RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive40

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <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>
, (new)(back)

One more time:[edit]

Neveruse for Bureaucrat:




  • I am eating Toast& honeychat 02:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 02:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • No. And I'll explain. A) I don't want to see anyone crat'd that I remember adding the welcome template to (I'll feel old at the very least) B) As much as I have no problem with Neverse I personally don't like to see cratship given to someone with less than 10% mainspace edits; specially, crat powers are something you need to keep the wiki going. And someone who isn't contributing to the mainspace probably doesn't need it. Some recent stuff regardless sysop and crat rights - which can be found a bit further up on the Saloon Bar - has put me in this mindset, and I'm really sorry, but this is where my vote has to land based on that. Scarlet A.pngtheist 02:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps it's because I'm seeing double at the Triple Rock, but Armondikov's reasoning here is actually pretty convincing and level-headed. It almost makes me want to change my vote. The Goonie 1 What's this button do? Uh oh.... 06:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • See Armondikov above. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 02:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose strongly. Any user who is "leaving and never coming back" should certainly not be a 'crat. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I thought that was just a joke. Perhaps I was wrong?The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 05:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is. But not a crat-like joke ;) ħumanUser talk:Human 05:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
It illustrates just how seriously he takes the Wiki. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • See Armondikov and Human.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 11:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I routinely oppose all crat proposals (if they actually get put to the vote) as I feel we have sufficient crats.--BobNot Jim 13:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Bob. There are too many enough crats already. I fact I'd like to see some of the current unused ones be rescinded. If people don't value the position enough to carry on contributing here then we shouldn't burden them with the responsibility. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 14:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Demotion Discussion[edit]

Is this like the EU constitution, someone is just going to keep proposing it until it passes? - π 02:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is exactly like that. Conservative Punk 02:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I've put my reasons above (due to an EC) and they have to stand like that I'm afraid. Scarlet A.pngtheist 02:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't know why someone just doesn't crat him. Thedictator got crated with only about 5 for and about 15 "no we don't need any more crats", which who ever proposed him took to me abstain. There was no votes for SuperJosh, GooniePunk and about half dozen others - all of which were after the vote rule came in. Susan made me became a crat because I wanted to rename someone. I propose a simpler rule, if you crat someone and they fuck up you both get promoted. - π 02:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
My counterpart, Gooniepunk, did crat him, but was over-ruled by Big Brother, who then brought it to another vote.Conservative Punk 02:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Really the reason I voted no is the fanatical level of desire for a cratship. I see one of these threads what, about once every month and a half? That's quite alot. In contrast, Java tried once, RA promoted me, he waited like six months, tried again, and pushed it through. And most of the votes for mine were abstain, he's a nice guy, but we already have eleventyhundred crats. Most of the votes here are oppose. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 02:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
(EC)I certainly think there may have been a very easy ride for some people into cratship, especially during the last year. Though I had to admit I got mine out of the blue, it was neither asked for, nor voted for nor begged for. As I think it should be. A decision to give someone such powers over the wiki should be made by the crats - in private if necessary - and be a reflection on how much they A) trust that individual and B) Think they want to accept that individual into the group. That's not elitism, that's basic social dynamics. Scarlet A.pngtheist 02:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
To avoid a situation "like the EU constitution," I think we should regard such repeated nominations of a user as administrative abuse. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Nominating someone for crat, getting one vote in favour and twenty against then demoting him to crat anyway is administrative abuse. Suggesting someone for crat is not. SJ Debaser 13:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Repeatedly nominating a bureaucrat candidate after repeated rejection by vote is gaming the system, and should be regarded as abuse. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Huh?? I thought you were the guy who backed freedom of speech in all circumstances. How can nomination for sysop or crat ever be abuse? It's just expressing an opinion & asking others for theirs. Administrative Abuse at RW is defined as abuse of admin abilities (blocking, deleting, vandal binning, demoting, promoting). Nominating anyone for anything any number of times would not fall under this. And since you're citing Wikipedia policy, I have found nothing in their requests for adminship policy, or in the "gaming the system" page you cited, against repeated adminship nominations by or for previously unsuccessful candidates. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 10:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
(1) I am not advocating that the user be blocked for such repeated nominations, only be stripped of the ability to call votes on the matter that are binding by rule or custom (which, since bureaucrat nominations here are made by other bureaucrats, must be regarded as part of the abilities of the bureaucrat).
(2) "Gaming the system" means using the rules or guidelines in bad faith. Making repeated bureaucrat nominations with the aim of fatiguing the electorate into approval, though no real change of heart has occurred, is such a case. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
(1) I know of no rule that bureaucrat nominations can only be made by bureaucrats, & see nothing wrong with sysops nominating each other for possible bureaucratship, or requesting it themselves (Although I tend to be mildly suspicious of people requesting bureaucrat status, I still think they have the right to do so). Hence I do not see nomination as part of bureaucrat priveleges; only the ability to demote & promote - if they did this repeatedly without discussion, it would be admin abuse. (2) Making repeated nominations or requets is just being persistent; I see no reason to assume bad faith - unless they were doing it just to stir up trouble, which might arguably fall under trolling. If they are repeatedly nominating somebody for genuine reasons, then it would be in good faith. It might be irritating, but would only be gaming the system if they used voterigging, sockpuppets or some other underhand tactic. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 12:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
But... that's how I got mine... Totnesmartin 13:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I have little to no idea why I got mine. Human 'cratted me out of the blue so I could do something I didn't ask for. Cubic stupid Hoover! 13:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Renominating after such a short period is definitely gaming the system. Come back in a year and try again. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 14:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

So what's she talking about here?[edit]

Cut to Debate:Is Richard Dawkins toppling straw men? at 04:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

New toy[edit]

Thanks to a lot of work by Nx we now have a new toy. If you are using either Template:Talkpage or Template:Talkpage/Pibot you can now have a search box for your archives, like the one at the top of the page. One extra parameter search=yes is all that is required.

More generally we now have InputBox. There are lots of clever little things you can do with it. If you check out RationalWiki:To do list, Category:Essays, Category:Debates and Category:Recipe you can see little create page boxes for each namespace. - π 14:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Lot of work? Not really :) -- Nx / talk 15:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I've getting a slight glitch with the archive search in Internet Explorer. If I put in a word or phrase that matches a mainspace article title or redirect (e.g. "banana"), then press enter, it jumps straight to the article instead of searching the Saloon Bar archives, whereas if I click on the box instead of pressing enter, it searches the archives. At the same time, if I put in something that we don't have as an article title (e.g. "potato") and press enter, it just searches the Saloon Bar archives and not the mainspace. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. -- Nx / talk 15:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Nice work. Piratesmiley.gif WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
You wiki boffins rock! Thanks for all your work. At least I have my dazzling personality to bring to the table. --PsygremlinSermā! 15:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Very nice indeed. Idea: Can those "create article" magic buttons also add the basic templates and/or categories in the edit box? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a feature called preload, but I think it requires yet another extesion. - π 00:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Nope, basic preload is in vanilla mediawiki -- Nx / talk 00:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
So I just failed at getting it to work then? - π 01:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Is nice. The blessings of Bishop.gif Toast be upon you. I am eating Toast& honeychat 19:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hallowe'en Costume[edit]

I'm going as Sarah Palin's new book. I have a nice jacket, but I won't be making any sense. --PsygremlinHable! 16:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying and failing epically at the "Elder God" angle. Cubic stupid Hoover! 16:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm going with the cyberpunk angle. Duct taped my old keyboard to my arm--Thanatos 16:56, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Trackies and an Adidas T-shirt for me: tonight, Matthew, I'm going to be "Stop-knocking-on-my-fucking-door-and-piss-off" Man. Well, mostly heh. We have a cunning Jewish ploy for things like this: all our neighbours know we are Jewish so only complete strangers will knock on the door, which will remain steadfastly in the "closed" position. Very dear neighbours will let their children come knocking, as pre-arranged, and they will receive a culturally appropriate response, further endearing "that nice Jewish family who join in the spirit of things" with them. Meantime, my wife takes our kids off to the next town and meets up with her Gentile mates where they act like chavvy pagans for an hour or so, out of sight of our neighbours =) My favourite part is the two scrummy pumpkin pies I get to make =P (see also Hypocrisy) Fox 17:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Those pies in full.
I wasn't aware it was acceptable to go as a pun that bad. Scarlet A.pngtheist 19:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I went as a Jehovah's Witness one year. --Kels 22:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Stewart.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 22:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Didn't do anything, but instead discussed Descartes' ghost ... <Horatio Caine> ... in the machine. Top nerd or top nerd. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
Swine flu. Pig mask, thermometer, red paint for the nose, and a hospital gown. --VradientHit me up 22:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
What do Jews have against Haloween? Or is it just the general concept of fun (which we all know was invented by Jesus :P). --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 22:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Fun? Christians? Cromwell wants a word. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
Whenever the right-wingers talk of a "war on Christmas," they break an irony meter, because the only war on Christmas was made by Cromwell, who banned Christmas in England and caused "pro-Christmas rioting" in Canterbury, which mostly consisted of decking the halls with boughs of holly. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 23:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
He didn't really have any way of dealing with things other than making war on them. Ireland? War. Royal prerogative? War. Christmas? War. There's definitely a pattern out there ... --מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
It isn't that Jewish folk have anything against Hallowe'en (and we have our own similar festival, Purim), it is that there is a prohibition on the imitation of Gentile customs. Like anything (and everything) Jewish, however, three rabbis can study the halakhah and come out with 4 different interpretations. Meh, as Messianics, we ride most things out by deferring to darkhei shalom. And being quietly hypocritical =) As for "Or is it just the general concept of fun (which we all know was invented by Jesus :P )" ... well, get with the program: Jesus was a black, hippy Jew =P Fox 01:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, a man who really did have the balls to go to war on Christmas, a true liberal! Scarlet A.pngtheist 01:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
But your pumpkin pies, surely, are just bland harvest food pimped up with spices? ħumanUser talk:Human 01:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
They are indeed. But in a country with no culinary history of pumpkins, this is the only time I ever get to eat em. Trust me, only 3 other people in the whole of the UK made pumpkin pies this night; and two of them didn't use sugar and eggs. Fox 01:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Horrific new "dating" site[edit]

Caught the awful beginning of their infomercial last night: http://establishedmen.com/

"Established Men is the premier online dating service that connects Young, Beautiful Women with Rich, Successful Men!"

Gack! ħumanUser talk:Human 19:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

And which particular channel were you watching to see this lovely ad?Evilgrin0005.gifI am eating Toast& honeychat 19:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Just "basic cable" late at night. My favorite infomercial is the bowel-cleansing one in Spanish (and not dubbed). It's truly disgusting to imagine what the hell they are saying. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
"Where the Beautiful & Successful Meet . . . For Mutually Beneficial Arrangements". Nice to see that romance isn't dead. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
(EC) This is the enterprise of a piece of arm-candy with nothing better to occupy her time. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
It can work. I saw this documentary starring Richard Gere in which we paid for a hooker, but ultimately the two of them fell in love. Perhaps it was just a ploy to empty his nuts for free, but it's still romantic. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 21:00, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
What? Hot young women and rich old men? It's practically a blueprint for a healthy, loving marriage. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 22:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Sounds more like prostitution--The Comedian 02:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Fright Night[edit]

This has got to be one of the greatest horror movies I've ever seen. CAN YOU TAKE IT!? --Kels 01:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Too long didn't watch. Heh, funny first couple of minutes tho =) Fox 01:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Overlong kills the funny. When have you ever seen a film and complained of it being too short? I know it's part of the joke, but it's too much. Bit of a parson's egg. DogPMarmite Patrol 02:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The Lion the Witch and the Closet was too short. I felt robbed. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
True, but it's worth getting to 6:30 if you want to feel a bit sick... Scarlet A.pngtheist 02:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Heh, reminds me of an article I once wrote about using a spoon to defend myself from terrorists. AceMcWicked 02:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

oooh fancy[edit]

i enjoy the talk page archive search button at the top. very fancy. well done nx or who ever it was. i also am drunken halloween. SJ Debaser 02:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That was Nx and Pi, mostly Pi I think, with Nx enabling the extensions. Yes, very fancy. I can't even afford to hang out here any more it's so fancy! ħumanUser talk:Human 04:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy with Dr. Werner[edit]

