett's Nation, I just can't get into it because the style of his writing in that book annoys the hell out of me, the only writing style I find more nauseous is, as pointed out above, J.K. Rowling's. ^moral 12:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually have read it. Mindless wisest Hoover! 19:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not help out amateur blasphemers and add to our new Beginner's guide to blasphemy? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

How does one blaspheme Buddhism? No gods, no souls, no dogma... even the 'if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him' is originally Buddhist (Zen, I think). SOMEBODY OFFEND ME PLEASE! Clepper ^{is fallible} 13:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You're a cock-muncher. ^moral 13:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I kicked a rock that looked like you on my way home from class. (Yay blasphemy) Javasca₧ yes, JAVASCAP 04:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

A Question on that Roman Guy

I've been taking in a lot of opinion on both sides on this whole Roman Polanski situation... Just wanted one or two from someone with a brain stem. What do you guys (and gals) think of this whole thing? SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 02:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tough one--from what I understand, there are some legal issues that would make it seem as though he's getting a raw deal, in that someone somewhere is going against the terms of the plea bargain he made. On the other hand, dude had forcible anal sex with a minor, so I'm not too inclined to get on my high horse about this one. RaoulDuke 02:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't have anything but contempt for someone who raped a 13 year old. He should've been in prison for the last 30 years as far as I'm concerned.--الملعب الاسود العقل ^{A smooth operator operating correctly} 03:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I came across a post called "All The Opinions On Roman Polanski’s Rape". That is all I have to add. Actually, I also have an opinion: For me, that he effectively raped a child (she said no to numerous different things and he did them anyway, according to the victim's testimony) does not take away from the fact that he was a gifted director (just as if Michael Jackson was found guilty it wouldn't have changed the fact that he was a gifted singer). However, the fact that he's a gifted director does not take away from the fact that he effectively raped a child. Obviously the rape thing massively unbalances the overall opinion of him, but I'm unable to completely demonise him, you know? That said, I don't think the mere fact that he's a celebrity should get him preferential treatment. I'm also opposed to plea bargains as a whole (the extent to which they are legal in England is a bit of a compromise, really), so if he had a plea bargain where they wouldn't pursue the rape claim, and he's angry that they're going back on that (that's how I remember it, anyway. Might be wrong), then I have little sympathy for him, as he's basically admitting guilt in my eyes. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 04:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not even that Walrus. The bigger issue is that Polanski agreed to plead guilty to the charge of rape with the terms that he wasn't going to face jail time (there is some sketchy evidence from the prosecution, which is why he got the deal). At the last minute, he learned that despite the plea deal, and the fact that his plea had been entered, the judge could change the terms at trial and pretty much do whatever he wanted. At that point, Polanski's choices were to attempt to withdraw his plea, with no guarantee that it would happen and try to fight it at trial or he could get, as we say in the hood, the fuck out. He took the latter, and I can't say I blame him. Please note that this in no way implies a strong opinion one way or the other on my part. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 04:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I know it's not germaine, but I think having his wife chopped up to bits by Manson's crew ought to earn him some leniency somehow. Also, the ex-13 year old in question has expressed that she doesn't want him chucked in the slammer. He should cut a deal where he not only coughs up some serious coin (like a $million or so) for child abuse/women's causes, but also spends like a year doing "community service" of some sort. It's a been a long time, but he still owes "something" for his past stupidity. Disclaimer: I do suffer from thinking that he is a genius. Anyone else here see The Tenant? ħuman 04:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

We actually are convinced he's guilty then? I mean he's not had trial has he? Shouldn't these comments have "alleged" in these somewhere?--Bob^{Not Jim} 06:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

He did, I believe, plead guilty to the crime itself, but fled during the sentencing portion of the trial. Regardless, though, of whether or not he's guilty of the rape, he did commit the federal offense, in my opinion, of "unlawful flight to avoid prosecution," which holds just as much weight as the rape charge. Of course, I don't care enough to do anymore research into this topic.Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 06:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

