RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive55

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

, (new)(back)

DMorris is up to his usual antics

See here. Is causing as much drama as possible a conservative trait? Keegscee (talk) 03:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't he the one who asked Andy to supervise his senior project or something like that, and also requested checkuser before he had any rights at all? I think he did a lot of work on "Liberal X" articles too -- I always figured he was just a bad parodist, is he for real? --MarkGall (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I am particularly proud to be first on his list of 57 infiltrators into the State Department. ħuman 04:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob joins in with the RW bashing Willem de Zwijger (talk) 06:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Why does Rob claim that he cannot edit Wikipedia mainspace since he is a CP admin? Last time I checked, that wasn't a rule. Was he topic banned? Keegscee (talk) 08:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Move it to WIGO:CP? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 10:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that he's just admitting that he couldn't make a NPOV edit and so is withholding his contributions.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Rob's pulling an Andy and arguing about a movie he's not even seen. EddyP (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice one Nx. Doc Holiday (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afk for the rest of the day. Please keep an eye on this, this and this. (and this) Thanks Doc Holiday (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Has anybody noticed lately

How fucking amazing the internet is? ħuman 08:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

How so? - π 08:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

All the porn you could ever wish for. For free! What more do you want? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 09:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Also: all your favorite television shows, free and with no commercials : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 10:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

And music and lyrics! Whodathunkit?! ħuman 10:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That dead guuy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=105yeWrjoEc Also to google Alex Chilton and music, the 'placemats had a nice pretty song about him.ħuman 10:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this link. It's fucking sad he died so young. The past couple of shows he has played I've been meanng to go see him but was hoping with the release of the big Star box set he'd come closer to my home. I'm a putz just not driving out to jersey last November. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 21:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A new pic for Andy's page?

Not quite an exact match, but the meaning is close enough: 98% right - Ravenhull (talk) 11:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because CP probably thinks we're doing this today....

All hail Comrade Obama!

America is now one step further along the road to glorious socialism!

We now await further orders from Lenin Stalin Krushchev Brezhnev Alinsky Bill Ayers to complete the transformation of the nation into the perfect worker's state.

Now, everyone join me in singing The Internationale!

Arise, ye prisoners of starvation
Arise, ye wretched of the earth...

MDB (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

A glorious day. Soon the wretched imperialist capitalist illegitimate nation of America will fall, and an Islamo-fascist-communist-atheistic state will rise in it's place! ALL HAIL OBAMA! EddyP (talk) 12:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Have the ACORN thugs been dispatched to send the reactionary counter-revolutionary Andy Schlafly to the "re-education center" yet? MDB (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

ACORN has been adapted into a new organization promoting Communism, Advance Communism Or Receive Nothing. I believe that Comrade Obama himself will deal with his old university acquaintance. Truly Comrade Andrew is fortunate to be "re-educated" by the One himself. EddyP (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

And in fifty years, Comrade Andrew will conclude his autobiography with the words, "I loved Big Barack". MDB (talk) 12:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Fraternal congratulations to our revolutionary comrades in the People's Republic of Ameristan! Totnesmartin (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

May I welcome my American cousins to 20th century western civilization. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Камрады поздравлениям! Теперь мы выпиваем водочку для того чтобы отпраздновать! --PsygremlinParla! 13:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I found if funny that the Republicans accused the Democrats of using "totalitarian tactics." Like, um, voting? And yes, I like Psy's suggestion. Although it's a little early in the morning for that. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Водки праздновать, водку скорбят ... Водка за все! - Ravenhull (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Cutting into my me time

Anyone know anything about wireless routers? My WLAN died the other day and I don't know how to fix it. I can still use my PC that is directly connected but I can't get a signal from my router even if the device (for instance PSP) is 3 inches away. Can anyone help me, and please use laymen's terms. Model is a D-Link WBR-2310--Thanatos (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily assume it's the router, even though D-Link's suck and that one's pretty crummy. Can you get a signal on your laptop from other routers in range? If not, test it at the coffee shop - the 802.11g radio on your lappy might have shitted out. They're cheap and easy to repair at home with parts from eBay or wherever. If you can get a signal elsewhere, you'll want to get the best router that you expect to be able to use this year. In other words, if your lappy already does 802.11n, get an n router. If not, get an n router anyway. If nothing else, your neighbors leaching your connection on their macs will thank you. The Netgear WDNR3700 makes me real happy because it automatically handles DynDNS so I can serve my VPN and FTP up on a dynamic connection. 20:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

PSP, can't find signal even two inches from the damn thing. PS3, same thing. Friend's Ipod, ditto. My other (game/porn) PC, dead. I'm pretty fuckin' sure it's the router--Thanatos (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick solution, get a new router. - π 23:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It's only a month old though.--Thanatos (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't there an equivalent of the US's lemon laws, or the UK's Sale of Goods Act in Canada? I'd take it back to the retailer as faulty. CS Miller (talk) 00:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Years warrenty, but I prefer that as a last straw--Thanatos (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There is usually also a legal requirement that any goods you are sold will work for a reasonable amount of time, usually longer than the warranty. - π 01:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Kids who aren't vaccinated infect other kids

This is so sad. [1] Šţěŗĭļė classified ad 23:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well worth fifteen minutes out of your day

Watch, as Jon Stewart excoriates Glenn Beck. MDB (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I just saw that on TV about two hours, not as funny as last time, but still a good laugh. - π 11:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised I did not hurt myself laughing at his explanation of "libertarian", even though I saw the last part coming a mile away. MDB (talk) 11:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a Lie-Aryan. - π 11:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

You left out the most hideously sinister part! MDB (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"Video not available in your country" - these fucking UK fucking libel laws fucking better get fucking sorted well fucking soon or I will be fucking well fucking pissed the fucking fuck off. ^pathetic 19:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a trick to get around that by fiddling with your HTTP headers in Firefox. Google it. Harmonic evil Phantom Hoover! 20:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I know. But that's not the point. The law is as it shouldn't be and is the ultimate cause of the issue, I'd rather not have to go through the trouble of rerouteing whatever to watch media content. If it was behind a paywall, that'd be fine, but this is something else. I've managed to get it and a few other great Jon Stewart moments off the back of the internet, though. ^pathetic 20:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that it's a UK thing? I can see the first part but the bit that says "And here's the second" is just a grey box here in Spain.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Christianity map

Lookie here. These are interesting maps of where various Christian denominations are located. Summary: US: Baptists in the south, Lutherans in the midwest, Catholics in the North, Methodists in between, and Mormons in Mormonland . Everywhere else: Catholics/Orthodox. Šţěŗĭļė classified ad 15:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole of western Europe is Catholic! I don't think so. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The UK is Catholic with a few touches of orthodox? This map comes from some alternative reality.--Bob^{It's windy!} 15:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Are Anglicans considered Catholic now? Why is England almost totally green? DickTurpis (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. The graph says "more Catholic" and most Anglican churches are now ritualist High Anglican - which certainly is more Catholic than US style churches. However, if it means "more" as in "there are more churches" I very much assume it's wrong - although many churches are multi-denominational in the UK, particularly the larger ones and cathedrals/minsters etc. And I believe the comments section highlights that the authors may be more aware of terms used in the US than in Europe where I think the word "pentecostal" means dick all. ^pathetic 16:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

WP gives "Catholic" at 9% and "no religion" at 45%. so ...--Bob^{It's windy!} 16:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Going back aways in links, floating sheep says, "In places such as the UK that contain more Protestants than Catholics it is likely that people aren't using the actual term 'Protestant' as a signifier of their religion." I wonder how many languages this spans as well. Šţěŗĭļė classified ad 18:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, now I'm really skeptical: their data is from searches, twitters, etc. and all in English. There must be major regional inconsistencies. Šţěŗĭļė classified ad 19:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Re the UK, for some reason most Americans don't tend to consider Anglicanism as "Protestant", whereas British Anglicans (& British Catholics) very much do. The USA map includes Anglican as a separate denomination, but on the Europe map they've just indicated Catholicism, Protestantism (not counting Anglican) & Orthodoxy. That's why the UK shows mostly green; it looks like C of E isn't being counted at all. Worthless chart. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the link provided by Sterile above (and if I understand it) it seems as though they based the map on google search terms. Presumably somebody looking up "catholic paedophile priest" would have registered as a Catholic search term. It looks pretty useless to me.--Bob^{It's windy!} 20:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The US map looks mostly right, except what is with that huge swath of Baptists in Maine? Maine, srsly? And correct about the UK, there is no way it should come out mostly Catholic unless the Anglican Church is considered a form of Catholicism. Secret Squirrel (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Which US map is "mostly right"? The US only map and the US as part of the world map are different. Is this some subtle comment about US thinking?--Bob^{It's windy!} 14:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The US only map. The world map that has the southeastern US mostly Pentecostal is just idiotic. Secret Squirrel (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Street Bible

Just found this updated-for-teh-kidz Bible on the shelf at work. "First off, Nothing. No light, no time, no substance, no matter. Second off, God starts it all up and WHAP! Stuff everywhere! The cosmos in chaos: no shape, no form, no function - just darkness... total. And floating above it all, God's holy spirit, ready for action." Bizarre stuff. Real first name and last initial (talk) 15:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

and from the 23rd psalm: "You sit me down, put my best CD on, and my dismembered soul remembers who I am again." I am buying this book... Real first name and last initial (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Why do I feel embarrassed just thinking about it? ^pathetic 15:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the ISBN or title so we can go read excerpts maybe at Amazon? And CDs are so 80s-90s, they need to fix that in the next edition ("and Lo, the Lords iPod was playing my favorite mash-up"). ħuman 23:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The Street bible by Rob Lacey ISBN 0 00 7107900. Totnesmartin (talk) (sock of Real first name and last initial) 18:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"Do not trust anyone who updates Shakespeare The Bible for kids." --Kels (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Scary stuff. I wonder what Andy Schlafly would think about that. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me sum up Andy's response for you: Blah blah blah liberal conspriacy. Blah blah, evolution, athiests are bad. Blah blah open your mind.... SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 23:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Surely that's a little too coherent. And you forgot to mention the valuable insights gained by translating it into Conservative terms, which have been growing exponentially. ^pathetic 14:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

If there's one thing I fucking hate

It's the Catholic church and its intervention into the American political system, but only when it will hurt liberal causes. Like back in the 2004 election when it became political to deny communion to John Kerry "because he supports abortion." And, especially now, when it is trying to kill legislation that might give Americans without health insurance access to lifesaving care because of "abortion." Wtf? Abortion vs. saving the lives of those already born? My longest standing issue with the anti-abortion movement is that their philosophy is so rampant with hypocrisy, especially now with their opposition to getting people without medical insurance because they are sick and/or dying because of the "life of the unborn." As, I think Jello Biafra once observed, "Because we care soooo goddamn much about the unborn. But once they are born, Fuck 'em!" Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 02:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"Fuck em indeed" Willem de Zwijger (talk) 02:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Cardinal Bernard Law got moved to the Vatican. Probably saved him an indictment. And a life sentence. ħuman 07:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I hear you Goonie-O, of all the religionist organisations across the world, the catholic church has and continues to have a huge amount of blood on their hands. Disgusting cretins. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 09:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you want the Church's attitude toward healthcare, just look at Mother Teresa. That was a case where care was, in many if not most cases, outright denied to people. She had the money to get medicine but refused, essentially saying something about their suffering bringing them closer to Christ, or some such bullshit. Actually helping people, in a tangible way, isn't high up on the list of priorities for most religions. ^pathetic 09:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Should be a funny header

