RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive62

This is an archive page, last updated 9 September 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <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)

A debate

For those who care I've started a debate over at Debate:Flogging_is_an_acceptable_criminal_punishment. If it's bad form to 'advertise' a debate page in the saloon bar, feel free to delete this. But I suspect few people will come across it unless they watch RC like a hawk. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No choice!

Should have let her die ^{Hat tip} 15:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you baiting Earthland? Bondurant (talk) 15:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Shit! Oversight this whole section quickly before he sees it!! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Earthland is one reason I'm quite for late term (60+ trimester) abortions. 16:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Blimey Charlie! Some of these catholic chiefs really really don't have a grasp of reality (or ethics). Good on the Nun, though. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 16:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This is important

Forum:Keepers of the keys tmtoulouse 21:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

ELIXIO

I received an e-mail saying "You have been invited to apply for ELIXIO membership. ELIXIO is a private, exclusive and invitation-only online community, social events and information exchange network. ELIXIO members are influential leaders in the financial, fashion and luxury industries as well as academic and social leaders."

Anyone know anything about this? I'd never heard of it, but I searched around on google and the only thing I could find was a comment here which seems to confirm that it is a social networking site. Anyone have any info? EddyP (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you fit the qualfications they describe?

I know I heard an NPR story a few weeks ago about a social networking site for the wealthy, but I don't know if that's it. MDB (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The only possible qualification could be my uni, but that would mean the invite of roughly 9000 others, who apparently don't have them. EddyP (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Presumably someone proposed you. No indication of who? 16:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No clue. EddyP (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Google ELIXIO network - one of the results is actually their terms and conditions or something. Broccoli (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm in, and it still provides no clue as to who invited me. EddyP (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It can only be my uni. Looking at other people who have joined recently, they're from the same place. EddyP (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's the Freemasons' new recruitment strategy. Soon you will receive another email inviting you to a private and exclusive initiation ritual. Then will come the emails calling in favours. You will be required to perform transactions and cooperate with individuals as dictated in these emails. You will not know who these increasingly threatening "invitations" are coming from and you will not ask. You will not question the orders or intentions of your new masters, you will only obey. If you value your freedom and your sanity, get out now while you still can. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me, we had the real Freemasons creeping around the place a while ago. Building got very empty on the night of their recruitment/sounding-out/whatever-it-was meeting. Since then, several people have mysteriously vanished. Broccoli (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Screw the Freemasons. The Stonecutters are a lot more fun. "Beer busts, beer blasts, keggers, steinhoists, AA meetings, beer nights..." Or, alternatively, you could join The Ancient Mystic Society of No Homers. MDB (talk) 10:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Losing a job for something that has nothing to do with the job

I'm not sure how I feel about this, and I'm curious as to others' reactions.

A man named Jonathan Katz was removed from a DoE scientific team dealing with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

Why?

He's the author of some extremely homophobic writings. For instance, "Guilt for their deaths is on the hands of the homosexuals and intravenous drug abusers who poisoned the blood supply. These people died so the sodomites could feel good about themselves."

On the one hand, I think. "if he's got the necessary scientific knowledge to deal with the oil spill, who cares what he thinks otherwise?" William Shockley expressed some rather vilely racist ideas after he helped invent the transistor, but that doesn't change the fact he was an electronics genius.

On the other hard, I think, "if he had written similar remarks about insert group here, he'd already be so marginalized by the scientific community he'd never have gotten the position in the first place."

Thoughts?

MDB (talk) 10:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think he should be removed if his personal and publicly stated views would suggest an inability to do his job or would bring his position in to disrepute. i.e. The head of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights running a site named "I hate gooks", or the PR guy for Dell going on TV (in a private capacity) to claim that Dell computers are terrible and that he would never buy one. However, being a bigot or having some esoteric beliefs shouldn't lead to automatic exclusion. --ConcernedResident ^{Subaru for the ladies} 11:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

One thing to consider is the difference between government jobs and private sector jobs -- government jobs have a much higher degree of protection due to Constitutional protections of free speech. If I was a Federal employee (again. sweet FSM prevent that from happening...) and I went on TV and said "the President is a fucking moron", I could not be fired (I don't think that would fall under the Hatch Act). But as an employee of a private company, if I went on TV and said, "our CEO is a fucking moron", I'd probably be fired, posthaste. MDB (talk) 11:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course he shouldn't be dismissed for his noxious beliefs as long as they don't affect his judgement. BUT: he's part of a team, could you work with him? I don't think I could. So what to do? 12:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What if he kept his beliefs to himself when in the working environment? If he remained professional, even to his gay-workers? MDB (talk) 12:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Tricky. If I knew of his beliefs I'd probably be confrontational. I know it'd be wrong but that's human nature, mine at least. 12:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very tricky, and if he was professional on the job and never brought it up it could be a difficult decision to make (although you have to wonder if that's entirely possible, and this goes back to the idea of whether you can trust someone who prays to a higher power on a regular basis). But I think the argument about bringing the panel into ill-repute has some merit to it. Positions of power and/or responsibility can be said to be just as much about personality as ability. ^moral 12:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You raise a valid point about positions of power and/or responsibility. Many times when professional athletes speak... ill-considered public remarks or otherwise make asses of themselves, they get in trouble because they've brought embarrassment to their team (who is also their employer.) If their locker room janitor had made similar statements, no one would really case, because he's not viewed as part of the team's "face", but when you're the quarterback or starting pitcher or whatever, what you say and do does reflect on the team. MDB (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)As a gay, I don't think he should have been dismissed, but it's hard to shed any tears for these kinds of jerks when they support kicking out much-needed gay Arab speakers from the military for things they think/do in private. From where I sit, society gets what society deserves, and if that means more oil on our shores or less ability to fight our wars because people get all upset about things they don't have to see and that have no effect on their own lives, so be it. I'm not the one in charge. --Leotardo (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Another horror story from the liberal public school system!

A public school teacher was questioned by the Secret Service after using "how to shoot President Obama" as a geometry example.

Why am I not surprised that was in Alabama... MDB (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Meh, I wouldn't give it too much weight. Physics teachers often make jokes about students falling out of windows, etc. This isn't much different. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 19:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that it may well just be a tactless example, people should be aware that this is what the Secret Service does, and it's had to expand recently because of the amount of people who are doing this seriously. ^moral 20:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hell, he could have been referring to the Kennedy assassination. But still... creepy. ħuman 02:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Animalversary

The holydaze template just reminded me! 'Tis almost happy thirdaversary to RationalWiki! ħuman 20:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That it be. Does this mean I've properly been here for the majority of the site's lifetime and therefore technically count as old? ^moral 22:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I also notice that apparently, nobody else cares... cool. ħuman 03:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It may mean that RW is finally over the CP-centrism? Maybe not, but we can hope. ^moral 08:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It's still our anniversary. But you may be right, I might be crazy. ħuman 09:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the NotBK anniversary. When is the actual founding date of RW, & is it honoured with its own Holydaze thing? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's like a week later, 5/21 or so. see Template:Holydaze and Rationalwiki:History for exactitude. ħuman 09:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Teh glorious history dicates 22 May... I thought it was a day later. So how will we spend our staurday night? getting gloriously drunk with a cheap goat? Totnesmartin (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Urgh. It seems I have done a little too much celebrating of RW's birthday. Burp. Ow. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 16:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Really we should do something special. Just can't think of anything. Everybody post messages on websites where we are known? No, probably wouldn't help our reputation for being serious (such as it is.) MMMM. mmmmm Stay up all night here making silly comments? No, that's too much like any other night. MMMmmm. Abuse the Loya Jerga? Not all night though.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I know, I know, we should replace the main page! Everyone with their own revamped version. That would be a great HCM. -- Nx / talk 17:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Nx for the win! ħuman 07:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish that I could join you for the NotBK anniversary. However, tomorrow I have my cardiac ablation operation. If you never hear from me again you'll know it didn't work. Cheers folks. Генгис^mutating 21:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Is it 3 years already? Well, you are officially an old-timer if:

1. You remember when AmesG used to be one of our most active editors (double points if you remember when he was AmesG and not Caius)
2. You voted for the original biggest idiot at Conservapedia
3. You remember when "Fun:" was "ACD:" and you know what ACD stands for
4. You wrote or added at least part of a song to Conservapedia:The Musical
5. You remember when the only WiGO we had was WiGO:CP
6. Were purged in the Night of Blunt Knives (before my time, that one)