He pled guilty, then fled before sentencing when it appeared that they weren't going to abide by the plea agreement. It should be noted that courts don't have to abide by agreements they don't think are right, and he was getting an insanely good deal. He admitted to the account of the victim; he gave her drugs and alcohol, then had sex with her orally, vaginally, and anally. She said it was rape, he said it was "consensual" (even though as a minor she couldn't have given consent even if this were true). Authorities had been approaching him about coming back in recently, promising him the original reduced sentence, and he replied with scorn - so they arranged for him to be picked up. I am really mystified why anyone thinks that he deserves any leniency at all.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 06:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, a bunch of maniacal Americans chopped his wife up into little bits and wrote words on the walls with her blood. Granted, that does not have anything to do with his crime, and the wife-choppers' leader is never getting the fuck out of jail. ħuman 07:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Ok, I thought the trial was interrupted. I stand corrected.--Bob^{Not Jim} 06:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

To answer Tom's point. I think the issue is really that the DA made a deal with him, assuring him he'd get the lenient punishment if he pled guilty (again, there was questionable evidence and a really poor case). After they had a confession and enough solid evidence to score a conviction at trial, they changed the rules of the game.... I don't agree with his actions, but which of us, honestly wouldn't do the exact same thing in his situation.... Now, I personally think that hunting down an old man against the wishes of his victim on something like this just screams "DA looking towards a reelection," but that's me.... I think there are other open cases to be focusing on. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 07:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Have none of you seen Wanted and Desired, the feature documentary about his case? Fantastic film. In it we learn that a) the incident happened 9 months after his wife (with whom he was completely in love)and on-the-way baby were hacked to bits; b) Roman did 42 days time in a psychiatric prison for evaluation; c) the judge was a small-time shyster looking for fame, and reneged on a plea deal; d) in news footage shot at the time, and in contemporary footage, the Assistant DA who worked on the prosecution agreed that Polanski had no choice but to run given the judges bizarre behaviour; e) the then filed a joint complaint with the defender against the judges behaviour, and finally f) the girl in question forgives him, on camera, with her attorney beside her, and while she agrees he shouldn't have done what he did, that she wasn't exactly innocent herself. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 07:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and now this - the prosecutor now says he lied in that documentary! More and more byzantine the case becomes in its complexity. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 07:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Chuck, they didn't hunt him down. Over recent years, they reached out to him and requested he come back in and deal with this. It had been sitting open for a long time, and considering how they knew where he was and how easy it was going to be to pick him up, it makes sense to me that they did so when he scorned them. He broke the law in a massive terrible way, fled justice after pleading guilty, and to wrap that up just doesn't seem like a bad thing when it's done with so little expense and danger. They literally just heard he was getting an award and asked the Swiss to pick him up at the airport. They'd been waiting for an opportunity to do so in such a safe way for five years, so I don't really see how this can be chalked up to a DA somewhere looking for re-election.