Has anyone seen this? Normally I'd put it up on WIGO:Clog but this needs a wider audience. And for the record, I'm writing this less than 2 minutes into the video. It's THAT crazy... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0c5yClip4o Scarlet A.pngtheist 01:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel I've lost part of my brain... Scarlet A.pngtheist 01:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow. I'd almost put it down to Poe's Law, but it looks genuine. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
That's some nice arithmetics there. E=mc², but m is approximately zero (in terms of volume (!)), hence E=c. I wasn't aware until now that Homeopathy is based on Division by Zero, though that sure explains a few things. (The ² probably goes away because it's such a tiny character anyway.) -- 07:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The lady was obviously absent in grade school on the day they taught basic division, and also on the day they taught the difference between mass and volume. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I am proud of myself for making it through 3:30 of that. Wow, just wow. At least we can thank the homeopaths for reconciling relativity and string theory! ħumanUser talk:Human 19:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody for bureaucrat[edit]

Let's discuss: who and why should anyone be one? Let all forty-odd of us fall before the razor of sensibility. !!!! (oops) ħumanUser talk:Human 04:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There is an auto confirm feature in MediaWiki. We could set it so that after a certain amount of time and edits, so long as you are not in the vandal bin, you get demoted to sysop. Then we would need no bureaucrats. Trent or Nx can deal with special cases at the database level after an appropriate discussion. - π 04:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
A more essential function for bureaucrats is to be able to remove the powers of a rogue sysop at short notice. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I did that once, true story!!!1111!! - π 04:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
The way the wiki is currently set up, you need cratship to edit the MediaWiki namespace, so we definitely need trusted bureaucrats.
Autoconfirm doesn't work that way. It will only give the autoconfirmed usergroup, and it will give it regardless of any other conditions. -- Nx / talk 07:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you not move all the rights for sysop to autoconfim? If you can't stop people being autoconfirmed it would not be a good idea anyway. - π 07:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I can, but like I said, I can't prevent vandals from becoming autoconfirmed (unless they are permabanned)well, I could, because I modified the vandal bin to be able to remove specific rights when the user is in the bin and has had an edit in the past 30 minutes and I think we should not exclude human judgment from sysoping. -- Nx / talk 11:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
That exactly how Skynet got started. AceMcWicked 11:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
It was more idle speculation than suggestion. - π 11:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

We should take a page from Andy's book and only appoint the necessary number of 'crats. A large number of sysops seems a good thing to provide more even coverage for vandal patrols. I don't think the same argument applies for 'crats and there is a danger in making someone dumb like me or malevolent (like most of you) a 'crat. So the the process should be:

  1. Do we have enough 'crats?
    1. If we do don't make another one
    2. If we don't we can then open the floor for nominations

I don't think a person should be made one just for fun, unless we have absolutely no fear that a 'crat can muck things up for the rest of us. I sense we have that fear. If we don't---what the heck---make me a 'crat too! Whoop Whoop! Hoo De hoo!Me!Sheesh!Mine! 16:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that even most bureaucrats would be bothered with editing MediaWiki namespace or even other technical things that could bork the site. I propose a new position of technocrat with separate powers from bureaucrat where only those trusted with the technical side could tinker. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 15:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

David Farrant[edit]

Ok, after covering Sean Manchester it seems that no one really wants to even try tackling David Farrant. I was wondering if anyone has a specific objection to writing a page for him? Concern about too much attention being given to Highgate? If not, I'll probably write an article for him in a few days. In the meantime, I thought I'd point out the added irony of this guy. His website won't let me copy-and-paste, but on his About page he claims to have written "dozens of books" of various types which include "chilling accounts of the paranormal" AND "expose's of fraudsters." Yes, gentlemen we have a SKEPTICAL occultist/vampire hunter (honestly, I susupect by "exposing fraudsters" he really means "calling Sean Manchester a dickhead").--Mustex 02:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Lets me copy: "Along with having written several dozen books ranging from autobiographies; chilling accounts of the paranormal; exposé's of fraudsters through to what has been described as the last word in the Highgate Vampire case, David Farrant is also the founder of The Highgate Vampire Society and the founder/President of the British Psychic & Occult Society." I am eating Toast& honeychat 02:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Add it to the To Do list while you're at it. I'm trying to get people to use it and I think some of the ideas you have would work quite well. However, you may need some references - one of the points is to prevent pointless "deletion" discussions, and another is to consolidate references before starting an article so people know what's happening. Scarlet A.pngtheist 03:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
(I searched for to do list and got nothing) In addition to his website, a youtube search on him provides ample links. Shouldn't be too hard.--Mustex 03:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Here it is. I am eating Toast& honeychat 03:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
One of the problems I had with Sean Manchester at first was finding reliable sources about him. It's easy to find blogs saying that he is an idiot, but that's not really so good. Unless the blog belongs to an acknowledged expert or belongs to the person themselves or a named organisation, then a blog has no more weight than the opinion of some guy down the pub. Same goes for youtube videos. The trick is to actually reference original sources or newspapers rather than to link to some blog or wiki which allegedly has the references. If they have the references then check them out and use those original references in the article. To be honest, Mustex, that was the problem I had with your original article. If you were to write a factual and well-referenced David Farrant article I'd be happy to spend some time on it.
But such a thing will need to be very well referenced. The reason for this is that he's pretty unknown and any remarkable fact about him will really need to be substantiated. For instance if you were to write "Schlafly is a creationist" then nobody would ask for a reference as it's common knowledge and is not a remarkable assertation. But if you were to say the same thing about David Farrant (for instance) then it would need a reference.--BobNot Jim 11:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, for many of our articles what claim is really being made beyond "Person X believes Y which is an insane idea"? I think Farrant may actually be easier than Manchester because he has his own website, where he clearly states what he believes. Also, the youtube videos of him include interviews on the Highgate Vampire. Beyond just "He and Sean Manchester both claim to have defeated the Highgate Vampire," could you tell me what specific claims would be needed to make him worthy of an article?--Mustex 13:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I know next to nothing about the man (apart from what you have mentioned about the Highgate vampire) so I have no idea what other claims he may have made would make him worthy of an article. However, our mission statements say that we are interested in "cranks",and "pseudoscience and the anti-science movement". So if he fits any of these then you are on your way. If he personally makes comments in his youtube videos then link to them with a quote.--BobNot Jim 13:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Very well, I'll start searching for specific things, I hope you don't mind if I save them in this thread as I find them. That we I can keep everyone up to date on where I am. As an interesting note, according to his FAQ he believes what was in Highage Cemetary was actually a ghost, and not a vampire (he says he believes in neither vampires, nor the tooth fairy...and somehow seems to think these two idea are interconnected): http://www.davidfarrant.org/faq.html --Mustex 14:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Quote from the same page: "That is a truly 'loaded question'! The simple answer is, I didn't do anything. I was wrongfully convicted for two offences of desecration in Highgate Cemetery during the course of our investigation into the unexplained phenomenon there.

It is also true that I sent two 'voodoo effigies' to two police detectives in 1973 for which I received an additional prison term of two years. I never denied sending these two effigies (indeed I signed two accompanying notes sent with them and sent these by recorded delivery) but they were sent to protect somebody who the police had physically abused." (he also denies dancing naked in a graveyard) He believes that what happened at Highgate involved "images replayed from the past," but "I don't like the word 'ghosts.'" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Aw_7JUts9g --Mustex 14:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but despite not believing Vampires, he calls his organization "The Highgate Vampire Society": http://www.davidfarrant.org/about/index.html--Mustex 20:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Righteous Indignation interview: http://parafort.com/ri/?p=309--Mustex 23:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not use the Saloon Bar as your personal workspace. Create your own private sub-page for work in progress. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 15:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
K-- 04:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The scale of things...[edit]

This is just hands down one of the coolest things I've ever seen and I couldn't resist sharing it. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That was fun, but they should have begun with a human head. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 16:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Very cool indeed. Further to Sheesh, what would be fun would be start at the coffee and rice, but make that the middle of the scale - to the right is smaller, they show, and to the left gets bigger, all the way to the size of the observable universe - wasn't there a thing similar to that part posted here a few weeks ago? ħumanUser talk:Human 18:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
What would really be cool (although not accurate) would be going through that scale, then as you zoom in on the carbon atom, there's a whole universe inside it, then zoom in through the constellations, solar system, planets, etc. right down to the coffee been again, & it could keep running in a loop, or zooming out through the same sequence. Come to think of it, I think the Simpsons did something like that at the beginning of one episode. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I've seen something that does go in both directions. Couldn't tell you where, however. Scarlet A.pngtheist 19:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Here is where you go to get bigger. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsgKp_Vf6wI ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ BARHA brah rurgh schfraaggh murgh! 20:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
That's the vid I remembered, except it wasn't on utube - that actually looks like a copy or screenshot of the original - look how the text is slightly fuzzy? ħumanUser talk:Human 00:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
XKCD had to be there! I am eating Toast& honeychat 00:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, that's awesome. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Cork or cap?[edit]

Any opinions, oenophiles? Fox 19:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There's something nice about having a proper cork (not a plastic one), but they seem to be increasingly rare. I still think of screwtop wine as tacky, but it's more or less prevalent now (at least here in the UK). WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Cork! Screwtop wine is tacky. I don't know what the hell's going on in the UK, but even the $4 bottles of wine here are corked.--الملعب الاسود العقل I stay on point like icicles 20:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
"Real" wine must be able to breathe. I see more and more synthetic corks nowadays, which I am fine with for all but perhaps the finest vintages. Save the Cork Tree! ħumanUser talk:Human 20:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the wine industry has been losing millions for years due to corked wine hence the switch. Its hard to find wine with a cork in NZ unless you go really fancy. AceMcWicked 20:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Just opened a bottle of Gallo Ruby Cabernet (whatever that is). Plastic bung. Palatable muck withall @ £3.50p I am eating Toast& honeychat 20:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Interesting point from Human; hadn't considered the very slow oxidisation aspect. Hm. Ace, I believe it was the NZ vintners that first started the push for caps over corks. And a figure I'm plucking out of memory (so equally, I may be plucking it from my arse) is that up to 10% of cork-sealed wine was "corked". That's a lot of waste I guess. And Susan, "palatable" is the key word there =) I did once pay nearly a ton for a bottle to impress a laydee, and yes, you could taste the difference; but it wasn't that much better than a five quid merlot from big Tesco. And she would still have dropped 'em later ;) Fox 20:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Corked wine is still rather plentiful here in the states, whether housing really good wine, or the quasi-vinegar I receive at the company Christmas holiday party each year. Screw-cap wine reminds me of the hoboes sitting around the 55-gallon drum fire drinking Thunderbird or some other cheap swill. Aboriginal Noise What the ... 20:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Generic dry white wine for cooking purposes is great with a screw cap, since you end up using at most half the bottle for any one dish it makes it easy to save the rest for another day. I'm a real ale kind of guy for all my actual drinking needs, so not much of a wine buyer in general, but any I'd buy for actual drinking would be corked since I don't believe the quality of screw cap wine would be up to snuff. It's kind of like boxed wine, only in smaller servings. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem with large commercial (supermarket supplying) vinyards using screwtops, as they just want to get the wine in and out as fast as possible. A decent wine should use a good natural cork (whole cut, not reformed) and should be stored properly to avoid the cork rotting or the bottle getting cork taint. The flipside is that I make my own wine and am finding it increasingly hard to find corked bottles of wine to 'empty' and use for my brew. You can't really cork a screwtop bottle because the neck is wider (requiring bigger corks) and the glass is thinner, meaning you could shatter a bottle when forcing a cork into it. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 19:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
It's down to vat → drink time. Most wine is consumed within a relatively short period (it is in our domicile anyhow. Hic!). If you intend to keep the stuff for any time then I suppose that cork bungs (suitably stored) are preferred. Most of us, I suspect, will buy & drink within a few days or weeks at most, so it doesn't matter really. I've never bought any wine costing more than £7 - I don't know enough about it to pick the good from the best so it'd be largely a waste of money. I am eating Toast& honeychat 23:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah you pretty much said what I was going to add Toast. It's only really good vintages that require laying down and bottle ageing where interaction with the atmosphere is an integral part of the process. Most mid-range wines are barrel aged and are designed for drinking within five years of bottling. Screw-tops are perfectly acceptable for these wines. Plastic corks are suitable only for posing purposes. Having the waiter open a screw-top bottle really adds nothing to the dining experience the synthetic corks allow the restaurant industry to perpetuate the myth that they are doing something special and are therefore more deserving of a large tip. Unfortunately most diners go along with the pose like "tasting the wine" when a sniff of the cork would tell you whether it was off or not and why would you want to spoil your plate with a corked wine? All the palaver of wine tasting which goes on at the dining table is really only valid if you are tasting wines comparatively or keeping records about your wines. So while screwtops are actually much better at delivering a consistent quality and reducing spoilage there is an environmental benefit to cork as the cork forests of Portugal and Extremadura in Spain are home to many rare birds and animals. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 16:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree with toast. However, it's worth noting that the duty on wine is per bottle, not based on cost, so every pound (or dollar) extra you pay for a bottle goes straight into the wine, not to the goverment, so it is worth throwing a few extra quid at a bottle. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 19:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Oi, embedded youtube video whiners - No![edit]