And a bunch of others. Add more as you see fit. I'd be curious to see what the oldest timers have to add. DickTurpis (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I remember before there were WIGOs and all we had was Sid's brilliant "best of CP" page. I also remember before we had voty buttons. I also had to walk to school in three feet of snow, uphill both ways. You kids get offa my lawn!!! ħuman 07:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Need a logo

As some of you may know I'm a self-employed English teacher. I think that I need to generate a more professional image so I need a personal logo. Any artistic individuals our there who would like to experiment with creating something? My classes are normally one-to-one with executives and they are heavily biased towards improving conversational skills is that serves for inspiration. You can answer here, mail me or pop over to Teflpedia. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a general idea of what you'd like? ħuman 13:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I'm not very artistic and have little imagination in that field. Something which has clean modern image which somehow ways "English" "teaching" "executive". Maybe words "Helping executives to communicate" though that is a bit broad.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a brand name, or just use your own name as the business name? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a brand name, though I suppose it would be a good idea. I imagine a brand name would seem more professional - which is the objective. On the other hand it might seem a bit presumptuous. I trade under my own name at the moment.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"If English was good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for executives!" DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it would certainly generate some conversation I suppose, but it's not exactly what I'm after.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

If you need an image for a logo, this one should be a hit. It is full of win. DickTurpis (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure who I'd attract with that image! --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"Conversational English for Executives"? No harm in having a "business name" even if it's just you. Call it ECE, make the C bigger, and voila! you've got a logo. For some reason last night I was confused and thought that it was for teflonpedia. ħuman 22:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty good idea Human. Though the letters would be CEE in that case. Executive Conversational English doesn't sound quite right. My editing skills are pretty basic. How easy would editing it be?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The more I think about this the more I like it. Three letter abbreviations tend to "feel right" to people. Using the company description/objective is obviously a good idea. Turning it into a logo makes it obvious that it's not a bit of clip art randomly found on the net. Just need to think if it's the "right" name and perhaps think about the font. Would this discussion be better on my user-page or elsewhere?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Your talk page or email. Let this thread expire. You'll have an orange box shortly. ħuman 01:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I useta work at a computer training company. We had a lotta courses that were "Intro to X" with a corresponding "Intro to X for executives". The courses were identical, but the latter were very popular with the self-important clueless - David Gerard (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawal symptoms

I'm not a TV junky but I do have a small tiny problem. Breaking Bad. Middle of new season, airs Sunday nights at 10 (and 11 and 1). Last week Comcast converted some of the channels I thought I was paying for to digital-only. Thursday I went to their office and arranged to get the "digital economy" package, which covers all those and a handful more I think I'll enjoy (Stephanie Miller on news TV! Rachel Maddow on news TV!). Installer was supposed to come by this AM and wake me up, install correct filter and give me decoder box but they no-showed. I'll be able to watch a rerun later in the week if I get it all straightened out but still... Breaking Bad is my antidote/recovery cycle from Michio Kaku. I'm getting cold sweats and mild hallucinations. ħuman 01:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I used to have the problem with The Sopranos. Now, curiously I have it with Hells Kitchen. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Luckily, I enjoyed the three big HBO shows that begin with S on dvd, so did not risk this problem. Our local video store closed a few months ago. I feel your pain. At least, I think it's yours, it might be someone else's. Whoever's it is, I wish it would go away... ooh, Scotch! ħuman 02:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

My roommate and I just carted off the only TV and VCR in the house off to the electronics recycling place yesterday. All we's got here is computers. --Kels (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I wish AMC would let you watch the newest episodes online. I hate watching them on Megavideo. Tonight's Breaking Bad isn't the best I've ever seen, but the one two weeks ago was crazy good. Keegscee (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I hate when I'm the last reply in a thread. It could mean that what I said is so profound that it brings closure to the issue and requires no further comment. More likely, though, it means that what I said is so stupid or boring that to comment further would reduce yourself to my level of idiocy. Blah. Keegscee (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Premature Withdrawal Symptoms = being half way through the final season of The Wire, and worrying about what life will be like afterwards, which could even be next weekend. What on earth will I DO with myself then? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 06:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm ok with the end of a season. I'm just junkyiing (?) over a missed ep tonight. ħuman 07:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you opened it up to new and even dangerous possibilities. Nice work. ħuman 07:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Human, I think you take pride in being the last to comment on a thread. I just scrolled up the saloon bar, and you have the final say on about every other topic. Last wordism at its finest. Keegscee (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No comment ;) ħuman 08:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well since I think you are in the US and you obviously have internet, aren't there alternatives on how you can watch it? Hulu has a wide range of the programs, and often the networks have something on their site where you can watch it too. Besides that, there are other ways of getting things on the internet too, and I don't think the moral implications are that dire in situations like these. --GTac (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I can watch the rerun tomorrow night, but I do not know of of these thieving methods of "watch whatever you want" that you speak of. Yet. 10:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Trip to New Orleans

As mentioned previously, I am in New Orleans getting ready to build homes for Habitat for Humanity. I had a good trip, save for almost getting arrested. I accidentally left a rather large pocketknife in my bag. Long story short, I put my bag in to be scanned, it goes in, and TSA agents gather around the screen for my bag. They look at it, and my bag moves forward. I go through the detector, and am told that there is a pocketknife in my bag, and if it is over 3 inches, they would have to call the police and have them arrest me. Around this time, my stomach dropped out of my body, and I started shaking all over as she looks through my bag. I know that the only pocketknife I have is longer than three inches, which does not help me calm down. She finds the knife and notices me shaking, and asks me to calm down. She tells me that she will have to confiscate the knife, but that the police are not going to be called. She asks me to be more careful about packing my bag next time, and encourages me to have a good day. Still shaking, I pack my stuff back into my bag. Very therapeutic security. ĴαʊΆʃÇä₰ I know Anonymous user detects over airplanes. 03:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Good for you on the HfH thing. Sorry about the not realizing packing heat on a plane was a bad idea. What were you thinking, "if I have to, I can take over this plane, or at least carve a wooden model of it"? ħuman 04:37, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing you don't fit the racial profile for an al-Queda terrorist... Bondurant (talk) 08:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Kudos on volunteering for Habitat. My Dad volunteers for them regularly (including a recent trip to N'awlins) and I donate. And it's one more example that Jimmy Carter is a damn fine human being. MDB (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

There is something terribly wrong that police can arrest someone for packing a knife. A bit of forgetfullness that doesn't even matter; after 11 September 2001 no one will be able to hijack a plane without at least a machine gun. The passengers would panic and storm the attackers. — Pietrow ☏ 14:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the basic problems with any security issue, not just airline, is that you have to respond to the last threat. It's much more difficult to respond to the upcoming threat, because you just don't know what it is.

Of course, I've said before that the real solution to airline hijacking is to redesign planes so that the the only entrance to the cockpit is external (or at the least, put highly reinforced doors between cabin and cockpit), and then tell pilots "if your plane is hijacked, your job is to land it as soon as possible. Period. I don't care if the cute stewardess you want to shtupp tonight is screaming for her life, land the plane."

Pietrow is right, though -- airline hijacking is now a useless tactic because passengers will fight back. MDB (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This has happened to me three times. I usually carry a knife in my rucksack when I'm hiking. I take the same bag on the plane and forget to take the knife out. They've never threatened to call the police though.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I got threatened with a police call in Seattle for playing my guitar in the terminal. Apparently it is against the law to sing old Hippie Folk Songs (or maybe just One Tin Soldier) SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 22:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Islam craziness and messiah/anti-mesiah traditions

I was doing some follow up research on some of the anti-vaccination stuff and stumbled upon some crazy Islam stuff, its connection to the anti-vax stuff is very bizarre, but then the whole thing is. It is someone claiming to be the "Mahdi" [1] [2] which I had only loosely known much about before hand. I mean I knew the basic idea but never explored it further. What became particularly interesting to me is the relationship between the various "messiah" and "anti-messiah" figures in the Christian/Islam/Jewish tradition. Now again, I knew in a loose since that they had a similar mix likely due to the same origin, but never really knew much of the details. Been reading up on it more now.