Doggedpersistence, I haven't seen it. But I will say that (a) doesn't matter very much except perhaps in reducing his sentence - if my wife got murdered, I have a hard time seeing how my trauma might drive me legitimately to rape a young girl in my grief; (b) yes, he was hoping to get out of regular prison altogether, in fact, with his plea; (c) the judge didn't renege on any agreement, and even if he did this past year Judge Espinoza in LA essentially promised extraordinary leniency if he came in voluntarily out of consideration of the history of problems in the case; (d) the prosecutor has admitted he lied about such things to make himself look better; (e) yeah, that sucks and might have been grounds for a great appeal if he hadn't fled justice; (f) a victim trying to end years of focus on such pain is entirely understandable, and if he hadn't evaded the law then it probably would have been much easier for her. I am going to ignore the "wasn't exactly innocent herself" bit, since I think it's probably not blaming the victim but rather poor phrasing.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 07:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I think you're viewing this through much too narrow of a lens Tom, he was promised one deal, then the judge and DA decided that they might just do whatever they wanted anyway. I totally agree with his choice to flee the country and would have done exactly the same in his situation. They may not have hunted him down via an Elliot Ness style manhunt, but our tax dollars and public servant time was spent coordinating this. When they find half the missing people or solve 1/3 of the unsolved murders, by all means, go after the old man. Till then, I'd prefer they go after the important stuff. Also, why do they suddenly have renewed interest in this? Why is it soooooo important now? There's some underlying motive here, I still stick by my first choice, but it may be something else. To also point out some problems with your response to DogP, you're only taking one side of the story, Polanski has a completely different version, outside of the confession, which is pretty much worthless consider the circumstances it was obtained (morally, not legally that is). Plus, why should he come back? Not only would he be taking another judge and DAs word on a easy sentence (look where that got him last time) but they would have him in custody and easily be able to tack on additional charges for running in the first place. I also doubt that him running has had any real effect on the victim. Despite what people think, Psychological studies have shown over and over than prison and execution do not really help the victims. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 08:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Polanski does not in fact dispute (to my knowledge) that he gave alcohol and qualuudes to a 13-year-old girl, then had oral, vaginal, and anal sex with her. I think these things are very, very wrong. That might be a narrow lens, I'm not sure. If he was traumatized from his wife's death - so much so that during a photo shoot he was driven to these actions (somehow?), then a duly-authorized and trained professional would be responsible for determining that. He doesn't get to decide that for himself and get away. If the judge or prosecutor acted unfairly, then the extensive appeals process would be the way to get that revealed and get his sentence reduced later or get early parole. He doesn't get to decide that for himself and get away.

It's not really a momentary thing as you imply... they have been seeking to scoop him up for years, but only recently did they hear he was going to be getting another Swiss award ahead of time. This gave them time enough to arrange to have him picked up and extradited. It would appear that there have been very few resources spent on this, and I think them well worth it to pick up someone for such an egregious set of felonies. It would send the wrong message, also, for a famous and very talented artist to flee justice and just be permitted to get away with it.

He does have a different version, claiming she consented and that the circumstances were different. That would have been something he could have brought up when Judge Espinoza reached out to him this past year with such sympathy.

In the end, he decided that he shouldn't have to face justice. But we can't accord him that right, or else we are giving him rights no one else gets. He was wealthy and famous enough to flee the law successfully, and to allow him to do so would be tantamount to saying that rich and famous people get to decide whether or not they should go to jail. That is not just.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 08:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually there's something I don't understand here. If he drugged and then raped a 13 year old girl by having oral, vaginal, and anal sex with her - how come they were talking about no jail time anyway? It seems incredible.--Bob^{Not Jim} 08:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That's why the judge threw out the plea. He considered it ludicrous, and probably was right in that judgment (even if he was scummy otherwise). Judges have every right to throw out unreasonable pleas, incidentally; it's well-established in law that the prosecutor doesn't get to unilaterally decide pleas.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 08:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't misconstrue my enthusiasm for the film as a belief that that man's pure as driven snow. I'm simply recommending the film to all interested in the case - it's a really fascinating, well made, balanced view of the story, and I sure as hell learned a lot. In the end, there's two stories here - crime and celebrity, and judicial malpractice. Polanski was certainly going to get away lightly (as often happens to celebs), but the judge fucked everything up with some wild-eyed grandstanding and double-dealing. I found the most telling comment in the film the one by the prosecutorial Asst. DA, who agreed that Polanski made the right choice in running once the judge screwed it all up. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 15:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The director of the doc has now commented on the prosecutor lying in her film, if you're interested. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 21:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The Perfect Place for Advice

Seeing as how well received my last post was, I thought I would pose this one to the mob, trust me, it's much less controversial. Lately, I have found myself turning away from a career in Psychology and consider Law School more and more... I just wanted to know what you guys think about a distinguished career before the Bar? SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 08:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, certainly you will make a lot more. Starting salary for psychology ranges from 30k to 35k usd (tending towards the higher if you concentrated in statistics or media) while for law they are 45k to 55k. Further, 3-year job attainment is about ten times higher for lawyers - meaning that not only will it pay a lot more (and that pay scale goes up a lot), you also have a lot easier time finding that job. But of course you have to go to more school, and it will take you a few years to pay off that additional debt.

