RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive56

This is an archive page, last updated 4 January 2012. 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>, <55>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Well, that stuffs it for Labour

Blair backs brown. Bastard! Green Giant (talk) 12:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh, nice one Tone! I know you don't like Brown (does anyone?), but that's a bit harsh. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Meeting

Actually the QI thread above got me thinking. If you could meet any two people, one who's alive and one who's dead (assuming they could be reanimated for your meeting of course), who would they be? Mine would be Stephen Fry and Charles Babbage. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Babbage the old Totnesian! Totnesmartin (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is Totnesia, exactly? (I shouldn't say much, I used to be a Haligonian, and I have no clue where Haligon is). --Kels (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly? Well the town centr is just up the road, staright on at the crossroads and turn left, but the council offices are the other way and the railway station is down the hill. Totnesmartin (talk)

Dara O'Brian and Vlad the Impaler. I'd arrange a time and place to meet, but then not show up... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Bill Bailey and Mozart, give them a room full of musical instruments and let them loose. Bondurant (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Barack Obama and Gandhi. I would give the former a carefully-prepared elevator speech that will launch me into the ranks of national power, and I would thank the latter and give him a hug for being awesome.--^talk 12:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Terry Pratchett and Douglas Adams. Or John Cleese and Graham Chapman. --PsyGremlinHable! 12:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Mick Jagger and (either) Jesus or Mohammed. The former 'cause I'd love to tell him that they were always better than the Beatles and the latter to show them what a fucking mess they started. Green Giant (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

For the dead, I'd have a close call between Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, because both had personal philosophies very close to mine. I think I'd pick ol' Ben, just because I think he'd be more fun, especially if I could meet him during his 'dirty old man' stage. (Jefferson strikes me as being somewhat dour. It would be like meeting a brilliant grouch.)

For the living, so many choices. If I had to make a quick pick, Steve Jobs, because I'm an Apple geek. MDB (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, and Jobs designs it all himself.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm an engineer myself. Trust me, I know the CEO has little to do with design decisions. But he's still one of the people who founded a company whose products I greatly like. MDB (talk) 14:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I second the Pratchett and Adams suggestion. Although apparently Douglas Adams was a complete cock in real life, I'd like to see if A) it was true and B) just what would happen, as their writing and their ideas are clearly on the same page, but are/were their personalities? I'd also like to see Bill Bailey and Tim Minchin (with two pianos, of course), but I'm not entirely sure which of them I'd want to kill to make that combination valid by the rules of this exercise... ^postate 15:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My alive choice would be Elvis, my dead would be Castro. DickTurpis (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't really think of many alive persons right now. I'd like to be friends with Bill Gates or Dawkings etc, but I don't see the point in just "meeting" someone. So I will just cop out and totally abuse your wishing stone/well by saying "I'd like to meet the guy who will cure cancer and/or aids and/or paralysis and/or death if only someone encouraged him, with a random meeting, to go do, whatever he needs to do in order to do so, but for some reason he doesn't (ie, is a random indian farmer). Failing that, then the guy who, when asked to point at a random number, will point at the upcomming winning number in a jackpot lottery". From the dead though, I think that would be Leonardo da Vinci. He seems all around interesting and I have often fantasized what a blast he would have seeing/going on an A380, or at least an Ultralight trike. :] Sen (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ

Anyone want to add to this little effort? Totnesmartin (talk) 12:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. The twin Jesuses idea sounds a bit of a clichéd way of doing it, but I'm sure Pullman will be able to make something good out of it. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Black on Black Hate Speech.

I really can't stop laughing at this. All emotion, no thought.--Thanatos (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Insane. He starts in familiar tea party style nonsense but then takes it to really loopy places. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That is just about the funniest thing I've seen all year. My god, he just won't shut up. SirChuckB^{Gentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin} 19:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Where did this guy get his PhD? I must know. DickTurpis (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Doctorates-R-us, presumably. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Evil Kid Webchat

Wow, this can't be real, surely? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It'd be easy enough to fake and I f**king well hope it is... ^postate 16:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Funniest. Video. Ever.

Priest-Off. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, thanks! ħuman 21:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The Less Educated You Are....

... the more likely you are to believe wild claims about Obama.

Which doesn't explain a certain gentleman who has a BSEE from Princeton and a degree from Harvard Law, but still... MDB (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I would posit that his conclusion that is about appreciating the differences between opinions and facts is one of the keys. You don't get anywhere in higher education without some appreciation of that. ^postate 17:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Education (in virtually any field) certainly develops critical skills & ability to evaluate evidence & bias. Unfortunately there are far too many people without those critical & analytical skills, who believe unquestioningly whatever one-sided crap they read in tabloids or on blogs or get told in conversation. & I have met a few otherwise well educated people who have that kind of mentality, but it is much more common among less educated people. As for using Andy Schlafly as a counterexample, don't forget "professor values" & "the best of the public" etc. Despite the Harvard background, Andy is firmly in the anti-intellectual camp. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

It was my experience in college that some people managed to escape relatively unscathed by education. While I found the experience transformative, some dimwit freshman came out dimwits with bachelor's degrees. I saw a similar thing in grad school though I wasn't able to observe the whole arc as clearly. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 19:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Important changes regarding page titles

& and + now work in page titles, e.g. User:Nx/sand&box and User:Nx/+sandbox will link to the correct page. However, this means that hacks like User:Nx&action=edit and User:Phantom Hoover&action=delete no longer work (since this is now correctly interpreted as a full page title). If you see something like this, change it to https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nx&action=edit.

There might be things that don't play nicely with this, e.g. I'm not sure how DPL will work with page titles containing + or &, and Capturebot2 for example uses & to separate pages in its configuration (though that's just minor problem).

If you see any breakage anywhere, tell me ASAP. -- Nx / talk 11:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought we'd had this since an update ages ago since I'm we and Wikipedia have been able to get "Penn & Teller" for a while. Though I may be mistaken and getting it confused with some redirecting hack. But anyway, cheers for that, I'll keep an eye out. ^postate 13:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it was not a MediaWiki problem, it was an apache problem. I'm rebuilding all link tables now (that's why the server is slow), because of this and because there's some DPL junk there too, and then I'll check Wantedpages. -- Nx / talk 13:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I am calling the Loya Jirga to order

In my capacity as a bureaucrat and regular editor here at RationalWiki, I would like to bring the Loya Jirga arm of RationalWiki to order to deal with the current trolling of this wiki by TK and by RobSmith. While I am avowed as apathetic to issues involving RationalWiki vs. Conservapedia, I find their recent trolling of this entire wiki to be a worthy case for the Loya Jirga to take up and deal with. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 00:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is it being referred straight to LJ? My understanding is that LJ is a last resort for cases where other forms of resolution have been attempted & have broken down into HCM. This should go to Admin Abuse first. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no abuse of admin privs involved, though. ħuman 00:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, but does that mean that only seven people can have a valid opinion on this issue? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Input is welcome, far as I know. But the seven are the ones who make the final decision based on discussion and suggestions, that's all. --Kels (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, start a separate subforum under "LJ" for each "case". I don't think these are the same. TK is just being TK, RobS is somewhere between the moon and Venus over this wp/rw/cp thing. ħuman 00:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

As an LJ I would say block them both for 3 days until their spleens run dry. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a case about people who are doing a major trolling of RationalWiki, including leaving threats across the various userpages here. There are no abuses of admin powers involved, so it would, therefore, be an inappropriate venue. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 00:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Agree with Ace, although I was originally going to suggest a day. Also, vandal bin both if they aren't already. They've both proven on multiple occasions (hell, every single edit either have made) they don't mean to contribute in any positive way, not even for entertainment value. --Kels (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking this myself this morning when I opened up RC and saw over 100 edits by or about one of these two. I'll set up the forum. - π 00:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

EC I am totally afraid that this is going to end up in all kinds of intra-wiki sniping because we still don't have our shit together re: codifying what to do when issues come up--we have an LJ and we're not even sure what it's for. This is not admin abuse, but it is a case of abuse of community standards, and as an LJ member, I want to see as many of the community at large have a voice on the issue. When it gets ugly and intractable, then I'll put my LJ hat on...TheoryOfPractice (talk) 00:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ace & Kels (pi days & VB), but I also agree with ToP. Someone email Susan? ħuman 00:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(answering ToP) Seriously, I don't care. My position stands either way (block for 3 days plus binning of both). I'm flexible, but not to the point of getting paralyzed by protracted discussion so that nothing gets done. --Kels (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC)So it's not technically administrative abuse, but there should still be a place for the community (not just seven members) to discuss & agree a solution. Throughout when the Loya Jirga was being proposed, we said that it would only be used for settling longstanding problems that couldn't be settled some other way & that LJ members should not be regarded as having more authority than editors. But that's the complete opposite of what's happening here: one user shouts "Loya Jirga" & 90% of the community get frozen right out of the decision-making process. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC)That is what is commonly called governance. - π 00:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the polecat. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 00:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Weasel, who exactly said you couldn't have input, and what did they say? --Kels (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It's implicit in the fact that the LJ is being called in on this, something that I'm not a member of. If everyone's to have input, then why do we need to make it a LJ case? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Think of it as a amicus curiae brief. You can submit on and it will be considered, but someone else has to make an actual decision. Not intending to be rude, but I do wonder if you would be protesting less if you had a spot on the Lazy Jugulars. - π 00:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Not necessarily. See ToP's & Toast's comments, both LJ members. Nobody has yet answered the basic question I'm asking: why is this being referred specifically to LJ & not to the wider community? If the answer is that it is being referred to the wider community, the question still remains of why it has to be referred to the LJ at all. So everyone can discuss it but only the LJ can vote - but there's been no explanation why that has to be the case at this point. I'm not trying to derail the issue of what we do wit Rob, but I think the issue of how we use the LJ is going to be important, & jumping straight from a few murmurings on user talk pages to a LJ case, without any attempt at inclusive decision making first sets a really bad precedent. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember anything about the membership not being allowed input into LJ cases. From what I gather, the LJ is basically there to determine what consensus is and take appropriate action without going through HCM. That sort of requires people be involved in providing evidence/testimony/opinion/suggestions and so forth. --Kels (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What Kels said. - π 01:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be more concerned if the two hadn't voted in the election. But they knew the deal before they posted. - π 00:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everyone. ħuman 00:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not on LJ, but I did prompt this. It is true it's not admin abuse; it's just obnoxious trolling. We're probably damned if we do block him (usual semi-HCM from people about not following a block policy when we have nothing about trolling) and damned if we don't (because he'll continue). So do what you will. 'Pologies if it's a problem. Šţěŗĭļė tomfoolery 01:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There's more than one type of trolling. MC did one thing, RobS does another and TK does a third. The three need handling in different ways. MC can be ignored because he's a waste of time. RobS makes the occasional salient point but as soon as somebody answers, just changes topic to avoid being pwned. TK is a liar. This debate seems to be about the latter two so I'll stick to those.

Blocking RobS won't achieve anything. His current focus is on WP so he'll continue there instead. Blocking him will deny people involved in the debate the opportunity to call him a moron.

Blocking TK is fun and healthy - and I'll be blocking him for a short period immediately after posting this. Blocking him for three days will deny us the opportunity to see yet more lies, and I'd hate to see it happen. It's much more fun to keep him around to see how we can violate his human rights by calling him out as the lying, deceitful piece of shit he is.

