# RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive6

This is an archive page, last updated 27 November 2009. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: , (back)

I'm surprised no one at Conservapedia has put a spin on the Justice's cancer diagnosis. Will they be happy that a liberal judge may retire/die, or freak out that Obama will appoint Michael Moore to the high court? Czolgolz 15:04, 6 February 2009 (EST)

## Question

How do you find out the IP of a domain on a Mac terminal? 16:28, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Ping, whois, tracert, etc should all resolve the domain for you. Neveruse513 16:30, 6 February 2009 (EST)
(EC) nslookup -- Nx talk 16:31, 6 February 2009 (EST)
Thankyou. Time harmonic Hoover! 16:36, 6 February 2009 (EST)

## Rationalwiki's atheist bus campaign

Hot on the heels of the "God does probably not exist" campaign I have sponsored some new ads which are currently to be seen in London. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 17:03, 6 February 2009 (EST)

That's a great pic, and funny! :D Even more funny, I actually believed that was a real advert on a bus until someone else clued me in, lol. I'll be the first to admit, I'm gullible. :p Refugeetalk page 17:13, 6 February 2009 (EST)
Actually I made it here. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 18:45, 6 February 2009 (EST)
My version. --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistoris Fall Sideways 18:50, 6 February 2009 (EST)

## Block log

Can people please stop permabanning their own sockpuppets. The site has a good record of not blocking accounts permanently. Let's not ruin it for no reason. If you want to discard a sock, just sop using it. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 17:30, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Have a sense of humor, for Darwin's sake! --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoris overworked and overbearing 17:34, 6 February 2009 (EST)
I has a sense of humour (have you forgotten NightModeBot so soon?). However, one of the defining things about the site is we don't block people for long periods. If we have a page full of blocked accounts, it makes us look bad, & if they're just users' own socks, it's pointless. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 17:50, 6 February 2009 (EST)

## IN the News

This discussion was moved here from Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?.

[Countdown to CP News:] 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... and marmite 13:48, 6 February 2009 (EST)

May I just add that I hate how religious people think the whole world needs to adopt their standards and everyone else can go fuck themselves. SirChuckBHITWIN FOR PRESIDENT! 13:56, 6 February 2009 (EST)
That's a bit harsh. It was the Italian gov't that blocked the removal. The only mention of religion is how it appears that the gov't adopted the position of the church. If the US gov't decides it is in the best interest of the economy to have businesses close on Sundays are they being religious or happening to coincide with one religious belief? Jrssr5 14:51, 6 February 2009 (EST)
But that's the point... What businesses have the government ever concluded need to be closed on Sundays? If you said Liquor stores, you are correct. These blue laws are holdovers from a shame inducing period of church and state intermingling and the fact that they're getting repealed proves that. In the Italy case, the center-right government (which probably means religious) interfered in something they have no business in. There is no Government reason for them to step in except religious objections. SirChuckBHITWIN FOR PRESIDENT! 15:31, 6 February 2009 (EST)
oops, I didn't know there was going to be continued discussion about this here in WIGO, so I started a discussion on this over at Saloon... can the comments here and there be combined somehow, or moved or something? thanks! Refugeetalk page 17:49, 6 February 2009 (EST)
Re: blue laws - they aren't just for liquor, and some have/are been around quite recently. MA and ME have both had them within my memory on retail stores. ħuman 21:01, 6 February 2009 (EST)

- - - - - - - - - -

Saw this on WIGO: bbc news story

Recap:

• Eluana Englaro, a 38 year old woman, was in a car crash in 1992, and for the past 17 years, has been in a coma. She is said to be in a persistent vegetative state.
• Since 1999, her father has been battling with the courts in Italy to let her die, insisting it was her wish.
• Last November, Italy's highest court ruled that she had expressed a preference for dying over being kept alive artificially, and that doctors could stop feeding her.
• 3 Feb 2009, she was transferred to a private geriatric clinic, where doctors had agreed to disconnect her feeding tubes.
• 6 Feb 2009, Italy's government issued an emergency decree to prevent this from happening.