If practical concerns like that are of less importance, then think about what you want to do. Do you wake up in the morning, excited about the prospect of law and justice? Or does the workings of people's minds fascinate you more? You will be doing this for the rest of your life, so remember that.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 08:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't do law. The world has too many lawyers, and unless you're hoping to become a public defendant or human rights lawyer, you will simply be like any other degenerate, amoral practitioner of the dark arts.

Pyschology is an infinitely more deserving career. Fuck salary. Do whatever feels right. Money is a means of survival, thats all. (P.S- Pyschology by itself will quality you for very little. You'll beed a medicine degree if you want to become a clinical pyschiatrist. If you want to give angry couples counselling you might be able to become a clinical pyschologist, but to me personally that seems a tad boring. I'd much rather help people with real problems, like Bipolar disorder or schizophrenia than help people whose spouse eats too much of the white bread!) Lunacy 09:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above. Do what you feel is right - I'm certainly not doing what I'm doing for the money. If it interests you more, do it. The money's better in law, but really, it's only if you get good, work your arse off and give up the rest of your life. ^moral 12:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tehmizzus qualified as a lawyer today (UK, Crown Prosecutor). I have to cook her a nice meal tomorrow to go with the bottle of Krug Grand Cuvee I stupidly promised to buy for her when she qualifies. Not sure what the situation is in the US but in the UK it is a very VERY long haul to become a lawyer, especially to become a barrister. The wife did a 3 year LLB, 2 year LPC, couldn't get a training contract so worked for a few years as a Probation Services Officer, and then got a training contract which is another 2 years. If you want to become a barrister then you have to do a BVC instead of an LPC and a pupillage instead of a training contract. To get a pupillage your dad has to work in chambers, or you have to be a hot woman who doesn't mind sleeping with OAP barriters. So anyway, if the system is the same in the US then I'd say make sure you are in it for the lang haul, and make sure you are confident you can get top grades in everything if you want to switch to the law career. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want a distinguished career before the bar, then maybe you should become a pub landlord. In all seriousness though, if you want some postgrad schooling, have you considered doing an MBA instead of law? As long as you don't want to be a politician (cough! spit!) it'll leave you with far more options. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I would recommend trying to shadow a professional in each field you're interested in for a few days and see how you like the work. Whether you become clinical psychologist, social worker, psychiatrist, or lawyer, you're looking at some more school, so pick one that you feel certain you will enjoy. Corry 15:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

My question is what kind of career are you looking for? First off, clinical or research? How far are you willing to go with education? Masters? Doctorate? Medical? The job market and salaries are going to depend a lot on these answers. Another thing to consider is educational costs. Most doctorate programs in research/clinical psychology will have stipends and scholarships to cover tuition and living expenses while in school. Law school and medical school almost never have these options. For example, I will be getting my doctorate in research psychology without a penny of debt incurred, while my friends getting a law degree are often looking at $250,000+ in loans, while my friend in medical school is looking at maybe twice that. There is not really a huge shortage of lawyers either. What kind of law would you be interested in? High paying positions in large firms are usually dull work, high stress, long hours, and tightly contested. The more interesting work usually pays far less. tmtoulouse 20:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me start by saying to hell with the money. I would rather be able to look at myself at the end of the day and say "You are helping people live better lives." I would work for free if it weren't for this pesky eating habit I've picked up..... I would say, on the Psych side, I would be looking at either Clinical Counseling (So a PhD, which is needed in Colorado and most other states) or full Psychiatry, meaning med school. On the law side, I would only look at Criminal Defense, most likely as a Public Defender.... And to whoever mention Politics, trust me, that's right there at the top of the list too. I am a Political Science major, after all. SirChuckB^{I have very poor judgement} 06:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

MarcusCicero

Am I still banned and in the vandal bin? Because thats a bit pointless if I just continue to post under Lunacy... Lunacy 09:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I paroled you. Be nice to people.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 09:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still under TOP's block, I think. And I am nice to people. But when I try to reason and all I get are internet meme's then a vitriolic outpouring is what should be expected. Take the Nuclear thread for example. Jeeves quietly ducked out so as to work on his pathetic internet meme signature. Lunacy 09:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Human removed your block on the 20th, so you're good there. Yorick^{Doing public school work} 09:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you're not nice to people. Right after you started posting, I noticed this and told you to stop being a dick. And you're a jerk a lot. Maybe you don't think so, but just about everyone else does. I do, and we've never even had any conflicts so I don't really have any personal stake in it at all - take that how you will.