Are there people that know more about this? What is the current "vogue" theory for the last common ancestor for the three great "monotheism" of our age? Is this messiah/anti-messiah setup seen in other traditions? My religious studies is full of wholes, but this particular pattern has me intrigued now. tmtoulouse 03:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I know little about it. But I imagine the whole "messiah" and "anti-messiah" is a very strong narrative so undoubtedly would be conserved as religions diverged. Similar to the flood being in several cultures, it might be based on a real event that had a wide impact, but it also has a very strong narrative of destruction and rebuilding that helps carry it forwards as the scale amplifies. Other than that, I'm a little thrown on the topic as I have done next-to-nothing in the way of studying this before. ^moral 18:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it has always been something I have been vaguely aware of. My curiosity starts buzzing though whenever I see this kind of seemingly conserved idea. Such a similarity can be due to several things, like a common ancestor for all the divergent religions and conservation of that one narrative point. But it could also be that there is some innate cognitive structure/processing that pushed people to create these kinds of religious events. So while the Torah, Bible and Koran all tell a tale that is descended from a Mesopotamian city-state sky god, I am just curious if a similar structure can be found in other religious belief structures with no obvious common ancestor to the great monolithic monotheism. This might help elucidate some interesting psychological processes of narrative building in humans. tmtoulouse 17:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

article idea

i was directed here, i wanted to make an article for here http://www.teach12.com/teach12.aspx it's courses are better than most of my own college courses but don't want to jump in head first. Nailo1 (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

WIGO menu

What is going on?
CP	Clog	Blog	World	RW	Bar
(talk)	(talk)	(talk)	(talk)	(talk)	(hic)

note: if you don't see the icons, clear your cache (e.g. shift-reload on Firefox) -- Nx / talk 18:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Big shout-out to Nx for getting this nifty little trick working. Would anyone be okay with replacing the AOTW nav thing with this? (also worth noting that the "bar" icon doesn't appear in the SB itself, I assume the same happens for the locations) ^moral 17:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Does now, I made it display the hover state. -- Nx / talk 17:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I say go ahead and replace it, there hasn't been a new AOTW in forever so it won't be missed. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Genius. ^moral 17:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you on about? I see Nothing here. 17:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Clear your cache. ^moral 17:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

OK It's appeared. What is it? 17:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Armondikov, before you replace the current aotw template, you either need to create WIGO:RW, or if you want to redirect it to RWW I'll have to set up interwiki linking, because external links don't work. -- Nx / talk 17:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Right-o. I'll hold back a little. I have just realised that pretty much no one will know what it is if they haven't spent the last few hours working on it. ^moral 17:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The front page is mostly for casual and new readers. If we want the brain icon to go somewhere useful, I'd suggest Special:Newpages - David Gerard (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It's this one that would be replaced AOTW Navigation ^moral 17:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Can we just put labels under each one? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. On the one hand, it takes away the "mystery meat navigation", on the other, it doesn't quite look as good, but this is so far just a suggestion. ^moral 17:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that looks good, and it certainly is less baffling. Like Susan, I had no idea what it was when I first saw it. That, to me, is the most important thing. But we can certainly tweak it some more if you feel like it. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 17:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason it's not as baffling to me - and I should smack myself in the face for not realising this - is because Nx and I have been hammering away at this across the past few hours. So it makes a lot more sense once you've seen the full thing, and would make a lot more sense if that was put on the mainpage like thus. Until then, of course, it's a little mysterious. ^moral 18:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks better without the letters underneath. Don't tooltips come up for everyone? If you keep the letters, the should also link. 18:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Tooltips are troublesome for mobile platforms, since they won't always have the concept of mouse-over. iPhone OS won't show the tooltips. I like the idea of keeping the names underneath. --ConcernedResident ^{lockpick for the ladies} 18:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Those icons don't appear in Chrome (not in mine anyway). Is that fixable? If not, then include the words. Otherwise Chrome users are left wondering "What is going on?" with no links at all. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The mouseover thing is a CSS trick that Nx found. If you clear your cache - same procedure as when you tinker with your user css settings - it should work. ^moral 18:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

EC EC)@ CR: True, mea culpa, forgotted the phones & stuff. In passing, I just glanced at them and for a second the RW (brain) one just looked like a letter O with a patterned inside! 18:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Working fine for me in Chromium and Firefox - David Gerard (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, ignore the above. I'd just restarted my computer so assumed the cache would have been reset, but apparently not. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, nice job whoever designed the icons (assuming it's Arm or Nx). I really dislike mystery meat interfaces, but these icons are certainly on the nicer end of the scale in terms of being intuitive. --ConcernedResident ^{chromosome for the ladies} 21:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ditch the brain link, needs "better" hover-over text, needs links to talk pages as well, and links shouldn't show on their own pages. Otherwise, brilliant! ħuman 00:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, don't bother to replace AOTW nav - make a new template called WIGO nav, since that's what it is and AOTW is dead. How easy will it be to add AOTW (say) if we ever revive it? ħuman 01:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the flashy buttons. Aceⁱ⁹ 06:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Blinkenlights seduced me, too. ħuman 07:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the brain link is for WIGO RW, which I'm keen to set up as it's impossible to keep track of what is happening here as things will drop off RC pretty quick. However, no one seems interested, so it will probably be dropped. I doubt this will go anywhere, though. ^moral 16:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I think WIGO RW is an idea that could go either way: it could take off or it could flop. Try posting a few wigos to get the ball rolling, & see how it pans out. It can always be shelved later if it doesn't take. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

WIGO NAV

What is going on?

World	Blogs	Clogs	Elections	The Bar
(talk)	(talk)	(talk)	(talk)	(hic)

I have set up the above template and removed the WIGO_RW reference and directed them to the current pages. If people are dead against this, please say so. If no one is interested, just ignore it and I'll grab people's attention with the traditional method; doing it anyway. Pop up text may be a possibility but I'd have to defer to Nx on that one as I'm not 100% sure how it could be done. Ideally, a mouse over would replace the "what is going on?" text with "Conservapedia" or "Blogosphere" etc. ^moral 17:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Popup text is possible, but the image has to be redone (e.g. currently it's not possible because if the text is under the icon, you would see the hover state). If you want me to do it, create a new image with all the icons in one row instead of two (and replacy my lame desaturated icons with your originals while you're at it.) -- Nx / talk 17:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You thinking of the same trick but with the text as part of the "hover" image? ^moral 17:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the link would contain the text (instead of being a space, i.e. empty, like it is now), shifted down 50px. This doesn't work now because with the text added the link is no longer 50x50px, so the hover state can be seen below the unhovered image. -- Nx / talk 17:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I get you. And the text appears over the icon when hovered or below like this? ^moral 17:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, except there's only one a tag, so when you hover the text, the icon lights up. -- Nx / talk 17:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool. When I get back from work I'll assemble another batch of icons based on this set - probably the faded rather than decoloured versions for the normal and the glow effect for the hovers as I want to see what that's like (although if anyone objects, again, let me know). Do you want them kept at 51x50 or back to 50x50 which they were originally? And you're definitely sure you need them in one row, rather than two as they are in the current version? ^moral 18:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I think they were 50x51px because of the shadow, I don't know, it doesn't matter (as long as they're not bigger, background images can't be resized). I need them in one row if the text is below (or above) the image, but if you want to experiment with text placement and what-not I can switch to using separate images, that works too, but it's not ideal. -- Nx / talk 18:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

this the one you need? It's 51px high and each icon is 50px wide, but they're spaced more than 50px apart. ^moral 19:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be better if each icon was exactly at 50px increments. Some of them are off by 1 pixel in my sandbox, I don't know if it's the image or my numbers - there's a 3px gap between each icon, right? -- Nx / talk 20:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

User friendliness

I definitely don't like this. While the icons are neat, it's just not random user friendly. I think it'd be great to have as a skin for regular users who like flashier interfaces, but not for the general public. As for regular users, the missing talk links is a disadvantage. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, why do you have to put this in common.css when it only applies to a single template that will at most be on like 10 pages? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

a) Because pseudoclasses are not available in inline css b) because the background property css url references are not allowed in wikitext. -- Nx / talk 18:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 18:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk links are still an issue, of course. However, the talk pages for everything but CP are rarely ever used. ^moral 18:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Granted that the talk pages for everything but CP are rarely ever used, I think it'd be aesthetically more difficult to only have the TWIGO_CP link and not the others. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, to address some user friendliness issues; how friendly is the site right now for random people? The AOTW navigation template used a bit of shorthand in using "AotW" and "CP", which is baffling if you're unawre of them, as is the phrase "WIGO". However, if it's addressed on the mainpage like this the impact of random icons is lessened, and it's clear it's a shiny shorthand for users who want to get around. There are a few other things that can be done, of course, we can decrease the size of the icons further and add text to their right and have it as a vertical menu - pretty much as the left-hand menu on Facebook - for instance. ^moral 19:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I know it's been a lot of work but I don't like it. It's not very intuitive & I think all our editors and visitors can read. 19:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I like User:Nx/mainpagerevamp/buttons, but I'm still not hot on the WIGO_NAV. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup! 19:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The condensed navbox only really makes sense in light of that layout, but that probably won't be going on the mainpage anytime soon. Tell you what, I'll replace {{WIGO NAV}} with the contents of AOTW navigation sans the mentions of AotW. ^moral 19:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Icons

Science!

