Information icon.svg Results for the 2023 RationalWiki Moderator Election have now been posted. Thank you for participating in this election, and congratulations to the winners!

RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive45

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>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <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>
, (new)(back)

New template system[edit]

Hi all. By now you might have noticed a bit of goings on so allow me to explain what the fight is about.

Nx has created a base template called Template:Messagebox, it has a very well defined style of an image with text to the right of it. As part of the re-branding he has given it a water mark background of the RationalWiki brain.

If you are seeing this instead of your message, type 2= before your message.

Under no circumstances should anyone edit this template. It has been used on nearly 6,000 pages, most notably on all CP screenshots (of which there are over 5,600 you obsessive people).

What makes it awesome is there is no need to edit it. There are three parameters. The first is the image, you can choose one of about 9 or add you own as you normally would. Parameter two is the text. Examples:

The optional third parameter is the class. This parameter is hugely powerful option that loads all the templates style parameters. Several are already set up in the common.css, you can add them on indefinitely. This has a huge number of advantages

  1. Savings on the server load, as when you edit the style of a template in the common.css it will not get added to job queue. User will see the changes as they update their style sheets (you computer will do this, but you can force it by using ctrl-F5).
  2. Consistency in the style of the wikis templates making us look more professional.
  3. It looks like MediaWiki will be changing over the next few versions. This should hopefully keep us a head of the curve, especially if the old html tags are phased out.
  4. If you are using an unusual set up, say those new widescreen monitors I am to poor to afford, you can customise the appearance using your own monobook.css

Basically do the mob like this new template system? Keep in mind all it actually is a box with a picture on the left, with text to the right of it, everything else is customisable in the common.css. - π 07:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hell yes. Forward Nx a drink from me for the hard work! I really like the water mark, it's subtle features like that that makes me think "21st Century Internet" rather than the fairly bland and plain feel you get from websites that just seem just short of a decade behind the times. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 10:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Looks great to me. The water mark is a lovely touch. –SuspectedReplicantretire me 10:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay here a few examples:

Warning icon.svg This project page has been nominated for deletion. The reason given is "it lacks goat".
Please discuss this assassination attempt on the talk page.
File.svg This page is dead, but is being retained as an archive. Please do not edit it!
This page has either outlived its usefulness, or, through neglect and/or disinterest, become unused. If you wish to reinvigorate it, bring it up on the talk page.
BrainMop.jpg As a confirmed mustard jar for taking on this job as a Sysop on RationalWiki: I pledge to only block users if they ask for it, or insert unfunny vandalism. I furthermore pledge that if I indulge in secret private conversations about you, we will make a formal report to the mob. Is that all? If you impugn my motives without warrant, or challenge my "AUTHORATIE", er, there is nothing I can or will do.

Any opinions when you see them in action? - π 10:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't fully understand the technical issues but they look good to me with the exception of the watermark on the white/blank one. It makes me want to clean my monitor.--BobNot Jim 12:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The delete or sysop template? - π 12:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The sysop template. But I don't think it's a big issue. I like the idea.--BobNot Jim 12:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
We can colour it for you. - π 12:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The challenge will be for new templates for new editors. If you don't know there's a system but you are wiki-savvy, it will lead to confusion. Not a huge hurdle per se, but it can be expected. Sterile ferret fancier 13:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's much of an issue there. 90% of anyone making a template will just copy one that already exists as it's just easier that way (even if you are wiki-savvy, in fact, probably more so if you're wiki-savvy). I think people will notice how to use the message boxes and the documentation explains it well enough. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 14:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll add all the classes to the doc as well. It is three parameters, how can we go wrong? *sits back and waits for the inevitable melt down of the server*. 22:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
PS They are pretty. Sterile ferret fancier 18:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
You sure do got a purdy template thar DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 19:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
I was so impressed with Nx for this. - π 01:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
While this is very interesting and perhaps prettier, I am struck by how differently this was handled than most issues on this site. A template is created, and by the time "input" is requested, it "cannot be edited"? Contrast that with the recent long discussion and feedback over changing the logo. A moment ago I saw a template that did not "obey the new rules" when I edited a page without being logged in. What happens now if someone wants to "support" their new template the easy way, by adding its image and formatting (ie, border style) to the template? Who decided what images and styles would be supported? The current crop are fairly narrow to choose from, I only see a couple of border colors. What if someone wants to make one with a solid green border? Where, indeed, was any discussion on this issue before it was implemented - and implemented in a way that any sysop can now grind the site down to a standstill? In absentia 03:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
While I agree that there should have been discussion before implementing these, I am struck by how rude some of the reactions were. I would have been pretty upset if someone threw out my work with comments like "smearing bad formatting all over the site" and "wrecking all the boxes on the site" Pathetic transparent sock 11:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Reverting an edit isn't really "throwing out work". Those comments were made after two days of simple questions not being answered, in frustration. While I agree quite a few near the end were quite out of line, so is embarking on a major project affecting the look and feel of the site not only without preliminary discussion, but also not discussing it when asked - and, in fact, rudely turning down simple requests regarding the formatting. In absentia 20:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
More colours and styles can be added it just takes a bit of CSS know how rather than the old html tags, Human. The reason it can't be edit is because it is being used of the new Template:CP screenshot of which there are 5,600 inclusions. - π 05:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Are there clear instructions on how to do that somewhere? In absentia 20:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I repeat my ignored question. I'm trying to make a template fit the new fascist RW mold, but I don't know how to do it. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Two tumbleweeds rolling across the screen, from left to right.

We'll get there. I am busy with other stuff at the moment, I'll right some instructions as soon as I feasibly can. - π 03:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

While, in principle, I like the new messagebox system, I do feel that we are losing some identity. I recently tried to edit without logging in and got a bland warning icon. Previously we had the 'ceiling cat' and despite being slightly averse to the preponderance of felines on RW, I felt that this added some humour to an otherwise dry yet important issue. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 09:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
You can revert it. It is just I edit from IP at uni sometimes and have always hated it so I took the opportunity to change it. - π 09:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to do anything unilaterally but perhaps we could incorporate some of the whimsy into the new system? It doesn't even have to be the same picture, maybe we could ask Karajou to come up with something. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?

Getting our house in order - the logarithm in our own eye[edit]

One of the things we criticise CP for regularly is its violation of copy-right with regards to images. Sometime later this week I am going to run a bot across all the image files to find the ones that are incorrectly documented and place them in a category saying that they have no licensing template. To that ends, does anyone know of a licensing template that is not on this list or the Template:Fair use? I am also going to create two new ones, one for work that you upload that is your own private copy-right which you are licensing only for use of RW and those you have gained permission from the copy-right holder for the use only on RW; I will add these to the drop down menu on the upload screen.

BTW, I have noticed a new template saying we don't know the copyright of images and we don't care - that is not really expectable. The onus is on the uploader to check the copy-right status, before they use the picture. - π 01:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

"we don't care" Check the edit history on that one. In absentia 01:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay that was just template unknown before it was fixed. - π 01:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I have now made Template:Rw-licence‎‎. I might add an optional name parameter to it though. - π 01:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
The RW-licence is pretty useful. Might give me the incentive to start making more illustrations. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 09:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay done - I hope[edit]

Alright I have finished running my bot. There is a Template:Nolicence that indicates that the images does not have licensing template on it. If you want to check out what you have uploaded that does not have a licence on it put:

createdby = Yourname
namespace = File
uses = Template:Nolicence 

in your sandbox. - π 11:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I am going to run the bot again over the less than 30KB images as it seems to have missed a few. I will be doing it in very small chunks, probably after backup has run this evening. - π 01:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Common images[edit]

There are a few images marked with the no-licence template (like this one) that are so common that finding the copyright notice for them would be next to impossible. While "it's found all over the internet" of course isn't an excuse for copyright violation, could we possibly use a different template for these.

Warning icon orange.svg This image does not have have an image copyright notice. However, its prevalence on the internet may mean that tracking down copyright information is impractical or even impossible. If you are the copyright holder of this image and do not agree to its use on Rational Wiki, please see our copyright violations policy.
This image was uploaded:

Or something like that. It's obviously not perfect, but it recognises the practicalities of the situation as being far more difficult. Defining "prevalence" objectively and clearly will be difficult, however. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 15:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

That does seem like a good idea. Do we have an name for that template? - π 23:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Not that I can thinking of. Although I think "poor excuse" would be a decent name for it. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 12:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


I think we need a copy-right notice for people that have allowed non-commercial use of their images. - π 01:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Non-commercial I just create on then. - π 01:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Autocratic move[edit]

I've changed the upload image link in the toolbox so that it preloads Template:Information, because you are too lazy to use it. Bitch here if you think this is a bad idea. -- Nx / talk 01:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Good idea actually. If we're going to host dozens of images, they need sorted. There's so many that are duplicated or only get used on one userpage when they're taking up quite a bit of space, or could be used elsewhere. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 16:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Quick, but silly, question: what would happen with the bot that puts the image copyright notice on the images if they were contained within the template? I assume it'd read the code and see it fine, but would it overwrite something or mess up in any way? Scarlet A.pngpathetic 16:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know, you'll have to ask Pi. My guess is it will add the nolicense template to the bottom of the image description page, and if there's already a copyright notice on the page it won't add anything. -- Nx / talk 16:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wanted pages[edit]

wanted pages is full of various "amendments" etc - all from a US constitution navbox template thing. Should I bot up and create zillions of redirects, or is someone going to write articles on them all? Totnesmartin (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like the thing to do is do redirects, and anyone who wants to make individual articles can go ahead and do so later. We probably will have someone do the First and Fifth, but I doubt we'll get anyone wanting to write about quartering troops.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 22:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
How about automating the template so it only lists articles in a category that it places on the page itself? That kills the red links without creating unnecessary redirects. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
What is this strange magic of which you speak? We are a simple farming people and know nothing of these things. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
If you check out some/many of our other navboxes that's the way they are setup - like, say, the internet laws one, I suspect. It shouldn't be too difficult to copypasta the dpl code and change the cat. <lazy> If you want me to try, link me to the const. navbox, k </lazy>? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll do it, I can play with my mediawiki book. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)


Go to google, and click on "I'm feeling lucky" without typing anything in. WTF is going on? Javasca₧ don't cast the first stone, and I won't throw it back 22:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a countdown to when the world ends in 2012, of course. The Goonie Punk Can't sleep, clowns will eat me! 22:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
News story.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 22:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
It was probably created as an inside joke among the Google staff. Tetronian you're clueless 22:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I tried clicking "I'm feeling lucky" after typing "RationalWiki" and the result was just the RationalWiki main page. Needs more Google bomb. --GastonRabbit (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Well what did you expect to come up? CP? Tetronian you're clueless 04:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. --GastonRabbit (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
"i'm feeling lucky" is just the top google hit, isn't it? Mind you, I did it with "the" once and got Amnesty International. Which was nice. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I just did "the" and got the Onion. Tetronian you're clueless 14:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
The google search just takes you back to the original. But anyway, Google in-jokes are awesome. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 16:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
"the" gives me The Weather Network. But that's, not the US version. --Kels (talk) 16:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
It's sometimes fun to see what the autocomplete suggests for you, but I think we've tried that game recently. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 16:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Good TV tonight[edit]

Anyone else see American Dad tonight? Loved it. Great rapture parody with Dues ex machina ending. Season finale of Dexter is on next.--Thanatos (talk) 02:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

...I am feeling a bit like they jumped the shark with the season finale of Dexter. They implemented such a change at the last moment, I am not sure if the show can continue on (at least until season 5 comes out. I mean, I can understand the full-circle that happened, that did not escape me, and I even applaud that. And this has deviated so much from the novels. God, I am so messed up right now.--Thanatos (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

E-mail fun[edit]