Maybe people are unfair to you, and me too. That's always possible. But if that's the case, it can easily be remedied by starting over with a new username. If it's just prejudice and not your attitude, that will solve the matter. But I don't think that will work; people would recognize you because of the way you act.

So anyway, you should probably change something about the way you behave or else just stop coming here. What you've been doing isn't going to work, for whatever reason.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 09:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Your reply in the section above this one is pertinent and interesting and nice. Sorry if that seems condescending, I just wanted to also say something good. :) --Tom Moore^{fiat justitia ruat coelum} 09:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously why did you bring this up? Most people probably wouldn't have noticed that you are the reincarnation of MarcusCicero. You haven't been flaming any one and most people would have a neutral to very slightly positive view of Lunacy. The moment certain people see MarcusCicero in the Recent Changes log they are going to be all over the talk page stirring up past conflicts and troll baiting by saying not to troll bait. If there was no problem why not continue to post as Lunacy? - π 09:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we all knew Lunacy was MC. Nevermind though, MC may be a dick but it takes all sorts to make a world. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 11:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, MC may be a dick but he's our dick. Without his Tourette's this place just wouldn't be the same. Bob Soles 11:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You'd swear that I was trying to hide the fact that I was MC when posting with Lunacy. Honestly, I don't care what you think of me. I don't aim to be a constructive member of this community - whatever the hell that means to a web community who spend 50% of their time making terrible internet based jokes - Take me or leave me, I like this place for my own reasons, just like a junkie likes his daily fix of heroin. All this shite about me 'reforming' - go fuck off. MarcusCicero 13:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you hid it, no one thinks that considering your first post as Lunacy claimed "I'm MarcusCicero by the way". Now, obviously, Lunacy could have been someone posing as MC, but MC has came out and confirmed it, so I'm inclined to believe it all. I blame split Internet personality disorder. Lunacy is fairly okay and reasonable, MC is just a needlessly abrasive knob-jocky. As far as I care to think, they're different people entirely. Now, shut down this dick-MC thing and come back as Lunacy, whom I much prefer. ^moral 14:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, I like having MarcusCicero around, solely because I find him entertaining and his assaults on our members comical. In fact, if it were up to me, I'd say he's served his sentence in the vandal bin long enough. Besides, if he gets out of hand again, we can always re-bin him.Conservative Punk 17:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

MOAR MC ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 19:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Nah. He's lost it. Used to be quite an effective troll back in the day. He's now the whiny ex who still keeps ringing just to tell you what a cunt you are. Fuck efficacy, I'd 403 his home IP on general principle. --Robledo 19:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no difference between MC and Lunacy. There is no split personality. Its all rather simple - in the last couple of weeks the number of genuine intellectual discussions had increased and hence the feckless internet imbecility of this place went right over my head. Now that we're back to making witty signatures for our username and other shite jokes, I tend to think that violent words and insults are all that you deserve. MarcusCicero 13:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Go away Marcus, we want Lunacy

I'll make a deal. If you lot stop behaving like petulant children I will behave in a manner becoming the persona behind 'Lunacy'. If we can have a proper conversation about real issues, not just some bullshit about goats or some other shite you seem to find funny then all will be well. MarcusCicero 13:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Why, do our jokes get your goat? If they do, then perhaps you need more goat. (Sorry, I just had to seize that opportunity).Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 13:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Banned Book Week