Pseudoscience!

Religion

Internet

While jammering about, I also came up with these two, which I like from a graphics perspective, but they're not for WIGO stuff. ^moral 19:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to reiterate that my objections have nothing to do with these icons being really cool. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of that. I want to implement them on the basis of "consistent branding", but I don't want to sacrifice usability so getting the objections in is good, it means we can address these usability issues soon. However, we can't fully test it out properly unless it's "all in", so perhaps the next step would be to take these over to RationalBeta and mess around there. ^moral 19:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Fucking Brilliant

I just wanted to say that I personally love the new icons. It gets me all around my favorite spots on the site much more easily. Junggai (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Not just the menu

User:Armondikov/gravelbox/WIGO CP, you can use the navigation icons there to reach the rest of Armondikov's sandbox. -- Nx / talk 22:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The red and orange anger and confuse me, respectively. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Your opinions, please.

We believe you to be "committed terrorists, intent on doing harm", but we're not going to deport you, because you say you might get tortured on your return to Pakistan. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This is always a tricky situation, but if they are that sure they are terrorists they should charge them, otherwise they should be set free. The deportation is a separate issue and I can't see how in good conscience return someone to a country where they would get tortured. - π 02:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

At first I thought this was about us, but then I saw the part about Pokistan... ħuman 02:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know you were an Arab terrorist, human? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 19:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The UK has an extradition agreement with the US where we will only transfer suspected murderers who have fled to the UK provided they will not be given the death penalty if found guilty. If there is a risk of a terror suspect being tortured or murdered in Pakistan or any other country, then we should uphold that standard. Innocent until proven guilty, and human rights always prevail. Bondurant (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

They've been arrested in this country for terroism charges against this country, and should therefore face a trial and prison in this country. Simply shipping them off and not caring about what happens to them is very irresponsible. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, although they haven't even been accused any crime in this country! Bondurant (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know they hadn't been charged with anything. That is indeed a tough one. I presume they'll just have to review their asylum applications and apply the same rules as they do for everyone. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess they could give them a choice: Deportation, or remaining in a detention centre until it is safe for them to be deported? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

They haven't been charged with anything at all. Nothing. - David Gerard (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, the security services are convinced that they're a threat, which seems like a good enough reason for the more right leaning people I've seen comment on this. However, MI5 have refused to release the evidence, even privately to a criminal court. From this we can assume one of two things; the evidence is very compelling but mentioning it would be a serious threat to national security, like a deep cover informant for instance (the UK had/has a shit load of these guys in the IRA according to *ahem* some people I know) and releasing such information, even slightly or vaguely, would risk an extremely valuable tactical advantage OR their evidence consists of "well, they look a bit foreign, m'lord". Which is most likely? I don't know, half my head is saying to trust these guys and assume the former, the other half doesn't ever want to risk even a slight chance of the government even trying to get away with the latter. ^moral 11:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Weird. I thought that government policy was to deliberately send such people to Pakistan in order that they be tortured. Or has that policy changed? Please consider the possibility that there may be an element of sarcasm in this comment before responding.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

They did try. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Interesting summary of rendition via the UK - I do like David Milliband (more accurately, I don't yet have a reason to totally dislike him), but that response is a little slimy. It's kind of like "well, we don't really allow it, but if the President says "pretty please" we'll bend over and take it". ^moral 11:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe what Milliband 1 was saying there was "Look, frankly, we're America's bitch. You know it and I know it. Don't be bloody stupid." - David Gerard (talk) 13:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Draw Muhammad Day

Moved to Forum:Draw Muhammad Day 15:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing

Today's xkcd reminds me of TK. DickTurpis (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Meh on the TK front, but the alt text (sorry, title text) is funny 'cos it's true. ^moral 16:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Power outage where I am. : ( And it came smack dab in the middle of a C&C session with my brother, too.

The blackout covers a quarter of the town. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure whether to be embarrassed or proud that I got that joke (the xkcd one, still don't get RA's). ħuman 01:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

While we're on the topic, I don't know if it's been brought up before but this one is very Andy (at least in the third panel). DickTurpis (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Realise/Realize

On the David Frum article I quoted his wife Danielle, an American who wrote an e-mail that caused David to lose his job. I pulled the e-mail quote on the article from the London Guardian, and I just noticed that when they quoted her they changed "realize" to "realise". I doubt Danielle Frum would have been writing her e-mail with British spellings. I could see quoting an American speaking and using British spelling, but with written quotations is this standard? It struck me as odd that the Guardian would change one letter of a quoted written e-mail, but maybe it's typical in both countries? --Leotardo (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"Realise" is not common at all in the US. It is odd that they would quote it like that, but it's a relatively minor error and I doubt very many people noticed. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It is odd indeed. I "fixed" a quote once on wikipedia and it was reverted. They should have typed "reali[s]e" or "realize [sic]". ħuman 01:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's also odd that the Gaurniad bothered to try to fix the spelling at all. Or is this a different Gaurniad to the one I'm familiar with? ħuman 01:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I imagine it is. But if you think about what a sub-editor is doing, one of the simple things would be to give it a simple spell check. This would require loading it up into Word and looking for squiggly red lines. If you're rushed and just want it done, you're going to change the odd z to an s and might not noticed that it's a quote and therefore should be as originally written. On the other hand, the change is minor and leads to consistent spelling throughout the article, and really isn't much different - in principle - to making a translation of a quote, the meaning is still in tact but the words have changed to reflect the local language. ^moral 10:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we just find an American source, where the spelling will be unchanged? ħuman 18:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Woo!!! (No, not that kind)

Just thought I'd drop in, see how everyone's doing. Oh, and I wanted to vent that I just passed my EMT-B certification!!!! Pinto's5150 ^Talk 02:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. We got linked again. Pinto's5150 ^Talk 02:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Congrats, Beans, and nice to see you around! ħuman 02:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Pinto's, long time no see! Totnesmartin (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ooooohh....Ahhhhhhhh....

I love the look of the new WIGO page designs. Kudos to the individual(s) who came up with them - nice work! --Leotardo (talk) 15:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

They are made of almost-pure win. (Not a fan of the brightly-coloured titles, I think they're hideous, but I'll wait for someone else to start a pitchfork-wielding mob) - David Gerard (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I love the colors, too, so I'm sharpening my pitchfork for other things I don't yet know about. --Leotardo (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be your colour settings if they look garrish, they do vary from machine to machine which is one reason graphics and colour work is a nightmare to work with. There may be more to come, but I think Nx is currently working on some under-the-hood stuff and I'm working on a stock of topic icons that may or may not be used. ^moral 16:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I've had a lot of issues with my art in that regard. My home monitor is high-quality so I work with color, contrast, etc. based upon how it looks there. Then I go to work and view the same art on my cheap corporate low-res monitor, and it looks much crappier. It's little solace to know that the art doesn't really look like that (e.g., if someone printed it out), because a lot of the way people view it is sitting at their desk in front of their cheap corporate low-res monitors. Le sigh. --Leotardo (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

They look good on my shitty 800x600 monitor too. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

They were optimised for 1024. Well, the length of the text was designed so that it would wrap under the icon at any point. Anywho, I need to head off and do something else. If anyone has any comments, crit, suggestions and so on, please leave them here, my talk page, Nx's talk page or try them yourself. Feel free to play with my gravelbox versions if you think you can rejig something. ^moral 16:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it. WIGO CP is far too bright, and as I have said before, I really don't like the sharpness and abruptness of the "everything's got to be square" design. Was this discussed? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 17:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah, sort of. As for the color issues: I don't think it's bright at all, but then again, your monitor is not configured properly is not a good excuse (the nvidia driver on Vista once decided to enable some idiotic "vivid colors" feature by default which oversaturated everything and made my eyes bleed). Try playing with {{WIGO title}} in a sandbox and tell us which color you'd prefer. Also, it's not completely square. And the icons are round. -- Nx / talk 17:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I like it. Can we put a set of wigo buttons at the top of RationalWiki:Contents? Or something. Considering that page is supposed to be a contents page &/or best of RW, I think it needs a refit. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Needs more rounded corners. Also it's jarring to click on the CP: links at WIGO CP, all the formatting and color changes, which looks amateurish. Perhaps the "CP" template thing should be changed to look just like the version on WIGO? ħuman 18:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I back on IE and looking at it without the rounded borders. To be fair, it's not as bad a transition as the mainpage as the use of rounding was fairly tactful and subtle. I'll change the format of the {{conservapedia}} template to match the red one. ^moral 18:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A 16 year old who has remained a toddler her whole life

Like, literally a toddler:

Essentially, Brooke’s aging and development genes have been turned off.