So, I'm sure everybody here has received e-mails from (Fill in the blank person) living in Africa who wants to wire them some million dollar sum of money, right? Well, a few days ago, I got one from an alleged woman claiming she'd wire me $8.5 million because "she's dying of cancer and needs to feel it went to a responsible person." Normally, I'd just ignore them, but this time I played along. I sent them my real name, and the phone number and address of my local FBI office (just to be safe). They then asked for my bank account information. Rather then give it to them (which would, obviously, be stupid), I told them that, in order to deposit the money, I'd need them to wire me at least $20 Western Union so that I'd know I can trust them. Turns out, they took the bate and DID, actually, send me $50 dollars (30 more than I originally asked for). Needless to say, I felt a little dirty about taking the money (even if it was from a crook), so I went down to the local Sharing and Caring Hands homeless shelter and gave them the money. Oh, and I added the supposed millionaire to my spam e-mail list. Gooniepunk2010 Oi! Oi! Oi! 01:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice work! There's a website somewhere where people list their exploits against the Nigerian fraudsters. You did well, usually all they get is a couple dollars or a postcard. Also, nice use of the smartly-gotten gains! ħumanUser talk:Human 03:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
419 Eater--Tom Moorefiat justitia 03:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Very nice work. Definitely better than the usual trick of getting them to write "I love cocks" on their forehead. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 17:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, you guys. Glad you liked my fiendish little plot. The Goonie 1 What's this button do? Uh oh.... 17:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
419 eater is awesome. Shiver Metimbers is a Real American Hero, no matter how English he is. Corry (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


Remind you of anyone? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It's my Uncle Bart, right? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 08:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
YESS!! Nicely put Randall. Now to find some way of sending it to Andy.... Tetronian you're clueless 12:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Awesome. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 17:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I added this to not even wrong, by the way. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 11:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

A trip into new-age looniness[edit]

I've finished Dan Brown's "The Lost Symbol" and it really is a trip into new-age looniness. Yes, I know it's only a novel and it's not supposed to be taken as fact; but it's presented as fact with his hero making straw man rational arguments only to have the clever Masons and their fellow travellers clue him into the "Real Truth" of "Hidden Knowledge of the Ancients". It seems that all of modern science is simply rediscovering ancient truths which are present (though hidden) in the bible and apparently any other religious text you happen to pick up. It's a bizaire mixture of pseudo-science, pseudo-history, conspiracy theory, utterly unbelievable characters with unclear motivations, magical thinking, quantum woo, logical fallacies and error. I encourage everybody to read it as comedy.--BobNot Jim 23:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because it's bullshit doesn't mean it can't be enjoyed for what it is. I liked his other books even though I knew that they were completely pseudo-science. He doesn't want you to actually believe them, he's just trying to write a suspenseful and imaginative story. Tetronian you're clueless 23:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I also enjoyed the other ones. This one is of a different order. Read it and see. :-) --BobNot Jim 06:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not convinced Brown "doesn't want you to actually believe them". At least for DaVinci Code, he seemed to imply in interviews that he believed he was writing fiction based on reality. That being said, the man knows how to write a thriller. MDB (talk) 12:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
He seems to spend quite some time in this one putting what appears to be his rather weird opinions in the mouths of characters for reasons which have nothing to do with the plot. But as I said, read it and see what you think. I don't want to say too much in case I reveal the plot.--BobNot Jim 13:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I heard him in an interview. He said he knew it was all woo, some of which happened to be inspired by real history. On the strength of having not read them, I think his is a pretty good technique for turning out these sorts of novels, kissing cousins to hysterical historical romance novels. The whole Davinci Code is real thing seems to be an astoundingly successful marketing machine. There will always be rubes who want to believe cool stuff is actually true. For instance, I'd like to think I have chance with Sandra Bullock who once said something like she was looking for an nice, ordinary guy. I'm a guy. I'm not extraordinary. I can pretend to be nice for short periods of time. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 14:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The most epic rant of all time[edit] Take a bow Mr. Jones, take a bow.Ryantherebel (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


Can you handle the manliness? In fact, do you even exist? --Kels (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It reminds me of the "Storm Saxon" show in V for Vendetta. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Fantasy Fights[edit]

Ever wonder if two powers went up against each other in an all-out battle? Like Freddy vs. Jason or AvP? Tell your fantasy fight here. Mine is Tony Montana vs. Dexter Morgan of the title of the Butcher of Miami--Thanatos (talk) 05:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thor vs. Jesus. Thor would win, for various reasons. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow what a boring idea. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
It's bound to happen in bars every once and awhile.--Thanatos (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Human vs ListenerX. In giant mecha suits. In a post-apocalyptic New York. Fighting over a damsel in distress (probably Helena Bonham Carter). Dare to call that boring? Scarlet A.pngpathetic 11:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The US Men's Olympic Diving Team vs. the US Men's Olympic Gymnastics Team... in a classical Greek wrestling match... just like the Greeks would have done it. Who cares who comes out on top wins? MDB (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Andy Schlafly vs. Stephen Colbert. Oh wait.... Tetronian you're clueless 14:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
January Jones vs Christina Hendricks, in jello. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 14:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

James Cameron's Avatar[edit]

Well, the first reviews are in, and things are looking good so far:

However when I talked about this on a forum, I got this 'interesting' response.

"They read like fucking advertisements, I think it would be best to wait for the thing to come out and the embargo to be lifted on all the reviewers who intend to do more than just function as mouth pieces for press releases.

Although they do basically confirm all my worst fears about the plot, it is pretty much exactly the story I figured it would be as soon as I saw the first preview and seems to have that same trite, tired and hypocritical "industry and military bad nature and vague spiritual bullshit good" garbage we've been hearing from the boomer generation all too often for their entire artistic history. Frankly as a proponent of the "military industrial complex" as they call it this is not a message I'm interested in hearing."

Fascinating, wouldn't you say?Ryantherebel (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Since I saw the first preview a few months ago, my opinion has been the same, and has only been confirmed by these reviews. This movie is nothing new. The special effects look slightly above average, but even then, special effects don't make the movie. The story looks very basic and boring, and I have no desire to see this movie. Cameron got too far up his own ass for this one, I think. Z3rotalk 14:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Holy fucking shit! Humans are assholes who kill the indigines! What a facinating and original plot! --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 15:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
SF film directors really need to get their act together. All they do these days is regurgitate the same old crap. For fucks sake, read some classic science fiction and or come up with some original ideas. Tetronian you're clueless 16:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Well said. When's someone going to do the Foundation trilogy? Alhough they'd probably ruin it... Totnesmartin (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Sadly they probably would ruin Foundation, since they attempt to shoehorn everything to fit into today's dumbed down mold for a sci-fi flick. What they really need is a visionary and risk-taking director to make movies that preserve the tone and intent of SF works. Regardless, I'm also waiting impatiently for Stranger in a Strange Land, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and Ender's Game. Tetronian you're clueless 18:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Foundation has almost no action, and the sum of its attraction lies in the phrasing and concepts within it. It would be incredibly boring as a movie unless it were changed beyond all recognition. Stranger in a Strange Land is a great book, albeit with the ubiquitous Heinlein dirty-old-man stand-in character running amok, and is already in development. The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress is also already in development, and we can only pray that commercial concerns grind out some of the libertarian bullshit. Ender's Game is terrible, so are its moral lessons, and so is Orson Scott Card, and I hope it never gets made.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 21:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Stranger in a Strange Land and TMIAHM are in development?!?! *jumps for joy* Actually, now that I think about it they're probably just going to turn them into the usual special effects-laden unsophisticated nonsense that passes for science fiction these days. Tetronian you're clueless 21:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's a great essay on one of the many reasons why Ender's Game is so terrible.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 22:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow. That is one hell of an essay. I agree with most of the points there, although I think some of the arguments in the second section are a bit absurd. Although it makes me want to read Ender's Game again more than anything else. Tetronian you're clueless 22:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
They will screw up Stranger and Moon just like they screwed up Starship Troopers. Honestly, I think with the concentration on the "evil businesses/empires/secret societies, good rebels" meme that pervades most movies these days the movie industry would be able to screw up Glory Road, one of Heinlein's more straightforward novels abut acculturation, acceptance and service. Imagine what will happen when they get ahold of topics like sentient AI, morality, religious distortion, salvation, acceptance and the human condition. When it comes to sci-fi movies, I don't have much hope for the genre anymore since they fucked up ST. -- CodyH (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I am still pissed about how badly they fucked up ST. The director skipped over all of the philosophically important points and just went overboard with his assumption that the book is a utopian satire of fascism, which is probably isn't. The more I think about it, the more I realize that they will probably do even worse job on Stranger and Moon, since both are heavily related to the time period in which they were written (birth of the 60's counterculture for Stranger, Vietnam War for Moon), and the writers of the screenplay/directors will undoubtedly ignore that. Worse still, I am afraid that they will completely pervert Heinlein's stance on religion as outlined in Stranger and/or fuck up his message in Moon, which (if I am interpreting it correctly) is pro-libertarian but cynical about libertarian revolution. Tetronian you're clueless 23:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Haven't seen ST, but I was disappointed at how seriously they copped out with the ending of the movie for The Puppet Masters, one of my favourites of Heinlein's. Poor sound on the copy I saw too, hard to really get the dialogue. --Kels (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Really the only major scifi book I can think of that really lends itself to the big screen is 2001, which was a movie before a book, so it doesn't really count. Hyperion might make an okay movie, and maybe Asimov's Robot series (the novels, not the short stories. Plus, I, Robot wasn't even based on the plot of the book. It came out okay, though). Let's analyze this:
  1. Foundation would need a billion dollar budget to even come out okay, and it would be like twice as long as the LoTR series.
  2. A MIAHM movie adaptation would be a slander uon his best novel. Either the libertarian themes get downplayed to the point that the novel loses its message, or ramped up to the point of insanity. I don't think a balance is even possible in a film.
  3. Don't even get me started on SIASL. My childhood has been ruined already.
  4. I haven't seen Starship Troopers, so no comment there.
  5. Oh god, please no Card movies. The books are bad enough. I especially loathe Ender's Game. Just another manifestation of adolescent power fantasies for adults that didn't grow up enough to read non-shit literature. Hate the guy. I've read the essay before, and yeah, I agree totally. Trust me, many of his novels are worse. Empire is a absolute piece of neofacist shit. Actually, I would reccommend buying and reading it just to see how he thinks. It's horrifying. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 01:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with most of that. Although I think they wouldn't be able to pull of the Robot series, either: to talky for Hollywood. Dammit, why is it impossible to put something in another medium and still have the same message? Or is it just that Hollywood producers don't give a shit about creativity and are just trying to make a quick buck? I'm guessing it's the latter. Tetronian you're clueless 02:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Avator=Starship Troopers. i.e. director coming off massive hits directs huge budgeted sci-fi spectacular involving thousands of CGI characters and some grade-B stars in plot you can't explain in one sentence and involving a story no-one cares about. Result? General disinterest. Avatar looks awful, and will not be "changing cinema forever", not a chance. That Cameron or the studio has the hubris to make such a claim augurs well for my theory - generally, the more noise they have to make about a picture, the more MIchael Bay-ish the picture is. DogPMarmite Patrol 02:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Why has no one mentioned Niven? Though I don't have the patience for Sci Fi anymore, credible and necessarily fragmented adaptions of Ring World, Integral Trees and Out of Time each have the potential to make a honking good sci fi movie. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 02:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
"2001, which was a movie before a book" Um, what planet are you from? Arthur C. Clarke, meet Stanley Kubrick, awesome film based on great book. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Scifi fail. The book and film were developed concurrently, and the book was published after the movie was released. wp:2001 (novel) --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 02:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
"The Sentinel" came first. And of course you are right, I screwed up on that. Gawd, I am so embarrassed! ħumanUser talk:Human 03:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
You know, it would be interesting if someone took a crack at E.E. "Doc" Smith's Lensman books. Lots of special effects, clear heroes and villains, very visual concept for the most part, cool aliens (Worsel!!), just the sort of thing the blockbuster boys would eat up. Practically writes itself. --Kels (talk) 03:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Just got back from seeing 2012. Terrible movie.
Tet said: I am still pissed about how badly they fucked up ST. The director skipped over all of the philosophically important points and just went overboard with his assumption that the book is a utopian satire of fascism, which is probably isn't.
I thought Starship Troopers was a great adaptation. I didn't think that there were any real philosophical points made in it, in general, even if Heinlein was trying. It was not a very good book, overall, since it basically read as a rather poor military adventure story that attempted to make up for its own shortcomings by bouncing back and forth in media res.
Worse still, I am afraid that they will completely pervert Heinlein's stance on religion as outlined in Stranger and/or fuck up his message in Moon, which (if I am interpreting it correctly) is pro-libertarian but cynical about libertarian revolution.
Moon is a good story but a lousy message, so I'm completely okay if they abandon the message. It's very libertarian, but like virtually all libertarian nonsense (Atlas Shrugged, Sword of Truth series) they have to invent absurd situations to justify their philosophy. And even then it's stupid. The Heinlein-stand-in in that book, the old professor, is so full of crap. Vivisect that sucker and make it a good action movie, is my view.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 03:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