If the Leeward Jamboree decides to block either of them, fine. But it won't solve anything and will remove a major source of entertainment. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 04:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Bloody hell, guys and gals. If they're posting crap on talk pages, just ignore them. If they're messing stuff up, just stick the vandal brake on their arses. Easy. Why the endless indepth discussion and calls to the LJ? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

See entire discussion above. Aside from which, the history of this place is the moment someone actually does something, someone else out of pity or principle or boredom will almost immediately undo what's done and end up making things worse. --Kels (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Right. The reason the LJ was summoned is that a decision may be reached that some people are vehemently at odds with. If the LJ ratifies it, it's against the !rules to undo it. And personally I'd prefer Rob keep his WP fetishes on WP, not on my talk page. If he does that on his own, fine. If not, he might need a little preventative medicine. ħuman 20:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Private? Oooww, can you expound? nobs^{don't bother me} 20:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Always take your medications as directed, Rob. --Kels (talk) 00:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Giggle. Snerk. Guffaw. Laugh uproariously.

The Republican National Committee spent RNC money at a bondage themed topless strip club.

I am sure they were just conducting an investigation into the decadent values promoted by liberal Democrats. MDB (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, US politicians finally learn something from the British! Blood may oil the wheels of capitalism, but Astroglide oils the wheels of politics. ^{Ask me about your mother} 18:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Drive Thrus

Ok, I know I’m reactionary as hell, but I’ve noticed something happening twice in the last month or so, and its just annoyed me. Not sure if it’s a sign of lowering standards of service or not, though, so thought I’d get other people’s opinions. Basically, people at drive-thrus seem to be cutting me off before I can add some final specification on my order. Now, the first time was at Zaxby’s, and to be fair there was a person or two behind me. The woman asked “do you want ketchup,” and I took a second to think if I had any at home, before responding “no.” She gave me ketchup anyway.

The second time was this morning at the bank, and I was the ONLY ONE THERE. I was had brought some rolled up change along with some bills in an envelope, and asked them to change it all into larger denominations (I hate having a bunch of lose change and small bills around when I’m saving cash for something), and at the end amended that I’d like them to give me the envelop back, rather than a new one. I got a new one. Honestly, I’m tempted to go back to the bank and demand that they give me a nickel to reimburse me for my lost envelope.--Mustex (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like bad luck to me. I work at a Mcdonalds, and the quality of the drive-thru is entirely dependent on which employee is there. And there may well be pressure from management to not give out any sauce, or indeed when there is a queue, to automatically give out sauce in order to speed up the order. As for the bank, it sounds like they thought they were doing you a favour by providing a new envelope for your money. --Sean^talk 20:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I am tempted to say get out of your fucking car and go about your business inside said establishments you fat lazy yank, although that may appear somewhat xenophobic. (But a drive-thru bank? Bloody hell.) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of our banks have drive through facilities nowadays. ħuman 21:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

They gave you a new envelope!! Incompetent, corner-cutting, envelope-dispensing b****ds! I'd write to their CEO if I were you. What is the world coming to? New envelope indeed! Things didn't use to happen like that when I were a lad. No sir.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

There's a Wendy's down the street that is the model of efficiency. There have been times when I've gone through without even coming to a complete stop. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I know it may seem stupid that I'm complaining because in both cases I actually got more (although I was annoyed I lost my envelope, but I won't go into the details of that), but I hate feeling like people aren't listening to me. And when you're telling me banks and restaurants have stopped listening to their customers. Grrrrr. (and yes, we yanks are very lazy)--Mustex (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A truly efficient service would be them driving up to my place, not the other way round. --⁠ (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right to complain about this, Mustey. The global economy is in dire straits and yet we have profligate banks giving away envelopes willy-nilly! Whatever next? At least the international fast-food institutions are not needing government bailouts just yet, but with this kind of cavalier attitude to ketchup, it can only be a matter of time! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

First they gave away the ketchup, but I didn't speak up because I didn't like ketchup. Then they gave away the mayonnaise . . . ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 22:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

What's with the envelope? Was it like a perfumed, wax-sealed, letter from your true love, with a rare up-side-down Lincoln stamp cancelled in 1973? As for the ketchup, I usually have to ask.Civic Cat (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I can undrstand the principle. It's frustrating for customers to have the little things missed through omission or even substitution based on the assumption that the substitution will be accepted because it appears better. I used to train people in customer service, and the most difficult thing was to encourage people to avoid assumptions that impose a solution, reading a situation and understanding what a customer wants, and when a substitution is the only option - teaching people to sell it to the customer, getting them to go away feeling that it was their choice. ^{Ask me about your mother} 18:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Burning Cross Myth

Hey, just remembered something I heard years ago, and was wondering if anyone knew if there was any legitimacy to this. The claim was that the KKK bastardized the burning cross, which was originally put in the yards of wife-beaters, rather than blacks attempting to vote.--Mustex (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't mentioned in the Wikipedia entries (wp:cross burning, wp:fiery cross), which mention some other unrelated uses of cross burning, but it's entirely possible. There are traditions going back hundreds of years for communities symbolically or ritually shaming people for their domestic conduct, although (in more sexist times) they were more often for humiliating men who allowed themselves to be beaten, scolded or cuckolded by their wives than the reverse. See, for example, wp:skimmington. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The stole the hats as well. Come Easter you can see these guys all over Spain.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well the original idea for the KKK, for those who don't know, was that they were the "ghosts" of confederates who died during the war coming back to get revenge. They probably nicked the hats cause they stuck in their minds. SirChuckB^{Please Excuse me, I have to go out and hunt giraffes} 19:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Get off my lawn!

The world has changed so much so quickly. We smart species. ħuman 02:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The above comment is: Human being a human being. Words are what I like. Mei (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What am I being? A human being. Or: a human being a human being. Human is also a human being & a human being a human being. Mei (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again I am alone on the wiki. Mei (talk) 03:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

What on earth are you two prattling on about? --Damo^Hi 03:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I was talking about words. Mei (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If you can't understand, Damo, let the silence infuse your brain with fresh sky. ħuman 04:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The singularity is coming!!1 Sen (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The text makes me think of. Star Trek reference, but the heading confirms my belief that Human is the basis of ClInt Eastwood's character in Gran Torino. The evidence is mounting my friend. BTW, I'll get the badge done by the end of the week. Apologies for the delay - busy at work. ^{Ask me about your mother} 19:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Poking religious people is fun

Sometimes the aussies are an example to us all. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Love it.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

the church is real, but they don't seem to have noticed that Easter's due any day now. Green Giant (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No offense Jeeves, but this is something like the 3rd time that's been posted at the SB... Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I've seen it before. Hooray for Jeeves, this is the funniest thing I've seen this week! ^postate 16:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Also my first time seeing this. Jeeves, should my sister be single and looking for a random Internet bloke, you are officially number four on the list! ^{Ask me about your mother} 19:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just read the pie-chart entry below it. I have a feeling I've found a new way to waste an enjoyable couple of hours. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 19:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Pac-ManMimas

Just interesting. Green Giant (talk) 08:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Is that an actual false colour visualisation of something, or just a bored tech + photoshop? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently a thermal map. Green Giant (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

All I have to say is...

MDB (talk) 11:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Pacman. I used to love playing that when I was a kid. And to all the killjoys who say that kids are influenced by what they see in computer games; I didn't grow up to spend my time going around darkened rooms, munching pills whilst repetitive electronic music played... Erm, hang on.... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 11:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

My favorite was the Star Wars arcade game, and I have yet to blow up a Death Star in real life. I haven't even managed to use the Force yet. #pregnant pause# Yet. MDB (talk) 14:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You must have made a wrong turn. I'm often to be seen flying my arrowhead-shaped spaceship round the asteroid belt. That or delivering papers in the suburbs. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

MDB, is that the wireframe Starwars game? If so, I agree. TM, badmouth Paperboy at your peril! It's the first video game I taught my mum to play, so I have good memories there. She never quite got the hang of Defender.^{Ask me about your mother} 19:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Paedo church: Chapman speaks

From "Discovery News alibying the Catholic Church & Ratzinger:

In the 60s and 70s many in the Church bowed to the culture of therapy ...

Christians have a hard time being judgmental.

The kind of people who want the Church to give up its standards on sexuality and marriage tend to be the same people who are prepared to pursue the Church all the more strenuously for these sex cases.

The cure for the Vatican is to continue to clean house in Europe and elsewhere as it has begun to do in the U.S

... the attempt of the New York Times and some other media to attach scandal personally to Pope Benedict XVI, formerly Cardinal Ratzinger, is both wrongheaded and reprehensible. ...

Wriggle all you like, it happened.

(aren't the DI & the Vatican strange bedfellows?) Green Giant (talk) 09:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

So, lets see. Because I think that the homophobia of certain Christians is reprehensible, I'm not also allowed to think that the child molestation of certain Christians is also reprehensible? I guess sex is one of those black and white areas. Missionary, man on top, the woman thinking of england good, all other sex bad. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a radio channel here in Spain called COPE which is run by the Catholic Church. It's pretty right-wing and supports both the Catholic Church (naturally) and also the PP which is the Spanish version of the British conservative Party though it's somewhat further to the right.

Anyway, I listen to it from time to time for the laughs, and they just came out with a corker. It was along the lines of "What's the big deal with paedophile priests? Don't people know that in ancient Greece such activity was quite respectable."

I hasten to add this was an off-the-cuff commentary and is probably not the official party line, but if got a laugh from me.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The catholic church are one of the most reprehensible of all religious sects, especially of the mainstream western ones. I watched a debate between Chris Hitchens & Stevie Fry, and an African catholic bishop & Anne Widicombe(!); Hitch had a right go at them for the death and suffering resulting from their anti-condom stance, to which they both 'responded' by saying "oh, the condom thing again. Every debate people go on about condoms" etc. Fry then ripped them to pieces, pointing out that yes, every catholic debate turns to condoms, because millions of people have died because of it, and how dare they not face up to this fact (comparing it to a criminal in court complaining that the prosecution "keeps bringing up the robbery thing"). The catholic church doesn't even seem to care about the implications of its policies, they just deny all criticism. (sorry if this makes little sense, I get too annoyed to type sometimes) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I already posted this in the what is going on in the blogs section, but... two NPR Commentary pieces, one calling for the Pope to (temporarily) step aside and another arguing he should not (yet). MDB (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

When in the hell did that happen? Sounds like the kind of line up I'd bugger a priest to see. ^postate 15:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, a good summary worth watching it appears (second comment down by jamika freaks the shit out of me...) ^postate 16:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Just watching it on youtube now. First part here. But this was back in November of last year. Things would go worse today.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

From the summary linked by Armondikov above:

"I wished that there still existed a great Catholic apologist like Chesterton or Belloc, someone who was not only brave and prepared to square up to the Hitch, but was his intellectual equal."

Could be because anyone with a brain can see it's all rubbish? Green Giant (talk) 19:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a comment from The Atheist Experience show. They've commented that theists have complained that the people calling in are not equiped to offer good arguments. The problem is that certain stances, such as biblical literalism and the Catholic approach to condoms, are impossible to defend in the face of serious debate. A podcast I've recently found has given me far more respect for the Christian perspective, even if I can't accept the claims, since it's less assertive and more willing to accept that it all comes down to interpretation. ^{Ask me about your mother} 19:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't you just hate it...