Her bones are that of a 10-year-old, her teeth are 6-years-old, her brain is less than a year old, Walker said.

Yet, her hair and nails, protein synthesis, grow normally.

This girl may have some clues as to how we age and how to extend lifespans. --Leotardo (talk) 19:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad her parents aren't religious nutters, if they were they probably wouldn't let us play with her DNA. What a bizarre affliction, indeed. ħuman 21:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone see this steamy pile of utter shit?

I pity you Americans. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe this asshole. He's actually defending the indefensible. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I just wish Texas would secede already. Keegscee (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Liberal/Atheistic Bias in MS Word 2007

I noticed today, as I was typing something academic, that my word processor doesn't like the word "intertextual," preferring instead to replace it with the word "intersexual." Quick, someone sock up and tell Andy! Junggai (talk) 21:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That's totally balanced out by the fact that it doesn't want "ontology" to be plural. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 23:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I.... need... CPR... now...

Can't... breathe... –SuspectedReplicant retire me 22:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't panic. wp:Johnny Vegas has been dispatched to aid you! --ConcernedResident ^{horse, for the ladies} 22:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Australian Ninjas!

PJR? What have you been doing instead of editing your wiki? --Kels (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hehehe I saw that on the news this morning. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Do me a favor...

Could somebody do me a favor and go over to Bill Gates house and give him a good, hard hit to the face? I`ve been trying to install a new OS on my laptop for two days now... I`d do it myself, but there is this ocean between us, and I can`t swim...

Bill Gates can't be held responsible for incompetence. Keegscee (talk) 00:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Bashing Bill Gates is so 90s. I believe the guy you want is Steve Ballmer. Sen (talk) 01:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Yes he can. It's called Microsoft.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 01:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I always allow a full weekend plus Monday and maybe Tuesday for fresh installations/loading all my crap. Then whatever I had planned for Wednesday gets put off. Although it was low priority and a spare time thing, I think I loaded 3 versions of XP on this used laptop before getting it right, after four or five days. At least the one that worked required no interaction once it was loading. And it wasn't much work to install the light suite of programs I use on it. I was tempted to load nothing except remote desktop and just use it as a dumb terminal leeching on my office desktop, but this is a faster computer ;) ħuman 01:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I forgot how hard installing Windows was until I had to help the missus reinstall Vista on her laptop from a disk supplied by the laptop maker. Firstly, it takes forever, then it reboots about 10 times over, and then you need to spend a day removing all the crapware that gets installed with it. Literally a full day installing a bloody operating system. When I install Linux, it takes about half an hour, and doesn't even reboot once during the install and then only once after a kernel update. Bondurant (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone here suffer through UOWS? World's worst interface. Want to ship a package? Please reload our software 4 times. ħuman 07:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I shan't name the system or the customer, but on a project I worked on previously, I had to deal with a database where strings like "XJ^TF" were actual commands. MDB (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that the developers didn't use an esoteric language for a joke? Harmonic educated Hoover! 11:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I've just got a new laptop (there's £399.99 down the sink). Windows 7 Finding one without Windoze was impossible! Taking me some doing to get to terms with it after a couple of years with Ubuntu. 11:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't you dual-boot for the 4 things that run on Windows but not Wine? Harmonic educated Hoover! 11:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably, but I'm not computer savvy enuff to set it up <NOT></NOT> 11:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Ubuntu install CD gives an easy partitioning tool, where you just drag a slider to change the sizes. Harmonic educated Hoover! 19:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Dunnit! Now on Ubuntu! 11:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it was just an old system that dated back to an era when "don't use a lot of memory" was a bigger consideration than "make this easy to use".

I will say that it was a health care database. We regularly created sample patients for test purposes, and it's simply amazing how many of them needed prescriptions for adult diapers and Viagra. MDB (talk) 11:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, at least now you get Windows 7. A year ago you would've been forced to get one with Vista. Vulpius (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Those sort of weird-arse domain-specific languages that resemble esolangs are often from people using the interior bytecode from an inflexible system just to get stuff done. BANCStar is a typical example - David Gerard (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Dude! That's from my old website! I didn't know someone archived GeoCities! EVDebs (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

After two-and-a-half days I gave up and installed linux. Within 30 minutes (download included) I had a perfectly running system... If only it wasn`t for this god-damned database. Should have worked with open office from the beginning. Okay, no more sleep-deprived whining from me, at least not until next week. Gmb (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bill has an answer for you - and for Steve Jobs. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 19:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Bentley said it bestGmb (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

For Earthland

"The key issue seems to be when the peripheral nervous system joins up with the cerebral cortex, the region of the brain responsible for higher thought processes such as memory, attention, thought, awareness and language. "Without this kind of sensory input you can't be aware of your surroundings or pain or be conscious," says Hugo Lagercrantz, a neonatal researcher at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden" ... "This should have occurred by about 25 weeks of pregnancy ..." 12:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Bondurant (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hee! 12:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You should move this to the talk page of his essay. <disclaimer> Not responsible for hornets </disclaimer> ħuman 02:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that conclusion is still kind of a leap. It assumes that consciousness requires sensory input, and seems to equate consciousness with self-awareness. Consciousness in itself is a rather vague term and using it in connotation with neuropsychology makes it even vaguer. Sure, the baby isn't conscious of its surroundings, but does that mean it can't be conscious of itself? Also, if you are asleep you aren't conscious, but would you say that you are a creature without consciousness? I'd say having the ability to regain consciousness is more important in defining whether someone or something possesses consciousness then its current state at a specific moment in time.

That said, personally I don't think a fetus has any of that. I just think this isn't a very good argument for it. --GTac (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

When I'm asleep I'm still wide awake, as it were. ħuman 10:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the sleep compared to consciousness thing is a bit weak. When I am asleep, I am still sensing my surroundings - something as simple as an unusual sound will cause me to wake. Also, during part of sleeping, I am "pretending" to interact with environment, one composed of my past experiences, imagination, and weird shit that I have no idea where it comes from. A better comparison would be to a coma, I think. Sleep is not "unconsciousness", it's just a database dump. The CPU is still operating and performing expected tasks. ħuman 01:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

All this conciousness & self-aware stuff is rather complicated, especially when people forget that we are not talking about something that suddenly appears when the clock strikes twelve rather one day will be found to be emergent in all kinds of ways. Anyone who has partaken in a couple of alternative herbal supplements will also know that conciousness is a pretty fragile thing, depented in a whole bunch of neurons going "zit" and "zot" with each other in very specific ways, and the moment you change the settings in your neurotransmitters, or receptors, or whatever they are a little, you can get a whole other thing.