@TomMoore: I disagree. To quote you: I didn't think that there were any real philosophical points made in [Starship Troopers]. Come on now, there were plenty of points to be made. Heinlein was discussing the role of the military and America's attitudes during the Korean War. It discusses the perceived dichotomy between capitalism and communism that was so prominent at the height of the Cold War, and like most Heinlein novels it lectures the reader on duty. The movie does none of this. While I agree that the book is horribly written, the movie did not do it justice in terms of philosophical weight.
On Moon: Moon is a good story but a lousy message. I agree, but there is more to it than that. Moon is also a novel that speculates about the Vietnam War, since it is told from Vietnam's perspective. By blending the concepts of Vietnam and the mythology surrounding the American revolution, Heinlein is questioning the nature of libertarian revolution (and perhaps satirizing it as well). True, the libertarian themes are a bit heavy, but making it into an action movie, would, in my opinion, be butchering it. Tetronian you're clueless 04:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
It discusses the perceived dichotomy between capitalism and communism that was so prominent at the height of the Cold War, and like most Heinlein novels it lectures the reader on duty.
I know. And I'm not saying it didn't try to make some points. I just thought it did so terribly and didn't make any. I was not sad to see them excised, accordingly. It's pretty much the same reason it wouldn't bother me if Edward and Bella got their bone on before marriage in the Twilight series; even though the author as a Mormon tries to make the point that it would be bad, I think she does so really poorly and so I don't care if they knock fangs early.
Moon is also a novel that speculates about the Vietnam War, since it is told from Vietnam's perspective.
In what way? Inasmuch as I can see, it just uses a few parallels about situation. Vietnam was also a hostile environment that favored the indigenous, with the war primarily being one intended to make it economically impossible to continue and politically unpalatable to wage. I don't see many philosophical parallels, though. What do you mean?
Heinlein is questioning the nature of libertarian revolution
I disagree. He is questioning the nature of libertarian governments, and instead suggesting that a state of perpetual revolution is necessary and minimal government in between. While distrust of the government is necessary, it's only in the scifi world he creates, with a deliberate devaluation of life, that his points become viable.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 04:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I see what you mean about Starship Troopers. Our disagreement is more a matter of taste: I am satisfied with Heinlein's rants and consider it to be legitimate and successful point-making; you do not. On Moon:
In terms of Vietnam: The Loonies are stand-ins for the Vietnamese: a small agrarian society in a harsh environment that does not appreciate being meddled with. Earth is of course the US, a technocratic and rich nation marked by its desire to intervene in foreign affairs, intolerance, and greed. Though the reason for their conflict in the novel differs wildly from the real war, the strategy on both sides is strikingly similar: at one point Mannie comments that the Earth has the technology and resources to win, but they can be stopped if we raise the cost of their victory high enough. This is precisely the strategy the VC used, and it was the basis for their guerilla tactics. Furthermore, during the war the Vietnamese were depicted as backwards, evil, etc. Moon flips this view on its head by blending the image of the Loonies with that of America in 1776, which was a similar situation but it has the opposite connotation. Thus, Heinlein is commenting about the war and how we see it through the juxtaposition of these two allusions.
In terms of libertarian revolution: He is questioning the nature of libertarian governments, and instead suggesting that a state of perpetual revolution is necessary and minimal government in between. I agree, but there is more to it than that. Heinlein is also satirizing libertarian revolution by depicting it as too perfect: the Loonies have Mike, who is way too good to be true in practical terms, and the tone of the book in general over-glorifies the revolutionaries even though they are essentially terrorists. (Prof and Wyoh are, at least.) Once again he uses 1776 imagery ironically to drive home the point. Yes, Heinlein sets up an artificial world much like Atlas Shrugged, but he does make some complex points that are more thoroughly grounded in reality. Tetronian you're clueless 05:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I said before that I saw the situational similarities between Vietnam and the moon. I still don't see any philosophical similarities, though. When you said the story was told from "Vietnam's perspective," did you just mean in the situation as the small poor country versus the rich distant one? Because that's obviously true, but I sure don't see any greater philosophical point there that would be lost in an adaptation.
This is precisely the strategy the VC used, and it was the basis for their guerilla tactics. Furthermore, during the war the Vietnamese were depicted as backwards, evil, etc. Moon flips this view on its head by blending the image of the Loonies with that of America in 1776, which was a similar situation but it has the opposite connotation.
Inasmuch as I can tell, he mostly glorifies the American Revolution, only pausing to ding it slightly when it came to scope and the self-interested nature of the revolutionaries. I didn't really see him trying to make a point about Vietnam, except inasmuch as the military and political situations had similarities. You seem to imply he is trying to equate the three wars in some sense, but that isn't the case. Instead, he points out their military and political similarities, but only glorifies the philosophy of the American one and doesn't touch the Vietnamese one.
Heinlein is also satirizing libertarian revolution by depicting it as too perfect: the Loonies have Mike, who is way too good to be true in practical terms, and the tone of the book in general over-glorifies the revolutionaries even though they are essentially terrorists.
I don't think he was trying to satirize that aspect. He does mention that Mike made it much easier than it would have been, and often spins off into discussions of why it could have been so much worse and so much harder for them. But it seemed to me that such circumstances were dramatic necessities... it wouldn't have been a neat narrative with good pacing if it had been more "realistic."
I will be perfectly happy if they lobotomize it.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 05:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I didn't really see him trying to make a point about Vietnam, except inasmuch as the military and political situations had similarities. You seem to imply he is trying to equate the three wars in some sense, but that isn't the case. I think he is trying to equate the wars, in a way. His main point is not about the wars themselves but about how we view them. If I am interpreting it correctly, he is saying that although the American Revolution and Vietnam are similar wars, our biased perspective makes them look like opposites. He does touch the Vietnamese mentality slightly with that concept of enduring and raising the cost of victory - as I understand it, that was America's view of the Vietnamese response to the war. I take his glorifying of the American Revolution to be satire because of how much it saturates the book and how over the top it is; I didn't think he means it seriously.
Sure, it would have been a less exciting book if it were less realistic, but the whole thing seemed to me to be too easy and too morally one-sided. Heinlein wrote hard SF and wrote some more speculative rather than didactic books (such as Stranger), so why is this one too easy and too simple? My guess is that he's mocking libertarian revolution in that sense, not glorifying it. Tetronian you're clueless 05:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Re Heinlein, I'd much rather see producers skip some of his more philosophical stuff like Stranger and Job, and make some good adventure adaptions/updates to his straight YA stuff like Tunnel in the Sky and Podykane of Mars. There's lots of fun to be had there, if anyone actually films it. I recall there was a decent animated adaption of Red Planet a while back which was fun, more of that would be nice. --Kels (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

On that note, I'd like to see "Orphans of the Sky." I read that over and over when I was in elementary school, it'd be a great movie. Tetronian you're clueless 17:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Orphans, Tunnel or even a live action version of Red Planet would rock, although I imagine the last would need to be set elsewhere now that the way Mars really looks is pretty well accepted by the public. Although I'm sure they could get away with it all the same. --Kels (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
My not so secret dream is to one day adapt Stranger into a film. I do mean adapt, 'cause nearly half it is completely unworkable (read: Jubal Harshaw) for film. --IN SOVIET CANUCKISTAN, BEAVER DAMS YOU!!!YossarianThe Man from the USSR 03:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
You'd also have to rewrite about 80% of the dialogue. It's fun and fast-paced, but boy is a lot of it corny and dated now. Plus, a good quarter of the novel, if filmed straight, would end up as porn. --Kels (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

A couple of rules of thumb to consider:

  • Adult novels are too long to make into movies without massive abridgements. Very roughly, one page of novel makes for one minute of movie. Thus, a two hour movie means a 120 page novel, which means all but the Heinlein juvies would have to be cut to pieces. Also note the movie novelizations are usually very light reading. Novellas are the write length for movies.
  • This is only partially true, but good novels lead to bad movies and bad novels can lead to good movies. Consider:
    • The Godfather movies (at least the first two) and Gone With the Wind are both classics of American cinema. The novels aren't considered anything special.
    • The Harry Potter books are great fiction. The movies, while not bad, aren't going to be cinematic classics and are pretty clearly for people who have read the books anyway.
    • One notable exception is The Princess Bride, which is a very good book and an absolutely wonderful movie. Note, though, that the book's author, William Goldman, is a screenwriter, and actually wrote the movie's screenplay. And yes, To Kill a Mockingbird is an obvious exception, too.

MDB (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

RW Poker Tournament[edit]

Peeps here up for a quick holdem poker tournament on either Tuesday or Thursday next week at 20:00 GMT? If so then sign up here. You don't need to install anything (other than flash) as the software is web based, and it's all free. It'll just be a single table tournament with max 10 seats (no limit) so we should be done in about 1 / 1.5 hours. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S. If anyone fancies playing who doesn't know how, there are tons of easy tutorials out there, and the software stops you from doing anything stupid anyway. You can also turn on a hand helper which tells you what your best hand is. So go on, give it a try! CrundyTalk nerdy to me 11:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Bump. ħumanUser talk:Human 23:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd love to, but the only card game I actually enjoy is "Uno". Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 08:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget everyone, if you're bored tonight then instead of having a barclays to some frankie vaughan why not pop in for some virtual cards with us all? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd love to play some virtual poker with y'all, but it is realistic bowling night. Perhaps next time (as long as it isn't Tuesday?) Aboriginal Noise Oh, what a lovely tea party! 11:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Could do this Thurday or another Thurs after xmas? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Thursday is definitely good for me. Aboriginal Noise Oh, what a lovely tea party! 16:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Sign your name up. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 17:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


I thought this was somewhat amusing. I have no idea how they gauge religiosity, though. Tetronian you're clueless 22:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

From polling data: "In 2006, 2007, and 2008, Gallup asked representative samples in 143 countries and territories whether religion was an important part of their daily lives. This map is based on the results, and shows religiosity by country, ranging from the least religious to the most religious on a relative basis." ħumanUser talk:Human 22:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm surprised the US isn't darker. I suppose that we only hear about the lunatics.--BobNot Jim 23:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
It's only an average figure; the results would be very, very different if it were by state/region. In the northeast, for example, the majority of people would probably say "less important." But in the Bible Belt the most common answer would undoubtedly be "very important." Tetronian you're clueless 23:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm personally interested in all of the religiosity around the equator, across the globe. Is it the hot summers that stir religious fervor, or the cold winters that discourage belief in gods?Junggai (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably that the harsher and hotter equatorial climate has a tendency to create less economically sound societies, which would explain why religion is more prominent there. I realize that is an enormous generalization, but I imagine climate ultimately has something to do with it. Tetronian you're clueless 00:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
It's been known for ages that hot whether tends to change peoples behaviors. You get more riots, for instance, and a remember one hypothesis that said that if you transplanted the whole Middle East to somewhere with cold or mostly mundane weather (like Manchester) the problem would fix itself. But if climate makes life a little more unpredictable, I can imagine that it is one of the indirect causes of religiosity. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 12:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
That seems to be the ironic thing about anti-Muslim sentiment in Europe. When typical Europeans think of Muslims, they imagine Palestinian bombers or ultra-fundamentalist women wearing all-black. In reality, they don't realize that the friendly, laid-back woman who sells them kebap around the corner is more representative of their country's Muslim population. The Minaret ban in Switzerland is a typical case. Junggai (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The same could be said of us looking at religion in America because we are so focused on fundamentalism. Tetronian you're clueless 19:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Late night thought...your capital.[edit]