...when you wake up on the morning of one of the last exams of the year and find that the cunt that's been stealing food from you in the kitchen stole that full loaf of bread you left in your unlocked cupboard that you were planning on having for breakfast? I know I do. But my exam's in less than two hours, so I'd better start revising. SJ ^Debaser 11:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You forgot the simple rule to student food. Poison all your food and take the antidote before you eat anything. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I'm lucky in a way that I don't have exams. Less so in the sense that my finals go on for more than a month. --Kels (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. things like bread and tinned food should always be locked in your room anyway. Sharing a house with people makes you realise that everyone is a complete selfish wanker. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope your lack of brekky doesn't scupper your exam too much, have a couple of pints before you go in (beer was known as 'liquid bread' in t'olden days, dontchknow). What are you studying mate? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I went down to the shop and got a croissant for breakfast anyway. I left a lovely note on my cupboard calling the person that nicked it, and I quote a "fucking cunt." I study an electronic-related course. Just got out the exam, it went alright. Now off to le pub. SJ ^Debaser 14:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is nobody else worried that the Super One was planning to eat an entire loaf of bread for breakfast??! PS Hope the exam went ok. PPS I used to spit in my mug at work and have a good laugh whenever I saw somebody else drinking from it. --PsyGremlinSermā! 15:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm more concerned that his breakfast related rant was at 11:44 - bloody students! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol, didn't spot that. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Aye, doesn't everyone else have a loaf of bread for breakfast? Unusual of y'all. Me and my friend (singular friend - I only know one person in real life) ordered pizza last night, so it was cold leftovers of that for breakfast this morning. SJ ^Debaser 10:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Now that is a breakfast of kings. I lurve last night's takeaway! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Lucky

Yay!!

w00t, I just won £40 on a scratchcard :) I'm off to snort coke off a hooker's ass. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That means either cheap coke, or a cheap hooker. I'm not sure which is worse. --PsyGremlinParlez! 15:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't be an idiot and squander your winnings like that; invest in 40 more scratchcards! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

@Psy: Both!! @Delta: Now that's a good investment Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:15, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Although I must admit, last time I bought a scratchcard I won £1 - the woman behind the counter asked if I'd like another one, but I declined, stating that I would "quit whilst I'm ahead". She looked a little confused. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 15:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually this one was a £2 one. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I am going to buy a 2quid scratchcard right now... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I once won $200 on a scratchoff. Is it a shame that was the happiest moment of my life? Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 13:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Many years ago I won about 500 pounds on a dog track. The only time I've ever been.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Wanted - Jihadist group for small job - Westboro baptist church

I have just been watching youtube again, and these people take the cake. I know some religious groups seem to go to extremes but this lot and the delightful woman who speaks for them, Jeez. I have a hard time believing its real and not like Landover Baptists, home of 'Tampons, Satans cottony fingers' Hamster (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah, the WBC are just christians following the bible. At least they're true to it. The bible does say that god hates fags. It also says a lot of other horrible stuff, these guys are just true to it - good for them. If society must 'respect' people who believe in the absurdities of the bible, then these wankers need respect too. Of course, the sane option is to not offer respect to any sky-fairy believers at all, whether they use the nicer or not so nice aspects of their chosen story book as their slogan. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen it argued, credibly in my opinion, that Fred Phelps is insane. Not just like we might say "that Andy Schlafly is ca-razy!", I mean suffering from a clinically diagnosable mental illness. Apparently, years ago, he had a problem with amphetamines (back when they were "diet pills"), which could explain impaired reasoning.

I've seen it further argued that the only reason he's not been committed is that large sections of the law enforcement commutity in Topeka (?) are afraid of being counter-sued. The Phelps clan is full of lawyers (Fred is one himself, though disbarred) and they sue like mad. And apparently, they're good at it. The people who would prosecute the "church", or try to have him committed, feel they face personal financial ruin if they go up against him.

As for it being a parody... if it is, its one of the most elaborate parodies in history. An entire extended family, including disaffected members, plus the rest of the church, apparently devoting their entire lives to it, and for several years now. MDB (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

How are they financed? Do any of them actually work as lawyers outside the clan? PS. I wasn't saying I agree with their views, just that their views are consistent with the bible and christianity. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've heard that they make their money by suing people who get into physical altercations with them. MDB (talk) 17:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Or any other altercation. Or protest against them, or criticise them, or any other excuse. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the likes of WBC and Jihadist groups would be found to pretty much espouse the same ideology, fueled by the same middle eastern morality & mythology. They'd be best buddies on this subject. The only difference is that the WBC doesn't have the guts to act. They probably dream for the day they would have an "anonymous/sympathetic mob" to hide into and act like the killers/sadists in potentia they are.Sen (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

See the news about the Hutaree recently? That's a Christian Jihadist group for you. As for WBC, they're not really action-orientated; they're all about creating a media stink & lots of litigation to raise their profile. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

(1) They likely figure that the jihadi groups are God's punishment on America; (2)They are too much in the spotlight to act violently; (3) As for money, who knows what annoymous donations they might be getting, or previous wealth they are living on.Civic Cat (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

rise in fundamentalism.........

do you think America is doomed?Waronstupidity (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Define "doomed" please. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The world has always been controlled by aggregate stupidity, and always will be. If the whole of America was converted to fundamentalism overnight, you would not experience any change. Mei (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing... back in about 1988, when I was just 15, I predicted that the USSR would break up within 15 years and the USA within 50. I can't remember what my reasons were, just that I made the prediction during some random discussion on politics. My classmates scoffed, but I was able to remind them of the discussion, somewhat smugly, less than 4 years later. By that prediction, the USA has about 28 years left.

More seriously, the level of hatred in American politics is higher than I've ever seen it. I can imagine some governor / state legislature making a "gesture" at some point that some constitutional lawyer somewhere will later claim to have technically been secession. Or something like that. A permanent break up? Nah. With apologies to my younger self. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

All success sows the seeds of its own destruction. The USA will not continue indefinitely as the world's leading military/economic superpower. I expect both Russia and China to overtake the US in the coming century. Americans might like to think that their system defeated communism but defeat often gives impetus and victory breeds complacency. In 1945 I doubt that few Brits would have forecast that they would have lost most of their empire and be overtaken by a defeated Germany both economically and technologically.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

what i mean is America is becoming a theocracy, where liberal and non christian will be shot. the *American Taliban*are getting stronger each passing day.Waronstupidity (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well that's just a stoopid question. Religion intrudes into US politics far more than it should, but the whole constitutional set-up prevents any kind of theocracy; besides which, who is President right now? Just because the fundamentalists & reactionaries shout the loudest does not mean that theirs is the most popular or influential viewpoint. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not true, they're just getting louder and more obnoxious. Look at the rise of atheism and secularism, particularly in the younger generations. DickTurpis (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Its not just christian wingnuts. Cable TV and the intertubs act like a megaphone for all sorts of activists. Look at how "important" Perez Hilton is. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 20:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

America is "doomed" (or more correctly the USA is) for the simple reason that no power gets to be world leader for ever. The only question is whether its fall will be sooner rather than later. Typically when empires fall it only really becomes clear with hindsight. SuspectedReplicant may hare predicted the rapid fall of the USSR, but few others did. Same goes for the British Empire - it went with surprising rapidity. The USA? Who knows?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Doomed in that sense: definitely. Wasn't it Voltaire who said of the Roman Empire that "it fell, because all things fall"? Am I just showing off by quoting that? Definitely. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Just what is going on in US politics? I am certainly not saying that the UK or our politicians are perfect (far from it), but we would never see a politician boasting that their views are based on the bible or that they don't accept the theory of evolution. (and when some of them get close to letting their sky-pixie based views interfere with their politics, they are lambasted by all sides of the media). Just how can a country as successful and powerful as the USA still have politicians from the dark ages? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 00:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And that is why I want to leave. I could never figure it out either and it's not helping us at all. Senator Harrison (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The real question is "how will it fall?" - gracefully, like the British Empire (meaning the home nation survived and adjusted) or catastrophically? If the US stops spending a fortune keeping military bases all over the world it would be good for the economy. Is it time to let Japan and Germany maintain their own defense? Is it time for the US to let other countries maintain the "freedom of the seas" in parts of the world? ħuman 02:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that the more interesting question is "how will it fall", I'm not sure that I agree with your point about military bases. How much would US military spending be reduced by closing military bases? How much of that spend goes overseas? If that military spending were to be cut what would be the impact be on the US economy (and the defence industry in particular) if the government simply didn't spend that money? If returning soldiers were demobilised what would the impact be? If they were not demobilised what would you do with them? I don't know the answer to any of these questions, but I suspect the matter is not as clear cut as it may appear.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 05:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Bob, you need to learn how to spell out "defense" before you leave your Parthian Arros in my bum. ħuman 06:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

While I am usually quite proud of my rather prolific typo production I rather think that that is not one of them my colonial-spelling comrade.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Closing overseas bases would undoubtedly make a huge saving. There is no longer any need for the US to have bases in Europe, as we're quite capable of defending ourselves against each other; pulling out of Saudi Arabia would remove the primary reason for Islami terrorists to attack Americans; Japan hasn't shown any signs of returning to militarism and has adopted the approach of exporting defective Toyotas to the world.

How many US personnel are overseas, any way? Two of the main USAF bases in the UK account for over 20,000 people. On wages alone, that's hundreds of millions of dollars per year, never mind the cost of supporting the bases and equipment. Bondurant (talk) 09:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to kinda play Devil's Advocate for a moment... let's say we did bring the vast majority of US forces overseas back home. What would that look like, beyond reducing the defense budget?

• Would they continue to be in the military, or would they be returned to civilian life?
  • If the former, what would they do in the States? Where would we put them? I doubt our current bases have the capability to support a large influx.
  • If the latter, what would they do for jobs as civilians? What would they do for housing? Look at the years immediately after WWII -- those were both major problems as we demobilized.
• US troops overseas both help spread American culture, and expose Americans to other cultures, for good and for ill, in both cases, of course. (For instance, would anime have ever caught on in the States if it wasn't for thousands and thousands of Americans serving tours of duty in Japan?) Would losing that be a net good or a net bad?
• Overseas bases don't just exist so we can fight. They also serve purposes like intelligence -- listening posts and such. Are we willing to give that up?
• I'd get to see my adorable nieces ('Her Worshipfulness' and 'Miss Precious Perfect') more, since their Daddy would no longer be stationed in Germany. I'll count that as a plus, though I realize that would have little appreciable effect on the US, beyond a tiny improvement to the economy as I spend even more money spoiling them. MDB (talk) 13:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh! You said, "spread American culture." *Chortle*.

In all seriousness though, there has been a significant draw down of US forces in Europe since the end of the cold war. As to where they have gone, I don't know. Blackwater, maybe.

As for intelligence gathering, how much of that is done from military bases? Radar stations serve some purpose, but are relatively lightly manned. (I have mixed feelings about these, as having spent some time in Cyprus, the RAF radar stations there are like hanger-sized zits at the top of the otherwise stunning mountain ranges.)

The US military may once have spread culture around the world (e.g. nylon stockings to the UK during WWII), but the internet drives culture across international boundaries far more than than the military ever could these days, not to mention the rise in international tourism.