However, what I think is pretty clear, is that in order to have any kind of conciousness, you have to have a) neurons, b) axons between them, c) EEG. Regardless of wither you are awake, or you are REM sleeping or deep sleeping, or you are tripping, or you are having an epilleptic crisis, ALL of those have an EEG in the high cerebrum. Fetuses clearly don't start with that (because they don't even start with neurons) and it is at a X week where that appears. (I think that x = 20 weeks, but don't feel like explaining why) Sen (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

"alternative herbal supplements" I lolled. ħuman 05:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Also for Earthland: The first television advert for abortion services in the UK is to be aired next week Bondurant (talk) 06:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I was going to add that myself, but more in regard to what Andy will make of it. Can we expect another World Treasure Liberal/Atheist-bashing captioned picture in response?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

After this and the atheist bus campaign, Operation Ides of June is going to have its work cut out to defeat the forces of atheism and baby killing in the UK. But watch this space for exciting developments! Bondurant (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

A new way to enjoy your favourites

Classic Chick. The original cartoon is here. It's full of Chick's usual oddities. There's the usual mysterious floating text, strangely stilted dialogue, and some kid dying of blood poisoning (and the patrons of the local saloon being destroyed by lightning) to persuade his dad to accept Jesus. The only things missing are the strawman Darwinist and the hook-nosed jew with a sinister motive. --ConcernedResident ^{Xbox 360, for the ladies} 22:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

New life!

Anyone want to get Andy or PJR's reactions to this http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/may/20/craig-venter-synthetic-life-form ? 82.23.208.15 (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic stuff. But it should be pointed out that it appears they're just doing a "DNA transplant" rather than making life from scratch. But the DNA itself is entirely artificial, something that isn't amazingly new (indeed, there's some research with an artificial DNA strand with 6 bases that is currently doing life-like replication), but bunging it into a cell and getting it to work is quite an acheivement. From the sounds of it, it's kind of like stripping the operating system out of your computer and replacing it with something you wrote yourself, using a magnetised needle to scratch it into an external hard disk. ^moral 19:32, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and RELEASE THE DATA!!!! ^moral 19:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Coincidentally, yesterday the first self-replicator in the Game of Life was posted. We have tampered in god's domain. Harmonic educated Hoover! 19:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

ME AM PLAY GODS! --Kels (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The replicator is HUGE, but still awesome. Wow, what a week for science! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Incredibly good news, even if the Life stuff goes a bit over my head. It's all karspinky's gun this and kajagoogooo's rail that. --ConcernedResident ^{okra, for the ladies} 22:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect you'll get a "See! I told you it requires intelligence to make life" from the creationist/IDer crowdz. Šţěŗĭļė person 22:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Strangely, although I really don't like GMOs (and Monsanto's magic seed you can't legally save for next year...) I think this is awesome. Although, the idea of making a thing that sequesters CO2 and produces biofuels has already been done, see: Plants, by God. ħuman 02:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That's why we have to deal with our broken IP laws. I don't have a problem with GMO, but the licencing side is iffy, and there's also the risk of decreased biodiversity if any one strain becomes so attractive that pretty much everyone switches to it. --ConcernedResident ^{furnace, for the ladies} 00:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Quiet! They're talking about marijuana!

I live in small suburb near the inner city, its very pleasent but slightly Bohemian and populated with a ragtag bunch of hippies, emo's, muso's, communists, students and failed seekers. I was at the shop, very busy as it were Friday evening, and the TV in the corner was blaring away with the days news when all of a sudden they had a piece on about marijuana use and everyone stopped dead. Glued to the TV, a pall of hush went over the gathered shoppers. As new people entered they found themselves entranced. "Marijuana? Is it being legalised? What are they saying? Quiet! They're talking about marijuana!" Barefooted hippies and tight black jeans wearing poets gaped. I used the opportunity to jump the queue and purchase my sixer before the spell was broken. Was amusing but I guess you had to be there/know the neighborhood to find the funny in it that I did. Aceⁱ⁹ 07:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

How come you get to live in the future, eh? ħuman 07:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Marijuana's better illegal though. More fun. SJ ^Debaser 12:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, SJ, but for me one of the joys of a visit to Amsterdam is to have a quick toke before going to the Van Gough Museum or a canal trip (not Ann Frank's house, too heavy - man). I know it's not exactly legal but compared with the UK it's bliss. Roll on legality. Bob Soles (talk) 12:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the laws on it being relaxed to the extent of it being legalised to a degree, but I'm sceptical about what it'd be like if it was government regulated, not that I do it a lot anyway. It's easy enough to get decent gear anyway, so many people don't really give a crap about marijuana use. SJ ^Debaser 15:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Warning: May cause severe dumbening

I read the first (sample) chapter of Jonathan Sarfarti's "The greatest hoax on Earth" today. Ye gods. His basic thesis in the chapter appears to be "I'm totally unable to deny that what Richard Dawkins says evolution is defined as is actually happening without overt denial of reality, but I still don't believe in evolution, therefore what is described is NOT EVOLUTION!"

Clearly this guy is in love with the sound of his own voice, he cites himself on every page that has citations. Would it be overly masochistic to actually buy the book and inflict his mewlings on myself? Honestly, I'm not sure if I have the stomach for it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

watch him Here first. Then if you want, and can remember how to read, get teh book Hamster (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

OMG. It's PJR on video. I didn't quite realise until now just how few opinions PJR got independantly from CMI. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

"...that doesn't mean we're half bananas" (from the second video). I have to agree with him on that one - in his case, it's certainly much more than half. --⁠ (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's face it, these guys are shit-scared to believe in evolution. They recognise that it happens and so call it micro-evolution which they can then hand-wave away and continue denying the big picture. It's so sad to see what might otherwise pass for rational human beings tying themselves in knots because of the notion that every word in the bible is true and can only be interpreted in a literal fashion. Eejits, every one of them.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't vote for the lib-brul who believes in that evolution malarkey!

MDB (talk) 15:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Evolution explains the origin of life? He got that wrong then. The Bible is only partially true? "Partially true"?? Far to generous. And this makes him a liberal in the US? Now I understand. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It makes him a liberal in Alabama, where George Wallace is a local hero. Ozznova (talk) 19:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Primaries are so much fun here. Everyone tries to out-crazy each other, once they get the nomination, of course, they try to seem centrist. ħuman 21:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Your adverts are great. That looks like something Chris Morris would do. What's his position on atomic theory? I'm sure that the good folk of Alabama are looking to make sure that they don't go voting for someone who'd believe in those damned things that no-one has ever really seen with their eyes. --ConcernedResident ^{queer, for the ladies} 22:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Oil spill video

I asked a week or two ago if anyone knew where video of the Gulf blowout might be, and back then all there was was a short clip. yesterday the US gov't gave BP a gentle ultimatum, saying "if you can't or won't host it, we will" and it is up in several places, most of which are overloaded, of course. Best place to start is here, and here is one (AP) I found that is functional. The pipe, by the way, is 20" in diameter, although it may be partially blocked by the failed blowout protection device. ħuman 01:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy birthday...

To Us... 3 years old, which in website years means we should be getting to the moody teenager stage. Bondurant (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed. - π 13:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

So unfair, I hate you all, I wish I'd never been born. DON'T BLOODY SHOUT AT ME!! [1] Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

YOU'RE NOT MY REAL MOM! --Kels (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

KNOCK BEFORE COMING INTO MY ROOM! ħuman 20:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

FUCK YOU MUM! I TOLD YOU I DID THE DISHES YESTERDAY! Aceⁱ⁹ 20:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I LEARNED IT FROM WATCHING YOU! ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

... Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 22:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T LOVE ME OR ELSE YOU'D BUY IT SO THAT I CAN FIT IN AND NOW I'LL BE THE ONLY ONE! --Leotardo (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ethics of parody

Hi there, I'm new here, but have been following RW and CP for over a year now. I was just wondering, what are everybody's thoughts on the ethics of writing parody on CP? I mean, if we follow Poe's law, then an amount of parody is going to be taken seriously. Given the target audience of students, is it wrong of us to spread hate and intolerance, even jokingly? Somebody is bound to believe it ^ (talk) 14:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find that most parody on CP is pretty harmless fun, while the "real" stuff that comes from Schlafly, TK, Conservative and co. is spreading hate and intolerance. RW does not explicitly endorse parody on CP in any case. Bondurant (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but I've seen numerous parody articles on abortion, and regardless of stance, using abortio for lulz is a bit far imo ^ (talk) 14:13, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You may be a victim of Poe's Law yourself. Check the authors of said articles. You may find that what you first took to be parody are in fact the genuine opinions of one of the sysops at CP. Many of them, especially Schlafly himself, are crazier than any parodist has ever tried to act. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Highly doubtful, authors of said articles were blocked and the articles deleted ^ (talk) 14:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The last truly destructive parodist we were aware of was Bugler. In my opinion, he did step over the line in that he was pretty nasty to some of the school-age children over there, but he was only parroting the behaviour of Aschlafly and, latterly, TK. Since then, parodist activity has been sporadic, with spikes caused by Lenski coverage and Colbert.