Let's say by one way or another you became ruler of your own personal country, with broad powers. What would you end up naming the capital city? Something broad, egotistical, boring, absurd? The Wine of TyrantsDrunk with power again! 09:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Polis. Then I would give up my power and institute democracy.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 09:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd name it "drunxville" and make it the law that all beer be free in the capital city. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 14:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
"Fat City." Ace can tell you where that comes from. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Doomstadt, and I've name the country Latveria. Because I'm a geek who wants to be a supervillain when I grow up. MDB (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd name the country France and the capital Paris, just to confuse people. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Neo-Atlantis--Thanatos (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Bacon. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


Speaking of bowling, I just remembered something amusing that happened to me a while back which I thought y'all might like. My department at work had organised a 10 pin bowling night out, and on the day it was scheduled, myself and another guy were wandering down to the local convenience store to get a sandwich and were talking about bowling. The other guy was saying how he loves the really heavy size 16 balls because he loves to pelt them down the lane. Just as we walked into the shop (and were walking in front of the register) I said "I prefer 14's but I usually can't get my fingers in them". I got the weirdest look from the cashier before pissing myself laughing. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Answerbag has left me and my fellow AB’ers, possibly for Facebook—what am I gonna do?[edit]

"So are you leaving or staying on Answerbag?"
I like a place where one can be anonymous, have multiple accounts, and the questions are always open; one that has minimal advertisements, avatars are big, and glitches are few.
We had that in Answerbag several days ago. Now what?
Civic Cat (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Agony Aunt[edit]

I was flipping through some trashy womans magazine, reading the agony aunt column and came upon this gem -
Question: A colleague of mine has overpoweringly dreadful body odour. She is obviously oblivious to this but it has the whole office talking. I want to tell her but I am mortified at the thought of doing it. Should I be the bigger person?
Answer: Something does smell stinky but I suspect it is you. It sounds like you have something against this girl personally, and you're trying to turn the whole office against her. Grow up.
WTF? Aceof Spades 21:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The answer is in the question: as you said it was a "trashy women's magazine." Do you really think they put time or effort into what they publish? Tetronian you're clueless 21:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)'re trying to turn the whole office against here and I bet you want to censor prayer in the office too. This is what happens when people believe in relativity.
DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 02:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm more interested to know why Ace was reading a "trashy womans magazine" in the first place. Any explanation? --User:Theautocrat/Sig 02:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There were the lesser known characters - Disgruntled Goat... Uncle Ant... Klu Klux Klam. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 02:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

One less Evangelical nutjob.[edit]

Oral Roberts, noted extortionist? Dead"called home to the Lord". TheoryOfPractice (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Just saw that myself. Funny....I'm not sobbing uncontrollably. DickTurpis (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I should be glad or not give a fuck... — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 21:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm neutral to it. Though I don't wish death upon people simply for being fundamentalists, I will not mourn him whatsoever. Tetronian you're clueless 21:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad he's no longer extorting money from the stupid, then using it to make other people stupid (and charging them for it). — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 21:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I didn't get around to donating my life savings, and the Lord still took him? What a gyp! Aboriginal Noise Oh, what a lovely tea party! 21:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I heard legends that he would bellow "HEAL!" at people to try to cure their ills. I suppose he failed to use the technique on himself. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Dude assumed room temperature hours ago, still no mention on CP. Their article is pretty neutral--is he persona non grata somehow? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd never wish death on (nearly) anyone, but he's not exactly a great loss. I remember Chris Hitchens's strikingly honest comments after Falwell's death... DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 01:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

@Aboriginal Noise - Wes does this mean we've moved into a three way tie? Look at me force overtime with only two weeks to go. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 02:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure looks like it (for those reading, this is a death poll we do with a friend and his wife). You know the case of beer carries over to the next year if there is a tie. Aboriginal Noise Oh, what a lovely tea party! 02:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Dancing on fresh graves is so unbecoming. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Puerile thread is puerile. Dumbasses. --User:Theautocrat/Sig 04:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


Just seen. Way better than District 9. But maybe because it has more of a "I was there" feeling. --PsygremlinTal! 12:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Didn't see District 9, but I will try to see Invictus. Tetronian you're clueless 12:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Kent Hovind's Dissertation[edit]

It's up and ready to read here. Please waste no time in taking a look -- it's worth it.

Typical quote: "I believe that the earth is young and Darwin's theory is not only unscientific, it is absolutely stupid." (everything sic), p. 93. Junggai (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, it is fun (it's been linked on his page since last Thursday). As a dissertation it rivals "Budgie the Helicopter". I am eating Toast& honeychat 17:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
It's absolutely hilarious. It reads like a poor first year research paper, and is filled with obvious errors (Democrates != Democritus). For god's sake, it's full of anecdotes, and even has a poem Hovind wrote about atheists! PubliusTalk 17:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it might be killing the wikileaks server. How big is that damn thing anyway? I've tried to load it twice (now and a day or two ago) and all I get is fail, sadly. Is it posted anywhere else yet? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Haven't read it all yet but it is hilarious. His writing and grammar skills are almost as bad as mine, and yet he calls it a "doctoral dissertation." Tetronian you're clueless 21:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Has it been confirmed that it's the real McCoy and not parody? I just downloaded it and it looks pretty damn puerile. Then again, is this from an actual university? DickTurpis (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
After reading a little more of it, I can't shake the feeling that it is parody. My high school wouldn't accept writing of this quality. Is he really that dumb? Tetronian you're clueless 21:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, the "university" in question is in fact an unaccredited ranch-style home in Colorado. Nuff said. DickTurpis (talk)

I'm new at the uploading thing. Someone please tell me if this is kosher. Junggai (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading it, but I suspect there might be a strong copyright reason not to have it here. I think wikileaks gets away with it by living in Kenya or something. ħumanUser talk:Human 22:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
If we run some side-by-sides on it then we should be allowed to have it because of fair use. Tetronian you're clueless 22:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I added the link to Wikileaks, which was found on PZ Myers site, here [1] (via Richard Dawking's site). CS Miller (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Have both Myers and Dawkings been taken in? With PZ's comment #6 and Skip Even's comment #110 on PZ's site I doubt it. CS Miller (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
That is such a poorly written piece of crap. Funny, though. If it's real. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I've just started reading it, and I do think it's real. Is it any wonder why Hovind or Patriot* bible 'university' don't let anyone read it, unlike pretty much every other dissertation ever written? (*Why do 'Merrrikan bible-bashers equate Jesus-loving with patriotism?) PS. DPRJones has a vid up on YT where he's enquiring about these 'Doctoral' courses... DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 02:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
For me, there's no question that at least it's the same dissertation Karen Bartlett reviewed several years ago (link can be found on our own Kent Hovind page). That's strong evidence for its authenticity. Junggai (talk) 09:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
He got one thing right though. 'Christians are often guilty of neglecting or twisting the Bible to fit their lifestyle or their preconceived ideas.' EddyP (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

On the blog linked above, someone mentioned that it seemed truncated - 1) two few pages (120 vs. 250), 2) too few chapters (4 vs 13?), and they mentioned a lack of references. If you look at the last page, it just sort of ends with that "These honest questions deserve an honest answer. ... I believe Jesus was right" paragraph, which seems like more of an introduction to what is to come rather than a conclusion. The refs would have all come at the end if there were any. Ergo, I think it is incomplete. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

For doubters, it's real, by the way, and he's drawn some flak from it. See here and the bastion of liberal bias, wikipedia. EddyP (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The coming decade[edit]

Just wondering what people expect to see happen in the 2010s, whether in politics, culture, science, CP or what have you... Totnesmartin (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I see bad things for YOU. Aceof Spades 23:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
GPS enabled smart phones will become ubiquitous, change absolutely everything and will be as big a deal as the internet. The apocalypse which thus far has gotten off to a slow start will begin in earnest. By 2020 drinking water will be insanely expensive by today's standards. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 23:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I have a guess that people will get interested in paranormal stuff again - it seems to come and go in 20-year cycles. I think the last couple of decades of increasing democracy will reverse - governments will use the excuses of "security" "fighting crime" etc to supervise people more and more. Iran will get the bomb. Totnesmartin (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
So this is it. We're going to die. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Giant robots for use in war!--Thanatos (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
We won't all die, don't worry, some of us will just be horribly mutated. Aceof Spades 00:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the expensive drinking water is an interesting thought. The fact that the reserves we pull drinking water from all seem to be declining could be a massive long term problem and doesn't get talked about much. I agree that governments will supervise people more, and it will get much easier for them to do so. Also, it will get easier for them to do so without the average citizen noticing (do YOU know how often the FBI has accessed your cell phone's GPS log this year?). Robots are and will be used for fighting and will increasingly be used for everything else that people would rather not do themselves. I don't know about the 20 year cycles on paranormal interest. We'll see. OneForLogic (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The developed world have to start dealing with energy as a real problem if we are to get by. Sterile ferret fancier 02:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Communist! - user:ListenerX ħumanUser talk:Human 06:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Reds are too obsessed with class warfare to give a hoot about the environment; those are more the green anarchists. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 17:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of obsession... LX gets the 2009 RWWWW award for extreme generalization. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify. I don't think the ubiquity of GPS enabled smart phones is going to be a bad thing. I think it will be a big consumer services boom, the details of which I'm a little fuzzy on. Oh yeah and Uncle Sam will know the number, frequency and pattern of our visits to various public restrooms, not that there is anything wrong with that. I think nearing the limits of potable water as well as cheap energy will mark the beginning of a long, slow motion apocalypse. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 17:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Y2K redux[edit]

Can none of you count? The next decade does not start until 1/1/2011. - π 01:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going into a business where "rough" is spelled "RUFF", and you're asking me to COUNT!? --Kels (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
@Pi: I hate to sound stupid here, but how do you figure that? Tetronian you're clueless 02:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Because there was no year "zero." The first decade went from 1-10 AD CE, the second from 11-20 CE, and so on...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Silence fools. There are two conflicting views, one that a decade ranges from XX01-XX10, and another that it goes from XX00-XX09. They are both perfectly legitimate, so it is like quibbling over "humor" versus "humour". Also, what business are you going into, Kels? --User:Theautocrat/Sig 02:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Animation. And yes, it actually does involve a lot of counting and keeping track of stuff. Plus geometry. --Kels (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Now then now then NOW THEN! Pieman is indeed correct; however although we are not coming to the end of this decade, we ARE coming to the end of the 'noughties', so it's a good time to reflect back on them. Also, it is 'humour'. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 02:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
oh, but the "odometer" effect is sooooo much more compelling. 09>10 coolish; 10>11 yawn. Sterile ferret fancier 02:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The rules for defining decades are not the same as defining centuries. We number centuries chronologically, so the 1st century is 1-100, the 2nd is 101-200, etc. Decades, however, are defined by the 2nd digit number. The 1960s are 1960-1969. I don't think anyone would define the 60s as 1961-1970. So yes, it's the end of the noughts, but not the end of the 1st decade of the millenium. DickTurpis (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so numbering pedantry aside, what about naming? I have never used the term "noughties" (except for just now and other places where I've made this same point) but have kind of reluctantly accepted its use just like "nineties" or "forties" (90s, 40s). But what about this next one? Tenties? Onesies? I think that's the most pressing issue we face in the next two weeks. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 15:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Leaving the inaccuracy aside I think the 'teens is likely to be what our Alien Overlords call the decade after 2020. Naturally, since we will have our speech organs burned out we won't have to call it anything. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 17:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


I've created Template:Hatnote to consistently format hatnotes ("where you looking for...", Template:Moved, Template:Movedto (two slightly different templates that do the same thing, hurray) etc.). Because my past attempts at bringing order to chaos have met with resistance, I'm not going to pursue this, and I'll leave it to you to fix the existing hatnotes, if you want to. The template uses css to do the indentation and italicization, so you need to add this to MediaWiki:Common.css.