Much of the rest of the world sees US bases as a form of imperialism. Colonial powers tend to have more enemies than friends. Bondurant (talk) 14:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Back in the mid-80's, I too figured that the Soviets were going to fall, likely in the 20th Century--though Russia seems to be coming along. America's demise, if that's what it is, will be slow and gradual. After all, for all their whining and yammering, what have so-con politicians have to offer? More troops to Iraq? Leave American health to the tender mercies of the AMA? Build more prisons and pack them more--the angry surley underclass isn't angry and surly enough? They don't want to teach sex-ed, evolution, and the like to their youth? Fine, but they will be competing with European, Chinese, Indian, and Japanese youth, who might not have the same hang-ups. Unilingualism? Great. After all, it's the language of the planet, and more people outside the US will be speaking it than inside--and Americans won't be able to appeal to those audiences (unless I suppose the hire the foreigners): even more competition. Iran test explodes its first bomb and nothing happens; North Korea sets up its first free enterprize zones; and space tourism--indeed most manned flights--are handled by the Russians--that so-considered defeated empire. I believe few more humilations will provide the necessary correctives.Civic Cat (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me try making my point about saving again. Yes, the US spends a lot of money on these bases, but what proportion on that money get recycled back into the US? If those bases were closed would that money no longer be spent? If the clothes, food and equipment for those bases is produced in the US - which I suspect it is - then what would be the effect of cutting this spend? As I and other have asked above - what would you do with the soldiers? If you keep employing them as soldiers you not only have the problem of continuing paying them (which will eliminate a large part of you savings) but of finding them something to do. If you demobilise them you put them back on the job market.

As it happens I would prefer to see them back in the US - but I think the "huge savings" are illusory. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that it would profit America more if: (1) such soldiers were made into welfare recipients--though paid the same as they were as soldiers. That way, the money would be recycled into the economy even more. Perhaps pay for their foreign vacations so they can spread that American culture around, and absorb some other cultures themselves; or (2) pay them to do stuff in America--maybe repair the infrastructure; or (3) with the tax sayings, the hard working tax-payer would have more income leftover to spend, thus invigourating the American economy, thus creating jobs, and thus employing discharged soldiers.

Presumably, the munitions industries could create more consumer goods--though more reasonably priced.

But hey, I doubt that people see the logic of this, so you Yanks (not you personally, the more flag-waving pretenders) spend, spend, spend on war munitions, bases, and defence. Be very scared. Be paranoid. No white elephant is too big. Triple money into the SDI--create hi-tech jobs. Spend $1 billion on a tank, and then have it blown up--or at least scrapped when Chinese clones render the technology obsolete. We non-American sissies will continue to enrich ourselves doing other things, and your so-con leaders will be enjoying their retirements, revising what they said to the dumb dittoheads.   
:-D   Civic Cat (talk) 16:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Mutating References

Is there a tag to flag up references that are likely to change either soon or in the medium term? My immediate reason for asking is this but even things like this ought to be flagged so articles don't get out of date.

Could the {{Fact}} tag be modified to do this, or would another template be preferable?

Apologies for bringing serious business into the bar, but then where else is there? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I added my comment below at the same time as you added this. The bar is indeed getting serious. I agree with you though, and it would be good to be able to have a list of such flagged items to easily review. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

How about a "time" tag that gets put on anything "present tense" or volatile? We shouldn't be using present tense anyway, but people do. The same people, I'd guess, who wouldn't "time" tag their writing.... ħuman 02:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't RationalWiki:Technical_support the place for this? Although posting it here probably means that it gets a wider audience.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A maintenance category that states that the article is "time sensitive" or contains info that is time sensitive. I.e., if you spot a phrase saying "the current President is Barack Obama" you can whack "time sensitive" on it. There's nothing wrong with this sort of thing being around, it's just that it needs to be kept on top of, which requires people to actually contribute to the mainspace and do some work on it - and that's not likely to happen. ^postate 11:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So shall we create a little template, and have it add the category? Is the name "time" good? And available? Then add a link to the category in some "useful things editors can do" places? Oh, and should the template support a date of some sort (like the example above would say 2012 or 11/2012 or something, and then change it to 2016 ;)) so one can easily see where the date tag indicates the statement may be out of date? ħuman 19:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

typisodes

Save awesome typo! ħuman 07:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Human as god

i want to write an Article on the Theory that everything the human believe can exist. i forgot the name of that theory though and could need a reminder. like the theory claim that by worshiping a god you pretty much create it and everything you imagine can happen. i think its a pseudoscience but its a pretty awesome theory.Waronstupidity (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you an immediate, intensive refresher course in English grammar first. MDB (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't let Human see this, he already thinks he is gOD. Green Giant (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Only because you believe in me... ħuman 21:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you've got the Law of Attraction in there somewhere.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It's called magical thinking. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

stop bullying me! my grammarzz are awesommme!Waronstupidity (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think MDB was bullying you, he just said that because he accidentally the whole thing. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 18:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Crap, I just created a universe that is all ice cream. Man. Now I created a universe that is all crap. Man, now I created a universe that is half crap and half ice cream and you can't tell which is which. Oh man, when will it ever end? Big Dumb Robert H Heinlein wrote a whole dreadful novel around this very idea called Number of the Beast I think there is some version of string theory that posits this idea in a semi serious way, but i'm too lazy and disinterested to look it up 204.248.28.194 (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Heinlein called the idea "World as Myth," and he also talked about it a little bit in "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls." I'm not very familiar with string theory, but I think you're referring to the idea of multiple universes. "Number of the Beast" was a bit strange, but I wouldn't say that Heinlein is "dumb." Also, his middle initial is "A." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It's just me. I read all of Heinlein as a child and teenager. As a young adult I realized his political views were a bit obscene. Racist (Farnam's Freehold), misogynist (time enough for love, etc),elitist(Notebooks of Lazarus Long, etc)-- In my previous post I just sort of wrapped all of those things together as dumb. I'm sorry about his middle initial.^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 20:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you about his views (although, interestingly, I didn't see them as elitist, just obnoxious). Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

WHERE IS YOUR HUMAN NOW?

conservapedia...........

Blocked my Region it seem... i cant make an account.Waronstupidity (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the club. Also, usually these sort of things belong at TWIGO:CP. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No, they turn off account creation at irregular intervals. Been doing it for years. You're new here, aren't you? P-Foster (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm Dumb (Image Copyright)

So Imma go through all the images I uploaded and fix copyright issues--problem: can I do it from the image as we have it, or do I have to re-up the file? P-Foster (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You should be able to do it if you know the license template name. I'd suggest doing a dummy upload, and choosing... Basically, no, not easily. Surely there is a ready list of copyright templates somewhere besides the upload file page? ħuman 23:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Try here: Help:Copyright_notices ħuman 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

New hobby

Gentlemen, I believe I may have found my new favorite hobby, Escalator Spinning!!

Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

that fucking awesome.Waronstupidity (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If I tried that, I have no doubt the immediate result would be for me to lose my pants. MDB (talk) 17:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That looks both insanely dangerous and insanely fun. Will common sense or childish glee win out? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A fiver says Josh trys this at some point. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Goddamn, you can read my mind. SJ ^Debaser 20:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Just make sure you film it, mmkay? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If I did this I would immediately fall off, stand up disorientated, stumble into an angry drunk who'd push my into a doughnut stand. When I tried to stand my legs would give out and I would fall flat on my face only discover I was, for some reason, now covered in mayonaise. How it would it happen I don't know but the other day I inexplicably ingested shower gel when bathing and wound up swallowing a cicada later that day. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Ace, how is "?fall off, stand up disorientated, stumble into an angry drunk who'd push my into a doughnut stand. When I tried to stand my legs would give out and I would fall flat on my face only discover I was, for some reason, now covered in mayonaise" different from any other day for you? P-Foster (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Presumably because he's not the angry drunk in this situation. --Kels (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought the initial loss of control would have been ethanol related. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Its a genetic trait, my bother once got lost in his own bathroom when he accidentally hit the lights and plunged himself into darkness. Shit, the bathroom was only 6 x 7 feet and when we found him 10 mins later he was fumbling around in the corner with dirty laundry on his head. Aceⁱ⁹ 08:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Teabonics

Actual signs seen at Teabagging protests, with.... interesting uses of the English language. MDB (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't claim that all our fringe nutters are free of spelling mistakes but surely you wouldn't find so many basic errors at British protests? Am I being unfair?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it's because we Americans have a larger sample size of nutters and therefore a greater number of spelling errors (not necessarily a greater percent of mistakes/number of nutters). Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You'd be using words like "colour" and "flavour", no doubt. Which aren't American, and are, therefore, wrong. QED. MDB (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute, is the section title supposed to be a pun on the word "phonics?" If so, it took me a good 5 minutes to get that, haha. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was a play on "ebonics", but you may be righter. ħuman 21:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This one is classic. Those photos are free to use (with attribution) so maybe we could use one or two for are articals. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol! I liked the 'Respect are language, Speak English' one. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 19:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it's about time we re-colonised America to re-introduce so-called "British English" (aka "International English"). Bondurant (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

...a.k.a. "English." P-Foster (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

First hand account:I have some co workers who are British. They don't speak English. Plus, what is up with those ridiculous fake accents? It's like they all want to be Monty Python . . . ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 16:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Speaking of Teabonics, I actually heard a new one today talking to a class mate that made me lol like crazy. He was conservative, but hates the teabaggers. He said "I just hate that our principle have been hijacked for the tea-had (Jihad) stupid, I know, but still very funny. Also, simpley because I don't want to start a new thread, the Law of exclamation strikes again. SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 04:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I hate to point it out, but how many of the placards are photoshop jobs? Obviously, some will be real, but you do see some that are obvious. And the jpg compression is ramped up so high that even and idiot doing it on a 10 year old version of MS Paint would be able to get away with it. ^postate 16:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Can you link to some you think are obvious fakes? ħuman 00:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Loya Jirga

No, I'm not calling them, I just wanted to have a laugh about the name. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Tetronian gives me "Inane Trot".--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And "Ornate Nit," haha. But Totnesmartin's name gets the best results I've seen so far. And, sadly, "Bob" only returns "Bob." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice, I get Mecca Wicked! Aceⁱ⁹ 20:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I like the one for Andrew Schlafly. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

"A Sculpted Prescient" - but I already said that. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I can get "Naked refugee shoots wool" from "A storehouse of knowledge".--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And RationalWiki begets A liar? I know it! and anal kiwi riot. OTT mannerist (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Anal kiwi riot? Sounds like my Saturday nights. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thought you'd like it. Totnesmartin (talk) (moist entrant) 22:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

moist entrant? You wanna come to my Anal Kiwi Riot? Aceⁱ⁹ 22:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

SirChuckB gets "Ribs Chuck." mmmmmmmmmmm Ribs. But possibly the best is "Rub Chicks." Sage advice from the intertubes. SirChuckB^{Will Sysop for food} 23:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems that with me you get "Men Girl Spy" followed by "Sperm Lying". --PsyGremlinPraat! 01:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"SuperJosh" is very disappointing, only twelve results. The best one is probably "Josher Pus," which makes no fuckin' sense anyway. SJ ^Debaser 01:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but if you were to call yourself SuperKosh, hilarity would ensue. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 01:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia gets some really good ones. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

<---- The best one that I get is "Hetero Perm", which is only acceptably funny. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 05:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Layton Schlafly gives Wry folly, then a scandal. CS Miller (talk) 06:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think we have a page of Schlafly anagrams somewhere. btw mei is useful --> I misuse fuel which is probably something to do with Sprite. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait! Wait! Don't lie to me!