Orgasmic! Willem de Zwijger (talk) 06:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where, but "Mrs Cartwright, who has been ordered to stay away from her home, was jailed last year after she broke a four-year ban preventing her from having noisy sex anywhere in England and Wales." emphasis mine, seems pretty damn funny. Then again, Brits live in closer quarters than Murkins. ħuman 07:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

"The 49-year-old from Washington in the UK's northwest" - More lousy geography from the Murkins. Washington, Durham is, of course, in the north-east.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Australians, actually, Lily. Doc Holiday (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies to all Americans for impugning their knowledge of geography, I don't know wherever I got that misperception from. Also my bad for not clicking that it was an Aussie website, I know that Channel 9 is an antipodean channel.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Naw, Channel 9 is out of Manchester, NH, USA. Home of Uncle Gus. ħuman 07:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

So Washington is north-west of Australia. They got it right. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well that's where it starts with factual accuracy in the press. Washington is in the north-west and before you know it, Facebook causes cancer, MMR causes autism and Obama is a communist. ^pathetic 08:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

To the "vandal site member" who got the Lavazza Cafe at Washington and Dearborn in Chicago IP blocked

Please email me privately. 16:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Harmonic evil Phantom Hoover! 16:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Please IM me privately, "Phantom Hoover." 17:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The bitches! I've eaten there before! --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 23:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I love that picture so very, very much. It's one of the few images that I can "hear". The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

What's that image from, anyway? (Is that Donald Sutherland?) DickTurpis (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Definitely Sutherland, can't place the film, though. ħuman 20:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, apparently from Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel}

A thing of beauty

If you haven't seen this, now's your chance. --Kels (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I nearly cried laughing. I do feel bad for the chaplain, as the other guy (David) was a very skillful troll, but it was hilarious nonetheless. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The ending totally makes it, though. --Kels (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The guy was such a dick but it was hilarious nonetheless. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thorne is generally hilarious. I do sometimes question whether the other party is real or these are made up entirely. It's funny either way, but funnier if it's real. DickTurpis (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

....It's here also. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

how can people can be soooooooooooo stupid

people are crying foul and say Obama is fascist and ask for a revolt.......

people are proposing people to go back to holistic medicine.........

HOW can people be so dumb and yet tell US we are idiot........

im getting out of here, im moving to Europe i don't want to be right next to the USA anymore.

today the USA proved that humanity is stupid. Waronstupidity (talk) 01:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Open your mind. Obama is an Islamofacist (he won't even release his birth certificate and doesn't dance enough) who has used totalitarian tactics to force through is communist plans.

So you deny that vaccinations cause autism? I suppose you'd also deny that abortion causes breast cancer?

By all means, go and live in socialist europe, but don't expect to take a largely defensive weapon of gun to the shops or not be forced in to having a compulsary abortion (payed for by the fascist health service). Godspeed. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It's just the "throwing toys out of the pram" syndrome. Willem de Zwijger (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Could use some help

Hey, working on a paper, and I've gotten to the point where I'm apparently quite skilled in searching out academic sources, but can't seem to find any popular articles on what I want. Basically, I need stuff relating to Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq, and how secular the government has been at various points in time. Anyone have anything they can link me to?--76.18.115.64 (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I would recommend the Economist, or maybe Foreign Affairs? I can't point you to any links specifically, but I think that those might be able to help you out. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Also Newsweak, Time, etc. Go to their websites and experiment with search terms. All I know is Saddam's dictatorship was, at least, secular. So is ours. And now they have UHC! ħuman 03:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

scholar.google.com may be of help.67.72.98.45 (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Proquest's NYT archive is the bomb. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Lawsuits?

As Huw mentioned here we should have a place where legal matters get brought to the community's attention, easy to find, dedicated. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 04:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks ToP for bringing it up here. Also, I think we should add to our disclaimer or DMCA page "any communications containing threats of legal action against RW will be fully quoted on the wiki at (filename), including full contact information of the complainant. All resolutions of such threats or actions will also be reported in full." Only written in a way that it's "legal". ħuman 04:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Huwman's idea about the place for legal matters. It only makes sense that we get to see what is claimed so we can re-write any wrongs, and ignore any whining. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 04:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it would just turn into a new button to push to troll us. Legal threats fall roughly into two categories, those that are superfluous and don't deserve anything but cursory attention, or ones that are actually serious and any legal adviser will tell you not to comment extensively on any legal situation while it is in progress. My approach so far is fairly basic, if its a copy right claim that is valid I take care of it, usually happens when we are stealing something off a stock photo site. If it is a copy right or defamation claim that appears invalid and designed to intimidate me into removing material I will usually ask the person to provide specific details, encourage them to use the talk page of the article, and post a note asking people to make sure the article is in good shape just in case. Anything more than that seems to invite trolling at the least and worse attract more threats from attention whores. If any issue were to ever escalate beyond the first threat I would of course keep the site informed in as detailed a level as I could while making sure our legal position isn't threatened or endangered. tmtoulouse 05:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Those are also good points. I seemed to have forgotten the DFTT aspects of it. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 05:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I forgot about attention whores. Still... ħuman 05:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we make it easy enough as it is. Adding a section that people have to use to raise such issues just adds a layer of complexity and hindrance. ^pathetic 12:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean a special place where legal issues get debated while they are live so much as a place where we log them after they are resolved. But we have a timeline or history article in the RW space I'm sure where such things could be noted. We could even just have a cat for something like "article subjects who complained". ħuman 20:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Yeah, let's keep it on talk pages. No sense in providing a forum for attention whores and villains. --^{Ask me about your mother} 15:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

MOAR lawsuits

Back in the day in the UK, we had a wonderful bit of legislation called the fraudulent mediums act that prohibited fraudulently claiming to be a psychic medium except when it was clear that the sole purpose was entertainment. I always thought that there should be a parallel fraudulent ministers of religion act that did the same thing for people making more general unsubstantiated supernatural claims.

Recently, though, this old act has been obsoleted by a new sweeping consumer protection act that makes all manner of unjustifiable commercial claims criminal offences. I wonder what RW user's views are on potentially going after some of the more egregious marketing claims that religions make (e.g. life after death, etc.) under this act are. I'd love to see all religious materials prefixed with a disclaimer saying they're for entertainment purposes only to avoid legal hangups. On the other hand, it would probably only add to the "persecuted majority" card religious nutters like to play. Thoughts? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 06:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"A commercial practice is misleading if it contains false or untruthful information or in any way deceive or is likely to deceive the average consumer, and thus influences his/her decision on purchasing a good or service." I think they would say that they're not selling a good or service (damnit!). Doc Holiday (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

They can say that, but it doesn't change the fact that they are. If a church never solicits money from their members, then they aren't involved in commerce. But I don't know of any church that doesn't deliberately solicit donations. I should probably add that this attempted get out has already been tried and has failed in the multi level marketing scams arena. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Also:

"Section 52 - Prohibition on aggressive practices.

[...]

Among the types of aggressive practices are:

[...]

• exploitation of a consumer’s misfortune or circumstance when the trader is aware that the consumer’s judgement is impaired,

[...]

• persistence.

Heh! Doc Holiday (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, also:

"' Section 55 - Prohibited commercial practices

This section lists 32 commercial practices, which are prohibited in all circumstances. Any trader who engages in any of these practices is guilty of an offence.

False claims such as

[...]

• running promotions/ competitions when the top prize is not available,

There's more, much more. Doc Holiday (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite the de facto secularism in the UK, the church and religion in general is held in high regard - hence how whatever and whenever the Pope says everything, it's widely reported. Even Obama probably doesn't get as much coverage as the Pope. So if there isn't a get-out clause for churches written in, no judge would ever go for it. ^pathetic 08:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I've not lived in the UK for a while but I don't seem to recall religion being particularly highly regarded.--Bob^{It's windy!} 15:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Which act is this? The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008? Do you have a link to the full document?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The one I've got is: Consumer Protection Act, 2007. It's a PDF [2] Doc Holiday (talk) 09:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanx.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

So that means we cannot establish FSM/Teapot/IPU/Cthulhu based charities, or charities in the name of someone whose existence is disputable? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 11:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the UK legislation is based on this EU directive. Non-technical version here. The technical version states:

• 1. A commercial practice shall be regarded as misleading if it contains false information and is therefore untruthful or in any way, including overall presentation, deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer, even if the information is factually correct, in relation to one or more of the following elements, and in either case causes or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise:
• (a) the existence or nature of the product;

• (b) the main characteristics of the product, such as its availability, benefits, risks, execution, composition, accessories, after-sale customer assistance and complaint handling, method and date of manufacture or provision, delivery, fitness for purpose, usage, quantity, specification, geographical or commercial origin or the results to be expected from its use, or the results and material features of tests or checks carried out on the product;

If religion is "selling" eternal life...--Bob^{It's windy!} 16:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ploughing through some of this stuff it does rather look as though it's, not unnaturally, aimed at people who want money. At one point I see: “Falsely claiming that a product is able to cure illnesses, dysfunction or malformations.” Looks like a problem for homoeopathy and other forms of alternative medicine. --Bob^{It's windy!} 16:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

So does that includes televangelists (send money for eternal life, faith healing or some other vague purposes?), but excludes the religious charities (selling charity work like abducting rescuing kids from disaster struck areas)? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Do we have televangelists in the EU? I think they are certainly thin on the ground.--Bob^{It's windy!} 17:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There's several on "Freesat" Willem de Zwijger (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

And, speaking of fraudulent evangelists: the wholy Rat Singer's on his way to the UK Willem de Zwijger (talk) 05:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Random but funny.

Stumbled upon this. I solemnly swear it is not a rick roll. Enjoy a Barbershop Quartet hitting on a girl from a taxi. ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ secret trainer of ripples! 01:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That makes it sound even more like a rick roll, I am not clicking on that. - π 01:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for making my day, Java. That was worth it! The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hilarious, thanks! And pi, a utube link can't really be a "true" rickroll IMO - the true version is that awful site that plays his song and you have to click on two hundred stupid boxes to get it to stop. Like the last link JS put on here. ħuman 03:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Whoever made that one clearly underestimated the power of Kill -9. ^pathetic 14:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Windowsians have that, and anyway, using kill -9 is supposed to be A Bad Thing. Harmonic evil Phantom Hoover! 15:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, because it just kills the process dead rather than preparing everything for it to be killed. Ctrl-Alt-Del tends to get rid of it on Windows, though, and is a bit quicker than killing it in Linux. ^pathetic 18:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Goddamn do I love Cyanide and Happiness. Fedhaji (Talk) 07:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that ObamaCare is the law of the land...

... when do the death panels start hiring, and where do I go to apply for a job on one?

I have a little list, of those who won't be missed.... MDB (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I have already nominated your grandmother for deathination at deathpanels.publicstoning.obamacare.gov.