So, for various reasons I'm browsing tonight through my 3G connection and Joikuspot (Did I ever mention how everyone everywhere should go and buy joikuspot right now. Really. Now.) I took the opportunity to check out a couple of the archives of the bar with a bunch of videos in them, and there's no noticeable difference at all between the load times of pages with just text and those with videos in them. What exactly is the problem again? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

3G runs at, what, 10 Mb/s? That's not slow.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 22:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Heh, not anywhere that isn't in Asia it doesn't :D (OK, maybe Italy.) My theoretical maximum 3G speed is ~4Mbps, while practically I get maybe 2. 10Mbps would be faster than my wired broadband. In most cases, for 3G it's the latency that kills you not the speed. Typical wired latencies are in the low 10s of milliseconds, while 3G can be 0.25-0.5 seconds round trips. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I want your phone. Maybe one of the techie people can weigh in on the embeds.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 23:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

This was never expressed as a technical problem. The problem was with the Saloon Bar gradually descending into Facebook Funwall territory. We can do better without the videos, or by keeping them as unobtrusive links. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I never had a problem with bandwidth on this page, but it does look cluttered with the YooToob links. --Kels 23:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Part of the argument was also that by watching the embedded version the viewer misses out on the "similar vids" thing, and also the comments. But don't they also tend to end with a screen full of links to stuff like that anyway? I don't watch many, so I don't remember, I don't recall... ħumanUser talk:Human 00:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I've read YouTube comments. I don't mind missing them. And the "similar vids" comes up at the bottom when the vid finishes anyway. So not really much of an argument against. The clutter thing is a bit more convincing for me. --Kels 00:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I have this cool thing in by browser that lets me view links without losing the page I'm already on. It's called "open in new tab." Real first name and last initial 09:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Really? I love PooTube comments. They remind me of my own intellectual superiority. Scarlet A.pngtheist 10:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I thought that the video content didn't start downoading until you hit play? All you're downloading is the player (which is probablly cached already) and the preview picture. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 19:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Shmuley Boteach[edit]

... of "Dawkins denies I won the Oxford debate and that the debate even happened" fame has been busy behind our back (and Ken's too): "In 2000-2001, Michael Jackson sat down with his close friend and spiritual guide, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, to record what turned out to be (sic) the most intimate and revealing conversations of his life." And Jon Gosselin from Jon & Kate Plus 8 sat down with good Reb Shmuley on October 27th at the West Side Synagogue in NYC to discuss "the Ethical Challenges and Moral Responsibility of Celebrity." It's hard to tell which one is a bigger famewhore. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 04:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, I have no idea how anyone could with a clear conscience vote for Boteach in that. Almost all he did was appeal to emotion, there was no content. The man came off as a clown in the video I saw, and in fact in everything I see him in. --Kels 22:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Boteach definitely belongs to the "if they don't agree with you, it's because your not saying it loud enough" school of debating. He's a complete assclown.-- Antifly Now with 50% less retirement! 20:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Ken adores the guy, another strike against him. --Kels 20:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


MC's new keyboard

As per usual I am procrastinating and decided to come on to RW. The only problem is that RW is intensely boring. I've an article I should be writing but I'm on here instead, spouting rhetoric from the treetops of intellectual vanity. Can someone liven things up please? MarcusCicero 12:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to oblige, but I'm busy spiking my Trick or Treat goodies. Just want to make sure the little kiddies really do see fuckin' demons tonight. --PsygremlinПоговорите! 13:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Plus it's hunting season man. Just started today and I'm on the search for my venison.--Thanatos 15:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I know it's Hallow'een, but I've never seen Trick or Treaters as venison. --PsygremlinSpeak! 15:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Hunting season in Quebec started on Oct 31 this year. Though if a kid was stupid enough to wear a deer costume in the woods before dark...--Thanatos 16:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry MC, you can always come to Ace or my talkpage and call us fuckers, if it'll cheer you up. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 20:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry MC, I've found a new keyboard which will be perfect for you and your internet memes? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 20:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
epic keyboard for the win --מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

Alarming new developments[edit]

At the dump today I scored two books. Both in "new" condition. One is The United States and Britain in Prophecy by Herbert W. Armstrong, the other The Right Man by David Frum. What's the big deal, you may ask? Well, HWA's full name is Herbert Walker Armstrong, and Frum's book is about... George Walker Bush, of the Herbert Walker Bushes. Neil Armstrong was the first person to walk on the moon, and Princess Diana's maiden name was Spencer. I think I am being set up by the illuminati - or Karl Marx - to create an ebergy vortex in my house (when I put these next to my Scientology tapes) which will initiate either the Rapture or Eldorado - or both.

I hope I have not yet acquired the critical mass and that at least one more piece of the puzzle is required. In the mean time, as I await advice (RobS, I need you now!), I will attempt to subvert the coming chain reaction by insulating these objects from each other with books my Molly Ivins, Michael Moore, and Howard Zinn.

Should I take extra precautions and lend my Atlas Shrugged to a neighbor? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Depends on how much you hate your neighbor, or if they need a doorstop.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 21:08, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Dude, I'm trying to prevent the implosion of the universe here! Mere neighborly relations might have to take a back seat! ħumanUser talk:Human 21:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I think I must take you to task on the "W" in Herbert W Armstrong. I'm pretty sure that his real name was just "Herbert Armstrong" and that he only added the W to give it Weight. But I'm going from memory here and I could be wrong.--BobNot Jim 21:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
My Enviro prof signs his middle initial as X. When asked, he says it stands for "Arthur". --Kels 22:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Damn, luckily, I think you might be right. However, I must note that when I went to get the book as my first fact-checking step, the strong nuclear force was breaking down where it was in contact with the Frum book. Luckily the warpage of space rapidly resolved into a tiny black hole as I separated them, which promptly winked out of existence in a flash of Hawking Radiation and started a new universe. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmmmm [1] ħumanUser talk:Human 21:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
You scour the council tip for stuff? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 22:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Although I call it the "dump" (it was, once upon a time), it's actually a "transfer station". We bring all our waste there, and hurl the various recyclables into their respective bunkers, and the utter trash goes into one from where it goes into these crushing dumpster-things, which get hauled to a professional-grade landfill. There's a little shed off to one side of the main building where everyone gathers after disposing of the filth that we affectionately call the "Lee Mall" - the swappe shoppe. It's where I get most of my books these days. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I would advise drawing separate pentagrams on the floor, storing each object in one separately, then casting "anti-rapture" at level 99(starting spell for atheists) and "repel Illuminatus" at minimum at level 73 (you can get this for doing David Icke's quest in the ninth zone), then mailing Listener and asker her to request a spell of protection from her witch friends. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 22:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I know that 99 was Maxwell Smart's sidekick, but what's a "73"? ħumanUser talk:Human 22:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
This, apparently. Make of it what you will. --Kels 14:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Herbert Armstrong found the Church of G-d (or similar) iirc. Eventually it splintered (as these things do) but their core beliefs were pretty ok by me: no literal hell, universal salvation, seventh day Sabbath, Jewish holydaze not Roman holidays, dietary laws, etc. The USA and Britain as new Israels was stretching things a bit though. Didn't we once find evidence that Schlafly's family were firmly involved in all that nonsense, and his bloodline (possibly by virtue of his mother?) was considered aristocracy by some of the kooks into all that? Fox 01:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Here - near bottom of the page. CAUTION: May contain nuts --Robledo 20:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Record month for RW[edit]

For those interested I have a break down of our stats for this month at the tech blog. tmtoulouse 04:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

What have people been looking at in particular? - π 04:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Depends on which traffic spike we are talking about. The CP bible project mostly brought attention to our various CP articles and article on Andy himself. The Lenski spike was to our lenski affair page and to our copy of his e-mails with Andy. The telegraph article was to the articles they linked to us. tmtoulouse 04:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
We are also seeing a general up tick in traffic from general searches, and what I call "passive linking" where someone links a phrase to our article when just using it in passing and not in a post about RW or CP. tmtoulouse 04:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I imagine a lot of it would be heat from the Conservative Bible Project. My youtube video on it has tripled in views in the past two weeks. SJ Debaser 13:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
This site is growing rapidly! Cubic stupid Hoover! 13:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd be interested to know if these "publicity spikes" have a corresponding spike in user creation or edit rates. And if so, how quick to the spikes tail off back to normal - i.e, user retention. Of course, such spikes might not be dramatic enough to pull that data out. Scarlet A.pngtheist 15:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
If someone wants to breakdown this data I can post the per day traffic numbers. tmtoulouse 15:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
accounts at RW (90days)
accounts at RW

FYI larronsicut fur in nocte 17:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


When something's moved to a debate page, might the existing thread be left here using a Collapsed table:

Dunno why I though of this, what's the opinion of the mob? Toast& marmitechat 13:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

One purpose of moving a discussion onto its own debate page is to decrease the size of the saloon bar, to improve loading times etc. This defeats that. Plus I don't really like collapsible tables, they're like sweeping the dirt under the carpet. -- Nx / talk 13:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
"One purpose of moving a discussion onto its own debate page is to decrease the size of the saloon bar, to improve loading times etc" Didn't think that was a reason: more to allow greater discussion. It'll get archived pretty soon as no-one'll edit it. I sometimes just want to see why it was moved. not to follow it further. Toast& marmitechat 13:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I instinctively disagree with Susan. MarcusCicero 13:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
It's so cute that you still call her Susan, like you think nobody else realises. Totnesmartin 14:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

You're supposed to use template:movedto and template:movedfrom when moving threads, which leaves a neat link between the two pages, but I think I'm the only person who uses them since Radioactive Afikomen left. I don't like the idea of keeping the thread on in two different pages, as it will leave the discussion ongoing in both places too, & negate the whole point of moving it. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth keeping one or two posts. 95% of the time, these things spawn from innocent discussions so it only needs moved after it's gone off topic. So leaving behind the original topic (you never know, someone might want to pick it up without engaging in the off-topic debate part) after the move could work better. That wouldn't need a collapse box, of course. Scarlet A.pngtheist 15:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
You could transclude the debate page, but the load time would become more of an issue rather than less. - π 21:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

TV Tropes wiki[edit]

We have an article. Cubic stupid Hoover! 15:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, that website ... --מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
Somewhere between TVTropes and Uncyclopedia on the scale of serious to silly? Sounds about right actually. Scarlet A.pngtheist 15:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Our Jack Chick article is apparently a "Crowning Moment Of Funny". Not really one of our funniest. Cubic stupid Hoover! 16:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
What is our Crowning Moment of Funny then? Scarlet A.pngtheist 16:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not really sure. Cubic stupid Hoover! 17:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it's the Felidae talk archives. Totnesmartin 17:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Definitely. Actually, most large debates featuring CUR, such as the starfish sentience and, of course, the Therian discussions. Cubic stupid Hoover! 17:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
My vote would go Fairies, but I'm biased.--BobNot Jim 18:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Fairies looks good. And while I'm also biased, I'd say this too. Scarlet A.pngtheist 11:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

New kitteh[edit]


I have a new kitty, (well, she's actually 5). A breeder who is now ill wanted to get rid of her queens, so we said we'd take Cleo. She's only recently given birth and then been done, so hopefully she'll put some weight on soon. She's a Mitted Blue Point Ragdoll. So I now have 4 kittehs running the house! CrundyTalk nerdy to me 20:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Awwwwww, she is so cute :D Javasca₧ Reticulating splines 20:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


Does anyone have a copy of Ron Paul's old racist newsletters? I'm in a bitchin' facebook debate at the moment and need some mud to sling beyond the NYT excerpts. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!

few scans here. Fox 21:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Although they look quite tame =/ Ignore. Fox 21:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh well, thanks all the same. CNN had some scans of it recommending that 'black animals' should be shot, and there's a picturesque 'the Jews are infiltrating our society, and are out to steal our precious bodily fluids' conspiracy in one of the ones you linked. Between that, and the whole 'evil bankers secret society' thing, there's a fairly clear reading on the bigotrometer. Thanks! --מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי שְׁלֹום!
The New Republic used to have loads but they've all been memory-holed, unfortunately. Fox 21:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Have you tried the Internet Archive? Cubic stupid Hoover! 21:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
First port of call - the urls of the pdfs are archived, but can't retrieve data from 'em. --䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡䷶䷀䷵䷥
One available here. Fox 22:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Oooh, some classic stuff there. Thanks again! --䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡䷶䷀䷵䷥
He is such a twat. And one hell of a paranoid one at that. Has he actually done anything other than bitch and whine about what the government has or hasn't done enough or more than enough of? Scarlet A.pngtheist 23:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That bad idea I had...[edit]