Bill O'Reilly is doing a good deed? Now my world is all screwed up! Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 00:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, at this point, O'Reilly is giving 16k to pay Westboro's legal expenses, that the appeals court tagged Snyder with. And since Westboro are a bunch of lawyers... he's essentially giving them the money. The big question I am left with is, is O'Really going to pay for the appeal that the SCOTUS has accepted? ħuman 01:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Papa Bear might promote himself every 30 seconds, but he is generally one of the saner ones at FOX news. I actually let him get away with the self-promotion because of his long career in newscasting. Here's a question, would we have so much of a problem with Bill if he was on another station?--Thanatos (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I dunno...Would BillO be the same on another news network? I'll grant that he is somewhat of the voice of reason on Fox nowadays. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps he could, but as it stands I think he's just protesting in the "injustice" that Snyder was levied with the legal fees after losing that round. So there's nothing wrong with him leaving it at that and not giving any aid in further appeals. Though I don't like the idea that he might come out being the "good guy" for saying that Westboro needed to be locked up, we'd all like to agree that this would be great, but we'd also agree that he's basically saying "arrest someone I don't agree with" and - slippery slope or not - we know where that leads. ^postate 19:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe you guys might like...

...today's La Cucaracha. Vulpius (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Heh! Aceⁱ⁹ 08:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A small victory against quackery

Science writer Simon Singh wins libel appeal in case against the British Chiropractic Association. Bondurant (talk) 09:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey! That's really good news. :-) --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It is good news. It's a shame that the ruling feels like it's a technicality on the comments being opinion or fact. The real victory will come when British libel law has been reformed, and writers like Singh can call a spade a spade, or a quack a quack. Bondurant (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

True, but those changes are coming. This just means that the BCA can't go after Singh any more, at least not without jumping through a ton of expensive appeal hoops first, and that is at least some positive progress. ^postate 19:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I love 1st April...

Collate good hoax stories here...

• Hadron Collider II planned for Circle Line Bondurant (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Added it to Blogs ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 10:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It was already there in the previous entry (see also) ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 10:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! Maybe I should get back to work. Bondurant (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the see also to a note re your entry. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 10:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A nice selection here. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• I actually kinda want this to be true: Starbucks introduces the 128 fl oz (3.8 liters) "Plenta" size --Sid (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like April 1st a lot more if the hoaxes I ran into weren't so lazy. One of the art sites I go to regularly used the exact same gag they did last year, only this time instead of changing everyone's icons to mudkips, they changed them to Twilight. Yawn. --Kels (talk) 11:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought this NPR story might be a hoax, since NPR generally does one every year, but it seems real. MDB (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

But speaking of people who do April Fools hoaxes every year.... Google announced they're changing their name to 'Topeka'. MDB (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I remember there being ads in my local newspaper for my town's Waitrose introducing new food such as Pinananas - Pineapple bananas and other stuff. There was one about this guy who invented an invisible car too. But if I remember correctly last year's April Fools day here consisted of several editors converting to Christianity followed by some CUR-related wackiness. SJ ^Debaser 12:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

BMW always have one.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I was going to spend most of the day altering my Facebook profile to make it look like I was a right-wing religious nutjob of a bigot. But instead, I spent the morning ill and recovering from a massive bout of hayfever. Fuck's sake... ^postate 14:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, even LessWrong has one. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

British libel laws encore

Simon Singh wins libel court battle Just Whoopee!!! No further comment!!! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 10:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. See above.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I care little if this gets repeated. We should be dancing!! ^postate 14:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I honestly hadn't heard of this until now, but yay! (By the way, good to see you around, Toast!) Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 15:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Crazy religious freaks!!!!

Take a look at this nonsense! It's completely insane! Conservative Punk (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I oughta vandal bin you for this unfunny vandalism. Keegscee (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

dQw4. Nope, not clicking. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ is writing a comment 01:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, that's my favorite jam! What's that song? I'm in love! What's that song? I love that song! ħuman 02:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Weedier Mickey

Awesome spoonerism. Saving for posterity. ħuman 05:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Tonight's special guest is Human. Mei (talk) 06:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll be here all week - enjoy the veal! Thank you. ħuman 06:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

All I have is: 'pon server seedier. It works if you don't think about it. Mei (talk) 06:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed, it does. ħuman 00:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Bloody creationists get everywhere

I just did a google search for "solar furnace james may" (I was after [solar furnace james may this]) and one of the videos offered is someone going on about Kent Hovind. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Try "Solar furnace" "james may" next time. Green Giant (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

according to the stumbleupon comments, that Hovind vid's been popping up all over. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Religious parade......

there a group of Fanatic holding candle and singing song that passed near my apartment........Waronstupidity (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone would think God had died or something. --Sean^talk 00:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

they were Catholic i think..... my city is a HIGHLY conservative Catholic place..... the mayor ordered people to pray before each of his speech and he have his own local T.V Show where he talk about god...........he made lot of bullshit law...... you can get arrested for walking in a park after X hour and he banned noise over X decibel and other conservative bullshit.Waronstupidity (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

my city is like a typical backward city you have to go thru a big ol forest for over 3 hour from Quebec City.Waronstupidity (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere's perfect. And you seem to have your head screwed on right. --Sean^talk 00:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

what that supposed to mean ?Waronstupidity (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing bad, just talking crap, late night. Kind of just meant that sometimes it seems like there's people like your mayor everywhere, when maybe there's a lot of people who feel the same way as you. Only it came out wrong. --Sean^talk 02:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think most cities have noise ordinances and "curfews" for public parks/monuments, though. The whole "ordering people to pray" before he speaks is bullshit, though. <sarcasm>If the singers walk past again, just throw something at them.</sarcasm> -- Vradient^{Hit me up} 02:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Or start singing back to them. I suggest a selection from Jesus Christ Superstar. --Sean^talk 02:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

But...but...if there's a curfew, why are they outside at night? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The way they were walking was creepy...... they looked like flagellant in the way they were walking.Waronstupidity (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, guerrealastupidité, lemme guess, you are from Saguenay/jonquière? I'm in quebec city, and the right wing is getting pretty sacry here, radio-talk is like a contest of who is the most hard-core right wing... they play by the limbaugh/Beck playbook... this is getting pretty scary honestly... when i hear my own sister telling 'sylvain bouchard' is right... I feel doomed!Alain (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I know the feeling about the right wing BS. Last Friday, there was a big transit disruption and I made the mistake of turning on CFRO to see if they had anything about it and got treated to a tirade about how the U of Ottawa should apologize to Ann Coulter. --Kels (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Should you buy an iPad?

Not sure? This handy flow chart will help. ^postate 10:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That was amusing. Though, I must admit, I have the pitcher ready to go with the Kool-aid in a cup that is my iPhone. - Ravenhull (talk) 12:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I found that most helpful. Thank you.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Amusing and effective. I've got a Macbook through work. I think I'll follow the flow chart's advice ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 15:51, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

My Accountcreationday

I joined RationalWiki a year ago today. How time flies, eh gang? SJ ^Debaser 11:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy RW birthday. It's been a funny old year of noobing it up. --^{Ask me about your mother} 12:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Happy anniversary! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 12:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Haiti Donation Given

Ok, sorry I took so long, but I thought I should let you guys know that I made the Haiti donation. I wanted to do it on camera, but I had some camera problems (the main reason it took so long), so I ended up posting a video with me in voice-over asking if anyone objected to me just going ahead and doing it off-camera, and giving my subscribers two days to object, and no one did (the video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKSuwZ_Vxio ). I hope you all trust that I'm not like PCS, and actually did donate it.--Mustex (talk) 11:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What the fuck . . . ? Some of us donated without needing to document the event, announce it publicly, or ask for objections & objections to objection. Why should anyone want to see a film of you giving money to charity? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No documentation needed, dude. Good for you if you gave to charity. A lot of us did. -- Vradient^{Hit me up} 00:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a background story to it. I think he had a promotional thing going on YouTube, so posting a video would be proof of his keeping his end of the bargain. ^{Ask me about your mother} 00:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's essentially it. I don't want anyone accusing me of fraud. Specifically after all the videos I've made saying PCS should be in prison for charity fraud.--Mustex (talk) 03:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

All things considered, pat on the back for giving to charity. That's more than Sean Hannity has ever done. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 03:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So farewell then...

Henry Edward Roberts inventor of the Altair 8800, the first home computer.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

who founded rationalwiki ? and is he/her still active?

so?Waronstupidity (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The cabal. _{There is no cabal}. P-Foster (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

who was the first cabal. Waronstupidity (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no cabal P-Foster (talk) 02:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

i challenge the cabal to a pokemon fight!Waronstupidity (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I dunno, but you may wanna ask this guy. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 02:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

ColinR, but nobody has seen him since. - π 03:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks Waronstupidity (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

the always mysterious Trent gets mentioned when things go bad. 67.72.98.45 (talk) 03:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Rob thinks it was PalMD, but he's a nutter. I'm sure he'll think it was Chip Berlet or Jimmy Hoffa or some communist or somebody next. --Kels (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No, Rob says that a newspaper article says that. Which it does if you want to read it that way. However if you read just the words that are written their it says he was one of the people that started RW. Given that starting a wiki is no more than a one or two person job, his contribution was probably saying "yeah, you do that and I'll edit there" after someone else said "we should start our own wiki". - π 03:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So basically Rob was raising confirmation bias to the extreme. Nothing new there. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's probably less a case of Rob thinking it's true (it probably doesn't matter) so much as (a) discrediting RW in the wider world and (b) TK needling him to find a way to make us stop mentioning his name, presumably because whatever site he tries to screw with next could just Google his name and find all sorts of embarrassing stuff. Or Nancy Reagan could, she's been lonely lately. --Kels (talk) 03:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that whole thing was a Terry Kockshitz (sp?) joint. ħuman 04:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Also try searching the site for "RationalWiki" and "History". Doh. There is no cabal. Just me and my sockpuppets. ħuman 04:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Postmodernism

Interesting article. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Very excellent article. "Decide what the text says. This can be whatever you want, although of course in the case of a text which actually consists of text it is easier if you pick something that it really does say. This is called "reading"." ħuman 04:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Weird coincidence -> you posted this just as I was writing about postmodernism. I thought words were escaping from my head and taking refuge in the salon bar ;____; (Although I was pretty far away from that kind of postmodernism) Mei (talk) 04:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Important Wiki Bizness

I'm getting rid of all my copyvio images. The "Denial" image is in high use and I cannot find a free version. Someone wanna take a picture of their roomie's hand or something? P-Foster (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Link please? ħuman 03:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That oughta be easy to replace. Should I cover my wee-wee when I take it? ħuman 10:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Does vectoring over it in either Paint or Illustrator count as a copyright violation? As it would be effectively the same image, but cartoonified with a lot of original work. ^postate 10:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that would make it a derivative work with would still be covered.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I see this issue has been resolved with a new piccy. ħuman 00:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I am slowly turning this place into Martinwiki. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Great way to pick-up stalkers, and not necessarily the attractive and mentally well adjusted ones. --^{Ask me about your mother} 08:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as a mentally well-adjusted stalker? Totnesmartin (talk) 08:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Whacky website

What do we all think of this website? Must be parody of some sort, though there is no overt indication of it anywhere that I could see. Does Ken have a twin?--Damo^Hi 12:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I call Poe. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 13:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Or someone who got lectured by a vegetarian and made this site in reaction. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Woo Woo

Mixed woo Magnetism and Jesus! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 14:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Toast. Wooooo! P-Foster (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The tackiness! Make it stop! It's moments like this that cause me to feel sorry for some Christians. I can think of at least two areas of scripture that would condemn this shite, and that's without getting in to idolatry. ^{Ask me about your mother} 16:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty good. Only a miracle from Jebus himself could make copper magnetic - QED. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 23:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Or electrocity flowing through it... ħuman 04:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

how do i take over a wiki ?