Too bad I am ineligible to work in the states at this time. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

My wife works as a claim processor for a big insurance company. i've got her watching out for openings in the death panel division. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 22:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

They'll be too busy forcing everyone (men included) to have abortions to bother with this death panel thing. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 08:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Men will only be forced to have abortions after their mandatory gay wedding. MDB (talk) 14:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting video

Republicans on Obama during the election. Some of them were cunts, but others I felt sorry for. They honestly believed that it was the end of America. EddyP (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I know it was made made by Nancy Pelosi's daughter, but I don't think she had to try hard to create the "sea of shining white faces" the only color I saw were holding trays. Some scary people saying stupid things... thanks for the link. Watched/suffered through it's entirety. ħuman 08:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Democratic offices vandalized

http://www.kansas.com/2010/03/22/1237045/democratic-offices-in-wichita.html#ixzz0iy85xX6K This get's better and better doesn't it?Ryantherebel (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not surprised at all. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

That's it, your independence is officially revoked. ^pathetic 22:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Do we want them? Totnesmartin (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to take our debt. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on, this is nothing new. Remember during the Bush administration that protest group broke into Congress while it was in session? Political violence is bipartisan and is almost to be expected at this point. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

ORLY? I hated Bush & his cabal for at least 9 years (I think with good reason), and never once called for violence. ħuman 08:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you are sane. As we know, there are people on both sides who are not. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Health Care Reform, Civil War and Free Speech

So, quite a few wing nuts (present company excluded) are now advocating civil war as a reaction against the recently signed health care reform bill here in the United States. Do any of you know where the rights of free speech ends and when our federal storm troopers can begin kicking down doors and arresting these folks? On one side of the line they are just angry dickheads and on the other side of the line they are conspiring to do violence against elected officials, law enforcement and ordinary citizens (including yours truly) who support health care reform. I'd like to know where that line is. since almost everyone here is smarter than me I figure some of you might be able to trace the line for me. I understand that the chances of the vast majority of these people getting up off of their couches to actually do anything is slim, I'd still like to know how far they can go. You might like to know I live in the Commonwealth of Virginia and we've recently elected a right wing religious crazy as governor and an even loonier birther guy as Attorney General. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 22:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It does seem an extreme reaction to what is a fairly mild piece of legislation. I would say that it would be illegal once you start organizing people to rebel. - π 22:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Trouble is, it's not illegal in spirit. The entire thing about "bearing arms" is so that the US people can overthrow the government at any time. Though the dumb fucks could have seen the sense to do it 5-6 years ago. ^pathetic 22:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand. I'll explain how it is different now. THERE IS A BLACK MAN SITTING IN THE OVAL OFFICE!!!!!!! So civil war is the only way to go. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 22:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to substantively contribute (yet), if you combine the current and past Dem president's evils, there is now a black communist fascist Kenyan Muslim in the White House, who will be getting blow jobs from 57 (hi Rob) white virgins on Easter! ħuman 02:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

@Sheesh's first post: I don't doubt that some of these people will commit acts of violence; the article discussed in the thread above clearly shows that anti-Obama wingnuts are not afraid to let their radicalism show. However, radicalism and extremism are nothing new in American politics, and there is no reason to re-evaluate our method of governing just for a few Tea Partiers. We already have a clear, bright line: our system of laws. Consider a parallel example, racism: though being a racist is despicable, it is not a reason to "kick down doors." Instead, the government acts when that person commits a hate crime or otherwise infringes upon the rights and safety of others. Thus, there is no reason to kick down an Obama-hater's door until they commit a crime.

@Pi: There is a word for that: treason. (Which is, incidentally, illegal.)

@Armond: It certainly is illegal to us sane-minded Americans who believe that bearing arms is about personal safety, not rebellion. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If the Civil War sorted anything out it is that you don't have a legal right to rebel against the Federal government. - π 22:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

So it is perfectly OK to say you are going to commit violence as long as you don't do it? Like hypothetically, since my wife has let my beer get dangerously close to empty I'm going to go and start shooting people who drink a different brand of beer? Do any of y'all actually know? ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 22:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Read up on sedition. - π 22:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

@Armondikov: That's not quite an accurate characterization. The right to bear arms wasn't granted explicitly to overthrow the government, rather as a deterrent from the government becoming tyrannical, or for self-defense in the case of foreign invasion. Don't forget that compared to European countries, the USA was still pretty damned big at the outset, with lots of vulnerable coastline. Junggai (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" being the important point there. Your guns are for the defense of the state, not to be used against it. - π 22:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Plus, the Declaration of Independence (which is indisputably the "spirit" of the Framers' rebellion) states that people should rebel only if their government is tyrannical and does not give them representation. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 23:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

lets the conservative start a civil war.......... we will win anyways. as soon as the civil war start Iraq will kick US troops out and the whole world will prepare to kick the USA ass and USA will officialy lose its superpower statue, so let them rebel hell i WANT EM TO REBEL.Waronstupidity (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah, there aren't enough conservatives who are extreme enough to actually rebel. Besides, the US Army would subdue them within days. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

well if they send the army it will INSPIRE conservative.........Waronstupidity (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"Thus, there is no reason to kick down an Obama-hater's door until they commit a crime." They are committing crimes. Instigating violence is a crime, as is throwing bricks through windows. The latter may be a minor misdemeanor punished only by restitution (and earning a criminal record), but the former... look, us leftwingnuts never called for Bush to be assassinated (impeached, sure), or starting breaking other people's stuff to express our huge disappointment with his policies (blowing up other people's stuff for no good reason, for instance). Final comment, the Secret Service is on the job. ħuman 02:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course throwing bricks is a crime. But not a crime worthy of "kicking down doors." Not yet, anyway. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 11:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

But the Secret Service is already quite stretched and has basically had to double in size over the last year to cope... But still you are right, remember the "protester" with the sign saying "We didn't come armed... this time" - hell that's scary shit. What are the US laws about incitement anyway? In most of the EU and in the UK, I'm pretty sure threatening to kill someone's children is considered incitement to violence and thus liable to get you rapped on the knuckles pretty hard - but it seems like the attitude towards freedom of speech in the US extends towards freedom to call for people to be killed and maimed. And that's the important part, as you'd have to ask who is responsible; the man who pulled the trigger (who can just be said to have a screw loose and would kill anyone), or the one preaching for it to be pulled (who is the one who has specified who and when.). (And to add more to the "bear arms" thing; a deterrent against a tyranical state means nothing if you're not, at some point or some how, prepared to take on the state. That is, of course, disregarding the "personal safety" aspect, which is arguably the primary reason for it today) ^pathetic 08:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The inciter is the greater criminal. The brick thrower is just a common criminal. Great thread, btw. The big question is how can America tolerate this sort of hate any more. I knew an MP on the local air force base in the 90s who said "Clinton's not my president" It chilled the fuck out of my bones, and we have been so partisan for so long it's scary. I don't want to live through a "civil" war, personally. Although I I know which side I'm on. ħuman 08:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone ever see The Second Civil War? If I remember it rightly it's not too far fetched considering what we're seeing - it starts as something mundane and then people go ape shit (the media reporting of it I think was pretty much how it'd happen) and war breaks out. ^pathetic 09:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I just want to jump in to say that in the days leading up to the HCR vote I saw pictures from the DC demonstrations of a couple of printed signs, complete with hand gun clip art, that read "If Brown can't do it maybe a Browning can." Browning being a gun of some sort. I include the fact that they were printed to stave off the "one looney with a magic marker" excuse. This was at least two loonies with access to Kinkos (a copy-printer shop in case they aren't world wide).

I'm less interested in rock throwers and folks urging the assassination of anyone not in their bible study group as these seem to be pretty cut and dry criminal offenses. My original question had to do with people advocating an actual take to the street in camo pants civil war. My assumption from the context was that they do not envision a sort of state vs. state type civil war but more of a red-blooded American radical conservatives (self-proclaimed Patriotic Americans ) against communist-socialist-homosexual-fascist-liberals. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 18:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The biggest thing to remember on these people is that you have to think about more than just their words. They have to right to say pretty much anything, although saying the wrong thing at the wrong time will get a visit from secret service. The real question is "are they prepared to back it up." I can write that I want to kill Obama all day (for the record, I don't). However, if I start purchasing firearms and signing up "militia" members, I would be in some legal trouble there because I'm started to follow through. Also, just for the record, the 2nd amendment was much more about protecting citizens from outside invasion than internal rebellion. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 20:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Check out the Maddow segment on item five in this slide show^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 21:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

WIGO WP, slight return

Looks like their article on us is for the chop, so for the record I've screenshottedised the page and its talk page. Happy reading! Totnesmartin (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

They should merely edit it to a redirect, not delete it. Good for you, though. Why not just save the raw wikicode, though? That makes it editable and restorable. ħuman 02:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

We can copy/paste the code into a subpage on our own WP article, seems like the most sensible place. I wasn't aware RW had an article. I'm impressed by some of the anon comments, TK and the gang seem to not even try to hide the fact that it's them. ^pathetic 08:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll copy over the wikicode - I avoided doing that in the first place to avoid zillions of redlinks, and the photos prove I'm good at photoshop it really happened. And i like all the orange templates. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hot water can freeze faster than cold water (err.... sometimes)

[3] Have fun! Šţěŗĭļė classified ad 23:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

When I did it, it turns out the outside of the warm water will freeze first - it appears that the higher temperature gradient, as well as the fact that warmed water loses energy as it vaporises causes it to lose heat more rapidly - but if you look at the full bulk of the water, the colder water still freezes first. ^pathetic 08:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it only works because the warm water contains less dissolved gasses. Or some such shit. ħuman 08:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

PS, for very small values of "water". ħuman 08:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd possibly be one difference, but I reckon you'd have to boil it rather than just warm it up to degass it completely enough to make a very notable difference on a small scale. However, it's an interesting observation; solids generally dissolve better in warm liquids, gases dissolve better in colder liquids - plays absolute havoc with the climate too. ^pathetic 09:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Beating a dead horse?

Seriously, just take a look at the statistics... I dont want to go Full-Schlafly with the maths, but in the last week, oh boy...

Conservapedia: Registered users 35,010 |Active users (Users ... last 7 days) 77.How many socks? I saw a lot of bingo players!

Rationalwiki: Registered users 3,951 | Active users (Users ... last 7 days) 177 ( 488 sysops?!!! )

Methaphorically speaking: A bunch of rednecks gathered around a curious roadkill...

Any suggestions of other crank-wagons we could intellectually derail? :) Alain (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what we are here for. Oh, wait, you asked a question. See the "to do list"? ħuman 09:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Well , thanks for the tip , never bothered to look the to-do list... ( RW need an article on Uruguay? :P ) Alain (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck just got a whole lot scarier

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGS97_pOg_k&feature=sub I guess it's only time before he dons some face paint, and engineers a deadly laughing gas.Ryantherebel (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I know the Howard Beale refs, but The Joker I've never seen before - and it's scary shit. ^pathetic 08:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Got bored 20 seconds in. Glenn Beck in real life is so much funnier than some fictional character could ever be. ħuman 09:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Stick it out for more than 20 seconds, Cenk Uygur's impression towards the end is hilarious. ^pathetic 09:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Eh, sorry, I tried. I don't like Beck, but I also don't care about this "Joker" person enough to give a shit about the comparison. For those who do, don't take my critique to heart. ħuman 09:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

xkcd

Is full of win today. Can we incorporate this into an article somewhere? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

An interesting way of looking at it. ^pathetic 14:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Although it does border on Schlafly Statistics... Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The most obvious place to note it might be Drake equation. DickTurpis (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

xkcd had one on the Drake equation before... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but that one wasn't funny. Or even smart. ħuman 04:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Part XXXVIII, In Which Hell Freezes Over and RobS Writes Not One But Six Paragraphs of Mostly Coherent Prose, Staying Basically On Topic Without Once Mentioning Communism

Amazing. Yeah, I can hardly believe it either. Although he does sort of Ken the whole thing. DickTurpis (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Applause to Rob. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I have lost all faith in humanity. Again.