• A: Should Eluana Englaro be kept alive, or should the feeding tubes be disconnected?
• B: If you were in her situation, would you want to remain on life support or not?

Refugeetalk page 17:40, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Are there accounts from people who have come out of a PVS? What did they have to say? I would have pulled it a long time ago, barring some amazing story about first-hand PVS experience. Neveruse513 17:42, 6 February 2009 (EST)
I don't know, but personally, I don't think there is much hope after 17 years. I think I'd rather not stay that way.. it's not really "living" to me. Refugeetalk page 17:45, 6 February 2009 (EST)

There is no life without movement and thought. She is a vegetable. I see no reason to keep her alive. Sorry. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoris overworked and overbearing 17:47, 6 February 2009 (EST)

I've never liked the phrase "She is a vegetable..." She's not a vegetable, she's a human being--saying "She is a vegetable" is like saying we put Rusty "to sleep." It's a little lie we tell ourselves when forced to deal with unpleasant truths. And the unpleasnt truth is that someone is going to have to decide whether or not this human being lives or dies. If it were me, from where I sit now, I'd prolly want them to pull the plug...but if it were my wife, let's say, I don't know; I can imagine clinging to whatever shred of hope that whatever miracle, whatever one-in-a-trillion chance, would happen and I'd have her back. Glad I'm not in those shoes today; but I think debates like this, on either side, tend to get reductionist and are ultimately futile because there's no conceivable consensus, compromise or middle ground...TheoryOfPractice 18:49, 6 February 2009 (EST)
Humans can think, can move. She cannot move, think, or anything else. She has no purpose in life. She was a human being- but now her brain is gone. Only her body is still active. How can you be human and have no brain? Note: This does not apply to teh assfly. He has a brain, he just doesn't use it. --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistoris Fall Sideways 18:52, 6 February 2009 (EST)
(EC) You know what CUR--my normal annoyance with almost everything you do or say has been replaced now with burning rage...You do not, nor does anyone else, have the right to decide who is human and who is not. I suppose I should blame the line of shit you're spouting on your youth, but when I was young I never said anything even remotely that stupid. TheoryOfPractice 18:59, 6 February 2009 (EST)
<growls> I do not say that I have that right. I merely say that I have the ability to determine whether or not someone can think. Tell me: do you oppose killing plants? Because that is what she is like. I feel sorry for here, but the thing is, I am looking at this without emotion. If you have a problem with that, go someplace besides RationalWiki. The most rational thing to do would be to disconnect the tubes. There are other patients who may need those tubes, or could be helped by them. Should they die? --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistoris Fall Sideways 19:03, 6 February 2009 (EST)
What you're describing is wp:Brain death -- Nx talk 18:57, 6 February 2009 (EST)

(unident)And she is brain dead. --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistoris Fall Sideways 18:58, 6 February 2009 (EST)