...is sort-of up and staggering over here (yes it's RWW, until I can get a domain). Come along and do stuff! Totnesmartin 21:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Calling all Brits[edit]

We've established Martin's BlightyNet at RWW here. Feel free to go on over and do stuff. Cubic stupid Hoover! 21:43, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Fail at link: this works. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
You have very relaxed rules for squatting in Britain, don't you? - π 21:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
^ Hehe Fox 21:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
It's hardly squatting. Cubic stupid Hoover! 21:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
It's definitely squatting. Shall I put on a Crass LP? Totnesmartin 22:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Do. Just not Yes, Sir, I Will. DickTurpis 03:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Report them on WikiIndex! ħumanUser talk:Human 02:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
No doubt Proxima did it already, probably right after posting "hai guyze, I couldn't get to Conservapedia at 11:05:35 this morning!!!11!!1one! It must be down!!11!!". --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 02:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, yeah, except she's as illiterate in lolspeak as she is in Ingrish. So she might have said: "BlightyNet, probably. Squatting on site. Might be bad. Mark?" Christ, I really did a bad job of parodying her, sorry. No! Thanks, it's been so long, I've forgotten how. Hallelujah, freedom at last! ħumanUser talk:Human 05:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I can't seem to create an account over there. It says the signup page is protected to crats only? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll sell you my sock for a suitable sum. It's a sysop and can do stuff. Totnesmartin 09:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
No need, I enabled account creation. Don't know why it was disabled. -- Nx / talk 10:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
RWW is channelling CP? I can log in using my existing RWW account. Is that intentional Or just unavoidable? –SuspectedReplicantretire me 11:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
It's part of RWW so your existing username will apply. Perhaps if I hosted it on Trent's server... or maybe not, he's got enough on his plate already. Totnesmartin 12:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Rounders (wherein human liveblogs the "world" series)[edit]

Does anyone here also like the game of bases and balls sometimes? (I feel so trivial posting this below the above dilemma!) ħumanUser talk:Human 02:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


As long as I'm playing. I can't stand watching sports on the tv. Watching athletes makes me feel even lazier.--Thanatos 02:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm from Pittsburgh. You do the math. 17 consecutive losing seasons = strong hatred. The World Series is just something that takes the other menial televised bullshit crime drama/reality show off the air a few days a week. But, I got to go with the Phillies in 6 games. Playing the game is a blast, though, and I was an awesome first baseman back when I wasn't so out of shape... Aboriginal Noise What the ... 02:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I used to like the idea of baseball until I did actually go and see a match betwen the Florida Marlins and the someone pirates (?) when I was about 15 and holidaying in Florida. It was quite possibly the most dull thing I have ever experienced in my entire life. At least I got a Marlins baseball to take home, but that was it really (oh, and my dad bought it for me, it wasn't knocked into the crowd as you might have thought). CrundyTalk nerdy to me 13:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Game 1[edit]

Meantime, game 1 is looking interesting. Keep in mind that Yankees fans root for the Yankees, and everyone else hates them. Sabathian pulled a fine seven innings or so - only allowed two runs. Um, but those expensive Yankee bats have given him "0" support. Lee is pwning the most expensive batting order in history so far. And the Yanks are into the bullpen - deep into it. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Funny that both starting pitchers came from Cleveland. They must be so proud that they have nothing left on their roster. Another AAA farm team masquerading as a competitive market major league franchise. I count myself as a Yankees hater. I'm more of a Cubs fan if I were to pick anybody. Aboriginal Noise What the ... 02:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
These Philly Cheese Steaks look like pretty good base ballers. That scoop at short that fooled the runner into thinking he was out that led to a double play - priceless. Lee's casual catch of the pop-up - ditto. Lee's behind the back catch of a comebacker? WTF skills? I wonder what his batting average is? Oh, and shutting out the most expensive batting order in history for 8 innings? MasterCard/Visa don't have a word for that. But it ain't over yet... ħumanUser talk:Human 03:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice top of the ninth. I'm really rooting for this Lee guy, he seems to have the "right stuff". ħumanUser talk:Human 03:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, he's got it. A lousy throwing error steals his shut out. I don't think I have ever watched a major league pitcher throw a complete game. But then, I'm not a bases and balls junky, I just like the post-season. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, Philly Steaks pwned Yankee Arrogance 6-1. Lamest commentator statement ever? "Both of these teams won 7 games in the post-season to get here." Yeah, by definition, you idiot. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Lol, what commentator was that? Tetronian you're clueless 12:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
One of the two on the Fox TV network broadcast. I don't remember if it was the color guy or the play by play guy. ħumanUser talk:Human 19:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Had to be Tim McCarver. He says shit like that all the time. McCarver's the reverse Bobby Fischer - he's worse at sportscasting than you or I could ever be at anything.--EcheNegraMente All of everything erased 19:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheese beat rebels 847 to 1. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Game 2[edit]

When did Pedro end up at Philly? I don't keep track... he's my favorite pitcher to watch, as long as his manager knows he's only good for six very interesting innings. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Pedro signed with Philly in July. He's still pretty good, though he's not the same guy anymore. I miss the 1999-2003 Pedro, that man could make the ball do things that were just mind-boggling.--PitchBlackMind Don't think. Drink your wine. Watch the fire burn. 19:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
He sure could. And he'd use all 9 of his pitches on every batter... 'twas an art to behold. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
He plays cat and mouse just like I remember him. He'll get up 0-2 and throw three balls just to set up a K. F'ing brilliant. Might be the smartest pitcher ever, too bad he's only good for a 100 pitches. And after 4 innings he's 3/4 of the way there. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Pedro is falling apart... Aboriginal Noise What the ... 02:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Yup, they let him pitch past 100 pitches. It's amazing the change in what he can do, and it's so predictable. But those first 100 pitches... ħumanUser talk:Human 00:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Yankees won, 57 to 2.

Game 3[edit]

After blues on 'GBH started sucking when Brendan Hogan tried playing scratchy old crap that was supposedly "spooky", I flopped to TV. All Hallow-woo. Then I remembered, there was one show that won't be all pumpkins and f'ing ghosts. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice, watching a "big ball" team, which I think Phillie is, play "small ball" around their pitcher in a way that scored two runs was classic. And that bunt... sweet. I wonder how the Yanks pitcher will hit? AL teams sometimes forget that, I remember watching a R Sox pitcher just sort of stand there as if he just didn't want to hurt his hands in '04. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, yup, that's how AL pitchers "hit". ħumanUser talk:Human 02:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I call unfair!!! Why do the Phillies get to bat for 20 minutes an inning and Yankees only get 8 minutes? Who made up these rules anyway? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I take back everything I said about AL pitchers - Pettitte gets an RBI single, a very decent hit, and a few plays later has to run across the plate. I wonder if he's ever had to do that before? Also, I agree with the "camera finish" A-Rod HR. Interference at the fence should go to the batter. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The Yankees offense finally came alive and did what it does. The Phillies starting pitcher fell apart far too early for a WS team starter. Yankees win, 8003-5 or thereabouts. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Game 4[edit]

I missed the first inning, but apparently there were some "very close to the batter" pitches that were out of control? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There were. Alex Rodriguez got hit by a pitch again. Too bad you missed it, the first inning was the best part of the game. Can't wait for game 5 (I'm a Yankee fan). Tetronian you're clueless 21:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Yanquies won, 73-44. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I actually saw the end of this game. This is unfortunately all I can contribute to the conversation. - π 01:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Game 5[edit]

Crazy first inning. 3 run home to Utley pulls a 3-1 lead over the Evil Empire. Y's pitcher throwing a lot of walks, one way or another. Probably broke a Philly finger along the way. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

6 to 1 Phillies in the bottom of the fourth. Damn Yankees. Ah well, tomorrow I can say they threw the game on purpose so they can win the series at home. Tetronian you're clueless 02:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Hell, the game's not even half over. Have you no faith in those big Yankee bats? Gotta admit, though, that the Lee/Utley duo are Yankee killers. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I hoping for the Yanks to win in another epic ninth inning. Come on A-Rod, earn your exorbitant salary! But yeah, Lee and Utley are killing us.Tetronian you're clueless 03:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Wow, isn't it amazing how fast major league pitchers fall apart? Perfect for 100-110-120 pitches, then nada. And they never know it. You never see a pitcher in the 7th or 8th say "Take me out, coach". Ever, ever, ever. Anyway, it will be interesting to see if the Philly Cheese Steaks bullpen can hang on to this one. They should, after all, they have to beat NY twice in that shiny new stadium later this week ;) ħumanUser talk:Human 03:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
End of game, Lee wins 2 for 2, Phillies take it 853 to 5. On to the drama in the Bronx! ħumanUser talk:Human 05:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, now the Yanks can win at home. Tetronian you're clueless 13:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Game 6[edit]

Yanks get off to a good start, and pile it on. Question, will Pedro get the ball for the top o' the fourth? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I barely had time to ask, and he took them 1-2-3. Ah, Pedro. He gets a batter to 0-2, almost guaranteed he'll take it full. He gets down 3-0? Again, fills the count. Only problem? He's a pitcher only good for 100 a game, and his MO is to take 10 pitches for each sneaky out. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Listening to you talk this sport sounds more annoying than cricket. Do you need a spinner going to one end? Should you have a medium pace man late in the day? Should you take the new balls and put in fast bowlers given the wicket conditions? Arrgh, that is all I here during summer. - π 02:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
It's looking bad for Philly. I'm looking to see their fans leaving the stadium by the 7th. And the TV all over PA to be turned off soon. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't that cause a power inversion? - π 03:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps, but they sort of stayed in it in the 6th. By the way, if you don't like "the sports" why are you you reading this? There's a "haters" section above ;) What I wrote was more for people who know the game, but here's a translation: "It's the middle of the game, and the Phillies' pitcher is getting weak. Will they use let him pitch in the next inning or replace him? OK, he's in, and made three outs for three batters (that's not pancake or waffle batter, that's mens trying to hit bases balls thrown at them). However, they were what is called the "bottom of the order" - the last three batters up for the team, who, statistically, will bat less often. The weakest hitters. Anyway, baseball pitcher-batter duels are tracked by the "count" - the "balls and strikes". Balls can lead to a walk - a free base (not cocaine). Strikes can lead to a strikeout - batter has to sit down, and has made an out. How a pitcher pitches a batter depends hugely on the count - if a pitcher is "up" 0-2 they have several "safe" tries to get the batter out. If the batter is up 3-0, the pitcher pretty much has to throw a strike - by definition, a hittable pitch - or risk walking the batter. Pedro Martinez has made a career of specializing in confounding all the previous logic. I hope that made all as clear as mud! ħumanUser talk:Human 03:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Made perfect sense to me, but might be confusing to a non-baseball fan. Anyway, 7-3 at the 7 inning stretch, go Yanks go!! I loved seeing Utley getting shut down to end the top of the 7th. Tetronian you're clueless 04:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I tried. Play of the game: Feliz' barehanded catch and throw to first. That's the sort of thing kids play out in their minds in their backyards. MVP? That Hideo Matsui guy with 6 RBIs. Destroyed Pedro, and probably won the game. One last chance for Philly Cheese Steaks to figure out a way to unwrap Rivera, the Yanks awesome closer. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Matsui? Yeah he probably will be MVP, although Utley deserves it more for his 5 homers. BTW, did you see A-Rod get hit by a pitch in the 4th? That's like the 5th time in the series, the guy's like a magnet. Tetronian you're clueless 04:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to be MVP when your team loses :(. Matsui did what Utley did, but in game six when it really mattered. Hell, Lee could be an mvp for game one. But game one doesn't matter when it's 3-2 and top of the ninth, 7-4... eh? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I guess you're right. It's funny that Matsui, who if I remember correctly does not have that high a salary, is MVP by a huge margin over A-Rod, who makes almost half a billion a year. Still, it was an interesting series, between the massive amount of homers and the Yankees' pitching rotation. Tetronian you're clueless 04:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Very interesting, yes. What I really love are all the manly men jumping up down against each others' cups while a dead gay man serenades them. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

On a related note...[edit]