Which articles do you mean, ^? Remember any of the titles from before they were deleted? Bondurant (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't remember offhand, though there were pictures of Hitler used needlessly etc. I did dabble with parody, but it felt dirty to add to the number of articles, even in a harmful way ^ (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Lol, the ones with hitler pictures were probably Ken's articles :) Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Hitler is Ken's signature. If you look at the articles that link to this image I bet they are all Ken's. Bondurant (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Or at least articles in the style of Ken, anyway. It's hard to imagine that a parodist could say anything more repugnant about abortion than they're already saying over there. But, if you're concerned about it, don't do it. As far as I know, most RW users have long since given up either trying to inject sanity or further insanity in to CP, and are now content to point and laugh. Even if we did have some kind of accord as to which subjects were out of bounds for parody, it probably wouldn't affect the state of CP one way or the other. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any established editor who inserts parody into CP. It's also not RW policy. If you are concerned about the content or quality of CP articles then the correct place to take that up is CP.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying anyone does, I was just curious about whether it is ethical. They spread hate, but are parodists bad if they do the same, even as a joke? Sleuth (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

The Obama Article is the dictionary definition of Poe. Eight words into the first sentence the attack begins with the pejorative 'allegedly'. The second sentence is tinged with scepticism. The third fact one discovers about him is that he approved offshore oil drilling - a rather unusual fact to front an article on a US President. It's just a brilliant article. There's so much parody throughout the thing it's genius. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 18:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Also worth noting is that there's little evidence Andy is even trying to use CP as a homeschooling resource anymore. He seems to have given up on that a week or two into the most recent writing course. Burndall (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Parodists do not spread hate any more than Warren Mitchell spread racism when he played the role of Alf Garnett. CP has always been a marginal site, and this has become increasingly obvious as the golden age of parody ended because of relatively honest editors retiring or being banned for not respecting the edicts of the dear leader and his flying monkeys.

Parody in the past served a purpose, and so did people like Bugler. Parodists acted as facilitators to help Andy and chums show their real craziness. It was like handing an arsonist a box of matches so that others could see how crazy he really is. Right now that's pointless because there's no-one to warn off. Bugler did a good thing in scaring people away from the site and Andy's lies have shown that leaving the site was a pretty good idea. Thankfully TK and a few others continue Bugler's work; ensuring that no serious and idealistic editor can get caught-up in the dishonesty that is CP.

If CP were a serious educational resource then perhaps parody would be uncalled for, but then intellectually and morally sound projects are poor targets of parody. It's the nutters, both left and right, that provide the best returns on investment. ConcernedResident ^{paperclip, for the ladies} 22:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed quite fully, although that's making the assumption that TK isn't actually a deeper and more committed parodist than Bugler ever was. Though if that was the case, I think he'd has gone too far. Bugler left at the right time, and did nothing but parrot and facilitate Schlafly - to his own demise. If TK is a parodist, he's just a dick regardless. ^moral 08:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, a good prankster knows when to deliver their punchline, and TK's continuing activities would suggest a deep-seated sociopathy rather than an attempt to educate through the medium of lulz. Mind you, I still hold out for the possibilty that Behe will one day make his "OMG I CANT BELIEVE U THOUGHT I WAS SRZ LOL!!!" post on his site. ConcernedResident ^{oven, for the ladies} 11:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the odds of that happening are on par with every biologist doing the same regarding evolution. ^moral 11:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It probably already happened with Lamarckian evolution. In this case, scientists would depreciate that theory rather than make an outright claim that it was a hoax. --Sigma 7 (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

It should not be forgotten that despite his unpleasant nature Bugler was offered sysop status and only blew it because he foolishly claimed his real name was Brian Ugler.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 05:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

ORG or COM (this is important)

Forum:.org or .com?. tmtoulouse 03:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

what about .tea? Totnesmartin (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Rape Anonymity

Spotted this group] on Arsebook. I'm quite saddened to see some people I know have joined it, but they're ones I'd expect to do something like this. Does it occur to these people the damage that false conviction does? Does it occur to them that "innocent until proven guilty" is the mantra of the courts in the civilised world? Does it occur to them that, perhaps, just maybe, there's a possibility that if 90+% of people aren't convicted, then perhaps it might be because there is a high proportion of innocent people or that there really isn't enough evidence to convict people? Probably not. I know it's a touchy subject and a vile crime indeed, but that doesn't give us the right to outright abandon values and procedures that we have put in place to protect the innocent from harm. At least one wall comment seems sensible; that the right of a non-convicted person to anonymity is either granted across the board or not at all. ^moral 11:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

There are many circumstances in which the accused is allowed anonymity, but that is because it will effect the people that are not accused rather than to protect the accused. I don't like the idea of picking one crime and allowing anonymity for that one alone. Courts should be public so that "we" can see that justice is being done, to that extent I don't support anonymity of the accused. We as a society should be mature enough to distinguish between accusation and conviction. - π 11:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. But your last sentence requires society to be mature enough to realise that. Take every shred of evidence that's been presented about MMR and autism, then take a straw poll of people you know to see how many think there's still a link. The big story of something "bad" sticks in the mind and gets reported, whereas the things that disprove it are boring and don't get reported. So you might get high profile cases, but they become boring the instant it's revealed someone isn't convicted and the accusation may have been fraudulent (of course, not all accusations are fraudulent, but if you can't generate sufficient evidence then you lose, it's that simple and that's part of the system we have to accept) and no one notices. Everyone is just left with the take-home message that "X has been accused" which usually translates as "X actually did this". Even worse, if the verdict is "X is innocent" then people could translate this into "X is guilty, but had a good lawyer to get them off" - true in some cases but not universally so. In short, I think people as a combined population are far too dumb to make that distinction. ^moral 11:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Going off track a bit, but this reminds me of what I said about Climategate on Psy's blog. When it broke it got huge international coverage (24/7 on Fox) and everyone heard "Global Warming is a fraud". When East Anglia was cleared of any wrong doing, the story was somewhere back in the paper, not much fuss. Ask most people and they are still believe the fraud story. - π 11:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's off track so much as proving the point from another angle. We trust that the right decision will be made in the end. An innocent person is let off, East Anglia were cleared of fraudulent data mining etc. etc. But I think you need to nip it in the bud at the most practical point, and that will be at the beginning, which is "innocent and anonymous until proven guilty" - because when stories are published (granted, not all events like trials and accusations are) I do not trust the media to accurately report the real conclusion with the same exposure as they publish the accusation. ^moral 11:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

There is also the flip side that, while I don't trust the media for balanced reporting, I don't trust the government to regulate the media. I just try to read as much as I can to get all side of the imbalance. - π 11:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm torn here. Yes court proceedings should be transparent, but sexual assault is in a different class. Arguably it's a more emotive crime than murder - at least when it's something that's happened to a stranger. An allegation of rape is very difficult to live with, and sexual assault itself can be terribly vague and pretty much the word of one person against another. We respect victims by allowing them anonymity - at least when they're younger, and that is a good thing. There is stigma attached to sexual assault, and no man or woman should go through their life being known as that person who was raped. I think the same should apply to the accused, and their name only made public in the event of a conviction. We have high principles, but this may be a case in which pragmatism is the best way to protect everyone. This is one reason why I never supported the call for the names of alleged Catholic rapists to be released. I have nothing but contempt for anyone who'd sexually assault another person but the accused should be protected unless found guilty. --ConcernedResident ^{muffinface, for the ladies} 11:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with any false allegation is that the rebuttal is very rarely given equal prominence. Also there is a stigma attached to sex crimes means that many people will believe that there's no smoke without fire even if the accused is acquitted. However, Helena Kennedy pointed out that when someone is accused it sometimes brings other people forward who had previously suffered at the hands of the accused but were too frightened to report it at the time.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Lily pretty much summed it up there. ħuman 07:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I don't know what I think, but there are two things that come to mind for me: The problems with eyewitness testimony (an incredibly inspiring link) and the CSI Effect. --Leotardo (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

this is awful

This discussion was moved to Forum:WIGO buttons/banner feedback. 21:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Clothes driers and teleportation of socks