That's not what the story says. TheoryOfPractice 19:00, 6 February 2009 (EST)
(EC) No, that's wp:Vegetative state -- Nx talk 19:01, 6 February 2009 (EST)
The two do not appear to be dissimilar. And TOP, she wanted to die. Got a problem with that? --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistoris Fall Sideways 19:05, 6 February 2009 (EST)
I did not know you were a doctor...No, I have no problem with respecting someone's clearly-articulated right to die--I am a strong proponent of the right to die. However, once you draw a line that says "this is a human being," and "this is NOT a human being," the location of that line is open to debate and can conceivably move. First the "brain dead," then who knows. We are all human beings and continue to be so untl we are dead--and it's not up to you or anyone else to decide otherwise. Exercising somebody's right to die is an ultimate act of courage, compassion and respect. Calling someone "not a human," CUR, is exactly the opposite--but I sincerely doubt your ability to think in those sort of abstract terms. TheoryOfPractice 19:11, 6 February 2009 (EST)
I looked at the article. The two do not appear to be dissimilar. If I am wrong, correct me and explain why instead of swearing. It will only get you into trouble. --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistoris Fall Sideways 19:18, 6 February 2009 (EST)
I'm not interested in debating the difference between "persistent vegetative state" and "brain dead" based on wikipedia articles because I'm smart enough not to get into debates I know nothing about. I'm not a neurophysician. My main argument with you is your moronic and callous disregard for the basic humanity of the woman at the centre of this debate. TheoryOfPractice 19:23, 6 February 2009 (EST)
'Basic humanity?' There is such a thing that makes humans different from all other species? We are no different from any other creature, big, small, or medium. Enlighten me as to this antrocentric philosophy of yours. When I said 'not human,' I did not mean that she was lacking of humanity. I don't quite know what I meant. But I did not mean what you think I meant. --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistoris Fall Sideways 19:29, 6 February 2009 (EST)
When I said 'not human,' I did not mean that she was lacking of humanity. I don't quite know what I meant. If you don't know what you mean, then probably the best thing to do is to keep your yap shut. And "anthrocentric?" Yes, humans are different from other animals--For starters, we're nowhere near as tasty, I would imagine. TheoryOfPractice 19:36, 6 February 2009 (EST)
I do not have words to describe what I meant. I suppose the best way to say it is that I do not consider someone who hasn't moved, spoken, eaten, anything for 17 years to need tubes in her body. As for anthrocentrism, I sicken of it. It permeates too much of our lives, making us ignore the evils we do daily to other species. I consider myself to have an outlook on this different from your own- so I do not expect you to understand that all animals are sentient and deserve the same treatment. Except parasites. --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistoris Fall Sideways 19:40, 6 February 2009 (EST)
Trust you to stake out a strong absolutist moral claim and then qualify it with an "except" in the very next sentence. I've said all I need to say about this...TheoryOfPractice 19:42, 6 February 2009 (EST)

(unident) Not good enough, unless you're ASchlafly. --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistoris Fall Sideways 19:44, 6 February 2009 (EST)

The root of the problem is that we do not understand the brain yet, and cannot determine if the patient is still self-aware or not, except in case of total brain death. Maybe she's still alive, maybe she can still hear and see and feel, but she can't do anything. How would you feel in that situation? -- Nx talk 19:08, 6 February 2009 (EST)
I would accept my death. To our knowledge, she cannot think. She even wanted to die. Valuable resources are being used for someone that will not recover. If there was infinite space and resources, things might be different. But there aren't. So we must do something that is wrong, but right. --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistoris Fall Sideways 19:10, 6 February 2009 (EST)
It isn't that simple. you would accept your death. (at least that is what you say now. I wonder what your position would be in that situation) But that doesn't mean that everyone would. You cannot make a claim that such a person is no longer a person, or that such a life is not worth preserving. That person is still alive. And you can't just take the life of another person because you think it isn't valuable. --CPAdmin1 11:53, 7 February 2009 (EST)
You should see this movie -- Nx talk 19:15, 6 February 2009 (EST)
That was a really good movie. --CPAdmin1 11:49, 7 February 2009 (EST)
Hey, if we're talking comas, you should also see this movie. --Marty 05:34, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Nnnnnnng. Ehhhhhhmmmng. --TerryS 05:36, 8 February 2009 (EST)

@CUR "All animals are sentient and deserve the same treatment. Except parasites." You know that you cannot even prove other humans are sentient, let alone animals; are starfish, which have no brains but are still definitely animals, "sentient". Are sea anemones? Why are parasites not included? Because they have such a strong "ick" factor? What differentiates a parasite that lives off another creature to your favourite, the cheetah, which kills and eats other, "sentient" animals? Time harmonic Hoover! 03:17, 7 February 2009 (EST)