Is it me, or is the MLB killing its future fan base? There are no day games in this series (and it feels like there are fewer and fewer during the playoffs), meaning that the kiddies here on the east coast can't watch the game because it is on too late at night. So, in 10-15 years the MLB will have lost tons of potential fans, who will be uninterested in the game because they didn't grow up with it as much as previous generations did. Tetronian you're clueless 03:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Day games? I thought they for the middle of the regular season. Playoffs = $$$television and ratings. Remember 2004, when a legitimate excuse for being late to work in MA (and probably NY) was "the game" - the games that went 15 innings or so? Although I see your point - scheduling at least a "couple" of post-season games for the afternoon would be a nice bone to throw the future season ticket buyers. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I hate to put it this way, but "think of the children." If there are no day games in the playoffs, how will the kiddies understand the glory of the postseason? But yeah, its the networks not the MLB that determines the schedule nowadays. Tetronian you're clueless 13:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Especially the mid-playoff weekend games - of course, ticket sales probably aren't an issue either, these things are usually sold-out long in advance, right? Oh well, at least the regular season still features games played by daylight, right? So the kiddies get to understand what "southpaw" means? Have any stadiums yet been built that defy God's requirement that the pitcher face west? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
There's another reason why the next generation won't be as interested in baseball: ticket prices. For a family of 3 or 4 to go to a ball game (a Yankees or Mets one, at least) costs several hundred dollars - way too much. I blame the corporate world for that one: a lot of the seats in the new Yankee Stadium are intended for rich businessmen. Thankfully there are some day games in the regular season, although I don't think there are enough. Not sure if there are stadiums that don't have the pitcher face west...I've never understood that rule to begin with. Tetronian you're clueless 20:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Yup. Whatever happened to some kids playing hooky and hitting the stadium in the afternoon for a couple $2 seats to watch their heroes? I guess those were the old days, weren't they? The Yankees have a handful of players whose contracts total a half billion dollars unless my math is horribly off. You pay for that with bums in seats, and charge what the market will bear. Ever seen people selling parking around Boylston street on game day in Boston? $100 to park in my closed gas station lot for four hours... McDonald's charges $25, and donates it to charity. Strange world indeed.
For the kids? I used to watch local softball games when I was a kid. Even a little bit of little league. Also used to play catch with friends. But, yeah, watching the "heroes"/stars on off-days mid season ought to be a child's privilege - nay, birthright. Playoffs? Well, really, they got to make some money, and the demand is there, right? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Their salaries do total half a billion, and with endorsements they might even be making several times that amount. You would think that with all the advertising money they wouldn't need to make the ticket prices so absurd, but the demand is there, especially during the playoffs. And forget trying to buy anything at a ball game - you basically have to mortgage your house just to get a hot dog. It's a shame, really. Tetronian you're clueless 04:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(UI)Southpaw rule - game played in afternoon - pitcher pitches into setting sun - otherwise batter would face pitches that might be obscured by the sun. Basically. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Shit, Pi's weird vandal brake request made me forget my comment. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

More random commentary[edit]

Tet, don't you think that Fox is doing a lame job of their broadcast? Like they're phoning it in? Most times, the "play by play" yakker doesn't "describe" the pitch (slider, curve, fastball, etc.), and they hardly ever show their magic "strike zone plus dot" graphic. Personally, I want both of those pieces of info on every damn pitch. Hell, I could tell it was a strike, I watched it. But was it a 93 mph fastball or a breaking ball? Harder for me to tell that, and I want to know, dammit! </rant> ħumanUser talk:Human 03:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Other than cartoons, Fox does a lame job at everything. - π 03:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Fox is doing an awful job. The commentators are stupid and uninformed, and their pre- and post-game coverage sucks. And I think their magic strike zone box is most crap anyway.Tetronian you're clueless 04:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Final comment?[edit]

Tetronis, if you don't mind, I am going to manually archive this section to save everyone's download time. If you want to chat more about this, how about my talk page? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Tetronian you're clueless 04:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Little self-promotion[edit]

Just thought I'd link you to my first-ever and second-ever animations, both done for class. First one was done on the macs at school using a camera rig and nice new software, and the second was done at home on my scanner using a nice little bit of freeware called MonkeyJam. I must say, I'm pretty pleased with the results. The first netted me a 74%, which may be the highest mark in my class (my instructor is a pretty hard marker), and I'm passing in the second one on Monday. Hopefully I'll get as good or better. --Kels 02:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh well done, they look good. Although I still prefer your naked women pictures. - π 03:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps a step towards naked women animation, then? --Kels 03:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
You would be popular on an anime forum with that attitude. - π 03:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, bouncing ball looked a bit wire-framey to me on a background. On one view. Bouncing cube at least looked like it was playing in "Kels world". These are one-view critiques by someone who has no idea what you are doing. PS, both animations are far better than some lame "Boston Legal" show I watched between innings. What the hell happened to James Spader? Same thing as me? Jowly, soft, lost his touch? Sad. Is Shatner his new hero? ħumanUser talk:Human 04:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Me liked =) And am a little awed by both your obvious artistic talent, and your wizardry with the software. Fox 09:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Not much I can do about the "wire frame" part at this point, since that's what the instructors are after. Line test software generally shoots the layers in "multiply" mode, which means anything white is transparent, and I'm not to the point where I'm adding colour quite yet. --Kels 13:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
The ball was good but the box showed little character development. Totnesmartin 14:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Is it bad that when I first saw them I thought "Stuff doesn't bounce like that."? Cubic stupid Hoover! 14:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Not really, given that you can look at Loony Toons and say "coyotes don't flatten like that". Cartoon physics. Oh, and Fox, it's not really that much of an accomplishment, software-wise. So long as you understand how an exposure sheet works, it's not too complicated. --Kels 15:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I meant was it bad for me. I remember Wikipedia's old artice on cartoon physics, before they ripped its soul out due to "original research". Cubic stupid Hoover! 15:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I like the wire-frame look, it reminds me of some early CG tests that put hand drawn animations on top of 3D backgrounds. Scarlet A.pngtheist 15:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought it was moving. I'm not too proud to confess that I cried at the end. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 05:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC) Seriously, very nice
Now that I'm not the only one (thank for sobbing first), I must admit, I, too, wept. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Kels, if that is even your real name, this is just another attempt by the liberal media to foist off their sinful ways on the great majority of open minded and God fearing conservatives. We are not fooled by this ploy. "Boxes" and "balls" indeed. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 15:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Tom Toles[edit]

I don't know if anyone else goes much political cartoons, but Tom Toles of the Washington Post is one of my favorite cartoonists ever and he's had some great ones in the past few weeks. Among my favorites are This one, this one he's really big on Global Warming and especially this one. That is all SirChuckBEl...ipses are Cool... 07:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

My favorite favorite Toles toon... ħumanUser talk:Human 21:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Karmic Koala[edit]

The cursor doesn't show the whirling dot in a circle thing when it's waiting for e.g. a website. Rather off-putting - still shows in the tab though. Toast& marmitechat 18:07, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

What in the world are you on about? Me!Sheesh!Mine! 18:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry: October update of Ubuntu to 9.10. Toast& marmitechat 18:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't particularly matter, Windows 7 will soon rule the world. Scarlet A.pngtheist 18:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

New Art[edit]

I hadn't brought any new pics to hang on my wall for awhile so got this over the weekend. Thought it pretty cool so thought I would share my pride (shown here without frame - sorry for the reflections). The Mount Victoria Tunnel the cars are coming from is a bit of a landmark in my city. AceMcWicked 03:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ace's newly purchased wall hanging
Where the hell did you get a photo of my driver's exam?--Thanatos 04:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


This is full of awesome. It's lucky that god designed it like that, not like how boring it would have been if evolution really did exist. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 11:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Google Wave - does anyone use it[edit]

Or indeed found a use for it? Got my invite and signed up but am appealing for inspiration :) SҚ_ 13:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I have one friend who got invited to the beta-testing team, she raves about it almost constantly, but I've never heard of a single advantage of it at all. From what I can gather, it's an over-hyped and glorified news aggregator. Scarlet A.pngtheist 13:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Creationist nightmare[edit]

Don't forget the crackers

Warning, what will be read can never be unseen. Use the mouse to highlight the below text if you want to read it. Don't say I didn't warn you.

I just had a nice nap with a dream attatched, and I think I am getting a bit too emotionally involved with Evolution/Creationism. I had a dream that Ray Comfort was using peanut butter as a lube to violate Kent Hovind with a banana. That peanut butter guy was standing around watching Comfort as he... did what he did, and then I woke up. That is my quota of alarming stories for the day.

Javasca₧ Who said anything about fair?! 20:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You need help mate. Totnesmartin 20:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
You should post this on aSK. AceMcWicked 20:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, peanut butter and banana sandwiches are forever ruined for me.--PitchBlackMind All of everything erased 20:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Help. Get some. Scarlet A.pngtheist 20:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh. My. God. *cringes in horror*
I agree with the above, get some help. Tetronian you're clueless 21:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I must be a sick person, because I find that dream delightfully hilarious and would like for it to occur - so long as Hovind reciprocated to Comfort. - π 03:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

*changes subject* Surely the crackers in that picture should be communion wafers.-- Antifly Merged with Infinity 03:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever tasted a communion wafer? You would not spread peanut butter and bananas on one that is for sure. - π 03:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
No I haven't experienced it. But from what I can gather you'd want to smear anything you could get your hands on to mask the taste. Scarlet A.pngtheist 13:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
It is not really the taste, they taste like nothing really, it is the texture. To give you an idea, suck you tongue until you have a nice mouth full of saliva, the place in your mouth about a flat teaspoon of corn flour and hold it for about 10 seconds. That is what a communion wafer taste like after it has dissolved in your mouth, which they do pretty much instantly. I have no idea how that kid who took one managed to hold it in his mouth. - π 23:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Was the banana perfectly designed to perfectly fit? Corry 03:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

A blue-ribbon jack-o'-lantern?[edit]


Everyone I know who saw this jack-o'-lantern stated emphatically that it was the best specimen of pumpkin-carving they had ever seen. I, being much more skeptical of that claim, am submitting the question to the judgment of the Wiki mob: Is this a blue-ribbon jack-o'-lantern? Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's good, but not as cool as an ass-raping death star pumpkin, biatch. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Death Star pumpkin ftw! Z3rotalk 14:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
That looks more like a Photoshop job than a pumpkin. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Nope. Go here and you can get instructions for how to make your own. Some of the others are pretty good too. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 05:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
No wonder it does not look like a pumpkin; it is a watermelon. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Eh? It's a pumpkin. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 08:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


I see the Michael Jackson film has been rated PG. Even after he's gone he can't be trusted alone with kids. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear sir, I object in the strongest possible form to your previous joke about the late King of Pop! Several people came forward with claims that Michael Jackson had inappropriately touched them, and a few of them were denounced as liars! SJ Debaser 09:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
The rest really did get some smooth criminal lovin' then? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
You're all going to hell, you know this, right? Scarlet A.pngtheist 13:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
He settled the first case out of court, an act that always draws suspicion. It really gets me how strongly the public fell in love with MJ all over again after his death. He went from child molestation jokes to inspiration--Thanatos 23:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
See, I think the settlement is cause to be really skeptical about the case. I'm not a parent, but I don't care how much I get paid.... If a man molested my child, I would want him in jail. SirChuckBEl...ipses are Cool... 00:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Boris strikes again[edit]

You have to love the man. EddyP 18:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

more of that and he'll deserve that huge red tower thing. Totnesmartin 19:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
A huge tower honoring him? Jeez, even American corruption isn't that blatant. Tetronian you're clueless 21:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, London does needs a few more pointless monuments to brighten the place up. Apart from the Eye, there's pretty much nothing been built purely for the sake of building it in almost centuries. Scarlet A.pngtheist 07:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The Gherkin is great, though. And the Hammersmith Ark. Totnesmartin 10:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I meant totally pointless crap :p, like the Eiffel Tower, the Washington Monument or the Gateway Arch. The Gerkin etc. are at least actual, usable buildings. Scarlet A.pngtheist 13:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, a giant statue of Boris would be pretty awesome, a la The Motherland Calls. Scarlet A.pngtheist 13:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I had to laugh at that first article Totnesmartin linked to: "London is a city of many modest monuments", it says. I work literally within a stone's throw of THE monument - a 61 metre tall dick with a flaming bell end. It's less modest than a drunken celebrity in a private club. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 14:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
'but Popish frenzy, which wrought such horrors, is not yet quenched' --䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡䷶䷀䷵䷥

Proof of life after death?[edit]

I'm sure this has already been posted elsewhere on this site (including here at the saloon), but I thought people might find this new load of BS interesting. The Goonie 1 What's this button do? Uh oh.... 00:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I love how the article tried to make the book sound "scientific." Tetronian you're clueless 02:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh it is. According to the article and the book the article is about, at least. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 02:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm up to "[the theory] draws instead on quantum mechanics, neuroscience, and moral philosophy", not looking good... Whenever someone tries to bring quantum mechanics into neuroscinece you know something's up. Scarlet A.pngtheist 07:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