I want to take over [1].

its inactive...... there no active user but me....... and i want to add MANY article and other thing to it, but there no one to help even the admin are inactive, is there a way to being promoted admin by wikia itself?Waronstupidity (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

ask here Green Giant (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

i sent them an email......... hope they amswer me....Waronstupidity (talk) 22:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Phew, from the header I thought you were talking about us! </sarcasm> Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

so you do think im not good enough for this wiki :-( /cry Waronstupidity (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

You're not angry and random enough. We need a leader who's willing to do half a bottle of Pernod and some amphetamines before coming online to share their opinions on those around them. --^{Ask me about your mother} 23:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Since when was Fox a bureaucrat? --Kels (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've got half a bottle of Jack Daniels and some Ritalin in my system now. Where do I sign? -- Vradient^{Hit me up} 00:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

How is mount and blade? ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 20:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

very fun. i love being a geek Waronstupidity (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

SEA MONSTER!

see for yourself

this is awesome.Waronstupidity (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a giant louse to me. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks tasty. Hueg lobster anyone? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks a bit like a face hugger. They do seem to be related to wood lice. I remember reading a little while back that wood lice have gils, which is why they tend to live in damp environments. --^{Ask me about your mother} 23:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, woodlice are crustaceans. Apparently, if you pour hot water on them, they turn pink like prawns (haven't tried this myself). That sea monster thing reminds me of H. R. Giger too. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the inheritor of the trilobite's place to me. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 12:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Random thought on gay rights

I was just considering how alot of fundie leaders like Jack Chick,among others, try to pretend that speaking against homosexuality in the US either is, or is about to become, a "hate crime." i know that is the case in a few other countries, like Canada and Sweden. Something just his me, though: what do you want to bet that, because of them, there are tons of fundies out there who don't know what the laws actually say, and go through life keeping their mouths shut in the mistaken belief that black helicopters will land and drag them off to a Star Chamber if they speak out. We get the same effect, without actually having to make it a hate crime. Thanks Jack Chick! :) --Mustex (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

What all those idiots have to realize is that for something to be a hate crime, first it has to be a crime. Unless you're inciting violence, hate speech is still protected by the First Amendment. Yet somehow I doubt a perceived law will shut these idiots up. DickTurpis (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Along a similar line, I find it ironic that you will occasionally find a story on some litigious weary school that will deny student(s) their right to pray. Anybody who actually knows the law knows that while the school cannot sanction prayer any student still has their first amendment rights and can pray at times where it won't disrupt class. Now where do we find the false info that students can't pray in schools? /snap that's right, the nutty right. "No prayer in school", the biggest myth of the Christian Right. Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 22:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The fundies Day of Truth is coming up. We'll see if any arrests are made.--Thanatos (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

dont fuck with Human...

i did and i lost......but I'll get you in the end!Waronstupidity (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Stop breaking Human's Wiki! Seriously, see here. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 07:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

WTF there no article about me ? /cry im fairly active too but i guess im not THAT productive but i made a bunch of article.Waronstupidity (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's only because you are fairly new. It has nothing to do with how active you are. That and, until now at least, you've done nothing of that is significant enough for an article. Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 07:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

no worry :-) Waronstupidity (talk) 08:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I fought the law and the law won. ħuman 08:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

well in this case you aint the law but i wasn't either.I'm watching you /glare Waronstupidity (talk) 08:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Get Off My Lawn! (shakes cane at war on stupidity) ħuman 08:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

piss off old man! your time are forfeit! we shall inherit this big ball of shitWaronstupidity (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

"piss off old man!" dang, you pwned me. And how is my time forfeit, exactly? ħuman 08:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

i dont know, i used that sentence to get style point.Waronstupidity (talk) 08:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(undent) Don't fuck with Human, a horror/soft-porn movie from the late 90s. Written and directed by Robert Englund, it follows the story of a whiskey drinking speaker maker who during sex would transform in to a giant lizard and go on a rampage through the local towns. That film must be made. --^{Ask me about your mother} 08:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The film star a young and sexy men named Waron who give a good ass whoopin to the big bad giant lizzard and win the heart of andy daughter (/puke) Waronstupidity (talk) 09:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

For my appraisal of what I think Human gets up to on his days off, see here. (If not, carry on with your lives as normal.) SJ ^Debaser 15:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

O'Keefe gets another free ride

First he got the phone incident at the governor's office knocked down to 6 months, now he is immune to prosecution from ACORN! I really, really want to smack someone right now. BTW, think the unedited tapes will ever be aired?--Thanatos (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hannity charity downgraded

He only get's two stars on his project--Thanatos (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion/dealing with NSFW images

NSFW image
You want a little game of hide & show?

Can I make a suggestion? If we want to become a noteworthy wiki then shouldn't we try and keep the site 'safe for work'? I remember logging into my userpage at work to see that someone (mentioning no names i.e. nutty) had tiled the frotting picture all over it, and now we have a naked woman image being splattered around. Could we maybe have an {{nsfw}} template which hides the content with a not safe for work warning for such content and a "show" link? The swearing is a given, and I think if people have a content filter which blocks pages with obscenities at work then they know damn well to avoid RW, but the images are something else. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

While I have tended to think of images like the frotting one are funny, I have to agree with Crundy here. I sometimes access RationalWiki from work, and I don't wish for my co-workers to see me looking at what are, essentially, pornographic images. Lord of the Goons ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 21:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've already stated my agreement on the talk page of the frot image but I'll restate it here. Quite apart from anything else, using such an image to "intimidate and harass" - which certain editors have suggested is its purpose - would seem to suggest a latent homophobia. I'd have no problem with a user displaying the image on his or her user page, but pr0n shouldn't randomly appear when surfing the site. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 21:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A non-porn site on the internet? Now that's a novel idea. --⁠ (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

If a passer by at work saw the frotting picture on your screen, it would be a "WTF" moment which would require an awkward explanation. The naked woman image would be a disciplinary. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 22:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's a prototype NSFW template as you suggested. Probably most useful for articles etc. but if somebody posts a nsfw image somewhere without it, somebody else can slap this template around it if it looks like it may be a problem. If we start using this, we should probably create a NSFW category for the relevant images, with a note on the category page suggesting that the template should always be used when posting them. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice. Fast work. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 22:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Weaseloid FTW. Good stuff. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ideally there should be a category which makes the image appear like this by default. It would be faster. Mei (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, this seems like a huge waste. I generally consider this site NSFW and tread carefully when I vist it at work, so I don't go anywhere Nutty has been. - π 00:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Basically, I think we can all agree that this site has evolved from a spinoff of CP, the question is, are we now trying to create:

1. A copy of 4chan for people with an IQ over 80. If so then proceed,
2. A semi-serious wiki which takes a laid-back satirical look at 'rational' issues, in which case, dump these images, or
3. A family friendly serious wiki, in which case we need to ban the language as well

I would have thought (2), but I'm not exactly the grand master of this site, am I? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 01:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm with number (2) there. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 01:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I always thought we went with #2--Thanatos (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice false trichotomy there, Crundy. As for the popular number 2 I might point out that "laid-back satirical look at 'rational' issues" does not then imply "must then delete pictures". - π 02:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have an idea. And it's a good one. ħuman 03:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually siding with Crundy's #2 as well. There's really not much need for the more explicit stuff, although bikini shots and the like are just fine. If I want porn, I'll go to a porn site, and if I want badly drawn porn I'll go to Fur Affinity. Simple. --Kels (talk) 03:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

DOES NOBODY CARE ABOUT MY IDEA??????? It's a good one. ħuman 04:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I want to hear Human's idea. Mei (talk) 05:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Earlier I was going to reply 'Well played' to your 'I have an idea' comment, but then I forgot all my thoughts. Mei (talk) 05:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Kels for pointing me to Fur Affinity.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 05:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Kels, this may come as a surprise, but if a girl in FA looks like a total dog, it's because she is one. Vulpius (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Without wishing to be too Freudian about this, one problem I have with the Frot image is that it is too big and dominates the screen. A small image, like the naked houri as it is displayed above, is hardly visible from a distance. It's really a question of style, and I'm talking about the look of the page not the actual content of the image. Unfortunately some people here have the design skills of most editors at Conservapedia and they suck.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I still want to know human's idea. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a lot of pont in NSFWing language. Our esteemed co-workers are hardly likely to glimpse a naughty word in a bunch of text (maybe best not to have them in section titles); pictures are different though. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. A few naughty words are fine, and unnoticable, but a page full of them will be blocked by my work's obscenity filter. The frot image, and any other picture can cause problems in a crowded office. Incidentally, anyone remember when Gropecunt Lane was the featured article on WP? It cause a bit of a stink on the discussion pages, as the portion of the article that featured on the main page pointed out the obvious etymology of Gropecunt, along with wikilinks to both. Bondurant (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That article is actually really interesting. - π 12:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to actually delete these images - being NSFW is not the same as "obscene". If we can have then displayed in collapsed boxes, using the template, it will make life a little easier for those who access RW at work, without the need for scrapping them altogether or bowdlerising the site. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Is my edit on burqas here safe for work; because I made it at an office.Civic Cat (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Human's idea

First I'd like to note that that template above only "half" works - it doesn't collapse until after loading and displaying the image, which could be enough to get someone in trouble.

I'd also like to agree that NSFW images are a genuine issue that we should address.

So without further ado or delay here is my idea.

1. Create an NSFW category to place on such images.
2. Edit the wiki-wide monobook to not display them by default. It might replace them with a small note like "NSFW image not shown" with a link to instructions on how to use step 3:
3. Create a bit of code people can put in their personal monobook that overrides the "not display" rule and shows the images. If this bit of code could be made to be IP address sensitive that might even make it so people don't see them at work but do at home (and elsewhere), since most workplaces probably have fixed IPs.

That way viewing NSFW images becomes an "opt in" feature. Also, casual visitors won't see them.

Like I said above, I think it's a good idea. Especially considering the person most likely to be able to whip up the code is the one who brought this to our attention by deleting frot.jpg. ħuman 20:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Bondurant likes this. Bondurant (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Crundy approves this message. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but how it is actually going to work is an interesting question. - π 21:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I imagined it being done via the monobooks, but there are probably other ways. IE, the "opt-in" could be added to "my preferences", right? "Show NSFW images"? But I don't know how to code this stuff. Has Nx done LaNCB yet? ħuman 22:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

this image is extremely NSFW. Go into special:preferences, misc, and tick display filtered images to see it.

That is awesome Nx. - π 10:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Excellent results, but it's still manual, isn't it? How did you get it to not show the image? ħuman 00:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

NSFW

How did you tag the image as not safe?

[2] -- Nx / talk 10:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that, thanks! So it's enough to enter:

{{Information |Description = maggot infested corpse. NSFW }}

on the image page, with NSFW commented out if desired, to simply return a link to the image instead of showing it?