Look at the comments. Words fail me. Harmonic evil Phantom Hoover! 19:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully some of those are Poes. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought that for a while, but the sheer bulk of them makes me wonder. Harmonic evil Phantom Hoover! 19:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully they will never figure out how to log in. Is there some way we can do this with elections? -- Mei (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately that would be classified as discriminatory. Ah well. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Goddamn, those people are stupid. Even stupider than I was that time I got my head caught in the stairs in my house. SJ ^Debaser 19:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's my reasoning: if they are smart enough to find the comments section, shouldn't they have been smart enough to know that it was just an article? That's why I think they are Poes. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably my favourite is: Hello friends, This is the President of the Internet. On behalf of the internet, we are all deeply sorry for the pain we have caused so many. We understand how important Facebook is to so many Americans around the world, and we are working tirelessly, at the internet factory, to rectify the issue. Our top rocket scientists have narrowed things down to two possible solutions: 1. Several supercomputers will upload data to a giant satellite that will then communicate with a second satellite currently in orbit. Together, these two satellites will form a giant laser beam that will then communicate with the internet. We're confident about this one. 2. A second solution would be to GO TO FACEBOOK.COM! Sincerely, Internet [4] SJ ^Debaser 19:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully they are taking the piss but I've read the comments on Arsebook every time they change any minor detail (nothing makes you feel as vastly superior as doing this) and these comments are pretty much on par with the real thing. ^pathetic 20:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on, they're all joking... ħuman 20:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ann Coulter < Phyllis Schlafly

Student protests cause Coulter to cancel speech at Ottawa U.Here's the link. Can't wait to see how she will spin this back home--Thanatos (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a student (albeit in the UK) I can safely say students - especially douchey left-wing students - are the stupidest, most unbearable, up-their-own-arse people on the planet. What the hell is the point of censoring Ann Coulter? If you're into politics and you're American, you're gonna know who she is, so you might as well let her go and do the speech and then let people who haven't yet heard of her make their own minds up about her, instead of doing a pointless pile of shite, piss your pants protest, which makes liberals look stupid too. What a pointlessly failed, hypocritical attempt to shut up Coulter. SJ ^Debaser 20:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of spin, CP got one from TK^img. (Article from Washington Times). [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 20:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. These people are not liberals, they're immature little spoiled brats who think that censoring and shouting down people who think differently are equal to successful politics. What they don't understand is that they just encourage more people to take up that sort of position. It's a never ending circle. Coulter goes to colleges, she gets shouted down and creates controversy, more college hire her because she creates controversy, person X sees Coulter making a shit ton of money and says "maybe If I was more like her, I could make some of that money." We had a speaker at my college a couple of weeks ago who was arguing that sweatshops are good for developing nations. Instead of attacking his flawed (And they were flawed) points, students got up and called him a racist and a facist and any other political buzz words they could think of. I finally walked out during the questions, I was about to scream. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 21:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

@Chuck "These people are not liberals, they're immature little spoiled brats" - the two are not mutually exclusive. Brattishness abounds on both sides of the political spectrum. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If I ever get the chance, I'd shout Coulter down. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not about being stupid or unbearable - it's about being inexperienced. You need to have gone around the block a few times before you realise that people like Schlafly, Schlafly, Coulter et al need to be heard so more people can realise how ridiculous they are. When I was 16-22, still full of idealism and hope, I believed it was an effective tactic, and knew many other people who believed the same. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

PZ Meyers just blogged with this link. It seems that it was not people shouting at Coulter - the organisers cancelled the event themselves due to a peaceful protest. Another example of Conservative Deceit, it seems. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Darn , the title tricked me :( I expected a revelation of secret lesbian affair and all I get is a college event Hamster (talk) 23:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

What, there will never be a secret lesbian affair in a college event? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's my take on it: the students don't want to listen to anything Ann Coulter has to say because they have heard more than enough from her, are disgusted by what she says, and would rather the school not give her money to speak. It's as if they had hired a representative of NAMBLA to speak. They know what it is, don't like it, don't want to hear more about it, and don't want them profitting from speaking there. I can't stand Coulter and would probably protest too. Refugee^{talk page} 02:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100323/coulter_canada_100323/20100323/?hub=OttawaHome - Quote: "Coulter reportedly commands a $10,000 speaking fee. Her fee is being covered in part by the (sic) Claire Boothe Luce Policy Institute, an American group that calls itself the "home of conservative women leaders." Refugee^{talk page} 02:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"Did you mean: Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute?" ħuman 03:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a quote straight from the news article on the website. I've added a (sic) to clarify that's how they spelled it. Refugee^{talk page} 06:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The hero

This is one of those little meme things that's going around, and I thought it seemed particularly fitting to honour Andy. The Hero (movie link thing). The "new perspectives" comment pretty accurately describes the amazing insights he's shared with us. --^{Ask me about your mother} 09:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

"How did we create the most successful global viral interactive film ever?" I didn't really care after the countdown ended and nothing happened. ħuman 10:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Video quality was impressive, though. ħuman 10:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Was pretty cool. Stole it and put myself in, since I don't think it's circulating in my neck of the social woods yet.--^talk 23:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's neat. Pity we couldn't post it where it would get more attention and be more lulzy. Wink, wink.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

A ticket for Rush

To quote the source, "Recently, a number of interesting things happened. First, Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show that if the Healthcare Reform Bill passed, he would go to Costa Rica. Second, the Healthcare Reform Bill passed. As you can imagine, this has made a number of people very excited. We are among that number. We want to make sure that Rush is able to make good on his promise, and so we've made this website." Šţěŗĭļė classified ad 00:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Come on, Rush, don't be a hypocrite. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone call him tomorrow to make sure he'll leave the country. And if he doesn't, we'll make sure his life appears in front of the death panels. someone already did, now to rent a private plane to get him out of the country... how much approximately again? and do any of us have strings to pull? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 00:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought he has a private plane - didn't he offer to fly Obama to his studio for a debate? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

He didn't say it. As much as I wish him gone. Read the original transcript and his explanation - he addressed this back when HuffPost made the erroneous claim that he'd made this declaration.--^talk 02:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Linkie? I'm not a big fan of HuffPo anyway, I've read mostly crap when linked there. ħuman 03:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it sucks for exactly these reasons. Crammed with ads, stupid gossip, and extremely puerile policy analysis. Here's Limbaugh talking about how - in five years - if options for private practice were eliminated, he would leave. In other words, if he can't get a private doctor, that's when he would depart and get healthcare elsewhere. Maybe poorly phrased and ambiguous, but it seems pretty unlikely he would have made such an obvious error. On the plus side, if he doesn't accept the ticket and move, the foundation is donating the money to Planned Parenthood.--^talk 05:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Shame that won't happen as there will always be the option for rich folk to buy their way out of trouble. The bill won't change that and as far as I'm aware, was never intending to anyway. ^pathetic 10:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Altruism and Evolution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1Yrbc5O1gI I think squirrels just got a lot cooler.Ryantherebel (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"New type of human" found

Very interesting... Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That is pretty cool.Ryantherebel (talk) 13:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That is really interesting. Thanks.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, like that's the missing link required to prove evolution. </sarcasm> --15.195.201.87 (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

effing electrocity

is gone bye bye. Some poor sucker probably just bought a power pole. backup power started on the first pull, but then, it's been used a lot lately. luckily I still have you idiots to talk to. ħuman 04:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

panic over, by the time I had reported it to PSNH and you lot, the neighbor's night lights were back on. phooey, playing with gasoline for nothing :( ħuman 04:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Around 6:00 PM yesterday, my power went out. I called BGE to report it, and they said it would be back by 9:00. I know from past experience that they overestimate that, so I decided I'd use the time to go grocery shopping and browse at Books-a-Million. Which I did.

As I was driving home through my neighborhood, I could see the power wasn't back on yet. But, as I was unloading the car, I noticed some lights reflected in the windows of my house. I looked around at the neighbors' houses, and, lo and behold, the power had come back on just as I arrived home. Very convenient. MDB (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Blergh!

Ok, so we have this World Cup thing happening (personally, I'll be glad when it's over) and I thought I'd try and get into the spirit by drinking some of the official beer.
Now, I live in a country that has good beer... nay, great beer (altho we call it lager) - Ace will back me up on this. Budweiser, however, is probably the second most disgusting thing I have ever put in my mouth. Fosters is still first. --PsygremlinПоговорите! 17:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This statement is almost true. Bud Light is worse than fosters. I can just about drink fosters, but that vile amber swill masquerading as beer makes me puke. Pint of broadside for me, landlord. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have never even seen Fosters in my life, they don't sell it here in Australia. - π 02:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(Also, totally looking forward to England handing the USA their arse in the world cup.) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of us Americans won't even notice. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

World cup ... is that like the world series? -- Vradient^{Hit me up} 20:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No; the entire world actually takes part. Harmonic evil Phantom Hoover! 20:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting there's more to the world than the U.S. and a few cities in Canada? I don't buy it. -- Vradient^{Hit me up} 20:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

What's a "Canada" again? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You're drinking lager in a country in which cask ale is available at just about any pub? Sad. So sad. DickTurpis (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering about that as well. And how come everybody seems to assume that "lager" is even the same thing as beer?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The US has a soccer team? ħuman 20:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"USA will open their tournament against England in Rustenburg then travel to Johannesburg’s Ellis Park Stadium to face Slovenia." Sssh^Sssh 20:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There is some good Budweiser.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I tell you though, we Americans with divided loyalty (I root for Both the US and England in the WC) are gonna have a hell of a time dealing with this thing when it comes up. SirChuckB^{El...ipses are Cool...} 07:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Pope:Child abuse (more)

Pope didn't act. Sssh^Sssh 19:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

And the Vatican defends] Sssh^Sssh 10:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

New British Space Agency

Space pictures from NASA space launch - £300 million, Space pictures from British inventor - £500.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That. Is. Awesome. Harmonic evil Phantom Hoover! 21:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Better link? ħuman 21:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Whither the Blue Streak? Totnesmartin (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty sweet. It's also nice to see some high-quality cameras go into space, the ones usually sent up tend to be lower quality because they need to be more reliable. ^pathetic 01:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Cambridge University spaceflight have ambitions to get in to low earth orbit using a similar balloon launched rocket type affair. Should cost only a few hundred quid a launch. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Nervous Breakdown?

Hi all. I thought I'd pass on this little gem sent from the MSI forum admins. I think someone there is having a bit of a breakdown.

“”From: MSI HQ User to User Forum <do_not_reply@forum-en.msi.com> Subject: New announcement: RTFM-chip details reveiled! The MSI-forum and MSI-support team are fed-up with explaining you what can be found in the manual. I mean, come on, how hard is it to read a manual? They are printed on paper so you see them. We have been talking to MSI for a couple of years and came up with a solution. It has been implemented on a few boards for some time and with big success. It had various names, like CoreCenter (1st gathering tool) upto DrMOS (fully automatic) Some of you noticed because Windows wanted you to install a driver, but you couldn't find the manufacturer. On AMD systems this was called the Away-driver. What you didn't know is this, this driver activates the RTFM-chip. (Re-Turn inFormation to Manufacturer chip) It means it can detect if you read a manual as well stores the parameters you have set in the BIOS. As soon as you start Windows we are informed about your settings and manual readings. As we have been monitoring peoples behavior for some time and combined those with the RMA information from returned boards. At the same time monitoring questions on the forum and matched the IP's. We have made a discovery. A lot of RMA is unneeded and unwanted, many happens due to user mistakes, numbers show that 90% of the RMA is OC people killing boards and newbies connecting the wrong connectors or insert parts that should not be inserted. Or simply forget to remove standoffs or CPU-power. MSI plans on tackles those numbers, and the RTFM-chip will give a readout of what you have done when it did post or attempted to post! Checking on you isn't new, Homeland-security done this ever you installed XP-SP3 or above, but their info in encrypted so useless to MSI. So MSI decided to ban people from support, RMA and the forum who has done the damage themselves or didn't read the manual the first of next month. We know who you are, and we have gathered enough information via our RTFM-chip. The only question is, should MSI continue to do this? As some information is real bad. Will this hurt your relation towards MSI products? Please let us know, as we have to talk to MSI management the first of next month and make them decide what to do with the information. To unsubscribe from these announcements, login to the forum and uncheck "Receive forum announcements and important notifications by email." in your profile. You can view the full announcement by following this link: http://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?topic=136806.0 Regards, The MSI HQ User to User Forum Team.

Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Couple of days early for a really good April 1st gag. ^pathetic 00:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Very early april fools apparently:

“”Hi there, We are sorry people took this for prank for serious. Nobody seem to have wondered what RTFM really means. If you put the term in Google, you will find it is telling you to read the manual. Just think, how would a chip check if you read manuals? We thought of this prank after answering the many posts where people ask the obvious that is already in the manual. But we learned a valuable lesson, no more April-fools jokes from the forum, a 10 year old thing just died. Sorry that you took it for real and got mad. To unsubscribe from these announcements, login to the forum and uncheck "Receive forum announcements and important notifications by email." in your profile. You can view the full announcement by following this link: http://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?topic=136959.0 Regards, The MSI HQ User to User Forum Team.

Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Frum banhammered from conservative think tank

A few days ago, somebody posted a link to this essay by David Frum, a conservative who didn't like how the Republicans went with an eff you strategy instead of working with the Dems on health care. Now he's been kicked out of the American Enterprise Institute for mysterious reasons. Presumably for liberal multiculturalism. (Warning: NYT link may require registration.)El Presidente (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow. "Mr. Brooks suggested that it was Mr. Frum’s decision to leave and that he had not been forced out" - yeah, sure. They offered to keep him on without pay, it was his decision to leave after all. I'm gonna have to remember that one, it's a beaut. ħuman 23:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Robs/nobs, it's time to De-Wikify Frum. We've always been at war with David Frum Alain (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

He's now saying that donors forced him out. MDB (talk) 13:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

FB Group

So I saw this group on Facebook: "Democrats are Destroying America! Vote Republican in 2010!." It's largely inconsequential, but I realized that of the random six members that they showed on the page, one was named Jimbo and the other was named Skeeter. Nice. Corry (talk) 01:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

And for a bunch of people who hate communism, that group photo looks suspiciously like Soviet propaganda... ^pathetic 01:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

destroying America? more like fixing it.............. damn conservative.Waronstupidity (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You've got to hand it to the Republicans, somehow they've managed to convince the very people who this legislation would benefit most to fight tooth and nail against their own interests. At some point, I'm sure you just have to say "OK retards, if you want an insurance company to be able to cancel your cover the moment you get sick, you've got it." and let them enjoy the fun. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 06:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

While I can't find it on WIGO (and I'm sure I did post it) there was an article by one of the BBC's bloggers/journalists that asked "who do people vote against things that help them?" I can't remember the conclusion. I know I just thought "because they're retarded" but it's slightly more complicated. ^pathetic 14:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Unlucky:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article7065824.ece Check the name of the author... ^pathetic 01:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Priceless. Corry (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Poor boy guy. "Unlucky" is indeed the word for it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone sent that off to Private Eye?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, the article is dated a week ago so it's probably gone round the block a few times by now.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I only just noticed it. I imagine it has made the rounds a bit, putting his name into Google brings up some interesting comments, although the Wikipedia page didn't get the "good seeing to" that some of those comments claim. ^pathetic 14:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Funniest Thing I Forgot to Mention

A while back I mentioned a creationist I had a dialogue with in which he literally refused to acknowledge the topic, then said he didn't care about it, then when I asked him to either give me a reason he responded at all to my initial message on that topic, or apologize for wasting my time, he blocked me. I forgot to mention the funniest part of our conversation. He, at least once, referred to "evolution" as a "failed religion." Now, I know we've all heard the "evolution is a religion" thing a million times before, but I thought this one was particularly hilarious, because he apparently didn't realize that a religion can't "fail," only a science can, so he was actually admitting evolution was science without even realizing it.--Mustex (talk) 05:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Religions are too big to fail. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Like Mithraism? Totnesmartin (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course Religions can fail. What do you think happened to the Aztec gods? But then saying evolution is a failed religion would compared to saying all evolutionists already died. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 11:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of religions that have failed so much nobody remembers them, recommended reading: Neil Gaiman's American Gods and Terry Pratchett's Small Gods. I know they're both fiction but both make the point that there are some religions that have failed so much we don't even know they used to exist. Even worse than Mithraism. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Just because all the followers died does not prove a religion was wrong.--76.18.115.64 (talk) 13:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Very true. So we're going to look pretty sheepish when we all die and our souls come face to face with a very, very pissed off Anubis. ^pathetic 14:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Or that a surviving one is right. They can't, after all, all be right. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless you go down the exceptionally woolly line of "but they're all just different interpretations of the true God" - and I know a few people who do try to pull that one. Bull. Shit. Read your dogmatic laws, they're all totally different and usually have very negative things to say about each other. If there was any particular case for them all being true and correct then they would have homogenised by now. ^pathetic 15:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No pill for you, heathen.

Bump. "... [P]harmacists with strong religious principles will still be able to continue to refuse to sell or prescribe products if they feel that doing so would contradict their beliefs." [5] Sssh^Sssh 10:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty absurd. I wonder if there are Catholic doctors working in abortion clinics who can refuse treatment? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I find this issue a fascinating one, because its a case of pitting the rights of one individual to receive medical services they desire versus the rights of another individual to follow the dictates of their own conscience. And there's several ways this could play out:

• You own a pharmacy, and you have decided you will not sell contraceptives, because of your moral objections. I think you should have that right, just as much as the person who owns a convenience store has the right to not sell beer and cigarettes due to moral objections to them.
• You work for a pharmacy that does sell birth control, but you have moral objections. The adult way to do it would be do negotiate with the management that another employee will handle birth control matters. Or just do the principled thing and resign.
• You're a doctor with moral objections to birth control, and a patient asks you for a prescription for "the pill". That's a real tough one to me. It would seem to me that the ethical thing to do would be to refer the patient to another doctor who will write the prescription, but then I'd also imagine that the doctor in question might view that like saying "I'm not a prostitute, but if you call 301 498 8824, and ask for 'Madam Hazel'..."

This is not a simple issue at all. MDB (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

MDB, your first point looks simple but what if you're the only pharmacy in the area? Your customers are unable to receive treatment that they are legally entitled to because of your moral objections? Hmm... Would you support the Bed and Breakfast owner who refused a room to a homosexual couple because of her moral objections? How far does an individuals conscience have the right to go against the law of the land? Jack Hughes (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can't stand the heat ... They have no business deciding on others behalf what is ethical or otherwise. They shouldn't be in the job if they can't fulfil all its duties. Sssh^Sssh 11:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd argue that there's a difference between the right to refuse to sell a product, and the right to refuse to sell to a person. Are pharmacies in the UK required to sell birth control? If not, then how is the pharmacist violating the law by saying "I'm not going to sell these products at all"? MDB (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The law says that the customer is legally entitled to birth control. If the pharmacist is effectively a monopoly (I've lived in a rural area where the local pharmacy was the only one for five miles in any direction) then, by refusing to sell contraceptives, they are depriving their customers of their legal rights. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess the million pound question would be, were these pharmacists denying birth control to everyone, or just to unmarried customers? I've never heard this detail discussed when it comes up. Junggai (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what a pharmacist's legal requirements are but I would have thought that it included supplying any legally prescribed substance. As Jack says, there are some which have a virtual monopoly, this especially applies outside "normal shop hours" when various pharmacies rotate duty even in large cities. Sssh^Sssh 12:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(undent)I'd go with the "Your right to swing your first ends where my nose begins" approach. I've previously said that private businesses should be allowed to institute any rules they wish, but Jack has a good point. Services are finite and such a policy may leave patients struggling to find alternatives. If people can refuse to provide contraceptives for medical reasons then what's to stop them from banning foreigners from their stores? What that pharmacist wants is to be able to hang up a thinly veiled "No blacks, Jews, or Irish" sign on the door. Bigotry should not be excused by cherry-picking the Bible. Patients should not be subject to the whims, delusions, and bigotry of people who would place the doctrine of their religious teachers over the basic teachings of Christ. --^{Ask me about your mother} 12:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Does the UK allows mail order prescriptions? (That's possible in at least some parts of the States). That would seem to eliminate the concern about accessibility, since we're not talking about life-saving medications that have to be taken immediately.

A small pharmacist can't be expected to stock every drug imaginable; he simply wouldn't have the storage space. Suppose he lived in a heavily Catholic area -- it might well be a reasonable business decision to use his store shelf space for something other than birth control.

And let me make it clear -- I'm saying saying the hypothetical pharmacist (do they still use the term "chemist" across the Big Pond?) is right; I'm saying he has the right to make that choice. MDB (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Chemist is a deprecated term, I believe now. You can't get a prescription filled online. No, they won't stock every drug imagineable, but they will normally have some contact with local GPs & keep all possible ones in stock. I wouldn't mind betting that a Cathlic area has as much call for birth control as anywhere else :) Sssh^Sssh 13:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not that depreciated, believe me, I've had to explain it to my extended family several times that I do not work in a pharmacy. I have little to add except to go back to MDB's three points above, the final one is a little wrong because doctors are a provided and essential service. Unless they're running a completely private practice and can pick and choose their customers and discriminate who to give things to (not that this is good business practice) they're there on behalf of their profession to offer help to everyone regardless - and they can't pick and choose. It'd be like fire-fighters saying that they will only put fires out if the house is made of red bricks; it's totally against the principles that these professions were founded one. Pharmacies are slightly more of a grey area, as they do operate more like businesses than actual GPs or hospitals but the issue about potential monopolies in fairly isolated areas means that they also provide an essential service. But I agree that if people can't do their job for religious reasons they have only two options 1) quit their religion 2) quit their job. They should not have a right to force their opinions on others in a detrimental way. To refuse to do something on religious grounds that then affects someone negatively (refusing to give out a treatment that they're supposed to do, for example) then this is pretty much the same as forcing their religion on someone else by dragging them into a church and forcing them to pray under a threat. ^pathetic 14:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Armond, I meant deprecated by pharmacists. In the lay world (and Boots) one just "Nips down to the chemist" for some aspirin. The sale of other stuff (makeup seems to be popular for some reason at "Chemist"s shops) rather undermines their identity. Sssh^Sssh 14:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention homeopathic remedies... ^pathetic 15:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I wonder if the catholics support the right of boots employees to refuse to dispense that quack homoeopathic junk they sell. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a more interesting question than it sounds. OK, so let's suppose I retire soon and get a job working behind the tills at Boots and then a customer comes up with a homeopathic remedy. I wouldn't refuse to serve them but could I keep my mouth shut? "Hey, I'm not saying don't buy that but you do know it's just water, don't you?" Jack Hughes (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I'mafraid you should (keep stumm that is) unless specifically asked by the customer for your opinion. You'd be employed by Boots to sell goods, not to put folk off. Even if the customer asked you, you'd have to make it clear that it was only your personal opinion. Pity, but there it goes. Sssh^Sssh 15:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, was this for the morning after pill? In which case the pharmacist saying "Come back tomorrow" seems a bit stupid. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, considering that the placebo effect would benefit the customer and the money transaction helps your customer, sell it, it's kind of "win win" in that respect. Your personal opinion on it (it's still a personal opinion in this context even though it's actually an outright fact that homeopathy is a sham) doesn't really belong when you're representing the company. Besides, as I said briefly above, it's just plain bad business to refuse to sell something. ^pathetic 17:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

some companies in the US have simply made it a condition of employment that any pharmacist will dispense any legal drug. A few states have had policy set by the state pharmacy association who have made it a matter of professional ethics that they do not enforce moral judgements on cutomers Hamster (talk)

I also think that there is a false advertising claim that could be made - hanging up a sign that implies one fills prescriptions, then refusing to fill one. Let's face it, the Pill has been around for ages, anyone going into the trade would know its part of the job. Now, the morning after varieties are newer, but still. As far as if one is a pharmacist as an en employee, and doesn't want to fill certain prescriptions (like, say sulfa drugs), one should seek employment where it will be certain that there is always another employee who will do it. Still getting into a field one has issues with is silly. ħuman 21:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Andy debating healthcare captured at Wondermark

Malki! must be getting some of his material like this from CP. Then again, I used to think Scott Adams has a webcam hidden in my old office to get storylines for Dilbert. --SpinyNorman (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Heathrow third runway

Protestors win!Sssh^Sssh 13:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Look, this really isn't funny but....