NJ governor's election[edit]

I found it funny to hear my home state (and Andy's) called a "democratic heartland" by the BBC. (There are quite a lot of fiscal conservatives here, not too many fundy loons.) I do hope that Corzine wins, though - I don't want that moralistic twat Chris Christie as governor. (He's anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-stem cell research) Tetronian you're clueless 02:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say Christie has it in the bag. Cue insufferable gloating by Andy.RaoulDuke 02:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh there are elections today are there? - π 02:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, although most New Jerseyans don't really care, being the lazy fuckers that we are. Shame that Christie's going to win though. On the plus side: it will be interesting to see Andy gloat...and then change his mind when Christie decides to accept stimulus funds. Tetronian you're clueless 03:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The Conservapedians have flip-flopped and flop-flipped so many times on whether Mr. Christie is a RINO or a true-blue conservative that I do not know what to think anymore. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 03:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
You don't have to think. Andy does it for you. He loses, he's a RINO and may be discounted. he wins and its a sign that America is getting more conservative. it's that easy. RaoulDuke 03:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Speak of the devil... Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Gee it is strange that most of the state still supports Obama. - π 05:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Nah, we just hated Corzine (previous governor) so much that he had to go. Tetronian you're clueless 13:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


For those of you not familiar to the gaming scene recently, this little number has been getting a fair amount of press lately. To put it simply, Imagine if Fallout had a child with Mass Effect, and both passed on their dominant genes, and you'd come close to Borderlands. It's definitely worth a rent or a buy, depending on your genre du jour. -- CodyH 13:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You know I've been looking at Borderlands since I abandoned Champions Online last week. I only have the time and attention for one game at a time and I'm dithering on which one I want to get. Here are my choices in no particular order.
  1. Borderlands
  2. Red Faction: Guerrilla
  3. Prototype
  4. Batman Arkham Asylum
Any input will be appreciated. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 15:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Borderlands is good if you have three good friends who'll want to play it regularly with you. Red Faction: Guerrilla has interesting tech but gets very repetitive and is filled out a bit too much with rubbish stuff (probably worth getting one day, but when it goes 2 for £20 or something, at most). Prototype is a good open-world game (better than RF:G I'd say), but flawed. Batman is probably the "best" game there, but it's also the only one I haven't owned (I'll get it one day).
Basically, I'd recommend Borderlands if you have some good online friends to play it with, or Arkham Asylum if you don't. If longevity is important and you don't mind playing a game meant for multiplayer in single-player (say, if you enjoyed Diablo II in single-player then), then go for Borderlands. It will last you ages. Dreaded Walrus t c 17:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm playing batman at the moment on the sexbox and it is full of win. The part when you first meet the scarecrow is sheer genius. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 11:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I opted for Borderlands. It is a lot of fun but it's a shame the multi-player doesn't have better features. I play on a PC. The only console I own is the Wii. Does the Xbox give you access to pr0n? If so, I'm buying it. Although the tactile feed back of the Wiimote has some interesting possibilities in that regard the idea Mii based pr0n is quite off-putting. Like neked weebles. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 13:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
No idea, I too have a Wii (didn't buy the sexbox, got it free with my CokeZone points) but only because I love hacking it up with homebrew. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


I've just remembered that it was November last year that I found Conservapedia and first joined the wiki world, signing up on Liberapedia in the middle of November. Time goes so darn fast, eh? SJ Debaser 15:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Damn right it does. Tetronian you're clueless 04:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A question for Dawkins[edit]

I have tickets to see Richard Dawkins speak in my home town next year. I am going to ask him if he is really really a professor. Then I'll ask for the data. AceMcWicked 23:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sure you would entertain him. He is actual familiar with his article on CP, he described it as borderline slander. - π 23:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I actually do wanna ask him something and slip RW and CP in somewhere. AceMcWicked 23:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
You should begin your question by yelling "Gentlemen!" Then babble on about Operation Flying Bungalow before realizing that you forgot to wear pants to go watch the science. Corry 03:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Or you could begin with: "Richard Dawkins, which is probably not your real name..." Tetronian you're clueless 13:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
To which he would of course reply "You're right, my real name is Clinton Dawkins". Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 16:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
"...and I took the initiative in creating the internet." Tetronian you're clueless 21:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe this[edit]

I was on the bus today, and I saw an ad overhead for this travesty. Keep in mind we're the first city in Canada to be heavily hit in Canada, with every single case at the children's hospital testing positive for H1N1, and we get an ad selling prayer as an effective method of preventing illness. Under the circumstances, I'd call it encouraging people to get sick and/or die, rather than promoting a harmless faith. --Kels 00:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That's unbelievable. I guess there are fundies everywhere. Tetronian you're clueless 01:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)'
I dreamed I had a cold last night. Fighting it reasonably well in real life. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


Ah, the nostalgia. People were scared of the harridan even back then. --Kels 01:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the collected Bloom County. I just bought the first volume, too. Possibly the greatest daily strip ever, IMHO. RaoulDuke 01:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
It's a pity Outland so quickly got away from the original concept Breathed talked about and turned into just another excuse to have more Opus & Bill but without the grounding in reality the original strip had. --Kels 01:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

1 year on[edit]

Wow! Hard to believe it's been a year since Obama became the first Muslim President elect. Time's fun when you're having flies. --PsygremlinKhuluma! 17:34, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow it has been. I remember going to bed the night of the election (time difference in Britain and all...) and thinking "CHANGE! CHANGE!" As for me, time's fun when I'm doing the filing. SJ Debaser 17:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Were you here for our election party, Superjosh? Totnesmartin 18:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't join RW until April this year. It seems like I've been here for much longer though. SJ Debaser 20:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I went to a party on IRC. I booked the next day off work because I knew I'd be staying up late, and indeed I was. It was a fantastic night of drinking wine, flicking between BBC and CNN on TV and about 5 different websites. I think I eventually went to bed at about 5am (when I usually get up). The other people in the room were really fun, except right at the end when some idiotic, GOP-worshiping twit came in and started telling everybody how the world was about to end (not quite, but pretty close). How did it work on the wiki? I'm imagining edit conflict hell. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 18:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I cleared off my talk page and we had at it. Then I archived it separately for easy access: [2]. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow we had so much hope back then. What happened to it all? - π 23:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Almost 10% unemployment. Sterile cellphone 01:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Lack of leadership. Let's face it, he's no LBJ - no real legislative experience. (Doesn't know whose arms to twist, or how). End the fucking war, demand UHC, demand what you ran on, you bastard. Because we really don't you to be a one-termer followed by a Palinist. Most of us have to live in whatever country you manage it to be. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I think he's mostly been fucked over by the recession and the fact that pulling out of the war was never going to be even remotely easy. Which is why I definitely think the GOP basically threw the election away (how else do you explain Palin?) so they wouldn't have to deal with it, Obama would look like an ass because basically no politician is going to come out of this situation smelling of roses, and they'd get it the next term for at least 8 years where they can turn the US into a super-capitalist theocracy. Well, at least that's the conspiracy I like to get taken in by. Scarlet A.pngtheist 15:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Debbie Schlussel[edit]

I'm kind of surprised no one made an article about her yet. This article she made regarding Watchmen is positively stupefying. http://www.debbieschlussel.com/4896/the-watchmen-lie-hollywood-sends-more-depravity-your-kids-way-costumed-as-superhero-flick/— Unsigned, by: Ryantherebel / talk / contribs

Why don't you? AceMcWicked 04:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the break Ace. I would thank you on your talk page, but I am at uni and I know the kind of pictures I find on your talkpage. - π 04:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Break? What the fuck are you talking about you fool? AceMcWicked 04:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The vandal break or what ever it is called. - π 04:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Brake, you fool! I fucking knew it, you Aussies are all the same. AceMcWicked 04:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've never done one before.— Unsigned, by: Ryantherebel / talk / contribs

Check out RationalWiki:To do list. There are all sorts of writing material stuff there. - π 04:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for posting that article though. I haven't been so pissed off in a long time. <rant>That woman is a stupid, uninformed twat who doesn't understand Watchmen at all. Her inexcusably obnoxious attitude is outdone only by her deplorable ignorance and bigotry. </rant> Phew! Tetronian you're clueless 04:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
If parents disregard parental ratings, its their own fault. This woman knows nothing.--Thanatos 04:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

My favorite Schlussel moment was her rousing condemnation of Sex and the City's Kim Cattrall for giving up her snooch to Alexander Siddig (Deep Space 9's Dr. Bashir), because Siddig is (gasp! horror!) an A-rab.... [3] - Poor Excuse 04:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

After perusing her website, it is pretty clear that she is a huge racist. Tetronian you're clueless 04:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Everything I've ever seen from that bizarre woman screams "I want to be the next Ann Coulter." MDB 13:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Though Schlussel appears to have been born a woman. - Poor Excuse 15:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
She keeps going on about how the bad comments mention artistic value. I'm sure her idea of art is a painting of flowers. I think she wasn't really paying attention.--Thanatos 20:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
In all fairness, she probably appreciates a good Elvis or clown or crying child painted on black velvet. - Poor Excuse 00:19, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Laptop Steering Wheel Desk[edit]

Another silly review fest over at Amazon. Some of these are funny. And for those who missed it before, don't forget the Three Wolves T-Shirt reviews. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 07:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehe: "Not enough color choices. So the color match with my black thinkpad is really off, people constantly stare at me when I'm driving and I think that's the reason." CrundyTalk nerdy to me 08:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I want this version of the three wolves. --Kels 16:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

oh dear[edit]

another badger-related attack. SJ Debaser 19:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You have to hate those damn badgers. Javasca₧ the most colourful sig on RationalWiki! 19:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A Solution to the Gay Adoption Issue[edit]

(the following is a joke. I am not serious. However, I would love to get the Republican's reaction to his.) Something occurred to me today. On the one hand, we have the gays who want to adopt, on the other hand we have the Christians afraid this will cause gender confusion and allow the gays the opportunity to recruit. Clearly, the solution to this is simple: Only let gay men adopt girls, and only let lesbians adopt boys. That way girls can learn to be appropriately feminine from gay role models, and boys can learn masculinity from butch dykes (because, of course, that's the only kind of lesbian that exists).--Mustex 21:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Unsigned, if that is even your real name, were I a fundamental Christian I'd tell you that gayness is a perversion caused by gay demons. Thus, your suggestion would result in perverted possessed children or something. The gayness would just jump off of them. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 20:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, it was me. And, honestly, I WISH they'd try to make that argument. Most of the time they try to at least make their anti-gay rhetoric SOUND secular. The instant you mention "demons," you've forfeited the debate from a legal standpoint.--Mustex 21:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure if you looked hard enough you'd find someone who suggested something like that. Scarlet A.pngtheist 22:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, this made me think of a serious question: Has anyone done a study to see the frequency of gays adopting their own gender vs. adopting across-gender. Since the conservatives always try to make gays out to be pedophiles, if gay men adopt girls and lesbians adopt boys as often as not, then it would really throw a monkey-wrench into their claims that gays are pedophiles (and weakens their argument that they try to "recruit," although that argument woudldn't completely collapse if you assume they're working for the good of the entire "gay agenda").-- 01:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
This isn't from a study, but considering the difficulty gay people have in adopting, its often "whatever kid is available". That's one of the reasons gay adoptive parents often end up with "special needs" children. MDB 14:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy November 5th.[edit]

That is all --Vtalk 20:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks... yeah, we should blow some shit up. Or fail trying... ħumanUser talk:Human 21:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Last night I watched $100K explode over my city over 19 minutes. Tonight I might make a pipe bomb. AceMcWicked 21:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Can it be Project Mayhem time? Tetronian you're clueless 23:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
If it is, the first rule of Project Mayhem would be you have to trust Ace. SJ Debaser 00:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least we wouldn't have to worry about Ace trying to stop himself from blowing shit up. Tetronian you're clueless 00:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
You can trust Ace, Ace is a man of the people. Though above the people at the same time. AceMcWicked 00:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Remember, we are all pieces of compost in the same pile. Now let's go bomb some credit card companies! Tetronian you're clueless 00:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Or, here's a better idea: let's blow up the Creation Museum using some goat stock! Tetronian you're clueless 01:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Ace may be an ineberiated insane Kiwi, but he is our ineberated insane kiwi. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ Reticulating splines 02:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The first rule of project mayhem is you do not ask questions about the likelihood of off-site backups. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 07:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Very cute little quiz game[edit]

Questionaut, by the same guys responsible for Machinarium and the Samorost games. --Kels 22:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


The Physics. My favourite new brew. Anyone else a fan? RaoulDuke 04:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Love the flowery blurb. Has Jilly Goolden switched from wine to beer? Totnesmartin 10:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I remember her doing beer as well as wine on the old Food and Drink programme. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 16:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, I'll have to try that (if I can find it). Otherwise, I'll just stick to Old Speckled Hen. Aboriginal Noise What the ... 01:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Maine and 0-31.[edit]

This discussion was moved to Debate:Democracy and Civil Rights. 02:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

A poor name choice[edit]

I have been mulling this over for a while and I have come to the conclusion that RationalWiki was a poor choice of name. Look at Conservapedia. You go there expecting to find conservative things, if you are not conservative you know in advance you will find things you disagree with. Sometime you learn you are not that conservative, but at least you got what you expected. Same for CreationWiki, you get creation as you expected in advance, if you are a creationist you go there expecting to see what you like and if you are not you will see things you dislike.