Also we need a new category for these that could include Template:Cp and friends, but I can't think of a good name. -- Nx / talk 08:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Why hatnotes? We don't have shoenotes, so shouldn't it be headnotes? Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 11:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
wikt:hatnote -- Nx / talk 12:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
If this was a music wiki, we could have sleevenotes too. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
We might need socknotes, too... ħumanUser talk:Human 22:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand what that template is supposed to do. Currently it doesn't appear to do anything. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
It does this, i.e. it indents the text and italicizes it. But it uses css to do that instead of wikicode, and since I can't edit Common.css, it does nothing for you. -- Nx / talk 21:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I stuck it on the end of common.css [2] for you. I hope I did it right, please check my work? ħumanUser talk:Human 21:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
That's right, thanks. -- Nx / talk 21:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. Is that where we break things edit to make custom formatting for messagebox? ħumanUser talk:Human 22:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes. See the documentation on Template:Messagebox -- Nx / talk 22:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, ok, yes, I had read that before. It's not very clear - for instance, it doesn't say where to add that stuff, or how to get a new version to use the new info. It also doesn't really list what can be css'ed. I know you guys are trying to explain this stuff, but you already know it so well it's hard for you to write instructions in a way that a person who has never edited css to follow. Based on what I did above for Nx, it's obviously fairly simple, but I suspect it's also really easy to make a huge mess. I'll keep trying to understand. Oh, also, if I were to try to get it right in order to improve the instructions, I can use my own monobook thingie as a sandbox that only affects how I see things, right? ħumanUser talk:Human 03:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you can use that as a sandbox. As for the css instructions, that would probably be best on a separate help page. I didn't want to clutter up the messagebox doc with a Css 101. -- Nx / talk 09:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Easy way to just search for images that don't have a copyright notices on them?[edit]

Yup. Anyone know of an easy way to locate the images that lack copyright notices? I'd like to gradually run through them to see if they can be correctly licenced. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 22:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You can use the categories. -- Nx / talk 22:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Or to search for the ones you uploaded:
createdby = Π
namespace = File
uses = Template:Nolicence|Template:Nolicense
- π 22:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
He has none though. -- Nx / talk 22:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Nx/Pi, thanks. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 22:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
One thing I forgot to ask: Do you see any problems in me deleting orphan images that have been uploaded (at least 6 months back) that aren't being linked to anything? Apprehensive_Kitty.jpg is an example of something that just seems to be sitting around looking apprehensive but not doing much else. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 23:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
If it has a free licence leave it we might use it one day, if not check with the uploader, if they are no longer active I say go ahead although others may disagree. Check what links here as well as what uses the image, we sometimes use images indirectly in articles. - π 00:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Also remember that deletion does not save HDD space. The image is still there, just no non-sysops can access it. Right? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Pretty much. It might still be accessible through the full url, I have never tried. - π 02:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins on Oz TV[edit]

Richard Dawkins will be Andrew Denton's guest on Elders next Monday evening. Denton usually does a decent, non-confrontational interview. The broadcast will be UTC+9 - +12, depending on Oz timezones. It should be available on the website later. I'm posting now as I'm off on holidays tomorrow, with no reliable internet for a week or so. Hope the interview is a good one. RagTopGone sailing 13:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


Having spent most of the day marking just four undergraduate lab reports (and remarking four more fuck ups), I'm starting to see why a certain individual we all know likes to just give a quick glance at any text and just say "10 out of 10, will use as model" instead of doing it properly. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 17:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

And on a related note, it's always good to see them citing Wikipedia! Scarlet A.pngpathetic 17:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I always wonder if the academics who contribute to Encyclopedia Britannica weep whenever they see someone do that. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I've pondered slipping some false information into the relevant article for a week or so to see how often it pops up in lab reports. I should really read the reference papers on there to make sure they say what they say they do. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 11:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
@RA:as long as they cite the WP:Bivalvia article, they should be OK. Half of that I nicked from my Britannica cd-rom. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I thought that all of the initial Wikipedia stuff was copied from an out-of-copyright version of Britannica (1919?). Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 07:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Lots of it was from the 1911 Britannica, and I still find parts of it in articles about old artists, saints etc. There used to be a template about it but I din't know if they have it now. Bivalvia definitely wasn't from the 1911, though, because it was shite. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Most of the original articles were pulled from US census data, that is why any physical location is "notable". They just had scripts that pulled information about census zones and created articles on them. - π 00:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I've always viewed lab reports as the intellectual equivalent of rice cakes. Sterile ferret fancier 15:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't aware lab reports where crunchy and taste good with peanut butter. I'll have to try some now. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The past decade[edit]

What were uyour personal highlights of the last ten years? What were the lowlights? Totnesmartin (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I got engaged, traveled extensively worldwide and kicked several nasty addictions. Hurrah! Oh and lowlights would be a sick family member, a couple of deaths, career issues and the picking up of several new addictions. Aceof Spades 23:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Finished high school, got my Eagle Badge, experienced the death of my high school sweetheart, discovered philosophy, watched my father remarry, finished college, traveled across Japan and Korea and Tunisia and France and Italy and Spain, started graduate school. Been an eventful decade. Maybe the next one will be quieter, but I doubt it.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 23:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Moved from NZ to Australia, secured a good job, met my current partner, retained serveral addictions, gained 10 kilos, lost 10 kilos. As for the downside the only major one's were a sick family member and one dead cat (remember Ace??).Rad McCool (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah, dead cat, but that didn't really bother me so much. Aceof Spades 00:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Married, divorced, drink, therapy. Then BA, MA, fell madly in love, married again, moved to a new country, started a Ph.D. Got a bitchin' cat. And a mandolin. Wasted too much time on the Internet. Went to Africa. More therapy. Fell in love with New York. And Vancouver. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 00:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Got out of an abusive relationship, had a number of other flings, got in and out of BDSM, had an increasing and then declining interest in Paganism, moved to a different province for the first time ever and had a relationship with a sociopath that ended dramatically, started a new career, ended same career, started another new career (still pending education), became a photographer, became an artist, gave up being a writer, got involved with the local queer community and eventually drifted away from it, volunteered with various festivals, got tattooed (twice), was publicly naked, seen people on the verge of death, lost contact with friends, regained contact with friends, made new friends, lost others, and found RationalWiki before it officially existed. All told, nothing out of the ordinary. --Kels (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Stopped taking recreational drugs, stopped smoking, stopped drinking, resumed drinking, bought my first home, admitted that I had a 'proper' girlfriend, resumed smoking, left long-term employer, embarked on new line of work, became an anti-theist (from being an apathetic atheist), discovered conservapedia, wrote this. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 02:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Drank. Sailed. Drank. Had a good time, all in all. DickTurpis (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

wow you guys are WEIRD User:FineCheesesUser talk:FineCheeses 04:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought I was a bit boring, really. I didn't even mention spending two weeks in an 18-wheeler or creating a reference library from scratch. --Kels (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
That's an understatement. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
No, really. It was exactly two weeks. --Kels (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Found RW. Wasted a lot of time on the internet. Got older. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I had a good decade I guess, still alive though with a fatty liver. Had a shit shit shit shit year though. Aceof Spades 05:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I found this thing called the internet, Started a band, restarted a band, joined a band, was in a film, became a pagan and a vegetarian, had a succession of lame blogs, wrote about shellfish on Wikipedia for a month, moved to Totnes, didn't have a cat but did have an eye operation. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Fell in love and got a job with a great company (named one of the ten best places to work in the DC area by one magazine's survey, and got an honorable mention in a similar list at another magazine). Oh, and lost almost 300 pounds. That's not a typo. MDB (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Performed on stage, became a DJ, saw 2 total eclipses, quit corporate life and started own business. Still not starving, so must be doing something right. Managed to remain firmly single and set in my ways. --PsygremlinHable! 17:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow. My decade will sound unbearably bland compared to everyone else's. Let's see...started the decade in public school. Ended it in public school (last year of it, though). A bunch of "exploded in the hangar" relationships, one good one. And...that's it. Tetronian you're clueless 18:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Partied way too hard. Fell in love. Got a BS I hardly use. Had a horrible breakup. Couple relationships with some chicks that were probably out of my league. Still at this fucking job. But I recently bought my first house, so we're kind of on an up tick. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Cut my long hair short, graduated, taught myself to play guitar, graduated again (MA), made friends, alienated friends, met girls, alienated girls, became a lot more self-aware, moved out of family home, travelled, spent too long in soul-destroying jobs, emotional problems, therapy, started a band, realised I can't really play, left work, made some more bad decisions, moved back in with parents, spent a year unemployed, got a good job & moved out again, grew my hair long. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
That reminds me...I forgot half a dozen backpacking trips around the Europe ;) — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Me 'at blew off. Real first name and last initial (talk) 10:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


Over at ask, Philip has proposed an experiment that he claims will indicate the existence of a supernatural being. Hence, we're doing a bit of experiential learning here, and we're going to do an experiment. If you are an editor there, please come on over and participate. Sterile ferret fancier 17:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. It looks a lot like Javascap's "two pens" thing, & I don't see how either of them can prove anything. Also, can you link to where PJR proposed this - the page linked above seems to be your own work. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That's kinda the point. (ADD: It's a discussion of falsifiability. This is what Philip proposed is an experiment to falsify the supernatural....) The ref is in the experiment page: [3] Sterile ferret fancier 17:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Some similar data from another experiment conducted by staunch theists, just how many thousands of people were fervently praying for Oral Roberts, but he died anyway? Either that means there's no supernatural element and he died just like anyone else, or God said "fuck you" to his most fervent followers. Which is more likely, hm? --Kels (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
It reminds me a bit of the cursing experiment we tried to get off the ground here a while ago.--BobNot Jim 18:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, what came of that? Did the neopagans ever respond? I think some aren't delusional enough to want to embarrass themselves, while others are so delusional that they don't want to harm you with their curses. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
They sent us Marcus. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
"Your experimental premise is flawed, because I have already asked God not to respond to any such requests. Fortunately, his refusal to respond to your requests is confirmation that he is responding to my request." heh heh heh Scarlet A.pngpathetic 18:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll have to figure out how better to incoporate tricksters like Martin into my "experimental" "design." Sterile ferret fancier 19:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
(EC2) The notice went up on the witching forum, and then the Wiki crashed. Speculations were made that this occurrence was not coincidental. The only response I ever got was an e-mail ranting about how "WE DON'T CARE THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN THE MAGICAL LIFE!" Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 18:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Shame 'cause it could have been fun. Ah well. Perhaps we could try cursing each other?--BobNot Jim 18:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
That, I could have predicted. People are all very happy saying "yeah, respect our beliefs, they're just as valid as yours!!" until you respond with "prove it" (a useful phrase for getting people to shut up, I find, I once said it to someone who was declaring how good they were in bed). Scarlet A.pngpathetic 18:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Most religions in which magic is an element utilize orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy, so it does not matter whether the magic is believed in or not. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 19:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
That's a good thing, especially since "magick" is a little less than real. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, I think this whole experimentation thing is aiming a bit high. Instead of immediately going after the ultimate Mary Sue God himself, why not go after something smaller? I know Bradley believes in demons, and they're said to be very interested in screwing around with humans. So why not look for evidence of them? --Kels (talk) 13:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Other than "the gays", you mean? Me!Sheesh!Mine! 14:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
You might also look for shovel marks where Satan buried all those fossils. --Kels (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, science textbooks Me!Sheesh!Mine! 01:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Paying for RW[edit]