Is there any way to automatically add a brief note to the link or replace it entirely as you did above? Some text like you wrote in the above example, in a small box, placed where the image would go (thumbs to the right, etc.) would be nice. It could link to the image as well I would think, for the daring. ħuman 23:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Oye!

Nx has done something awesome and nobody cares. - π 13:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Good work. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Human, Nx, good job. --^{Ask me about your mother} 10:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Language!

I see that over at Talk:Christianity we have changed a heading numerous times in order to remove or re-insert "bad" language. While I personally would prefer not to see swearwords on the site, I seem to have missed the decision to expunge them. I'm also not sure how it fits with our guideline to not edit talk page comments. Frankly, I think this is a bad idea.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't need to censor language. We shouldn't be filling articles with swear words, but a few here & there do no harm, & on talk pages people should speak as they please. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree it's silly to censor. I have, however, thought for a long time that it would be nice to have a brief disclaimer/explanation somewhere, basically so parents could decide easily if they want their kids on here or not. ħuman 00:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

CassiusAlien is Kira!

I knew it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01E7dvPvmsI ^{— Unsigned, by: somebody or other / talk / contribs} 08:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

who is Kira?--Thanatos (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

He's the unlikeable antihero in Death Note, an anime (also manga and series of movies) entirely populated by unlikeable and/or unapproachable characters. It's got very pretty art, though. --Kels (talk) 02:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I was LordKira, remember? I got the whole manga collection right behind me and 2/3 of the movies. I was asking who the fuck is CassiusAlien--Thanatos (talk) 02:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Guy who's harassed coughlan666, claims to be an extraterristrial come to bring us the word of God (they created Christianity), files DMCAs to get personal info, and uses it to call people live on blogTV to yell at them and demand that they repent. He seems to be mentally ill, because he continues his behavior even though the police have talked to him. He'll likely be in prison very soon.--Mustex (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

(seriously, though, did anyone laugh at this?)--Mustex (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

question for the computer wise user

I'm having a strange problem in a game that look like a memory leak but been confirmed it is not. Like i can play with no problem but the game start to slow down over time the longer i play and i wondered if that could be caused by anisotropic filtering? if you could amswer me it would be cool :-) Waronstupidity (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

can someone help ?Waronstupidity (talk) 23:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

1) Why the hell are you asking us?

2) Without even telling us what the game is, how do you expect us to google that for you help you?

3) If restarting the game fixes it, then it's a memory leak. You can use the three-finger salute to open the task manager and watch the game eat up your ram, if that makes you feel better.

4) If you suspect it's anisotropic filtering, then maybe you should, I dunno, try disabling anisotropic filtering and seeing if it helps? -- Nx / talk 09:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice. Can you tell me why my toe hurts? I don't think it's anisotropic filtering. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 20:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Colleges are rabid anti-theist cesspools my ass.

Nothing really big, something we all know but it is nice to see regardless. In addition to being a bio major I also have a work-study job in the dept. and yesterday, Good Friday for all you heathens, my dept. head specifically called into the office and told the 9-5 workers that they could leave early if they wanted to go to Church. So Kirk Cameron, fuck you, Andy Schlafly, fuck you. Quit painting entire swaths of the public with your bigoted bullshit.Netharian^{Cubicles are prisons!} 22:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well...Andy does have a point in that education is correlated with atheism, but (as you know full well) there are still of lot of well-educated theists. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I had the day off (it is a public holiday what the hell are you doing working?), but I would take a stab in the dark and say 40-60% of my department are Christians, possibly more. So yeah, atheism is higher than in the total population, but they are still in the majority even at a university. - π

I think anyone would take the day off, regardless of religion--Thanatos (talk) 02:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I didn't take GF off but that's not because I'm an atheist it's because I do shift work and was on duty. Most Sundays I also have off but not because I'm a Christian, it's because that's how are work environment is constructed. Of course thanks to Sunday trading laws almost everyone has to not work on Easter Sunday. Why can't I go along to the garden centre and by some smelly candles today?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

NH liquor stores close 3 days a year - Xmus, 4th Juillet, and fricking Easter. Had to borrow a bottle of vodka from a friend so as to avoid withdrawal symptoms. I noted the gym in the strip mall was open, as was my hardworking local nursery (garden center). I was also driving around in my redneck chebby pick-em-up truck (heater core on the Audi let go, bypassed it later) listening to WUNH's weekly hour of country music. In case anyone cares/cared. ħuman 00:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Haye vs Ruiz

Anyone else watch it? That was one of the best heavyweight bouts I've seen, Haye completely deserved it, but Ruiz was a very tough opponent. A big thankyou to the good people at EuroVox for making the pay-per-view event available for free! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not a fight, THIS is a fight --Damo^Hi 11:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not a fight, THIS is a fight. Sorry I couldn't find one of Faber's classic 1/2 round demolishments of his opponents. And this is what he did to his hands trying to win a comeback fight. He fought 4 1/2 five minute rounds in this condition. The announcers were wondering why he was using his elbows more than his fists and why his grip seemed to be off a bit. ħuman 00:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Holy shit it's 2010!

I just realized. We live in the future! Shiny shiny! ħuman 03:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a severe shortage of hoverboards though. --Sean^talk 03:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

*Ahem* Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 04:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Has that darned virtual reality thing happened yet?--Thanatos (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much, yeah. We also have Star Trek magic doors. Our communicators are better and smaller (can you hear me now) and we have videophones. We also have a computer that knows everything, but we call it google. Transportation is the one area where we still live in the 19th century. Sure, computers have "optimised" it, but the Otto cycle is horribly inefficient. Diesel got it a bit better, but still. ħuman 05:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

And for the last time, we do have flying cars. They're called "aeroplanes" and "helicopters". ^postate 08:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Strikes me that article was little more than well-justified Fiat-bashing. ħuman 08:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I know what I want (ahem... the bike, the bike!) --PsyGremlinPrata! 08:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Squabble between the "non violent" Brit Nats

The BNP even hate each other. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 14:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

How cute. They're becoming just like other political parties. SJ ^Debaser 20:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

help me out?

my browser won't let me create a user page...i just get a "404 NotFound" message...will someone create the page with something?..then i can edit it...thanksPacodog (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Odd. I've made a user-page for you. --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks! (it's the browser on my cell phone - my computer is down at the moment) Pacodog (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

sysopperyness

How does that all work here on the RW? Just wondering. Thanks --BigGuy (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You make some good edits, have a friendly nature and wait about a week. Then some drunken 'crat like myself sysops you. Easy. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

RationalWiki: The experience that makes you wonder what happened to all the fucking cool buttons when you're on Wikipedia. ħuman 00:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

i lol'edWaronstupidity (talk) 00:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad. Especially that it was you, and that you shared. Sorry about our recent contretemps. ħuman 01:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Protip: Asking for sysopship will almost always get you it. Asking for bureaucratship will put you on the short list of mistrusted users(case in point: Neveruse). Do one, not the other. In the meantime, enjoy your powers! --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 01:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I posted a amusing (to me) whine on my user page and eventually someone supposedly named "Susan" made me a sysop. I've used my powers precisely twice, once to shut down some random douche bag vandal and once to unblock myself because of some silly sysop newbie hazing ritual. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine!

Corporal Punishment in the Schools....

This discussion was moved to Forum:Corporal punishment in schools. at 08:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

PZ

Please read this. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 17:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"Because, unfortunately, Jesus isn't saving us from anything real, and he made no change in the world with his death. " Technically, he created a spinoff religion. Since he was killed for religious beliefs, he became a martyr, thus giving a reason for the religion to expand more quickly. If you want something real that we were saved from, there's something called the Old Testament that required burnt offerings to worship God, placed prohibitions on eating Shrimp, and stated that working on the Sabbath was punishable by stoning. --Sigma 7 (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

So, wait, he saved us from a guaranteed single day off from work out of seven? Anyone who has to work six days in a row deserves to get stoned on the seventh. ħuman 00:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks Toast! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Except he didn't really "save" us from the Old Testament because buffoons everywhere are still insisting on using many of its laws when they see fit. ^postate 17:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Fun: Tips for Starting a Conspiracy

Hey, I was thinking of doing this as a fun page, and was wondering if anyone wanted to help me? I was actually thinking of doing it in a way that didn’t so much parody real-world conspiracy theorists as the ridiculously obvious conspiracies on tv shows and movies. This was kind of inspired by watching the “Masters of Horror” episode “The Washingtonians,” which concerned a conspiracy dedicated to hiding the fact that George Washington was a cannibal. What was laughable was that when a man found an incriminating letter signed “GW” behind a picture of George Washington, rather than subtlely trying to discredit it, or spirit it away from him, they came to his house (in the suburbs), dressed as colonials, in the middle of the night, and began trying to chop through his door with an axe while screaming “Give us the letter!”…because this is somehow less incriminating than a letter supposedly written by George Washington 200 years ago about skinning and eating children, that (even if it was by him) might very well be explained away as some kind of metaphor!--Mustex (talk) 22:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting idea. Do you have a sandbox for it? --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

How do I make one?--Mustex (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You could create it as a sub-page thing of your user page. Something like this User:Mustex/conspiracy would work, and make it easier to work on without people hacking it around. I'm knackered at the moment, but maybe tomorrow or Monday we can fart around with some ideas. --^{Ask me about your mother} 23:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm going to make two sandboxes. The first one will be for gathering material, the second for drafts, then I'll post it. Mei made this one for me, post anything you think might be useful in it: http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/User:Mustex/Sandbox

Hint: use the sandbox for the "draft" article, and its talk page for discussion. IE, move most of what you wrote to the talk page (the "idea" box) and get at least a skeleton of what you are shooting for going on the sandbox page itself. When it's ready to go live, use "relocate" to move both to the funspace. ħuman 00:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Could I get a sound off of people who are going to contribute at some point?--Mustex (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll participate on the condition that it involves chemtrails. (Only joking, I'll help.) Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Deal. I already have an idea.--Mustex (talk) 01:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't need a "committed" team. If you start something reasonably interesting here, many people are likely to join in. It's why we hang here, after all. ħuman 01:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I know, but this is something I really think I need help with, so I wanted at least one or two other people comitted up front (primarily, I can't think of any tips other than "don't be obvious").--Mustex (talk) 05:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll shovel some text in there. Looking for inspiration from movies, The Net is a wonderful example of craziness. I liked the pi thingy on web pages, since it confirms that the best way to maintain a conspiracy is to place clues in such a way that anyone could randomly find them. A bit like a modern day Hitler leaving copies of Main Kampf on trains and then wondering how strangers were able to read the book? --^{Ask me about your mother} 09:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Still Interested?