Here is the problem - an irrational person will always believe themselves to be rational. It is part of the very nature of the beast. So they come here thinking they will find stuff that agrees with them, because they believe themselves to be rational. They see thinks they don't like, because they are irrational and so they act out irrationally, because they are.

This is really not going any where, but I have noticed we get a very special kind of vandal around here, the sort that thinks blanking our pages is going to make us to agree with them and I think I have found a possible cause of the problem. - π 05:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Pageblankers are the kind of vandal every wiki gets, Pi. And can I point to your user name as to how tolerant we are? Here you expect ratios of integers. Nothing more. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
But they rarely expect it to make a difference. Have you read some of their edit summaries as the do it? They are usually scream crap about us being politically correct, or pseudoskeptics, or liars, or what ever triggered them off. Who was the guy that go drowned for proving the existence of irrational numbers? - π 05:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Hippasus. - π 05:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Er, what's your point? ħumanUser talk:Human 05:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Not much really, I just think we attract a "special" kind of person, more so than other sites. - π 05:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
This website would have vandals no matter what we do. Heck, another site I contribute to that is a forum dedicated to punk gets vandalized all the time by people calling us "Nazis" or "Communists" or whatever. The thing is, shit talkers will talk shit no matter what you do. AnarchoGoon Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 05:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
It is strange the way certain words trigger strange reactions in people. I really thought you would get accused of being anarchist more. Actually I was thinking more of the person who starts of as a genuine user, or leaving a comment before they suddenly get triggered off, mostly through miss understanding the site. - π 05:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Anarchists, posers, elitists, whatever, the list goes on and on on that site. Thing is, we just don't care anymore because we realize that you'll always have someone to shout you down and, I think, that also applies here. I mean, the forum is for a group called the Twin Cities Skins and Punks, and people see "skins" and assume that means Noe-Nazi skinheads and then run their mouth, etc. But that's getting a little off track here. Like I said, shit talkers will always talk shit.Gooniepunk2010 Oi! Oi! Oi! 06:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
That is the thing though. The site will be vandalised and trolled by people who oppose the sites aims. Unfortunately because we are RationalWiki we have to put up with irrational people. - π 06:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
No way dude, that happens to every site regardless of name. AceMcWicked 06:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I grant you my hypothesis is a little shaky, but I am sure people go "look a rational wiki, surly they believe me about the reptilian aliens unlike those cool-aid drinkers at Wikipedia" and come here expecting us to agree. - π 06:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I have always favoured www.lickingtheoilymonspubis.com AceMcWicked 06:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Is that your suggestion for the the new name of this site? Because I think it might have a few takers... ħumanUser talk:Human 06:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Its a good name. AceMcWicked 06:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I lick it merself. Let's alert Timmytoulouse. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
If Pi is correct and our name causes people who disagree with us to come here and read our articles - isn't that a good thing?--BobNot Jim 07:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
We are an opinionated and argumentative site which deliberately sets out to debunk bad thinking - of course some people on the other side of the argument will not like us for it. The question is, do we let them irritate us, or do we treat the whole intrusion as a joke? A couple of years ago we beat off the white nationalists by laughing at them. Why not now? Totnesmartin 09:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I didn't say it was a bad thing, if anything it gives us an endless supply of stupid. When the aforementioned reptilian alien guy shows up, he will expect us to embrace it because it "makes so much sense", which he (always he) mistakes for actual logic and thinking. The only drawback is we have to put up with the inevitable tantrum and being told we are irrational because we did not see the light, with the usual claim that we should not have the name RationalWiki. I just like the paradox in that an irrational person will always believe themselves to be rational. Or maybe we are wrong about the reptilian aliens, I don't know? - π 10:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
While not wanting to quibble (well perhaps I do) you said at first it was a "poor name choice" ... ummmm ... isn't that sort of similar to saying "it's a bad thing"?--BobNot Jim 11:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The title grabbed your attention though, didn't it? - π 21:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the idea that rationality is subjective. For example, this questions our "rationality". Hence "rational" is really just our own interpretation, no one thinks that they're being irrational (although when you talk about rationalists and rationalism there's this accepted definition that you're talking about Logical positivism or PEARL etc.). But I don't think that totally explains the "vandals", it may explain some of the questioning looks we get and perhaps some of the content that isn't just totally dicking about, but it's not all that bad. Scarlet A.pngtheist 15:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I really don't see a problem here. Regarding vandals, nobody really believes that blanking a page will make anyone agree with them. That's just vandalism for the sake of it, & happens to all active wikis. Some of those vandals might be reacting against our description as a "Rational"Wiki (it seemed to be an issue for FD), but those people would probably still object to or vandalise the site whatever name we chose. As for people with fringe beliefs expecting to find support here, & then throwing tanthrums when they don't get it, I kindof like it that way. Every so often, somebody will come along pushing a moonbat/wingnut agenda (new world order conspiracies, therianthropy, human extinction, whatever) - it usually provokes some lively debates & does the site no harm as long as it doesn't get out of hand. Engaging with readers of differing viewpoints is supposed to be one of the site aims. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(UI) Yeah, like Tom Butler thinks he being completely rational over at WS when he says that the blurs he sees that "look like" people are people. Also, PEARL? The Paranoramal Excellence Award for Romantic Literature? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

PEARL. But yeah, people will always think that they're rational. But I don't think it would mean we need to think "gosh, we shoulda choosed a betterer name" Scarlet A.pngtheist 19:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I actually don't find the name ironic: why do you have to be serious to show that others are nutty? Can't you be rational and not serious? Of course you can! Sterile cellphone 04:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Philosophy quizzes[edit]

I just stumbled across this and thought it was pretty interesting. I like the questions, but I'm not sure if I agree with the way the result is formulated. I also found this pretty good one too, which is probably better suited to RW. Tetronian you're clueless 13:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I come out as a Scientific Atheist (96%) and Materialist (100%). — Unsigned, by: SuspectedReplicant / talk / contribs
I think we've been through the second one before. As I thought: I's a bastard! Toast& marmitechat 15:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought it might have been old news. Anyways, my scores: tie between Materialist and Existentialist on the first one, Scientific Atheist (76%) on the second one. Tetronian you're clueless 15:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I found about a quarter of the questions to be poorly scoped and deeply ambiguous. For instance, what the hell does this mean: Everything is rational if given the right amount of effort. Does this mean everything in the universe has a "rational" explanation, e.g. can be explained from basic principles of cause and effect beginning, if one had the insight and patience, with the big bang or that every human action and process is based on rationality e.g. the principal assumption of classic economics. Me: Materialist(76%), Postmodernist(69%), Existentialist(50%). My university indoctrination has not worn off. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 17:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I had a three-way tie between modernist, postmodernist and cultural creative. I ended up being the cultural creative with the tie-breaker. "Cultural Creatives are probably the newest group to enter this realm. You are a modern thinker who tends to shy away from organized religion but still feels as if there is something greater than ourselves. You are very spiritual, even if you are not religious. Life has a meaning outside of the rational." Kinda helps that I'm Anglican, the vanilla of Christianity--Thanatos 19:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Here in America Methodists are the Vanilla. Anglicans are like French Vanilla, familiar with a slightly exotic, though thoroughly safe, bent.Me!Sheesh!Mine!
Multiclass cultural creative/idealist. But damn, that's some badly written philosophical questioning. Is it wrong that I want to write an essay unpicking each question? --䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡䷶䷀䷵䷥
Hell no. I was tempted to do it, but I'm way to lazy busy. Tetronian you're clueless 19:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Scientific Atheist 96%! Yay! I am pushing you into the future! --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 01:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm a modernist. which is strange as I don't have at Italian scooter, or a parka with a target on it. Totnesmartin 12:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
94% Existentialist. Weird. - π 12:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I was like a 7% theist, likely because I allowed that religion can have some valuable social function (I can't remember what the questions were) and that if God appeared before me in all her glory I'd worship her. That to my mind was a stupid question because if you really buy into it the appearance of God would confirm everything in the bible and thus any rationalist worth their salt would immediately become a theist. Me!Sheesh!Mine!

Ah yes one of those quizzes. 69% existentialist, 69% modernist, 56% cultural creative, 56% romanticist, 50% fundamentalist, 38% materialist, 25% postmodernist, 13% idealist. Good to see postmodernist and idealist down there at the bottom where they belong. F***ing moonbats. But fundamentalist should have come out lower, and existentialist and romanticist both higher. Secret Squirrel 01:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Carl Sagan Day[edit]

Do we have an article on this? I know the man was essential in making Science popular. But he has a day? I thought Auto-tune was enough. -- CodyH 18:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Add it to Carl Sagan? ħumanUser talk:Human 19:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Carl's a saint. Sterile cellphone 04:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Election Spin[edit]

So I was doing my weekly reading of the conservative opinion pieces, and trying not to hurl, when I noticed something..... The same conservatives who were, a few days before the elections, talking about how Republicans do not represent them, and they shouldn't be voting for them, are cheering loudest over the Republican victories, while at the same time ignoring the (no pun intended) Elephant in the room that is the New York 23rd. Do these people have no memory? Like a goldfish? SirChuckBEl...ipses are Cool... 20:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd like a goldfish, please. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The 23rd was a special case of the Republicans abandoning their candidate for a complete nut, handing over a safe Republican district to the Democrats. The election spin that I have noticed the most here in Australia is the media has been reporting this a rebuke to Obama. Despite the fact that his popularity according to my link way above is 59% and 51% in New Jersey and Virginia respectively. Exit polls showed that 60% said their vote had nothing to do with Obama. - π 22:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Is the Australian media you're referring to usually pro-Obama or anti-Obama? MDB 13:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Very, very pro-Obama. It might seem weird, but he is almost universally loved outside the US. - π 13:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
It does take some getting used to, the idea that the rest of the world actually likes our President. Nice to be on the same side as you in that regard. MDB 15:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Bacon or Magic Underwear[edit]

This link has a funny flow chart that helps you decide which relegion you should belong too. I did not get very far down the tree at all and was thus not required to weigh in on my feelings about magic underwear (something I really want to believe in) It isn't particularly work friendly as it has ads with pictures of wimmin in their underwear. Note, I fit two fully contextual but unrelated underwear references in one post (three if you count the meta reference to underwear and four if you count the meta-meta reference to underwear . . . ad nauseam). What do I win? Me!Sheesh!Mine! 14:57, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Poe or not?[edit]

Does anyone know about this? Bob Soles 15:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but if I had to guess I would say Poe, for reasons which should be obvious. Tetronian you're clueless 15:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
It's not even a Poe, come on, it's just a joke... ħumanUser talk:Human 17:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
It could qualify as a Poe. I mean, what wingnut wouldn't want to invent that? Tetronian you're clueless 18:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
You can also get it in chewing gum form. I wonder if it works just as well with women?  Lily Inspirate me. 19:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
And air freshener?? Fox 20:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Time Warp vs Will It Blend[edit]

What happens when you take the two most superfluous concepts ever invented and combine them? Lighter vs blender in super slow motion. Scarlet A.pngtheist 17:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Recommended reads[edit]