Thanks to the BBC for informing me about the Gay Penguins who must be silenced. For those of you that don't know, this week is the American Library Association's Banned Book Week you can get a list of what the fundies don't want people to read. Aargh, I hate those people!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If you don't agree with the content of a book, you put it back on the shelf. You don't try and have it erased from history in hopes that silencing the opposition makes you correct. Also, that list is very incomplete, but it may only be going over lesser-known ones (I didn't see The Giver, Harry Potter, The Communist Manifesto, or The Satanic Verses on there). I remember in High School there was a sign in the library that basically said "You are entitled to your opinion. If you don't agree with a book, we have several more for you." ENorman 15:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That's hardly the point! What about young people who haven't been fully brainwashed protected against such sin? They may still pick it up and learn something, so it must be stopped!!! ^moral 16:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty baffling that someone would challenge To Kill a Mockingbird on any grounds, let alone "black children might be uncomfortable reading it".--الملعب الاسود العقل ^{All of everything erased} 16:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I remember seeing "Mein Kampf" and remember fondly reading "Black like me" at my old high school--Thanatos 18:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a big fight when a religious group tried to ban "The Guide to Getting It On"(very informative) and the "The Joy of Gay Sex" from the county library here. Since they lost, "The Joy of Gay Sex" has been almost constantly checked out by the two leaders of the group. I guess you could say they are sore losers. Yorick^{Sounds sexy on the telephone} 18:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Or they wanted a few tips. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The library should get several more copies, since it's in such great demand. --Kels 17:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I need some death metal, STAT!

To Hell With The Devil!

I just got back from a show that 25 years ago I would have thought I'd died and gone to heaven, literally. That band is Stryper. Yes, the bible-beating metal band from the 80's. Admittedly, their music was incredible, even considering the "letting Jesus into your hearts" bit. I can get past that. But, they were throwing bibles into the crowd (well, just the New Testament). I caught one, and it has a big Stryper sticker across the front. Anyhow, whoever is feeding the jukebox, I need some death metal (like Cannibal Corpse) to wash the wholesomeness out of my mind. And a glass of Scotch on the rocks. Thank you. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 03:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Not quite death metal but it might do.....Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 03:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that is a breath of fresh air. Funny thing is I wore my Anthrax t-shirt to the show. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 03:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps? Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 03:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh fuck yeah. Maiden always hits the spot. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 03:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I was kinda thinking along these lines. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 03:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Fuckin fuck that's good fuckin hardcore... JS Leitch 20:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Close? Yorick^{Is Joe Biden Eva Braun?} 04:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the wickedness is returning to my body. Take that, Stryper! Thanks, Ace and Yorick. Just what I needed. Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 04:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

How about some Slayer? Are you ready to rawk?!? ^moral 09:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Please to Vomit the Soul, mister. 13:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is turning into the coolest fuckin thread ever. JS Leitch 20:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Skwrl is not into death metal, sorry, can't help here. Some Minor Threat though, I can provide. But srsly, Stryper?? Ewwww. I was into them briefly in about 1986-87. Secret Squirrel 01:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it matters if it's death metal as long as it KICKS ASS. I just listened to that four times. JS Leitch 02:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If only Brutal Legend was out now, I would tell you to go rent it. Another 2 &@#$#% weeks to go. Once I get that...don't expect to see me for a week or two--Thanatos 02:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Brutal Legend will not be metal. Metal is metal. Fear Factory is metal.

--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 06:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Can't believe nobody mentioned this yet. --Psy - C₂₀H₂₅N₃O^{You know you want to} 11:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A new fossil

So I already posted this on the WIGO:World page but for discussion I thought I would post here. It strikes me that every time a fossil like this is found, the "scientists" at AiG, CRI etc must suddenly drop everything, spend hours looking for a minute detail to refute the entire fossil and then spend years debating whether its fully human, fully ape or just an old man with arthritis. Ace McWicked^{I'm a pretty big deal around here...} 19:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

See--the theory of evolution is clearly in crisis. Creeatioizm rulez! Sterile crack whore 22:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

PS--IDer Luskin (Discovery Institute) weighs in. Quoting Luskin quoting Science, "The bones were so brittle, “squished,” “chalky” and “erod[ed]” when cleaned such that many of the bone fragments had to be “reconstruct[ed]." Obviously, bad evidence. Designed, yeah. Sterile crack whore 22:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice "find"!!! ħuman 04:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)