I believe that parasites are sentient. I also beileve that any creature that sucks the life out of another creature does not deserve to live. --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistoris Fall Sideways 09:40, 7 February 2009 (EST)
What does "sucks the life out of another creature" actually mean? Compare parasites like a tapeworm, which lives in another creature's system without actually harming it, just taking a little of its food, or a flea, which just takes a bit of blood, with a predator like a cheetah or a weasel which kills for food. Making moral judgements about an animals' survival mechanisms is pointless. The reason we kill parasites is that we regard them as pests & they can be harmful (to people, pets, livestock), but you can't make an animal rights argument & then exclude parasites from it on the basis of an arbitary moral judgement. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 10:02, 7 February 2009 (EST)
Weaseloid, I am merely saying that if a parasite sucks my blood, I will kill it. That is all. --"CURtalk 10:05, 7 February 2009 (EST)
And you would kill a cheetah that tried to attack you? Parasites rarely significantly harm their hosts, except by transmission of infections. Time harmonic Hoover! 11:54, 7 February 2009 (EST)

## Analog to Digital TV conversion deadline Feb 17

IN the U.S., all analog TV signals must convert to digital by Feb 17, 2009. This means that TVs that currently get "over the air" broadcasts will no longer work after that date. The options are: 1) buy a digital tuner (about $80) or: 2) sign up for cable, dish network or other service (more stations but much higher cost) or 3) buy a new TV that is digital ready. I have 3 TV's that are old and not digital ready, so I would need to buy 3 converters, or sign up for cable.. no idea what I should do and the deadline approaches.. any thoughts? Which would be better in the long run? Also, I'm curious, how do people outside the US get stations, do they still have free over the air broadcasts, or...? Refugeetalk page 19:28, 6 February 2009 (EST) Which would be better in the long run? Library cards. NPR, CBC Radio and BBC World Service over the net. Subscriptions to Harper's, the Atlantic Monthly, Foreign Affairs, the Nation and the New York Review of Books. Sex--more tv =less nookie. Walks.Lots of things would be better in the long run. TheoryOfPractice 19:32, 6 February 2009 (EST) You forgot Scientific American, National Geographic, Smithsonian, Discovery, Popular Science, Reptiles, etc. --"ConservapediaUndergroundThermistoris Fall Sideways 19:33, 6 February 2009 (EST) Either forget TV or get 1 converter & a splitter box. don't you got satellite over that side the pond? and marmite 19:42, 6 February 2009 (EST) Here in the land down under we were suppose to start digital only begin of 2007, but digital box take up was so low they have scraped that indefinitely. I got a box just to watch NFL games. Other than one channel that uses it HD channel to show sports of low interest to the general public, there is nothing on. One network has 5 channels showing the same thing even during the Olympics where they could have just show 4 other sport uncommented at almost no additional cost. - User ${\displaystyle \scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}}$ 19:48, 6 February 2009 (EST) We're phasing it in slowly. Everywhere can get digital now (I think) but they're switching off analogue area by area. Gives a load of "new" channels (we're used to 5 analogue terrestrials) There's also Freesat that gives HD (High def!) TV. and marmite 19:54, 6 February 2009 (EST) Actually Pi, they do plan to shut off analogue, they've just given us a few more years [1]. Bah, I ran out and bought a very expensive HDTV which I will be paying off for several years just so I wouldn't miss out, just to discover I don't need it. Still, at least now I don't need to buy a new TiVo until next year. -Redbacknot Redneck 19:59, 6 February 2009 (EST) Here in Her Majesty's United Kingdom, we have to purchase a TV license annually to own a television at all. If I was living alone, I don't think I'd bother having a TV. There's very little I watch, plus DVDs cost practicially nothing now & you can watch them through a computer. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 20:05, 6 February 2009 (EST) We're phasing it in slowly. Everywhere can get Digital now (I think) but they're switching off analogue are by area. Gives a load of"new" channels (we're used to 5 analogue terrestrials) There's also Freesat that gives HD (High def!) TV. I watch about 4 hours/week though so as Ermine says, it's a pain buying the licence. and marmite 20:08, 6 February 2009 (EST) Sorry about that, Had an EC & copy/pasted the wrong bit: So it goes. (can't remember what I wrote before now. and marmite 20:10, 6 February 2009 (EST) A splitter! Thanks Toast, terrific idea - I hadn't thought of that - it would save me buying two boxes at$80 each.. but then I guess I would need to run long cable from one room to another? And yes, we have satellite, but it costs.. too much for me I'm afraid. I'd love to be able to buy a new HDTV! and sorry, that EC was me. :-< Refugeetalk page 20:14, 6 February 2009 (EST)
Our 1 & only TV (18inch) Digital & HD ready cost about £120. Satellite (Freesat) is free (about £100 for dish & box) if you can't get terrestrial digital. and marmite 20:19, 6 February 2009 (EST)
Bonus though: Digital tVs pick up digital Radio too BBC 7 rules! and marmite 20:23, 6 February 2009 (EST)

## Firefox screen capture thingie

Slick!