Since the last thread got archived thought I would sneak another in. Short summary of the issue: due to a strike action at my university I am extremely short on my pay checks till end of January. Thanks to donations from wonderful users I was able to get the December internet bills paid off, but I still need a little more for January. My end of January pay check will be back to normal and we should be good to go again. The call for financial support is consistently met by the same people, and I appreciate them immensely. However, we should spread the load! If you are new to RW or havent given a few buck yet, please think about it. A $2-$3 from even half our daily users is plenty to get us over this hump. tmtoulouse 18:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I do think it might be time I stepped up to the plate. Aceof Spades 18:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
You have my continued support. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 18:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I guess it is time to pony up... — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
There. I did it. I hope you're happy and that my hard earned money doesn't go towards drugs or fMRI machines or something. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I earn my money by kidnapping orphans and selling their kidneys, so you're welcome to it. Eases my conscience a little. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 19:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Sort of embarrassed I never gave before (in my defense, I was unemployed for a while, and I sort of hate paypal for some reason), but now I have. Hope it helps. DickTurpis (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hm...may I mail you cash? Tetronian you're clueless 20:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't you have a bank account? — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Cash would be much easier, if possible. Tetronian you're clueless 20:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, someone has their nose in it? If you have a bank account and don't want to do paypal, I'd go to your bank and get a cashier's check. They're usually free for account holders. Don't mail cash. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense. Will do. Tetronian you're clueless 20:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
My student loan check will be here very soon. Corry (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm looking forward to feeling better about myself than the rest of the mooches here. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Not if I feel better about myself first! Tetronian you're clueless 20:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Trent, I'll kick you another $20 for a cratship. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 20:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Trent--can we send $ to the McM U address? Sterile ferret fancier 20:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Trent: Email me your account number and sort code and I'll set up a standing order (saves on the transaction fees). CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's that easy tansferring money from a UK bank account to a foreign account. You have to use Swift or something like that and it has a heavy fee of something like £20 per transaction, OK for large amounts but not regular small amounts. I have been double pi-ing through Pay-Pal ever since the first call for support went out. I'd certainly recommend Pay-Pal for small sums of money. It takes a small cut but it's worked fine for me. I'd offer myself as an intermediary (you put cash in my account and I pay RW) but the exchange rates fluctuate and I might find myself on the wrong-side of a currency movement. Trent pays his bills in $ so it's much better to set up your regular payment as a dollar denominated amount. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 23:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking about this earlier. If all the UKain Rationalists gave their donation to one person, we could reduce the paypal's cut or even make it worthwhile sending money some other way. Of course that person would have to be trusted knowing who donated how much, and trust none of use to be cads with their bank details. (I've already donated this time around). CS Miller (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that would be an advantage. This claims to describe the paypall charging structure.--BobNot Jim 07:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Why are people so reluctant to use Pay-pal??? Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 20:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
No idea. I do it all the time and I've had no problems. My bank only charges 18p for converting to dollars too. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Reading the Bible in public school[edit]

So in my high school english class we just finished studying the Bible. There were a few interesting things about the whole ordeal that I wanted to bring up. First, the teacher was very careful not to violate the Establishment Clause. At no point were we told that the Bible is true; we studied it as we would a book of fiction. We were also given the choice to "opt out" in private if we felt uncomfortable. The rationale for teaching it - which I understand and agree with - is that it is the basis for much of Western literature, and many American works make strong allusions to the Bible. Second, reading it actually made people more skeptical/doubtful than they were beforehand - they were surprised at the amount of violence in the Old Testament and were shocked by how God acts like such a moralistic, malevolent bully. Andy, if you're reading this, you can suck it - everything you've said about Bible studying in school is basically false. Tetronian you're clueless 00:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

In English we had a priest come into class to explain the theology behind some of the events in Hamlet. The bible needs to be taught along with the Greek classics if you are going to have any hope of understand English literature at all. - π 02:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Seconded. The KJV and Shakespeare are probably the two most powerful influences on the development of modern English. --IN SOVIET CANUCKISTAN, BEAVER DAMS YOU!!!YossarianThe Man from the USSR 03:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Didn't Isaac Asimov argue that Shakespeare was so influential, the English language would never evolve to the point its current speakers could not readily understand Shakespeare? (Incidentally, anyone who claims they 'can't understand Shakespeare' has never experienced is as it was intended be -- performed. Some of the specific words will give the modern listener trouble, but a well-produced stage or screen version can be understand with a decent level of concentration.) MDB (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Those two, and the Twilight saga. User:FineCheesesUser talk:FineCheeses 07:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Er, isn't the Twilight saga a bit young to be "influential"? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 07:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
RA fails at sarcasm.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 09:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
You're glossing over Harry Potter. I was informed by a pair of colleagues who had literally never read any other work of long fiction that the series was "for the ages." Of course, I was judged to be the asshat for saying it was adolescent fluff without having read more than half of the first book (in order to better bond with a favorite niece). I may well be an asshat, but not because I don't have appropriate respect for the broader significance of Harry Potter in western literature.Me!Sheesh!Mine! 14:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it depends on the exact meaning of "for the ages". If it means "will have a lasting influence of literature and human thought for many many years", then I'd agree Harry Potter is not "for the ages". If it merely means "people are going to reading Harry Potter for many many years", then I think Harry Potter does qualify as "for the ages". If anything, we've got an entire generation of children now, who, in twenty-thirty years, are going to have pre-teen kids to whom they'll say, "y'know, Draco, I enjoyed these books when I was your age, why don't you read them?" MDB (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It's like Hoth out there![edit]

It's kind of ironic that the section above is going on a little about sections that will receive little attention and then I post some random crap, but anyway, I thought people might want to know what Star Wars planet the weather is like out there. Any city in the world (kind of funny when you put in a place it doesn't recognise). Scarlet A.pngpathetic 13:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

does it have Tataouine, Tunisia? Totnesmartin (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I got Hoth too. Whoever made that website should give themselves a pat on the back, it's very clever. Tetronian you're clueless 13:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
It is like Hoth, at -30C counting wind. And I gotta go out in that at 6:30 tomorrow morning, when it's bound to be even colder! Damn my Design prof anyway for making the final project deadline so early. --Kels (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Greetings from Tatooine. I'd write more, but I need to instruct the serving wench to wave the palm fronds a bit faster and my fresh mango julep is on the way. --Psygremlin講話 15:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Tataouine is, apparently, like Alderaan. This is illogical, Captain. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Name that fallacy![edit]

A horrifying news story is being debated at a forum. Some people have expressed skepticism about its truth.

One person argued that even if that particular instance is falsified, "we know" things just as bad happen.

That strikes me as a logical fallacy -- is there a term for it? MDB (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ad hoc. Tetronian you're clueless 14:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Ad Hoc covers it, I'm also not sure what the answer is. However it's the same argument that goes "Just because that well known woo-meister has been shown to be a fraud doesn't mean that they're all frauds; why my auntie went to a psychic the other day and the psychic knew Uncle George's name after only sixteen guesses so that just proves... etc etc" Bob Soles (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Saying that "we know" things just as bad happen kinda strikes me as an argument by assertion. Of course, whatever it was...that shit probably did happen. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 15:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
It's somewhere between ad hoc and argument by assertion. But their argument might be true in this case, as bad stuff does happen. Tetronian you're clueless 16:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
No it doesn't. God is love. Open your mind. Me!Sheesh!Mine! 17:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Certain papers will also print stuff that's easy to believe/feeds off prejudice in order to assert moral superiority - stories about immigrants/travellers etc committing various crimes and so on, which later turn out never to have happened - but the damage has been done. Still can't find a name for it though, my naming mojo has low battery today. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel dumb[edit]

Where's the page for nominating AotW again? I lost my link to it, and can't remember what its called.--Mustex (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

RationalWiki talk:Proposed Article of the Weak ought to be it. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

deleted article redlinks[edit]

To save deleted articles showing up in wanted pages, should we recreate the page as a redirect to its talk page? I'm only asking because the most wanted page is Felidae, and I'm sure we don't want some well-intentioned newbie starting that all over again. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly easier than deleting all the in-links I suppose. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
OK then. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Prayer to prevent health care reform[edit]

Has anyone else been catching bits of that lunacy from a day or two ago? I guess it was a one-hour webfest, with the usual suspect politicians pandering. I'm only hearing it on the radio though so I don't really have a nice linkie to share. But here's some random hits from a search engine ending in "e":

  • [4] (old news)
  • [5] this might be it
  • [6] there it is, home base!

"Life and death hinges on the Senate health care bill. We face significant threats to the God-given right to human life through government funding of abortions, our health from rationing, our family finances from higher taxes, and our general freedoms posed by the government plan to take over health care." [very sic] ħumanUser talk:Human 00:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Search engine ending in "e", eh? Hum... wait, I know: Netscape! -- (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

WTF mystery edit[edit]

Somehow, an edit was made by someone who doesn't exist:

Who made the edit marked by the exclamation point?

(I uploaded screenshots in case it disappears or something.)

The same thing appears in the diff link:

I think we have ghosts in our system. Somebody call Ghost Hunters!

Anyone have an idea what might have happened? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It's just Mr. U+2060 [7] -- Nx / talk 01:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh. (Heh—they picked a very clever username.) Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 01:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow RA. That was a lot of investigative work for an easy answer. Tetronian you're clueless 03:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
What's with the giant screenshots? You could have just asked the user about it on his/her talk page, which was linked in the RC. Are you trolling us RA? WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
It didn't occur to me to ask on their talk page. I saw the lack of a name, wigged out, and came here. I never considered that it might've been a legitimate user (my bad, I know). Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 08:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)



Well, the wife is away again, meaning I get to eat what I like. Therefore I made myself chicken katsu. Not quite as nice on its own as it is with some sushi and sashimi, but hey ho. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 19:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly I should have checked RW before dinner so that I could get on the "post your dinner" train, too. Fedhaji (Talk) 23:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I've neglected the dinner club for a while. It's important that I upload a picture of my dinner again soon. SJ Debaser 01:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
"Dinner club" would be a good name for a new forum... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
We already have a recipe namespace. If people really want to keep up this photograph-your-food thing, it would be better to set up a mini Saloon bar (or restaurant) there for the purpose. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Or it could be a sub-section of the Forumspace. Tetronian you're clueless 18:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
P.S. fuck the recipe namespace. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Recipe: rules, it's the best part of RW! ħumanUser talk:Human 03:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The last time someone tried to set up another social forum here, we ended up with HCM 2 and half the wiki getting torn down. Just how is the Weeping Lion anyway? SJ Debaser 11:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Most awesome dinner ever[edit]

So tomorrow I'm going to have dinner with the Jewish side of my family. My older brothers and I are going to have our annual latke-eating contest, and we're all going to have brisket and the usual smattering of Jewish food. It's going to be awesome. I will be sure to upload pics. Tetronian you're clueless 03:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Get the fuck in!! Pics, or it didn't happen. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

For you Americans, I was watching John McCain live on C-Span[edit]

If he would have had this passion last year (he criticized TARP, noted a bunch of bullshit riders that are attached to the Defense bill), he would have won the election (I voted for Obama because McCain supported TARP during the election). Coburn's on now criticizing that Defense is only getting a 4.0% increase, because the rest of Federal government has grown 11%. It's this logic that has screwed this country over, IMHO. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hell, if the John McCain who gave his concession speech had "run" for the office he might have won. My theory is that when the party foisted Palin on him he stopped wanting to win. He knew as well as anyone else that he'd probably keel over in his first term, and also cared enough about the country to not want that lunatic anywhere near the levers of power. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
He sure acted like he wanted to win. He pulled out all the stops, and did all the things he'd turned his nose up in previous races. I don't think he would have bet his reputation if he hadn't been gambling on winning. Before 2008, I respected McCain immensely. McCain's primary race in 2000 was what made me interested in politics. But he put all of that on the line and started the same character attacks that were used so scummily and effectively against him in 2000. He lost the race, but he also lost a whole lot more. I think he wanted to win... he just failed to find the message for his campaign. He wanted to run a decent one, but Palin and the rest of the Republicans didn't. He tried to steer a middle course, and that's not something you can do with two opposites.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 03:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)q
Interesting point. I found his campaign post-Palin to be lackluster and made up my own reality as to why. Maybe he just failed to succeed. But I do recommend comparing late campaign speeches with his concession speech as you consider the truth I presented to you my theory. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

MCs new incarnation[edit]

The old Orator MarcusCicero is undergoing a distinct metamorphis at the moment, and will emerge on the other side an altogether radically different historical character. His oratory will be more refined, his rhetoric better presented. Who dares oppose this new power on RW? The difficult teething pains of the last fews months are behind; the inherent doubt conveyed by a bogus troll admission now long past him. MarcusCicero will emerge in a couple of days, before your own eyes, with an entirely new internet persona. Watch out, for he will never speak of his old character ever again. All members of this website will be like distant dreams to him. He may experience deja vu when encountering some of the more ridiculous Rationalwikians, but that will be a temporary malady. RW will soon experience the introduction of an entirely new beast - a creature of reason, who serves only the one god, logic, and has no need to tarry with ignominous post modernist metaphysics or lazy sophistry, or the even the more objectionable modern internet 'humour'.