Ok, thought I’d start a new thread to get attention. There seems to have been some confusion regarding the nature of the new Fun page I want to start, and virtually everyone who showed interest in it seems to have totally misunderstood. I just want to know if people are still interested in doing it, or if I’ll be working on my own. Here’s the key misunderstanding: It’s not about tips for making a CONSPIRACY THEORY, it’s tips for making a CONSPIRACY. For instance, if the Masons had had my list, they would have known better than to put codes on all our money where everyone could see it.--Mustex (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I suspect most of us have no idea what you are talking about. But feel free to try to explain. ħuman 05:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

PS, what list? ħuman 05:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Idea: Why don't you start the Fourth Cabal on RW? ħuman 05:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Look at the blocklist

[3] Haha I'm so funny. Peace out for the night. ħuman 08:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Phyllis

Typical. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oversight

I just oversited a comment here. Some asshole posted a link to a girls facebook, claiming it was TK daughters, and asking if anyone wants to "run here off the net". Just so you know... Aceⁱ⁹ 02:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You need to revert it and oversight all the comments between the posting and reversion, otherwise it's still visible. Give me a second...--The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't often use the oversight so thanks for follwoing up. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. If I broke the wiki, having someone clean up after me would be nice, but it should be good now. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That seems to have worked, yes. Thanks. ħuman 02:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Missed one, but I think I got it now. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Professor Wikipedia

From our friends at College Humor. Enjoy! The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 05:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

My TV show tonight:

The channel you dont want to miss tonight [[4]] Exclusive Previews of the next WP debacle... You sure want to be added to the involved parties!Alain (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Rob. You really won't give it a break, will you? You're going to end up just like Uncle Ed. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

See also

[5] for further commentary. ħuman 08:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Olympics

It occurred to me today that dogs playing "fetch" with their owners should be an Olympic event. ħuman 04:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

As should be turtle racing, in my opinion. But I am biased, because I own a turtle. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 05:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "animal only" events would make the cut, but "fetch" is like horsey jumping and stuff. There's a line x meters from the start line, which the owner/trainer must stay behind. Object is thrown, and the doggie must grab it past the X line, then return it. Scores based on time from throw to successful saliva-laced return of object to owner. ħuman 05:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Cat Training. If you can get your cat to perform a task other than sleep and eat, you get a gold, no matter what... (and yes, I am a cat servant owner) - Ravenhull (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

My cats shit every now and then. Do I get gold? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 07:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can get them to let themselves out the door, shit in some sand, and cover it up, all without eating houseplants, AND get them to catch a bird and bring it inside and eat it next to you at your desk, AND get it all on video, yes, definitely. ħuman 08:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

My cat plays fetch with one particular kind of toy mouse. It is sort of slow motion. It takes him a couple of minutes to bring it back sometimes. When he was a bit younger (last year) he could be pretty ruthless about forcing you to play with him. He could go for an hour. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 02:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Cryptic message

Any guess what this website is about? - π 07:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Joystiq has some spoilerish info. It's an ARG, it seems. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 07:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

OMG you let the aliens into my brain! I will never forgive you! ZORBOTZ RULE. ALL RASHNUL WIKI WILL OBEY MY COMMAND! ħuman 08:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

rights

Can I have my sysop rights that I lost for unblocking TK back? It was admittedly stupid, but at least a template and clear policy arose because of it Tweety (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Take your time. Best way to get them back? Start a "case" at RationalWiki:Administrative Abuse and fully link the steps of the process. Chances are, if you unblocked TK after what was going down, you won't get a sympathetic ear, but you never know. ħuman 08:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe give it a week, you are still making n00bish mistakes, e.g, deleting WIGOs. (EC) Ignore Human, starting an AA case is just going to piss more people off at you. - π 08:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Pi's right, you have no case to make at AA anyway. You just did something stupid, and weren't aware of anything when you did it. ħuman 08:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No, Human is right, you should go to AA, you have a problem and the sooner you admit to it the sooner you can be healed. - π 08:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"more lulz this way" is not a way to show that you are/were following the conversation. I'd recommend waiting a month before whinging for 'sopery again, since you made a rather embarrassing error - a big one, at an important crux. ħuman 08:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I missed it

Why is TK banned for 2 years? Ajkgordon (talk) 08:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

He threatened to sue Trent + others. - π 08:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Basically, threatening RationalWiki founders and members with lawsuits. ħuman 08:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

On wiki or off? And sue for what? Ajkgordon (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

In private, see here. And here ħuman 08:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, right. What fun he's having. Isn't this what TK does best? Ajkgordon (talk) 09:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup, and we finally blocked the fucker for it, and in the end, no one complained. If anyone unblocks him they'll get demoted. If there is disagreement, I suspect I speak for the majority of the Lazy Jellyfish that we would enforce the mob's will. But who knows? ħuman 09:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'd complain but it looks like I missed the debate. And I can't be arsed. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

As in giving TK more attention. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

A metric for stupid - Stupid Fight

Presenting Stupid Fight. Using stuff like the law of exclamation, you can analyse celebrity Twitter fans to see who has the dumbest following. Of interest to RW would be the suggestion of comparing Glenn Beck to Rachel Maddow (it's closer than you think), and for a good laugh, check Kim Kardashian^Who?, which goes off the scale. (I also need to shamelessly plug Tom's TV show) ^postate 09:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Loving big guv'mint?

This discussion was moved here from Conservapedia_Talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP?#Loving_big_guv'mint?.

If this isn't the right spot to post this, please accept my apologies, but I thought this article from the UK's Economist was worth sharing - http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/04/political_economy

In short, the redder (more conservative & TEA-partying) states tend towards greater enjoyment of federal handouts than the bluer states. Steve Kay (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to dig up any references right now, but believe it or not this is old news. Paranoid anti-tax rednecks have always received above-average shares of government assistance. Paranoid Galt wannabes, in particular, have always been the worst of the leeches. Kevin Drum has had a link to a comprehensive discussion roughly twice a year since at least 1998. mb 12:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it has more to do with the states they live in than them just being ignorant and backwards. Red states tend to have more federally-administered land/natural resources and more poverty, which means more welfare. ^{— Unsigned, by: TKEtoolshed / talk / contribs}

Aaaand they're off...

This thread has been moved to Forum:UK General Election 2010. 00:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Pwnage Olympics Have Begun!

Anyone else entering? I've done my first entry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnd5dYreuOY --Mustex (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing Catholic pedo discussion...

Where on the wiki was somebody talking about a defense of the priests because the victims were technically not "children?" Need it for a blog post. P-Foster (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know, but see this:

"Pope Benedict's personal preacher has compared criticism of the pontiff and Church over child abuse to "collective violence" suffered by the Jews.

[...]

"In his sermon, he quoted a Jewish friend as saying the accusations reminded him of the "more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism"."

Green Giant (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Dang, one of the blogs I follow had something about that recently, but I can't seem to track it down. --Kels (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a story on it, if that helps. DickTurpis (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah right! It was on Pharyngula! I couldn't find it since I was looking in the political blogs section. --Kels (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Who rocks? Kels rocks!--coulda sworn it was here. P-Foster (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

←click. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 12:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

He appears to be arguing that the Church as a whole shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of a significant number of its clergy. There was me thinking that the Church was rather keen on the hierarchy thing. Silly me, it's clearly an anarchic collective with no clear line of responsibility or power between it's various cells and its leader claims no authority over anybody in his church. Yaay, perhaps the church is the best weapon we have against itself. --^{Ask me about your mother} 12:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The church wouldn't be held responsible if it wasn't culpable; if it had been unaware that these crimes had taken place, or had referred them on to the proper authorities. Nobody's saying that all catholics or even all priests are responsible, as these spokespeople & defenders seem to be inferring, but there's no shirking the fact that bishops & archbishops, including the current pope, knew about this stuff & actively concealed it. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

One is tempted to say that they should just shut up & get on with the Augean Stable clean up but look what happens when you do Some eejit'll say you're ignoring it. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 13:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

And now it's petty: At Easter Mass in St Peter's Square a top cardinal said the faithful were not affected by "petty gossip".

Am I correct in thinking I heard that the Archbishop of Canterbury called on the RCC to clean up its house? On like Good Friday? ħuman 23:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears he made some comments about the scandal in an interview, but then later apologised. Not a direct challenge to the RCC, but enough to sour relations. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

more

The "Pedophile's Paradise" ^{Hat tip yummy} &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 15:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Moonies of the Wash Times don't like poor old Benedict being picked on ^{Hat tip} . ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 14:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Fucking hELL! ^{Hat tip} Bishop of Tenerife blames child abuse on the children ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 15:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No discussion of the wikileaks "collateral murder" video?

Or did I miss where anybody here talked about this video of two Reuters journalists being killed by a US helicopter due to standing among possibly armed individuals (and a van that attempts to rescue one of them being shot at, killing the would-be rescuers and injuring two children)?

Following the range of internet rhetoric (from "this just shows how stupid and trigger happy Americans are" to "perfectly understandable mistake, none of you armchair generals know what it's really like to be in a battle") is a bit dizzying (and sickening). But I'm surprised that there's apparently no mention of it here at all yet...? Megaten (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Want to start an article on it? Sometimes we don't catch all the news. For instance, I still don't know who won the Presidency in 2008. Oh, wait, no, I do. No mention at wigo:world yet? By the way, speaking of the fifth wall, you realize that by asking you started a discussion of the wikileaks thing here, so now there is one? ħuman 05:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see the AK-47s in the vid. To be honest, I haven't spotted the bit where he shoulders his camera but I did see the camera bags, and if you think those looked like RPGs you shouldn't be in charge of gunships. ^postate 09:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That's quite a chilling piece of footage. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Creepy in seven different ways. Only watched the first few minutes. What are these gunship operators and their bosses, fucking stupid? ħuman 10:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of wither the thing looked like an RPG or not, the fact is that it shows that there's hardly any more thought behind said rules of engagement than "he holds a thingy". We are talking about killing someone here, right? We are talking about the act that if you kill one or two in texas or something you are supposed to get the death penalty for. But apparently if you are in a helicopter and someone holds a thingy doesn't count...Sen (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Pythons really put it best, " Here is better than home, eh, sir? I mean, at home if you kill someone they arrest you, here they'll give you a gun and show you what to do, sir. I mean, I killed fifteen of those buggers. Now, at home they'd hang me, here they'll give me a fucking medal, sir." I also think we should make an article about this incident, and keep track of it as more info comes out.Ryantherebel (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

At least a note needs to be made about it on some relevant articles. Although I can't for the life of me think what those articles would be. ^postate 15:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

War on Terror would seem appropriate - when you fight a war where the enemy are often unidentified civilians who might just be doing something or plotting something or carrying something, incidents like this, or like the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes back in the UK a few years ago, will tend to happen. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently this whole thing is on its way to becoming a meme. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/rpgRyantherebel (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Rough quote of from a college I.T. class today: "Raise your hands, have any of you ever been in war? ...No, a real firefight? Yeah, I don't think we can judge this kind of thing." I'd attribute this mostly to avoiding conflict/job loss, but the attitude bugs me a bit... ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 19:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
..."even if they were cameras, they often film their attacks, so they still could've been...bad guys." Sigh. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 19:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

1. lol, ur in an I.T. class
2. I await comment from our resident Foxhole Atheist. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

wtf? respect plz. (Was a tangent from "whoa why didn't they encrypt better", for the record.) ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 19:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no respect for IT as a discipline in and of itself. My lol stands. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

ALLAH ACKBAR!

everyone get in gear! its prayer time! Goonie the Imam want to speak to you after prayer , Human our morality police told me you were hanging out with liberal is that true? i expect everyone to be good! or i will have to whip you all into submission! Waronstupidity (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ta guele, hostie. P-Foster (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Parle francais hostie.Waronstupidity (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Heille mes petits tabarnaques! vous allez faire sauter notre couverture.. personne sait qu'on est 3 quebecois qui ont infiltrés une bande de dangeureux socialisses athées... Alain (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

何? --PsyGremlinZungumza! 17:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

on est infiltrer? personne men a parler :-( mais bon si tu le dit patron!Waronstupidity (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)