A while back someone posted the "extension" for a FF screen capture thing, which I went and downloaded and installed. However, that was weeks ago, and I hadn't restarted FF until today. So, while I think it's installed, I have no idea how to use it... any help on this? Thanks! ħuman 18:58, 7 February 2009 (EST)

You have Screengrab? It is the bottom right corner of your browser you will see its logo. If you click on it it will have two options save and copy. Each has three options, full screen, visible portion and selection. Save and either screen or portion will be the best. - User ${\displaystyle \scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}}$ 19:09, 7 February 2009 (EST)
Or right click & it shows on the context menu. and marmite 20:19, 7 February 2009 (EST)
Thanks! ħuman 23:02, 7 February 2009 (EST)

## Antivax bombshell

(moved from Talk--Mainpage) Is there a news page on this site? This story should be covered:

See WIGO--world for news. We prolly haz a page on vaccine scare too. And hells, post it on CP. Andy'll love it. TheoryOfPractice 23:36, 7 February 2009 (EST)
RationalWiki:What is going on in the blogosphere? would cover that, add your blog to the list. - User ${\displaystyle \scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}}$ 23:37, 7 February 2009 (EST)
Thanks, Tony. I enjoyed reading your CP blogposts, by the way. ħuman 23:44, 7 February 2009 (EST)

We need to update vaccine hysteria? ħuman 23:47, 7 February 2009 (EST)

In reply to User:TheoryOfPractice, I think that's one issue on which RationalWiki and Conservapedia might agree to some extent (uncomfortable though that might make us feel), though of course Conservapedia finds a liberal scapegoat:
Despite the claims of certain high-profile figures such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,there is no link between the Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) vaccine and Autism. Despite these claims being repeatedly proved to be false and the proponents' deceitful behavior (such as Andrew Wakefield, who received \$623,623 from lawyers preparing to sue the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine without evidence), certain parties continue to push the MMR Vaccine-Autism link.
I think it would be great if the Huffington Post wouldn't carry this ridiculous nonsense to which Conservapedia gleefully directs its readers in their article Vaccine. --Tony Sidaway 01:33, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Wait, they hate RFK 'cause he's an evil liberal. We are troubled by him for his scientific illiteracy on this topic (and I've heard him wanking about this on my liberal talk radio, pisses me off). I'm not sure that's "agreeing"? ħuman 01:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)

And while you're at it, cover this case. Ben Goldacre has had another lawyer's letter, this time from the radio company of some antivaxer with a microphone in her hand and vacuum between her ears. The response on the blogosphere has been magnificant, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't all pitch in and help spread the word. --Tony Sidaway 03:48, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Meanwhile the children of the UK MMR scare are now of school age and, guess what, there's an alarming rise in the number of cases of measles. Silver Sloth 04:13, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Is it just me, or is it perhaps the bloated header thingie? ħuman 23:45, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Templates are CPU time heavy. That is why when you have one as a sig it dumps all the code to try and save server time. - User ${\displaystyle \scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}}$ 23:48, 7 February 2009 (EST)
At present template:bartop uses four other templates. Would it help if they were all actually merged into the same template. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 07:13, 8 February 2009 (EST)
it's also a pig to load because it grows rapidly. I'm going to move the animal sentience section to a debate page, but really we need to archive the page more often - probably as often as WIGO CP. Totnesmartin 09:40, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Personally, I find the whole template to be incredibly tasteless, and wouldn't mind seeing it removed completely. The only reason we have it in the first place is because some people thought it was funny (it really isn't, by the way) to stuff as many bar/saloon-related jokes as possible at the top. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 16:40, 8 February 2009 (EST)