Check out the name of the reporter chosen to write in this child abuse scandal article I guess Pete O'Phial was busy.Jack Hughes (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Better, Peter File. But this was noted further up the page. Harmonic evil Phantom Hoover! 14:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Chrome help wanted

The "Pin tab" option's vanished from my right click menu. Any idea why. Doc Holiday (talk) 14:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you right clicking on the tab? ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ no really. 17:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes! Doc Holiday (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That response was not descriptive. Did you right click on the tab or on the page? ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ don't cast the first stone, and I won't throw it back 17:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

"Yes" to the question "Are you right clicking on the tab?" means that I am clicking on the tab, doesn't it? Same as I always did before. I should add that my "pinned" tabs became unpinned a day or two ago. Not sure exactly when. Doc Holiday (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't trust Javascap! He thinks Windows is the superior OS! Harmonic evil Phantom Hoover! 17:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Which it is. Screw you, Hoover :P ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ tawdry cadavers cure me... 17:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

@Doc Holiday - Does this link [6] help? -- Mei (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Mei. Yup! I'm not alone it sems. Doc Holiday (talk) 18:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I accuse Mei of being too useful. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ My computer has two mowses! 19:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I just googled 'tabs unpinned'. Googling problems usually works with popular things like browsers. -- Mei (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Teh Homosex Agenda Redux

Just been sent this. Well worthy of a read. --PsyGremlinSprich! 17:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Landover Baptist. Now there's a proper church! Not like that bunch of sissy liberals at Westboro Baptist Church. --^{Ask me about your mother} 20:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Mad

Teabagger strikes - with an SUV? Doc Holiday (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No-one was kilt, no major damage done. Teabagger goes berserk...this is chock full on WIN! CЯacke®

Is it just me or are those comments really, really odd? ^pathetic 23:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it was [just] a drunken road rage incident. The fact that a bumper sticker was injured in the process is just collateral damage. ħuman 01:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Tanning Salon Tax

Can someone enlighten me - WTF? All I can find by Googling seems to suggest that Health Care reform is going to be funded by taxing Tanning Salons. Surely some mistake. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a legitimate, true story. There was originally a proposal to tax cosmetic surgery, but that got taken out after pressure from lobbyists. The justification is that its to discourage excessive tanning, which is linked with skin cancer. MDB (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Taxing the fuck out of cosmetic surgery seems fairly sensible to me. ^pathetic 19:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as there's an exemption for restorative procedures, like someone scarred after an accident, I'd agree. MDB (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, of course. ^pathetic 22:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Which will force down procedure and limit the money spent researching how to make it better, which come in handy if you are trying to treat someone who's been burned badly or had their face broken in a car accident. --Opcn (talk) 08:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The Times to charge for articles

The Times is to charge a subscription to read articles, which will befuddle anyone wanting to read of our citations from it. Anyone want the jolly fun task of finding all our Times cites and replacing them with alternatives? Totnesmartin (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Are they going to charge for archived stuff or just for new? Doc Holiday (talk) 14:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting on that link: "In the US, the large daily Newsday charged $5 a week for access to its website. By mid-January, three months after charging began, just 35 subscribers had signed up" Doc Holiday (talk) 14:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

There will always be free alternatives, which is why subscriptions to these things don't work very well. The BBC at least can't charge because it's funded by the Licence Fee (something I'm fairly okay with, actually) although if some of the anti-fee twats get their way we'll see the entire BBC website (one of the best on the net IMHO) disappear completely. But the Times charging doesn't bother me, their articles only seem to work half the time for me and give 404s most of the time, not sure if its those .ece things they use or whether they just didn't test the site on other browsers. Replacing the links would be a worthwhile project to do, though. ^pathetic 14:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A quick search for "timesonline" shows we only have 40 articles linking to it. Shouldn't be too big a deal to sort by June. ^pathetic 14:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is, a lot of other news outlets will be watching this carefully. If it's successful then BBC News will be the only place you can get / link to free news online. No idea what the alternative would be though. Perhaps if people could sign up using their email address to log in and you get a weekly 'digest' containing some ads, and you can only view the site if you accept the email? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The rather excellent Independent website is likely to remain free for the foreseeable now that it's been sold to the same billionaire who made the Evening Standard a free newspaper. Where possible, I'll change any links to Timesonline over to the Indie. Bondurant (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

(u/d) Search doesn't return everything, since many links don't display the URL. Luckily, there's a Special Page that does the job. By this count, there are 90 links. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

But only 30 in the mainspace, which is what the normal search did pick up on. Although you're right, it does miss a few of the others as it only shows 79 when searching all spaces. ^pathetic 18:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I always use The Guardian. Good coverage of the UK and world, good archive, with a great selection of podcasts. (Also free stuff for English teachers.)--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm with lefty commie pinko Bob. The Guardian's normally a fairly decent source of linkery. I predict a fairly short-lived experiment on the part of the times. The only way I see paid content working is if it's a niche market or delivered through unconventional means, such as via a phone app. --^{Ask me about your mother} 20:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Another thing one can charge for is unique content. For instance, the NY Times on line is free, but their crosswords are subscription-only. The Herald's are free, with a 90 day archive (last I checked). The Guarniad ended the subscription for theirs and went free just recently. FT is free, but as I recall the Indy has to be paid for. As long as a few outlets are giving away "the news" for free, one had better be one hell of a better source to get away with charging for it. ħuman 00:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

According to the guys who ran my media training, the public don't just want "news" anymore, they want comment and extended coverage and stuff like that. So from that perspective it's easy to generate, as you say, "unique" content. However, I watch/read enough Charlie Brooker to know that this is just what they say as an excuse to tell their audience what to think and self promote themselves as something better than they actually are. And besides, you can get better "comment" and deeper coverage from specialised blogs that will do it for free because, well, that's their interest and hobby. So basically, papers won't ever be a "better" source, because on the net the bloggers will beat them by weight of numbers and expertise. ^pathetic 21:51, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Some people need to get out more...

Balancing 15 books on my head, reciting pi to the 100th digit, and solving a rubik's cube. Of course, when I say that people need to get out more, I'm referring to the type of person who says that this "is nothing" and try to go one, or possibly eighty, better. But still... ^pathetic 18:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I never really liked people who memorise pi to n digits. There's something innately pointless about it; knowing the digits doesn't help with your understanding of it at all. Harmonic evil Phantom Hoover! 18:46, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

If "3" was good enough for Moishe, it's good enough for me! CЯacke®

It's basically just a test and practice for advanced memory techniques so it's not entirely pointless. ^pathetic 18:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Technically, it's a memory test, and if you want people to replace it with something constructive, perhaps you should get schools to intellectually challenge the small sets of students (or otherwise keep them busy with non-menial work.) In any case, it's best to memorize pi to 762 digits. --15.195.201.87 (talk) 18:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Pshh. Real Mathematicians work out pi as they go along. Harmonic evil Phantom Hoover! 19:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

EC - That is very impressive and I am ashamed at being out-geeked.

However, as your commenters point out - you have failed to realize that you are a girl on the internet, and therefor should only be yelled at incoherently. How you neglected this basic principle confuses me. -- Mei (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course! "That bitch should get back in the kitchen and suck some cock!!!" That better? ^pathetic 19:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That's what I told Ted Haggard to do, and look how that worked out. Mind you, he did make a decent cheese toasty. --^{Ask me about your mother} 20:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

@Armondikov - You have a weird kitchen. -- Mei (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That's girl's got talent. Can she run for Miss America or something? Also, a real geek would memorize pi in binary. ħuman 21:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I couldn't do one of those three things.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:37, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect monkey business. The Rubik's Cube was already solved at the start, and was never significantly mixed-up before she again solved it. I'm kind of skeptical as well about the books, since the stack moved around quite a bit, but I didn't see any of the books seem to shift at all. As for pi, she could be have borrowed Obama's infamous prompter. --^{Ask me about your mother} 21:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, if the books shifted, they'd probably [fall] and she'd start over. She looks like she's actually good at the balancing, constantly moving around under them. As far as the prompter, I just re-watched, and she's looking at the Cube a bit too much to be reading something else. Also, she does the digits in little "groups", a likely way to memorize them. But, yeah, starting with a solved cube means she could easily have simply memorized a sequence of scrambling/unscrambling, so that's just dexterity and memorization, not a third "skill" being displayed. ħuman 00:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Bloody hell - you guys are a tough audience.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Many of the PooTube comments are far worse. I always like to think that nit-picking criticisms is just the manifestation of jealousy. Have you ever looked at what I call "YouTube shredders"? The ones who sit and play their guitars into a webcam - totally blazing stuff but people come on and say "oh, that's nothing" and "you suck, come back when you're better". I mean really, dear fuck anonymity on the internet is the root of all evil surely. ^pathetic 20:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, yeah. How many proposals of marriage did she get? I just watched again, concentrating on the cube, and it never get really messed (the white face gets fixed every time she messes it up, from I could see. Too bad pooptube doesn't have slo-mo! Still, even not messing the cube up much, staying "close to home" as it were, takes some concentration while balancing and reciting. And as some people said, it's just a nice fun geeky video. ħuman 21:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Penny Arcade summed up Internet anonymity almost exactly six years ago. I see no reason to challenge their findings. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

a little help needed.....

im trying to edit http://www.mountandblade.wikia.com so i made an acount and stuff but when i click on edit i only see a blank page and when i click on it i dont see the *I* and cant find how to write thing, anyone know why ?Waronstupidity (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

My only comment is to finally get around to pointing out the (perhaps intentional) irony of your user name. ħuman 04:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

ok........ please a little help.

i just cant seem to be able to edit over there. i dont see the the * I * line thing......... damn just help me out.......im not a know it all........Waronstupidity (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

please show me some mercy :-) maybe they dont want me to edit......... i dont know i just created the acount over there some minute ago......Waronstupidity (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

just tell me how to use wikia wiki :-) I'll do the dance if you help me outWaronstupidity (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

.....i miss the good ol day........... except for the lack of technologies part and the fact that religion ruled the world.... ħuman 04:41, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

human you know i suck at humor/our ? im an unfunny liberal who waging an ironic war on stupidity.Waronstupidity (talk) 04:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks the same to me, takes a few seconds to load the actually content but besides that. What browser are you using? - π 04:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

firefox............ but i dont understand the page is blank and i cant click on it to create the * I * line to start writing/editing.Waronstupidity (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Try hitting tab a few times? DickTurpis (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Works fine for me. Do you have javascript disabled? - π 05:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure the page you are trying to edit isn't protected? - π 05:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

why would my own user page be protected O_O ? hehe the page just stay blank and cant write on it.Waronstupidity (talk) 05:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It seemed to work for me. - π 05:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It is very crap, you can't see the cursor when editing, but words appear when you type. - π 05:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I went to the link (I edited to make live) above, and clicked "edit". All appeared fine. ħuman 05:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

i re cliked on edit and cant see your message...... still blank i dont even see what you wrote.Waronstupidity (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Click the button that says source and you go from WYSIWIG mode back to the normal wiki editing screen. (EC) try purging the cache. - π 05:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

where is that *source* thing ?Waronstupidity (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Far right-hand side of the edit bar above the edit window. - π 05:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't edit their main page, that would be rude. I edited user:steppenumbed as linked above though. Just put your cursor where it "should" go, left click, and start typing. ħuman 05:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

i dont see the source thing though....... also how did you know of my user name there ? /paranoiaWaronstupidity (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

maybe there a prob on my end........ but i dont think so since i can edit most wiki.......i see the edit button but it lead me to a blank page that do not allow me to edit .......Waronstupidity (talk) 05:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I followed pi's link above and edited the user page no problem. ħuman 05:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