One of my American friends has said that for Christmas she wants to buy some books and send them to me (she is a book fiend, and works in a book shop). However, I don't really know what books I want. I'm mostly leaning towards non-fiction, probably sciency/political, and the books obviously have to be readily available in the United States. I'm thinking some Dawkins books, but what else would you guys recommend? Dreaded Walrus t c 23:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Be careful: you don't want to offend her. If she's a theist she may not appreciate Dawkins books. Perhaps some Pulitzer Prize-winning Jared Diamond instead? Tetronian you're clueless 23:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Wow I totally misread that. Although I still recommend the book. Tetronian you're clueless 00:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
EC) wp:Gödel,_Escher,_Bach by Douglas Hofstadter. Also Catch 22 - fiction but excellent if you've not got it already. Toast& marmitechat 23:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a few:
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" (now a trilogy in six parts) by Douglas Adams, if she hasn't read it,
"The Illustrated Brief History of Time" (my version comes with its "sequel," "The Universe in a Nutshell") by Stephen Hawking,
"America (The Book): a Guide to Democracy Inaction" (recommend getting the "teacher's edition") by Jon Stewart, and by proxy,
"I am America (And So Can You!)" by Stephen Colbert (both political comedies),
Any of the (at least) 21 "Uncle John's Bathroom Readers." Usually has titles like the "Unsinkable Bathroom Reader" (21st volume), "All Purpose Extra Strength Bathroom reader" (13th volume), etc. The main series is composed of many short "articles" on varying topics, and new volumes are released yearly. There are also books on specific topics, like "Plunges into the Universe," which deals on stuff like space and whatnot. They are also relatively thick books (save for the first 9 or so), the 21st volume has over 500 pages, and the "Plunges into" line books are about as large.
On a side note, I think we need a page where users can recommend books. AndroidWe are all machines 00:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Noted everything so far. I'm not opposed to fiction at all (will ask for Catch 22). As for my friend, she's not at all theist. She'd probably agree with most of our viewpoints on most things, although she does seem to be very anti-Gardasil. Otherwise she enjoys laughing at fundamentalist crazies, finds Sarah Palin to be an embarrasment to women everywhere, e.t.c. Oh, and even if I did suggest something which was against her own viewpoints (say, a book decrying the anti-vaccination movement), she's cool enough to not take to the lecture against me.
Keep the mentions coming! Dreaded Walrus t c 00:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Sounds counter-intuitive but it might be cheaper for your friend to Amazon them to you. With (even discounted) purchase & carriage/packing, it can be quite expensive to physically send books. Toast& marmitechat 00:20, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
It probably would be. I'd only bother with having stuff personally sent if it was something that couldn't be found in Europe. By the way, Daniel Dennett's Breaking the Spell is an interesting read. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 00:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Godel Escher Bach (Hofstadter (sp?)) and Slaughterhouse Five (KV). ħumanUser talk:Human 00:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) We send each other Christmas packages each year anyway, usually with a theme to them. Last year it was comedy DVDs (I sent her Boosh, The Thick of It and Fawlty Towers; she sent me Futurama boxset, plus the first three Futurama films), this year it's books. I'll definitely look into Amazon if it ends up more expensive for her to send them to me physically though (cost of purchasing plus extra shipping for the weight), as money's a bit more of an issue for her than me. Thanks again for the extra recommendations. I also agree (with Android, above) that somewhere to recommend books (and movies/games e.t.c?) would be nice, considering there's quite a "community" feel to this place, and to avoid clogging up Saloon Bar. Dreaded Walrus t c 00:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to suggest any books, because my list would be pretty much all art manuals and French comics anyway, and nobody but me is interested in that. --Kels 00:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. by Carl Sagan. I agree completely with Catch-22, one of the smartest, funniest books I have ever read (I have a rather dark sense of humor). I'll think of some more. Corry 00:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
We have an underpublicized page that you all might want to contribute to: RationalWiki:Recommended Books. Sterile cellphone 00:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
James Gleick: Pop sci. Particularly Chaos & Genius. Toast& marmitechat 01:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd recommend Jeff Lindsay's Dexter series only because that is what I'm currently reading.--Thanatos 02:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Anything by Milan Kundera or Gabriel Garcia Marquez. That's only if you enjoy magical realism and bizarrely sexual writing. YorickIs Joe Biden Eva Braun? 02:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Also if you like poetry get The Captain's Verses by Pablo Neruda with Donald D. Walsh as the translator. If you haven't read The Road you should get that as well. YorickFreed from gramineous foraging for arboreal rummaging, one step above worms and one step below eagles, the giraffe fills a role in nature given only to itself. 03:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
How to get Girls by Hypnosis? (Red Dwarf Reference) –SuspectedReplicantretire me 05:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Neal Stephenson's 'The Baroque Cycle' all day every day. Awesome historical fiction about the seventeenth century with lots of politics/science/religion/gutting people with swords/syphilis. --䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡䷶䷀䷵䷥

Not to mention half-cocked Jack. I love the Baroque Cycle. Brilliant stuff. Pretty much anything by Stephenson is worth reading. "Last Chance to See" by Douglas Adams and Mark Carwardine is funny and tragic in equal measure. If you fancy some sci-fi, try Eon by Greg Bear or The Mote in God's Eye by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 09:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I've been reading Kim Stanley Robinson's environmental catastrophe trilogy, Forty Signs of Rain, Fifty Degrees Below and Sixty Days and Counting. Basically, its about scientists in Washington, DC (mostly) during a period when climate change gets real real real bad. Its classified as science fiction, but I think of it more as "fiction with a lot of science". (And its a little amusing to read the characters speculate about the effects of disastrous weather on the DC Metro while you are actually riding the DC Metro... Kind of like watching Airport as an in-flight movie.) MDB 14:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, my Amazon wish-list currently reads as such:

  • Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions, Edwin Abbott
  • The Atheist's Guide to Christmas, Ariane Sherine (Ed.)
  • The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, Richard Dawkins
  • The Demon-haunted World, Carl Sagan
  • Avoid Boring People: And other lessons from a life in science, James Watson

I'm sure there are more that should be there. Scarlet A.pngtheist 16:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want political in my opinion nothing beats Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio, by Macchiavelli. Make sure you get a good translation. Avoid Il Principe, it was written as flattery to get a job. Pietrow 17:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
'Discourses on Livy', and 'The Prince', to us mortals. The Prince is better than you make it sound - it arguably does work, in practice.. Discourses on Livy is humorously non-historical, though - he's blatantly putting the politics first, and bending history to suit it. --䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡䷶䷀䷵䷥
In my mother tongue it's customary to always quote the original title, from your comment I guess appears snobbish in English. I still think the Discourses are better than Il Principe, I had the impression the former is more the real voice of Macchiavelli while the latter seems written more to conform to the prejudices of his patron. Pietrow 11:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
My recommendations to you:
  • Good Omens, Terry Pratchett and Niel Gaiman, covering religious fiction
  • Pale Blue Dot: A vision of the human future in Space, by Carl Sagan, covering Sagan.
  • Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Literary Edition, By Douglas Adams, covering Science Fiction
  • Stranger in a Strange Land: Unabridged edition, by Robert A. Heinlein, covering everything.
  • The Redemption of Althalus, by David & Leigh Eddings, covering Fantasy

I can go on all day with this stuff. The downfall of a nerd raised in a Heinlein/Sturgeon household by a woman with a Masters in English Literature. -- CodyH 18:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through The Prince, it's certainly not particularly flattering, it's a bit ego-centric, but as it's Macchiavelli that's hardly surprising. Scarlet A.pngtheist 19:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth (actual value = $0), I'm doing studies every day this month from George Bridgeman's Constructive Anatomy and Complete Guide to Life Drawing. I'm posting the results at my blog if anyone wants some unsweetened eye candy. --Kels 02:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I've the artistic talent of a dead Mongolian molerat fœtus but I always like seein' how it's done: thanks Kels. Toast& marmitechat 02:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I believe that no science major should be allowed to graduate from college without having read The Demon-Haunted World. I never felt complete as a scientist until I did. Sterile cellphone 04:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Well considering that three different people have recommended The Demon-Haunted World, I'll put that at the top of my list. Thanks guys, I didn't expect such an enthusiastic response. Perhaps some of these can be added to the otherwise inactive RationalWiki:Recommended Books mentioned above (by Sterile). I'll add all these to a list of stuff I want for Christmas. I'm not sure how many she plans on getting me, but I get the impression I'd be pleased with any number of these. Thanks again. :) Dreaded Walrus t c 03:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


BlightyNet is now fully up and running; you can find it here. Articles. Let us make them. Cubic stupid Hoover! 21:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Why does "belaiti" make me think of yoghurt? Sprocket J Cogswell 16:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Goat 1 RWian 0[edit]

Totnesmartin and goat.jpg

Here's a picture I found while looking for something else. Can you guess what happened next? Totnesmartin 18:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, my guess is that the guy gets head-butted by the goat. AnarchoGoon Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living 18:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Head-butted? From that angle? That's me by the way. The one on the right. Totnesmartin 18:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Sarah Palin shoots the goat from a passing helicopter.-- Antifly Merged with Infinity 19:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
You and the goat went out for drinks and dancing, but the goat never called the next day? --Kels 19:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Easy now, fuzzy little man peach Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 04:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Oooh, I know! Dick Cheney tries to shoot the goat, but shoots you instead. From point-blank range. And then Totnesmartin apologizes for being in the way of the shot. Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 19:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The goat charges, gets pulled up short by its tether & dies of strangulation? Toast& marmitechat 19:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Does it have anything to do with the weasel you have wrapped around your neck? It really looks like a weasel. Perhaps it's a stoat? DogPMarmite Patrol 19:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
<groan>No: they're weasily distinguishable & stotally different </groan!> It's a Ferret Polecat Toast& marmitechat
Har har. Meanwhile Wolves have miraculously scored from out of nowhere. Anyway, that looks like a nice shed your neighbour has. DogPMarmite Patrol 19:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The goat is eaten by wolves? I see no wolf. What is this thing which you introduce without any reason? Toast& marmitechat 19:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Was there a gun on the wall in Act One? ħumanUser talk:Human 20:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Keptin! Totnesmartin 20:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, then, dammit, according the the First Law of Drama, it must be used in Act Two! ħumanUser talk:Human 04:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Fire works[edit]

There are many BANGs outside: our pussies are hiding. Toast& marmitechat 19:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of bangs here too, but I'm going out drinking tonight with old friends - I'm back home for the weekend. SJ Debaser 19:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
{{retire}} my user page please, you intolerant cunts. Would do it myself but my opinions have been made non-existent on your hate site. Fox 19:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Wife and kids away for the weekend again Fox? I'm curious as to whether this is due to some annual occasion - must research your last implosion... ħumanUser talk:Human 20:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
What I want to know is how this military man would fare under fire if a few internet bodies can get him so worked up. I suppose we'd all be dead at the bottom of a shell hole by now. Toast& marmitechat 20:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
So failure to condone kiddy fucking = wife and kids away for the weekend? Strange household YOU must live in to reach that conclusion. And why is it that you are all allowed to edit my user space, as well as this main space, while I am barred to prevent the right to reply? Don't like the truth, hm?
Blocked for reason...? Didn't support your world view? Fucking nazi. — Unsigned, by: Fox / talk / contribs
Godwin's law. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ duuudddeee... 20:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Funny how only atheists quote their self-affirming Godwins Law. Its like an internet masturbation thing for the MTV generation, right? Fucking knob. Fox 20:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually it's more like a "bring up a Nazis and you look like a fucking idiot thing." But take it however you want Fox, and I'm sure you take it in a lot of different ways. SirChuckBEl...ipses are Cool... 20:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Who rattled your cage? Whitey looked at you the wrong way today or something? Fox 20:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

{variable i=hitler}
while i=1
set headless chicken mode=1
begin headless chicken mode
DogPMarmite Patrol 20:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Fox: You've retired, why don't you fuck off? Toast& marmitechat 20:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
If you are so concerned about my retirement, leave my user space alone, you bitter, sexless, shrivelled old hag. Fox 20:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
How's that search for a diff where one of us actually "condone kiddy fucking" going? --Kels 21:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Like a roundabout here. I seriously can't tell whether I'm in 2009 and 2007. While I have some sympathy for you, Fox, hate for hate is a pretty lousy way to argue. --䷉䷻䷶䷈䷰䷒䷰䷈䷶䷈䷡䷶䷀䷵䷥

Seriously though, I've never seen anyone ask to be retired, then start shit all day... Go down to the massage parlor adn spring for the happy ending Fox. You need it. SirChuckBEl...ipses are Cool... 00:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is it that those who come here and accuse everyone of being intolerant and fascists are actually the most foul-mouthed and intolerant themselves? Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 02:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why we're getting all in a welter about this. This behavior is part of Fox's cycle. As one of his victims in the past, we just need to block him when his "unfunny vandalism" goes over the top and make the length of the block equal to the period it takes him to sober up. A day should do it. This isn't about morals or ideology. the last thing this is about is pedophilia. This is about standards of behavior. Fox's tantrum clearly has violated these standards (even if we have never written them down*). We wouldn't think twice about blocking others (me for example) for saying the same things. It is only because he has some sort of cachet as former CP royalty that we are twisting over what to do.

  1. * No overtly racist sexist language directed at individuals (excluding parody, satire, etc) and certainly no calling anyone a "a spotty teen with a child-porn fixation" Me!Sheesh!Mine! 14:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)