## Fibonacci in the funny pages.

Foxtrot. Where else? TheoryOfPractice 01:22, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Sweet, thanks! I never replaced my newspaper subscription with devoted tracking of my favorite comix... I phail. ħuman 01:44, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Who here thinks that we should have someone be an official ambassador to Wikipedia (definitely not me)? Or AthiesmWiki? Or someplace else? They would represent us and help forward our agenda. It expect this idea to be shot down within 30 seconds. Pile on. --"CURtalk 13:33, 8 February 2009 (EST)

You are being very sluggish today. Yesterday I wouldn't even have time to blink before someone called me a fool. --"CURtalk 13:35, 8 February 2009 (EST)
I vote TK or Karajou. 216.221.87.112 13:39, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Eh what? But I am Karajou. Actually, Karajou is me. Karajou is my sock. See, Karajou is a sock of myself, who is a sock of Icewedge, who, of course, is a sock of TheoryOfPractice. --"CURtalk 13:43, 8 February 2009 (EST)
I'm of two minds. The first is (god help me for saying this...) "That's not entirely stupid, CUR." We could talk about working w/wikiblogs w/similar missions (but prolly not WP--too big and diverse...) to coordinate attacks on CP share links to interesting articles, borrow from each others' expertise to improve articles, etc....The second is "It's nice out, and I already spend too much time on the wikiblogs, and so do you. Surely there must be better things going on...." TheoryOfPractice 13:39, 8 February 2009 (EST)
I nominate <insert name here>. But what would the role involve? WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 13:40, 8 February 2009 (EST)
It would involve basic diplomacy and forwarding our agenda. Maybe Off Renosance? --"CURtalk 13:43, 8 February 2009 (EST)
We has an agenda? I'm not sure we need a liaison for the small sites like atheismwiki. There are a couple of users here also edit on them, so links of a sort are already in place. & Quite a lot of us have a Wikipedia account. I don't think we often need to say things "on behalf of RationalWiki" at other sites. It might be entertaining to appoint an official Ambassador to Conservapedia (ideally somebody they hate). WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 13:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)
That is an interesting idea but I really don't see the need. The idea with ambassadors in general is that they represent their leader because their leaders cant be everywhere at once but with the internet it is easy enough for someone to just drop Trent an e-Mail. I can say for a fact that if you tried to send an 'ambassador' to WP you would be basically ignored and derided as silly and I imagine many other sites would have the same reaction. Is there any pressing inter-site politics that need to be addressed that cant be by the mob or Trent? I really don't think so. Perhaps a designated contact point on our side might be worthwhile, but sending out people to other sites who probably wont even care seems rather useless. Icewedge 13:50, 8 February 2009 (EST)
That's sort of what I meant. Like an embassy, for lack of a better word. --"CURtalk 13:53, 8 February 2009 (EST)
We must send missionaries to these other sites & convert them to our religion. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 13:56, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Heck, I'm already spreading the word of the goat at that forum I once mentioned. --"CURtalk 14:01, 8 February 2009 (EST)
(EC, damn you CUR)I think we'd need to designate a religion for that, FSM, IPU or ism? Also, who'd want to visit our embassy? We don't even have doilies to put under the saucers... oh the guests will be here at any moment and we haven't laid out the orderves hour durves food. -Redbacknot Redneck 14:02, 8 February 2009 (EST)
My halfpennyworth: I think that anything looking like an interest bloc at Wikipedia would call into question the neutrality of all members of that bloc, and get us all labelled as POV-pushers. Pseudomonas 14:00, 8 February 2009 (EST)
It wouldn't exactly be an interest bloc. It would attempt to further relations between the two sites. And most of our members are more than capable of writing in a NPOV. For example, we could try making Alison an ambassador. --"CURtalk 14:03, 8 February 2009 (EST)
First of all, thanks to some Weasel that gave this poor Noob a heart attack for about 1.3 seconds..... Second, I think that the stuff you guys do now is fine. We all found ourselves here, didn't we? And I can't count the number of other blogs and sites I've seen this fine literary masterpiece mentioned on..... Like minded people will stay (or Lurk for a year and a half first).... Sightblinder 14:14, 8 February 2009 (EST)
I think we have enough casual links with Wikipedia (i.e. plenty of people editing at both sites) but trying to forge stronger "official" links, or recruit at WP or anything like that would be kindof dubious & not good for RW's reputation. Actually, I think the only good thing about having an Ambassador is we'd get to have parties like this. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 14:23, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Screw the wikipedos.DSFARGEG 14:25, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Let's send an ambassador to Russia! --"CURtalk 14:26, 8 February 2009 (EST)
I see my name has been mentioned as a possible ambassador - or perhaps "missionary", it's not quite clear. I don't know if my clear atheistic views would really represent the slightly wishy-washy athiesm/agnosticism more commonly shown here but I should be happy to go forth and convert the heathen in the name of RationalWiki. Send me to Conservapedia and watch them quail; dispatch me to CreationWiki and see how they will submit; have me liaise with the various atheist wikis and watch how the fall in line. It's obvious that the word of an ambassador from RationalWiki will be like that of a Roman Senator in the provinces. Consider my ways ye mighty and be afraid!--Bobbing up 14:30, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Perhaps I should mention there is an element of sarcasm there.--Bobbing up 14:32, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Weasel used the name span. Oh, and we theoritically could send a liason to CreationWiki- they accept debate. We might be able to set up a successful operation. --"CURtalk 14:35, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Curses - fooled again!--Bobbing up 15:20, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Ambassador to Wikipedia? Now I'll never get that Chinese forest in my sandbox finished... what does the job involve? (clue: I'll accept if the job involves jaffa cakes). Totnesmartin 16:47, 8 February 2009 (EST)