<-(Unindent) I still think it might be because you have javascript disabled. Do you? - π 08:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

User logins

My lack of access to my account has made me pissed. Has anyone else had problems with the Login system that they'd care to share? Theemperor

I think most of us have semi-permanent login and the rest remember their passwords. Harmonic evil Phantom Hoover! 08:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Respecting vs. tolerating religion

An interesting essay. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok - so no belief deserves respect simply because it's a religious belief. I can relate to that. :-) --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 22:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Very nicely thought out, I think. I like the "they are ideas, not people, and must earn whatever respect they might receive" although that's very similar to the Johann Hari quote that I really like about respecting the person more than the ideas, so there might be a little bit of a theme going there. The related article is also a pretty interesting read as it goes into "new atheists" and "militant atheists" a bit. ^pathetic 22:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Who was it that said the only new thing about new atheists is that you're not allowed to set them on fire any more? Jaxe (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Does that mean that I can stop respecting the idea that the Earth is 6,000 years old?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 22:22, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

It may also mean you're allowed to stop tolerating it in schools too. ^pathetic 19:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

A Fraction of the Whole

Whilst on holiday I read A Fraction of the Whole by Steven Toltz. It is his debut novel and it is brilliant. I suggest all read it immediately. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks good, I'll try to get it. Thanks Ace! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It really is a fantastic piece of work. Funny, philosophical, atheistically bent with a host of insane characters and ludicrous events. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there a Linux version, too? --78.13.141.53 (talk) 09:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of brilliant début novels, may I suggest Moxyland. Very impressive, especially if you like the William Gibson cyberpunk stuff. Only this is waayyy better. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 09:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Boredom

Hey guys, anyone who's been on here long enough to remember me still around? ɧєɭıסş^{-get sunburn!} 04:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Me obviously, but you already knew that. Welcome back, oh glowing orb! ħuman 05:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I remember you, it has been a long time - at least in internet time (where seven internet years equals one dog year). - π 06:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Fuck, yeah, I forgot Pi. She's been around forever and does lots of tech stuff. ħuman 06:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

She? Harmonic evil Phantom Hoover! 12:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sure I am an it. - π 02:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I will remember you. Will you remember me? Šţěŗĭļė classified ad 13:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I will remember all of you. Isn't that weird? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I vaguely remember your user name, but then I sort of fade in and out of this site. I don't think I've ever been accepted as part of the RW community. Frankly, CP (the sites original raison de etre(sic?)) has ceased to interest me in the slightest, so I only come here to keep my rewards program current. Speaking of which, where is my fucking food processor? ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 13:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It's in the cupbard next to the fridge. Sssh^Sssh 13:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I know the name. EddyP (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You weren't the guy who obsessed about lobsters and homosexuality were you?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 17:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If your name is Jordan then I remember you, and think you suck. If it isn't then I don't remember you, but strongly suspect that you suck. --Opcn (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Helios does not suck, so shut up. Unless you were being funny, in which case, please feel free to laugh along with our soundtrack. ħuman 09:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I was only being funny if I don't remember him. --Opcn (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As in RationalWiki, so in work

Today at the shop I sold a copy of Origin of species (the final edition to be edited by Darwin himself) for £229.99. On the shelf overlooking Darwin, on full display, unwanted and unloved: Harun Yahya's Atlas of Creation. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

£229.99?? It really costs that much? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

How much are you selling the Atlas of Creation for, and is it in the humour section? --^{Ask me about your mother} 18:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to go out again to look it up. It's in the collectibles section so prolly quite a bit. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked on Amazon, and though I didn't look for that edition in particular, some of the other editions were as cheap as $10. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I hoped you told the purchaser that he was obviously a close-minded evolutionist. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I picked up my copy of Darwin from my churches summer bizarre--Thanatos (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think my copy came with an almost-complete set of the Harvard Classics a friend once gave me. ħuman 01:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

People keep stealing mine, I've bought six copies already .. none left :( --Opcn (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

WIGO?

I have been away on a vacation. Most relaxing. Now I sit here with duty free smokes and whisky and wonder, WIGO? Did I miss anything of excitement? Aceⁱ⁹ 00:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Nutty posted a few dozen naked photos of your wife, but other than that, no real excitement. ħuman 01:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Can haz link? ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 16:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

giants in biblical times

ok, i've been debating some creationists (can't help it) and they all claim that bones of giant humans have been found all over the world. Their evidence is an image from worth1000 (so much about fact checking on their side). I couldn't find anything on RW about giants. does anyone have more information? Mr.Orange (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I seem to remember something about giant bones being found in China, but Google only gives me this for "giants in China". I assume you're talking about when all the other Sons of God (as Eddie Izzard says A-zus, B-sus, C-zus, etc), came to earth, shagged the girls and gave birth to men of renown, who were there along with the giants. Next time, just ask them who all these "Sons of God' are, and just how they fit into the Trinity? Is it Father, Ghost, A-sus, B-sus, C-sus, D-sus... maybe a Sextripity (or whatever you call it). Did jesus kill off the opposition in true aristocratic style? Ok, ramble over. --PsyGremlinSprich! 10:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could ask them for links Mr Orange?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If there's bones that have been dug up, the there will be an article in an archaeology journal. That would confirm that they actually were found. Until then "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". ^pathetic 19:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I remember seeing something on Amazons awhile ago. As I recall, these warrior women used huge longbows which caused them to develop giantess bodies in order to effectually use them. A sort of evolution.--Thanatos (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems that their only evidence is a group of images from Worth1000 photoshop contest. Mr.Orange (talk) 09:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

This is typical of the sort of bollocks that circulates. Jack Hughes (talk) 10:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As ususal I should have looked before I leaped - the Snopes article explains that there was a contest on worth1000 - as per Mr Orange's post - to photoshop the best archeological hoax which produced the original imagess and then Poes law cuts in and the pictures circulate on t'internet as the real thing. Jack Hughes (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Some blasphemous ruminations on religion, atheism, etc.

I've been doing some thinking (very unusual, I know) about the characteristics of religious groups. There are, as is readily apparent, a few common characteristics that all religions share: they all uphold some sort of group identity, they all attempt to spread a particular set of memes, etc. There are some finer points to each of these: for example, most religious groups are recognizable by some sort of logo; most of them try to proselyte through "information warfare," most have recognizable leaders who define the group and denounce its enemies, and so on and so forth.

With that in mind, the main point I want to make is this: by participating in the so-called "culture war" between science and religion, isn't atheism slowly becoming a more and more like a religion. Now, let me be clear: I am not repeat not talking in terms of metaphysics - my argument only has to do with the sociology of atheism, not its philosophical stance. Let's look at the details that I mentioned above:

• "group identity" - check. As proven by the atheist's convention in Australia, we atheists do indeed have a sense of community. Plus, there are atheism-themes websites and support groups around the world. We even assert our superiority like religious groups, as exhibited a few weeks ago when various atheist bloggers celebrated a poll that showed the correlation between atheism and IQ.
• " proselyting" - check. No, atheists do not stand on the street with flowers like cult members, but we do advertise and publish an enormous amount of religious literature. (Note: I am not suggesting that we shouldn't do this, just noting that it is similar to what religious groups do.)

• "proselyting through 'information warfare'" - check. I don't think I need to provide evidence for this one.

• "logos for identification" - check. We have the scarlet "A" and various other attempts to "brand-name" atheism much like religions do.
• "recognizable leaders" - check. Admittedly this one is sketchy, as atheist "leader" are selected more by the opposition rather than by atheists themselves. But we have them nonetheless, and I doubt that people like PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins would deny that they are extremely influential in the atheist community. Plus, many of these leaders are just as antagonistic as religious leaders - a quick scan through PZ's blog shows that he certainly doesn't take a very conciliatory attitude.

So, what can we take from all this? Here's how I see it: because atheism entered into a full-scale culture war with religion, it inevitably adopted many of religion's characteristics, at least in terms of its social and psychological aspects. This isn't necessarily a good or bad thing, it just is. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"Group identity"--nope. Was unaware that some such meeting occurred, wouldn't have bothered with it even if it was happening next door. I feel no bonds of community with other people who happen to share this world view. "Proselytizing"--I spend as much time trying to convince people that there is no god as I do trying to convince them there's no Tooth Fairy. And who's this "we" that you're referring to? I know nothing of these people who are putting out the tracts you mention. "Logos for identification"--I use no logo to identify my position on the existence of supernatural beings. Was there a meeting of some sort where a logo was chosen? Why was I not invited? "Leaders"--Never really read Myers, or Dawkins, or anybody else. There's no god. I don't need Christopher Hitchens to tell me what to do with that. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess I shouldn't have used "we," that was a bit misleading. I'm not suggesting that all atheists are like this, just as not all religious people are. But: (a) the conference did happen, whether you are aware of it or not, (b) atheists do advertise (the London busses, for example), (c) a lot of people do read Myers, Dawkins, and Hitchens, and (d) atheists are "branding" themselves with logos (though particular part of the argument is, I admit, a bit weak). Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 16:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you not say the same thing of political parties?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about it some more - what really distinguishes a religion? Looking at our article I see: Mythology, answers to life's "eternal questions", fanciful explanations about the beginning and ending of the world, faith, ritual acts, taboos etc. The items in your list above could apply to many social groupings (such as political parties), but there are some additional ones which are unique to religions.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you hit it with faith. Without some aspect of belief without evidence, there's nothing to distinguish a religion from any other advocacy group. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The one major characteristic of a religion that I know especially doesn't apply to political parties is automatic respect and deference. Atheism is also lacking that at the moment. However, Tetronian's points on group identity are very valid - it doesn't mean atheism is becoming a religion, we have established that's not possible, but it is becoming like a religion in its practical applications and practices. Of course, atheists will disagree, but that's only going to lead to sects forming, and we're probably going to end up with United Atheist Alliance, the Unified Atheist League and Allied Atheist Alliance fighting it out. We already see it with Dawkins supporting the Brights movement while others think he's a total dick about it. However, in defence of a group identity, you have to remember that atheism, in context, is surrounded on all sides by actual believing religions. It is the exception, it is the minority. It is often actively discriminated against. Many people consider it to be not normal. The entire point of books like The God Delusion and our very own FAQ for the newly de-converted are to help reassure people that it's okay to be an atheist, just like "it's okay to be gay". Forming groups and putting up that bus campaign are ways of facilitating this. ^pathetic 19:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Atheist "group identity", leaders, proselyting, etc. only come into play in certain situations & on certain issues ("culture war" if you like) & only tend to involves certain kinds of atheists. The concept that there is an "atheist community" is pretty tenuous - there may be a fairly vocal "community" of atheists who read Myers & participate in conventions & campaigns & suchlike, but this is still a small minority of the much larger numbers of people who just don't believe in God. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:53, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There are also "communities" of Tolkien fans and stamp collectors. But religions have, as I mentioned above, a particular set of common attributes which other groupings (including groupings of athiests) lack.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the only thing being an atheist sometimes has in common with being a member of a religion is the possibility of fellowship with others holding similar beliefs, and as that is entirely optional in both cases, it's just "something people do", not an aspect of religion. "We" aren't a "group", "we" don't have leaders or meetings (that are required or expected), there isn't a "we". All we "share" is lack of belief in gods/supernatural. ħuman 21:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a question related to your last sentence, Human. While reading through this thread I was struck by how no one mentioned "belief in the supernatural" as a (not the) defining characteristic of religions. This is important to me because this lack of belief in what I dismiss as magic is what I think makes me an atheist. I contrast my atheism with what seems to be a more common sort, atheism based on a resistance to a given religion or religions--basically people who are ticked off with Christianity and Christians and want to point out how wrong they are. So the question is does a religion exist that does not feature some belief the magic or the supernatural?(Supernatural is broadly defined here, so auras and other new age woo certainly counts). When I get into conversations with Christians whom I wish to be polite to I generally define myself as agnostic to avoid being associated with angry atheists. This may in fact be a more accurate description of my beliefs as obviously I can't know for certain that some sky daddy or mommy doesn't exist waiting for me in the afterlife which I also assume doesn't exist. Further, if god flew down from heaven and revealed itself to me it all of its glory I'd immediately become a theist. I define myself as an atheist around other non-theists because I dislike the association with seeking the truth which I think goes with agnostics. I think that search with respect to sky daddies is fruitless. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 17:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I know you wrote to Human - but I can't resist commenting. I don't think that's an uncommon view. It's certainly my view, and the "lack of belief because of lack of evidence" is what Dawkins says too. On another point, I remember having a debate with AKjeldsen back in the day about whether a completely non-superstitious religion could exist. I'd say it couldn't.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Above Top Secret?