RW will never be the same again. All will have changed utterly, and a terrible new beauty will experience life. Prepare yourselves for the confrontation between reason and introvertedness, logic and histrionic. Prepare to purge the sickness that is 'meme' from your disembowelled person. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Gentlemen at an irrational website, Operations Metamorphosis and Flying Reform Society are imminent! Prepare for bowel-crushing surprises from a certain user whose name begins with M, that will likely put an end to internet memes on the internet. Beware the Ides of December! As you are aware, the cat that yelps the loudest is very often the cat that is hit by a shoe. :) -- Conservative 20:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I was reading this article yesterday on Wikipedia about this site called "Pranknet". The head leader of this disturbing site was a 25-year old loser named Tariq Malik who was jobless and lived with his mother in a 1-bedroom apartment. His two underlings were two sex offenders who were also jobless and lived with their folks. Now, I'm not comparing Internet trolling to what these individuals were doing, and I'll concede I do engage in a fair bit of Internet trolling myself (usually on sites with a stated political or ideological bent that I find extreme). However, for the life of me, I can't understand why the hell you would troll RationalWiki. For Christ's sake, this site won't even ban you for trolling and allows people of every viewpoint, no matter how extreme or controversial, to edit. I don't see how pathetic your life has to be that you actually feel pride in trolling a small wiki that is ranked a great 130,560th in web traffic by [8]. Instead of trying so hard to validate your existence by spending the last two years of your life trolling the great RationalWiki whose servers are housed in the apartment of some graduate student, have you thought about just killing yourself? You'll be sure to get a lot more attention that way, I promise. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Well said. But DFTT, everyone. When (or if) he comes back, I think we should just ignore him. Tetronian you're clueless 18:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
'Conservapedia Editor' is guilty of the typical logical vacuousness that permeates from every pore of this cretinous website. He is incapable of independent, rational thought. I pity him. Furthermore, I do not 'troll' RW, at least not in the traditional sense. I conduct pyschological and sociological experiments, which are based around manipulating internet pawns into certain situations and seeing how they react. Its a live, small scale observation of authoritarianism and libertarianism in open, mortal combat. Its intellectual masturbation, in short. RW is horribly divided between numerous factions, and its fun to stir shit right in the middle.
MC does manipulate the fuck out of you people....or is that just me being manipulated?? — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 19:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the troll with no life (except insulting people more fun than him) just admitted to manipulating himself. Or maybe he gets his brother to do it. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Internet pawn, it's everywhere. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 01:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
PEOPLE! STOP FEEDING THE FUCKING TROLL!! Thank you. Tetronian you're clueless 03:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Aw, but it was hungry, and it was so darn cute! ħumanUser talk:Human 04:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
What can I say! It wanted some honey and I just had to get between him and his mother. The Wine of TyrantsDrunk with power again! 09:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
The grand irony there is that screaming "don't feed the troll" in large capital letters is some quite nutritious troll feed, it shows that you're annoyed and angry. Either, don't post, or feed the troll. It really is that sort of dichotomy. Or you can do what one or two of us experimented with earlier and just quietly and unceremoniously move the trolling post into it's own subsection, or "quarantine", so that it doesn't overspill into legit discussion, which is where the actual problem is, not with the posting itself. But what do I know? I don't jack myself off to everything some random dick posts and don't drama-whore myself out all over the site's talk pages all day so I'm not really qualified to judge the "rational" way of dealing with this sort of situation. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 15:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
You are quite right. From now on I will abstain from posting in any section which contains trolling. Your way is indeed the rational way, I suppose my irony meters simply weren't functioning when I posted the angry screed above.
Also: I don't jack myself off to everything some random dick posts and don't drama-whore myself out all over the site's talk pages all day so I'm not really qualified to judge the "rational" way of dealing with this sort of situation. Best description of me ever. Tetronian you're clueless 16:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandal break suggestion[edit]

What does the mob think about allowing wgVandalBrakeConfigLimit (the variable now to set 30 minutes) to be specified upon binning? — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of it being modifiable, unless perhaps 30 minutes is the absolute upper limit. Any more than than that and we may as well just start banning vandals. Personally I think it's easiest to leave it at 30 minutes. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 18:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be modifiable and then the community could decide on the details. Professor Moriarty 18:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it could be interesting. Like "God damn...Marcus is getting really bad, let's up the limit a little" or even "Hey, MC has been on good behavior, let's lengthen the leash". — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's the code. Have fun. -- Nx / talk 18:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Any thoughts on the matter, Nx? — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes. I think it is unnecessary, but my POV is biased, because I know how complicated it would be to do, how ugly the current code is, and how lazy I am. -- Nx / talk 18:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Appreciated. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any point to changing the time limit. 30 minutes is pretty reasonable, being short enough that it's not an undue hardship but long enough that it's not a hardship on the rest of us anywhere. I vote leave it the way it is. --Kels (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
If Nx thinks it's too complicated, I wasn't about to fuck with it. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
It's really up to Nx, since he is by far the most skilled at the wiki-fu. Tetronian you're clueless 18:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
It would also complicate the sysop's job since they would have to choose the length. Most people would just choose the default. -- Nx / talk 18:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm already belabored enough with choosing block lengths. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 18:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone tell me why we don't allow banned users to edit on their talk pages like Wikipedia? Seems like that is a better solution than the vandal bin that allows for periodic edits across the entire project. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Extending the brake to one edit per hour might be reasonable, but no more than that, & I don't think making it modifiable on an individual basis really serves much purpose. As for allowing extra edits to talk pages, it wouldn't be ideal as it would still allow for spamming, vandalism, obscenity, trolling, deleting others' comments , etc., within that page, & a determined vandal can still make a lot of work for others even on just one talk page. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
A determined vandal can also make a boatload of socks and use all twenty of them every half hour—remember Fred? Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
They'll also need twenty different IPs, which is a bit more complicated than switching accounts. -- Nx / talk 21:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Having read the comments I've got to say that I don't see any great benefit in making any changes. But it's a good idea to take these things out and brush them down from time to time.--BobNot Jim 22:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the last time you did serious editing around here, IP wasn't included in the brake/bin, it's since been updated. Anyway, I think it's completely necessary to change it. The thing about vandalism (wandalism) is that it can be rolled back quickly. We use the brake to cut down on the amount of rollbacks people need to do it quick succession, hence the term "brake" - it's not designed to stop anyone. And no matter what we do, a "determined" troll/vandal/asshat will find a way of getting around it. That's all security really is; it just puts off the people too lazy to get around it. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 15:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't fully understand the previous comment. Does "you" refer to "me" Bob M? If so, I think I should point out that all my edits are serious. Or at least somewhat serious. Apart from that it seems to me that a 30 minute brake is about right to slow down the "bad guys".--BobNot Jim 22:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Avatar Redux[edit]

So, finally got round to seeing it just in time for the thread to be ark-hived. Impressions? Storywise... Princess Mononoke meets Dances With Wolves, only a lot more predictable. Visually? Wow. Just wow. Definitely added to my movies to watch while tripping list. Also, the alien chick was kinda cute... think I need to get out more. --PsygremlinSpeak! 16:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Here, have some LOL Avatar. --Kels (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Last night on the late night talk shows it was all-Avatar-all-the-time, I swear. It seemed every single show I caught some of had someone from the movie on to chat it up. Apparently it cost $300 mil to make. Wow. Whatever happened to pie-plate flying saucers? ħumanUser talk:Human 22:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
They were left in the same room as the plot and dialogue. YorickDoing public school work 09:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Turns out that VFX artists are even cheaper than pie-plates. Have you not noticed the dozens of people standing on street corners with signs saying "will render hypervoxels for food"? Scarlet A.pngpathetic 09:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Access to Psychological Science journal[edit]

Anyone have access to this article (Evidence That Self-Relevant Motives and Metaphoric Framing Interact to Influence Political and Social Attitudes) that might be willing to grab the pdf and send it to me? It looks fascinating, but I only have Project MUSE humanities access and that doesn't include this journal.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 13:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Andy Schlafly, Lawyer / Author...[edit]

So I took a look at the latest edition of the Journal of the AAPS, and there's an article by Andy on why health care reform would be bad for physicians. So many apparent uses of the quote-generator ("Nothing new or innovative comes out of the government") So many factoids pulled from his rear (Lasik apparently only costs $99 now). The use of random quotes from unrelated sources to back his argument (The use of a Bishop's opinion on the health care situation to make a point about economics and markets). It's pretty fun stuff, and probably has a few good nuggets to add to the quote generator. --SpinyNorman (talk) 21:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Scarlet A.pngpathetic 21:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Is this going on at CP? — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 21:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
(EC) I laughed in less than 10 seconds. Would you leave $100,000 laying out for someone to steal? Of course not, because you're smart. And that's why you will oppose health care reform. — Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block 21:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
"The power of our government increases or decreases depending on how much control it has over the practice of medicine." Ronald Reagan was saying much the same thing back in 1961. Then they brought in Medicare and proved him wrong. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 00:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I posted this here because it was Andy's work and laughable as one would expect, but done outside of CP. --SpinyNorman (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I thought that Andy was CP? Is "outside of CP" another way of saying "out of his mind"? -- (talk) 08:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Touche. -SpinyNorman (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That article is just genius. "The Post Office won't deliver to some shithole in West Virginia I want to mail something to, but FedEx will. Therefore Medicare and Medicaid are insolvent, and Teflon wasn't invented by NASA." Brilliant logic, Andrew, just brilliant. DogPMarmite Patrol 03:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole FedEx vs USPS is utterly barmy. I wonder if Andy has sent all of his Christmas cards by FedEx? Someone ought to ask him.  Lily Inspirate me. 14:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

(OD) Should we at some point have an Andy: namespace for all his outside-CP extreme wingnuttery brilliant opinions? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Game's been called on account of rain snow[edit]

There we sat in the snow...