RationalWiki moon mission.
WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 17:28, 8 February 2009 (EST)
A user account on both sites, and an ability to engage in polite, rational dialouge. --"CURtalk 16:48, 8 February 2009 (EST)
User at WP since 2006, here since 2007 - check! Ability to engage in polite, rational dialogue - oh bugger. Totnesmartin 16:52, 8 February 2009 (EST)
I looked at your dialouge above. Your an ambassador now. Congratulations. --"CURtalk 16:57, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Ugh, jaffa cakes. You sicken me. Time harmonic Hoover! 16:53, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Well if you don't want yours... (incidentally, shouldn't they be Tel Aviv cakes now?) Totnesmartin 17:00, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Rather than having "official" ambassadors we should all be ambassadors for RationalWiki. There is little point in trying to engage in debate with the likes of CreationWiki, they're never going to accept any argument or facts that runs counter to their ideology. What people can do is post links to RationalWiki in a non-spamming way if they are editing on bulletin boards or discussion forums. Nothing so crass as Ken's "Have you seen Conservapedia's Atheism/Evolution/Homosexuality article", perhaps something along the lines of "there was an interesting discussion about this at ...". However, you should only do this where you are already a regular editor so that it doesn't look like a drive-by litter drop. ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 17:01, 8 February 2009 (EST)
You want me to help represent you? --"CURtalk 17:03, 8 February 2009 (EST)
With all due respect CUR, a little subtlety is required for ambassadoring. Totnesmartin 17:15, 8 February 2009 (EST)

(unident) Therefore my surprise. --"CURtalk 17:16, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Comrades! We will travel into space! We will travel to Mars! We will go to the moon! To boldly go where no. . . oh, forget it. <plays Star Trek: The Next Generation theme music> --"CURtalk 17:32, 8 February 2009 (EST)
surely Babylon 5 if we're being ambassadors? better show, too. Totnesmartin 17:34, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Never saw it. Though The Next Generation was much more ambassadory. And it was a great show. I loved the cat. Data was my favorite character. Data's cat was my second. --"CURtalk 17:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)
Did someone say OPERATION???? ħuman 17:45, 8 February 2009 (EST)
WTF was that????1??11? Totnesmartin 17:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)