Could someone please tell me what this website is. There are tons of things from there posted on fstdt.com, but the only time I've tried to go there my computer was immediately infected with a fake anti-virus.--Mustex (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What website? Linkie? ħuman 05:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't seem to have an article on them. It is a conspiracy nut bulletin board. They used to run and now host TinWiki. - π 06:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

it is the motherload for any conspiricy imaginable, and a few that arent. It became virus central with lots of links to even less trustworthy sites. 67.72.98.45 (talk)

It sure is a special place. I didn't even get half way through the first page of this thread and my mind shut. - π 10:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A thought experiment

Read this article, then replace "Christian" with "Muslim", "militia" with "sleeper cell", and "Bible" with "Koran", and ponder the vastly different reactions of the far right to the two otherwise identical scenarios. DickTurpis (talk) 15:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Extend it further. The Tea Baggers have demonstrated violent tendencies (admittedly mostly low-scale so far -- vandalism and loud mouthed threats). Anti-government militias are making a comeback. How does the far right feel about the government having broad domestic surveillance powers now? MDB (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No reference on BBC News. I guess it isn't Islamic enough to be newsworthy for them. Pah, Christian extremists? Boring. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As someone pointed out today, you'll have to hunt high and low to find a news source that refers to them as "terrorists", although as Dick points out, there's no difference between them and other groups other than Christianity as their flavour of crazy. Even "extremists" is a bit far out for most sources. --Kels (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My neighbors...

...or at least, people who live disturbingly close to me. They're a Christian militia, am waiting for the usual disavowals and No True Scotsman arguments... TheoryOfPractice (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Their website has a scrolling red banner with "Training April 24th contact headquarters immediately". Ominous stuff. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A deviously simple game...

The rules here are easy, kill the terrorists. You have a missle and a few terrorists running around. Just don't hit any civillians or little dogs running around, or their friends will mourn them and become terrorists themselves! Good luck! ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ In Soviet Russia, the straight fruit affiliates YOU! 13:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume it uses Silverlight or somesuch, FASCIST. Harmonic evil Phantom Hoover! 21:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

"you need to install this plugin." (installs plugin) "you need to install this plugin." (gives up) Totnesmartin (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

AND THERE'S NOT EVEN A LINUX VERSION. Harmonic evil Phantom Hoover! 22:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Did that say Shockwave? I'm pretty sure I've never seen that in years... ^pathetic 00:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The "terrorists" don't even do anything. Pointless. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not really a game, it's intended to make a point. I'm not sure what the point is - maybe "don't try to bomb mobile terrorists in the middle of heavily-populated urban areas if your missiles are fire-and-forget and take five seconds to strike." Which should go without saying, really. Also, there's no wedding to bomb so it's kind of a let-down.--^talk 08:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The lesson I took away from this was something like. The more missiles you fire, the more terrorists you create, the more likely subsequent missiles are going to hit terrorists. Therefore if your mission is to kill terrorists you should just shoot lots of missiles more or less randomly (given the delay between firing and hitting) this gives you a distinct late game advantage over more careful shooters. I may be meta-gaming this^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 17:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure you are metagaming it, but that seems to have been the US strategy. --Opcn (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Captain Obvious is obvious. You should have prefaced your post with: Spoiler Alert ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 16:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You also don't want to teach the terrorists how to dodge the missiles or recover the duds to sell to the Ruskies.  :-D  Civic Cat (talk) 17:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Bill Maher

I just watched Bill Maher, and I have to say, he really has become obnoxious. He got Christopher Hitchens on to gloat about the Catholic Church scandal, and he said that the purpose of the Democratic Party is to "drag the retarded hillbilly half of this country into the next century, which, for them, is the 19th." I knew he was a big anti-conservative and all that, but it seems like he's crossed the line from being intelligent to being just another cog in the two-party hate machine. Still, Maher is the only famous person to ever come out of my hometown (queue a bunch of stalkers who will now go on to WP and look up his hometown...) Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:15, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, he has a point about dragging them into the next century, but it seems pretty uncalled for. ^pathetic 20:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. He's got the balls of Ann Coulter, and the inflammatory perspective as well. I think he's funny, but I've never really seen his TV shows, just a concert/movie thing or something I copied and can't see but can hear. ħuman 01:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

He's also a total antivax wingnut. You've got to be a real moron to make me cheer for Bill Frist. Corry (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Maher supported the Greens. Did Hitchens ever vote Libertarian. I don't think that Maher was more a mouthpiece for Clinton or Gore than Hitchens was for Bush.Civic Cat (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Impersonating the Schlafinator

This is hypothetical. If I impersonated Schlafly on another forum, but I didn't try to get bank information or anything else fraud-related, would it still be illegal? I just did this but I got paranoid and deleted it. I didn't say anything he hasn't said before. Thanks Senator Harrison (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's going to do anything about it in real life, even if it is illegal. Harmonic evil Phantom Hoover! 08:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It's only illegal in the most theoretical sense. No one ever got arrested for pretending to be someone else on the Internet unless (a) actual harm was caused or (b) money changed hands. And even in those cases, really only (b) counts. Don't worry.--^talk 14:06, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In the end it might not be worth it since Schlafypoo likes to send the FBI at the drop of a hat. The man is so fragile. Senator Harrison (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit prattish to do anyway. All he has to say is "that's not me, it's an impostor" and you're thrown (or laughed) off the forum, even if you say what he would have said in the same situation. In the end he wins. if you want to make him look stupid, point out his errors. dawkins knows there's enough of those for any number of forums. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Slander and defamation of character could enter into it, it seems to me, but there would have to be actual damages for it to potentially go anywhere. Anyway, it's hard to damage Andy's repuatation any more than he's done himself. Though he is fond of gerbilling. DickTurpis (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

People use fake names all the time on forums, be something like A. Schlafly, never confirm or deny your identity, link to CP and tell people off for being too wordy. Try to talk mostly in Schlafly quotes from CP. --Opcn (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha, that's pretty much what I was doing. I was gonna make a Kenservative account too. Senator Harrison (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ken's probably already there. ħuman 23:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Q: How do you tell if that is true? A: Anal lube everywhere--Opcn (talk) 08:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Texas

Next time someone starts up with the Fatwa envy and says that Christians are kind and accepting, remind them that A University in Texas just cancelled a play because of security threats and such from those good Christians. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 05:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the comments on that page have some awesome stupid that could have come right out of CP:

“”As I recall, the goofy book a few years back called the Davinci Code implied that Jesus was married and fathered several children? Now, this liberal professor (as a member of the GAY MAFIA) tries to spread his sewer-pipe mentality to the young, mushy brains in college. Why is this MORON "professor" Mark Holtorf even getting paid for this garbage? **Where are the liberals now who spout endlessly about the separation of church and state?It SHOULD be illegal anyway! See the point? Look at this double-standard: If a Christian professor wanted to mention Jesus in class, he would get fired. If you want to direct a play that depicts Jesus as Gay, you get to keep your job. Never forget: LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER.

Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we found more open Andy--Thanatos (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Phun

http://www.phunland.com/wiki/Home I highly recommend getting this and playing around with it. It's just eaten up an entire day of mine that I should have spent being productive. ^pathetic 16:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I see your plan - post up links to stuph that'll make us even less productive, so you come out ahead, you sneaky slack scientist you. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I want my free time back! Harmonic evil Phantom Hoover! 18:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

My fiancee's boss has just asked "What's the word for 1 + 1 = 3"
Anyone wanna tackle that one? Aceⁱ⁹ 23:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Creative accounting? - π 23:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, his is an accountant. And it is probably questions like that which have caused him to bankrupt himself - twice. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the old joke among engineers is that 1 +1 =3, for large values of one and small values of three. So, "engineering" perhaps? MDB (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected sex? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I keep getting the urge to answer "five". ħuman 02:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's probably something stupid like "teamwork".  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Lily ftw! That is, indeed, what I have written on my card. Points all around! ħuman 08:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

'Coffee Party' Members here?

I've been looking at them, and am even a 'fan' on their Facebook page, but I wonder what the rest of you think of them? Do they seem to be a workable group to help counter the Teabaggers? And are any of you even nominally associated with this movement? Ravenhull (talk) 05:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the Teabaggers are really angry about tax. The Coffeegrinds are just annoyed at the Teabaggers. Anger has more impetus.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 06:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Mmmmmm, coffee. Vote in 2010, and get your friends to as well. ħuman 06:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Coffee party is the professional version of RW to the Teabaggers CP. --Opcn (talk) 08:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Self-identified "tea partiers" account for about a tenth of America at last polling. I would be surprised if "Coffee Partiers" made up half a percent.--^talk 13:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm more of a Cocktail Party guy myself. DickTurpis (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking awhile ago we could create an RW-chapter of the Coffee Party. Anyone else agree?--Thanatos (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I was going to say I was a member of the beer party but it seems a bit redundant. The coffee party is completely insginificant in numbers and won't grow significantly as long as their plan is to have civil and reasonable discussions. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 20:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe that's why they should have RW members.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh those witty Brits

They can be so much ruder and cruder on the telly than us silly Murkins. ħuman 08:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I love QI :) Does it get aired over the pond? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Some time-waster posted a link a few days ago, and I've had, let's say, a small "problem" since then on the innertubes. I can stop ANY TIME I LIKE really I can. ħuman 09:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I know exactly what you mean. I discovered it a couple of weeks ago and have been watching it on Youtube religiously since. I find it particularly amusing that the guy who posts the whole episodes on youtube, puts "No copyright infringement intended", as if that will make the difference. --Damo^Hi 11:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

QI is pretty good, Stephen Fry is excellent, but Phil Jupitus is not funny, and that Irish fella with his poxy psuedo-Dublin accent, well, they just ruin it for me. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It's John Sessions (not been on lately?) who rubs me wrong. Which Irish fellow? Green Giant (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean Dara O'Briain? Rob Brydon is very good on it. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Dara 'OBrian is the guy I'm on about - I can't fucking stand him, not quite sure why, possibly just because he's a cock. Rob Brydon is superb, I'd highly recommend his stand-up too. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't like Dara Ó Briain? Blasphemy! (Him on Homeopathy though, is well worth it) ^pathetic 16:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

QI is best when they have David Mitchell on. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)