I can't remember it snowing before Christmas in the Southeast for years. Usually it's just shitty, miserable, freezing rain until a bit of snow in January, then it starts warming up again in February. SJ Debaser 11:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

meh. We got sod all down here. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Southern softies - a couple of flakes and the whole south east falls apart. Now, oop north we just put on our flat caps and take the whippets out for a stroll Bob Soles (talk) 11:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Back doon pit wit you, lad. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 11:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
We had 2mm of rain overnight - that makes about 30mm since April. A decent shower would be so nice. RagTopGone sailing 12:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
We had snow. I was relentlessly snowballed on the way home. I am not in a good mood. Professor Moriarty 13:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
During the first DC snowfall after Obama took office, the private school he sends his daughters to closed due the snow. Obama remarked, "schools are closing? We'd consider this a flurry back in Chicago!" A few days later, the Washington Post had a letter from a student at said school, which basically said, "Gee, thanks, President Obama. We'll never get another snow day again!" MDB (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
It's going to snow here in NJ tomorrow. I looked at the weather channel this morning and they said "anywhere from 1 inch to 2 feet." <extreme sercasm> Wow, I learned so much from watching that. </extreme sarcasm> Tetronian you're clueless 18:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I live in a place where it is a light winter if we get 90 inches of snow in one season, and it is not uncommon to go an entire month without the sun shining through. Last winter, we had blizzard conditions for 4 days nonstop and the high school did not close once during that blizzard. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ VFdsJJEYHhUDvTCEmMcy 18:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Part of my peripatetic childhood was spent in northern Virginia, within spitting distance of DC. Me and my fellow nomads were little hypocrites, laughing at the first flake policy of the local school system while enjoying the few snow days we got off from school. Here in the US northeast the recent "blizzard" didn't leave any drifts higher than about ankle deep. This morning I sauntered up to the store on the corner for a sextet of faux microbrew from Sam Adams, passing cheery greetings along the way to folks out shoveling their walks. Fifty bucks a pop is what the local city fathers charge for failure to keep a clear sidewalk, trottoir, pavement, whatever. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor headfuck[edit]

Just came across WIGO, a radio station that runs...Gospel music. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Jesus did invent comedy after all... -SpinyNorman (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
It's in Atlanta, Georgia. Why are we surprised? Tetronian you're clueless 03:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
π:And at some point between light and getting around to the sources of light, the LORD doth invent irony, and it was good. The Wine of TyrantsDrunk with power again! 09:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
As Spider Robinson put it, if a glutton engages in gluttony, and a felon engages in felony, then God is an iron. --Kels (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
An iron, you say? Totnesmartin (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


"user talk:" should be changed to "user stalk:", for the lulz! Icewedge (talk) 09:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

In this day and age of Web 2.0, I think that's just assumed. The Wine of TyrantsDrunk with power again! 09:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the Iceman. That would be killer. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it wou;d be funny, but it should be an option. That way, if somebody gotm sick of the joke, they wouldn't be forced t live with it. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 13:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe it will give someone mental problems. Perhaps change it back when someone complains? And can "talk" be replaced with "fight" or something? Pietrow (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I am drunk...[edit]

The beverage of truth

... and just found this page. I'm just back from the pub there and am a tinsy bit drunk... What is the purpose of this page? Do I have to be drunk to use it? EdmundBurke (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for fun chatting about off-mission things, like it says at the top of the page.--Tom Moorefiat justitia 01:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Why would you ask? Being drunk makes everything better and make more sense. It's just the right thing to do. Conservapederast Jerry 01:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, ideally this page is edited and read when one is in one's cups. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Gentleman, after I came in last night a number of ruffians wandered into my talk page and accused me of any number of things. What is the traditional manner of dealing with these bullies? EdmundBurke (talk) 12:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Use of the banhammer, which I shall be bequeathed upon you soon. Professor Moriarty 12:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Except nobody actually accused the stupid Burke of anything. BTW you seem much more pleasant like this. Keep it up and people might even start to like you.  Lily Inspirate me. 13:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Any more of these accusations and I will make an official complaint. Who am I supposed to be exactly? EdmundBurke (talk) 16:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Rooftop nativity[edit]


Totnesmartin (talk) 12:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I can understand Joseph and Mary being pretty bad at parking, what with cars being uncommon in those days, but two steering wheels? That's just mad. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 12:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Cut them some slack, they had nothing else to go by, I'm sure the fact that a car was amazing in their time, let alone whether or not it had two steering wheels. And unless there was a ramp, it seems that they managed to fly the car to the roof, which in itself is incredible. SJ Debaser 12:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Someone should forward this to Ray Comfort. The miracle of the flying car is irrefutable evidence of God's existence. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 13:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
CR how naive you are. If you are flying a car then you need a co-pilot - hence two steering wheels.  Lily Inspirate me. 13:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Cars aren't all that amazing really. Once you have a cart its pretty obvious. Put an engine on that fucker. Boom. Done. I'm surprised it took so long. People were stupid in the olden days. Don't get me started on forks or electricity.Me!Sheesh!Mine! 14:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Forks are quite interesting - a European invention which bypassed the Americans until relatively recently. This is why most Americans lack the wherewithal to eat with a knife and fork at the same time. :)  Lily Inspirate me. 14:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Not so much lacking in wherewithal, as risk-averse. US'ns recognize that ambidextrous knifing and forkage can lead to tonsil-stabbing, with blood everywhere and other unappetizing sequelae. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Citation needed WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
1. ^ Moms of a certain vintage in the USA, seeing a toddler at table with a fork, universally, without exception, declare that the poor child is about to stab his tonsils. [9] Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Cars aren't all that amazing really. Once you have a cart its pretty obvious. Put an engine on that fucker. Boom. Done.

Outstanding comment! I like it a lot! In reality, the fact that they had a car i just another example of the amazing advanced science found in the bible DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 01:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Garrison Keillor Takes the Culture Wars up a Notch, Screams at the Jews.[edit]

Quote:"...all those lousy holiday songs by Jewish guys that trash up the malls every year, Rudolph and the chestnuts and the rest of that dreck. Did one of our guys write "Grab your loafers, come along if you wanna, and we'll blow that shofar for Rosh Hashanah"? No, we didn't." TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll go along with Christmas being Christian if Christians all agree to spend the entire Christmas period in church or at home quietly contemplating their personal relationship with their invisible demi-god. My local gets far too busy at Christmas. I'd be happy to rename it Beerturkeyjamesbondmovie day. Pretty much sums up how I spend mine --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 15:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
the Bond movie is normally on Boxing day isn't it? when it's not filling in for the "champions"' league. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
True. I can cheat though with a DVD or two. My Christmas is all confused anyway, since most years I have Christmas dinner on the 24th, due to the odd Nordic customs. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 16:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm a great supporter of the original Christmas spirit. Drink, reduced sexual restrictions in some cases, gluttony. What's not to like? Long live Saturnalia!--BobNot Jim 17:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Do I need to get a lawyer?[edit]

Do I need to start sequestering my assets? I find meine reizende Frau reading Francis Fukuyama and liking it. I am but a simple minded artisan, knowing little of such things. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Leave a copy of Hardt and Negri's Empire on her pillow. There's still time. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the pointer. I see myself having a casual fling with an Amazon in the near future. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Russian babes[edit]

So as I was doing one of my periodic trawls of the Russian dating sites I discovered Tanya (40 y/o female, Chernovtsy, Ukraine) who says:

I'm serious and family oriented woman. I'm loyal, faithful, kind, calm, balanced and gay.

I think she needs advice on her tag line. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 22:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I really need to start boning up on my Russian... SJ Debaser 22:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Did you really mean to use the word "boning"? Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 22:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you even have to ask that question? Tetronian you're clueless 23:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
"Bone" was the right verb to use in that sentence. The fact that it works perfectly in that context is just a wonderful coincidence. SJ Debaser 23:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Now I find 'Dream butterfly' who's looking for a man aged 24-70. Heck, I'm an ideal match! Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 23:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
What I find interesting about these sites is that pretty much all of the women claim to be Christian. My departmental secretary who's Ukrainian is a complete atheist who knows vitually nothing of Christianity and reckons it's just a ruse to land a 'foreing' [sic] husband. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 23:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I am Height 5'6" - 5'7" (166-170cm)
I look for a male
Looking for a height 4'7" (140cm) or below
WTF! (That's enough for today.) Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? 23:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
You do realize that the formula for desirability is (Net worth in $)/(Age2), yes? --User:Theautocrat/Sig 23:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Theautomat pretty much mailed the formula for lunch, there. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
That formula is ridiculous. - π 23:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

undent for Josh: as good a phrase as any to start your boning is Не постовчй хуй в чай! Loudly in a public place is best. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

In the spirit of disinterested search for truth I've had a look at the Russian dating site. Don't you think that all the girls are suspiciously good looking? I mean there must be some plain Russian girls looking for love and romance.--BobNot Jim 13:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


I'm away for a week (cat-sitting in Cardiff) and offline, so you'll have to feed MarcusCicero yourselves, but here's a little topical something I cooked up in the teflpedia days:

Godspeed trusworthy gentlemen, let nothing you dismay
Foe Aschlafly our saviour has many things to say
How vaccinated liberals destroy the USA
Oh, insights of comfort and joy, comfort and joy
Our Andy's a chivalrous boy.

Happy Divalia everyone! Totnesmartin (talk) 09:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy the cats. --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 09:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Rage Against the Cowell[edit]

UKians, don't forget to buy a couple of copies of 'Killing in the Name Of" this week. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 13:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Whatever for? This is just "don't buy what they tell you to, buy what we tell you to" - it's just commercialism pretending to be subversion. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
True, but I like the idea of wiping the smirk of Cowell's face far more than having an internally consistent philosophy on the nature of consumerism. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 17:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Wiping the smirk off Simon Cowell's face will be slightly harder than that. Whatever you think of his lack of integrity he knows the market and how to play it. Bob Soles (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
At the end of the day, the xfactor single will be number one, whatever happens. The record label will buy millions and millions of copies to make sure of it, and they have inside info to the chart situation (and let's face it, this is all just a big dick competition in the end). The whole point is not to get to number one, but to make them work (and pay) for the right to get to the top. Also, am I the only one who thinks they're not even trying this year? OK so they always find a lame single from the past to cover to pull in the votes, but come on, the shit they're picking this year isn't even a year old yet. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 22:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, they can't really buy a no.1 because it would flag as suspicious and not count if they tried doing that. Anyway, it'd be fun just to see RATM chart (which it will). Though I can't wait for the irony meter's reading when thousands of teenagers scream "FUCK YOU I WON'T DO WHAT YOU TELL ME!!" just as they realise, "shit, we actually did do what you told us... damn". Scarlet A.pngpathetic 11:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
We're in the lead! CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least the thirty grand for charity is better than anything the X-Factor has ever done. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 15:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Epic win. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 14:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

heh... Well, Tom Morello has endorsed it. But Cowell is still talking out of his arse when he says "Shows like Britain's Got Talent and The X Factor have actually got people more interested in music again, and are sending more people into record stores". That's BS, it may have made Cowell a lot of money but it's done nothing positive, it's just made music into a disposable commodity. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 15:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Yup, and the poor sod who's getting his moment threatened has absolutely no idea what he's in for. A million pound record contract? How many exclusive albums does that include? 5? What happens when Cowell dumps you after your first album flops and you can never work with another label again because you are tied into their contract? How long is that million going to last you in this climate? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 21:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
But it's not quite that black and white. As a long haired hippie in the 60's I despised the manufactured Monkees with their blatant cash in on Beatlemania. But now, forty years on, I actually own - and listen to - a Monkees CD because it's fun bubblegum and pop music shouldn't be taken that seriously. Furthermore several careers have been launched by Pop Idol and/or X Factor - Will Young springs to mind. He's not my cup of tea but my missus loves him and who am I to say that my old Grateful Dead CDs have any greater merit? Bob Soles (talk) 10:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The Monkees have quite a few well-done bits of nice bubblegum, but also, on the later albums, they came up with some good work of their own. Also, there are very few pure dreck songs on their records (that is, as long as you are into the style, their stuff is almost all listenable). ħumanUser talk:Human 01:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I've never had an issue with the "manufactured" thing. All of it is somehow manufactured and marketed, it's just when it's manufactured and marketed for you, you don't really notice it. So people go around trying to be "alternative" and "underground" and "hardcore" or what-the-fuck-ever without realising that some producer, somewhere, found this band, and knew you'd buy it hence you're listening to it. It's probably doubly ironic and stupid for people who love their "underground" and "alternative" music, because at least Will Young fans (probably) don't deny that he's a product of a reality TV show and just a half decent singer who got a bit luckier than most. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 09:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Rage won. This makes me happy. I don't care if some more cyncial people try to do a "don't care" or "this is pointless" thing or try to point out how ironic or silly it is, that's not the point. It's quite unifying for people who, frankly, aren't represented by pop culture as a whole and get brushed aside almost constantly. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 19:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)