We all know the meme about losing one sock in the drier. I have had a washer and drier here in my house for the last 20 years, and in spite of that level of "security" (IE, I didn't lose it by accident at the laundromat), I have lost two or three socks (unique matched pairs, so no doubt of that). Well, today I was putting away some dried clotheses in order to do the wash, and what do I find? A sock that is not mine. Woooooo. Explain that, Mister and Missus Fancy Pants Evolutionary Atheist Scientist Website! ħuman 02:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I can not only explain it but also top it. I once bought a pair of pants only to find someone else's underwear in them. I frantically returned to to store to figure out what was going on - apparently the pants had been bought and returned and the clerk never bothered to clean them or even check them before returning them to the shelf. It was, to say the least, a rather odd day. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, you put the "qui" in non sequitur with that disgusting, horrible story. It still doesn't explain how a sock that doesn't fit my foots and I don't have a match to turned up in my drier. This is srs bsns! ħuman 03:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Rational explanation - it's the pair of one of the socks that you threw away because you thought the other was lost and after up to 20 years in the drier, it's shrunk. Or perhaps it's not a sock, it may be a bundle of fluff that has detached from the lint filter and assumed a vaguely sock-like appearance after being rolled around with a heavy pair of jeans.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 05:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Your second theory is intriguing. ħuman 05:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It is obviously a miracle - why are you so closed-minded that this most simple explanation did not occur to you first?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Damn, I hate it when I miss the obvious! ħuman 07:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

As science does not have an answer then it must have been God. Furthermore it is clear that if science cannot explain one small thing then it cannot explain anything. Therefore you should accept Jesus as your saviour and the world is 6,000 years old. I expect you to be in church next Sunday.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Quantum tunneling. Simples. Sen (talk) 07:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

So should I donate this sock to the Smithsonian? Or see what happens if I run it through the dishwasher? Will that reduce it to strings? ħuman 07:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Spontaneous sock generation. Unless it was intelligently designed. --⁠ (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I got that beat Human. A pair of knee high white womans socks appeared in my house once. One in my bed and the other in my drawer. Mrs. McWicked was highly suspcious but there was no transgression on my part. Fuck knows where they came from. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

oh yeah, Mrs McWicked now wears them as her own. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a pair of her knickers in my drawers. I don't count pairs as being odd, only singles. ħuman 08:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ooh! Ooh! This provides the perfect opportunity for me to regale you all with my theory (yes, it is mine and is by me) that socks are the larval form of wire coat hangers. Er... guys? Hello? --PsyGremlinFale! 09:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I recently found a huge cache of hangers on top of my closet. I have only lived here 3 months so is rather odd. Aceⁱ⁹ 09:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Fucking Fox News again

I 'read' Fox News as much as any other news site - for some reason, probably like many here, I think it's really important to know how the 'other side' thinks. But I'm just always so disgusted by how low they sink. I mean I'm not saying CNN or the others are golden boys, not at all, but Fox just really, seriously plumbs depths that none of the others do. This morning they're running a headline that's just designed to provoke. In a front page article about Obama's speech to West Point cadets, the article is headlined " At West Point, Obama Presses for New World Order to Defeat Al Qaeda". (Note that conveniently, all three words are capitalised and bracketed with a lowly lowercase word either side, so it punches out clearly, though they can claim that's their editorial style as all other articles capitalise too). Now, given the power of that phrase for the extreme right, you'd guess it would be substantiated, right? Well, of course not. In fact, not only did he not say those three words, they don't even have a quote with him saying the word 'order'. I mean, call me a whiny liberal all you like, but this is just blogging, pure and simple. Drudge does this sort of stuff. What the fuck can I do with my anger about this total irresponsibility of the Fourth Estate? DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 16:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I totally understand, and it bothers me too more than you know. Funny it was a Republican who brought that phrase to prominence. I don't watch any cable news. I had enough of them. My sources for news are an obsessive checking of the Google News aggregator, NPR Morning Edition, the Economist, New York Times, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Gawker and Wonkette. I wish I could say the BBC as I think it is one of the best in the world, but I never find myself on their site (I used to listen to the BBC Hour on NPR awhile back). Otherwise, stay away from all cable news as it only invites misinformation or needlessly inflamed passions. --Leotardo (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed long ago in Rationalwiki. [3] nobs^{don't bother me} 16:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. RobS has already given us the last word on a subject marginally related to this. Further discussion is pointless. DickTurpis (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion with RobS is always pointless, unless you really like talking to somebody who only deals in tangentials and doesn't know how to reference or quote anyone.

C'mon Rob, be a reasonable man for once - you can't deny what I'm saying is true. And, if this was said about Sarah Palin, I'd be just as pissed. The issue at hand has nothing to do with Obama, and everything to do with journalism or lack thereof. This is the same point the last series of The Wire made - journalism is being destroyed from within. Even you can't see Obama proclaiming a New World Order on the basis of this article. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 18:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

To reinforce DogP's point: Rob, this discussion is about this article only. Regardless of what you think about Obama creating a NWO, DogP is saying that the headline is misleading because there is no information in the article to suggest that Obama is doing so. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

To synopsise, Rob, the article title says he's creating a New World Order, the article doesn't even quote him saying the word "order". In other words, the New World Order part was written by the 'journalist'. I'd love to see you agree with this Rob. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 18:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You know, if anyone can defeat Al Qaeda, it's got to be Kevin Nash, Scott Hall, Hollywood Hulk Hogan, and Buff Bagwell. DickTurpis (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hulk Hogan is actually busy with his lawsuit against the Flintstones. You only WISH I was kidding. --Kels (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Transcript, excerpted:

So we have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation. We will be steadfast in strengthening those old alliances that have served us so well, including those who will serve by your side in Afghanistan and around the globe. As influence extends to more countries and capitals, we also have to build new partnerships, and shape stronger international standards and institutions.

This engagement is not an end in itself. The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times -- countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing wounds. If we are successful in these tasks, that will lessen conflicts around the world. It will be supportive of our efforts by our military to secure our country.

More than anything else, though, our success will be claimed by who we are as a country. This is more important than ever, given the nature of the challenges that we face. Our campaign to disrupt, dismantle, and to defeat al Qaeda is part of an international effort that is necessary and just.

Other excerpts give the context supporting the idea the NWO is exactly what Obama was talking about; for example here,'

in the past, we've always had the foresight to avoid acting alone. [Ed note:What about GW Bush?) We were part of the most powerful wartime coalition in human history through World War II. We stitched together a community of free nations and institutions to endure and ultimately prevail during a Cold War.

Yes, we are clear-eyed about the shortfalls of our international system. But America has not succeeded by stepping out of the currents of cooperation -- we have succeeded by steering those currents in the direction of liberty and justice, so nations thrive by meeting their responsibilities and face consequences when they don't.

So, there's no change. It's a continuation of the policies of Richard Nixon, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagen, and every Democrat since FDR, with the exception of Jimmy Carter's first three years. Bill Crystal said as much this morning on FOX News Sunday. Read the rest of the speech, maybe the Nobel Committee should ask for their Prize back. nobs^{don't bother me} 22:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, you fucking nitwit. "Bill Crystal" Really? Surely you mean William Kristol? Fucking moron who can't even spell his heros' names. ħuman 08:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, so he did say the word "order". Rob, you're a better journalist than the scandalous fuckwits at Fox News, for sure. Now, whether you believe his mention of an "international order" equates to The Overlord updating us on a multi-decade plot to create a World Government is an entirely separate argument and I'm not moving my own goalposts to go there - this was about Fox's reporting. Thanks Rob for digging up the transcript - it would have been smarter if Fox had done the work you did. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 22:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Ever read, Interpretive Reporting by Curtiss MacDougall? nobs^{don't bother me} 23:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No, since after four words it looked like one of your six degrees of Kevin Bacon screeds. ħuman 10:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Vaccine:autism

Andrew Wakefield "struck off" 10:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yay! It's unfortunate that being struck-off doesn't involve being made an offering to the volcano god. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 13:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, being struck off isn't anything new. Hell, dozens of doctors do iffy things and get brought up for it. I'd rather see the likes of Peter Hitchens hauled for stalking Leo Blair and pumping the hysteria into the controversy by the bucket-load. When it comes to the actual scare itself, Wakefield was small fry. ^moral 14:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a "moral victory" and that is about it. Scum bag is moved to Texas and is being funded by Jenny McCarthy to a tune of way more money than he ever had as corrupt researcher. tmtoulouse 19:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Menendez Recall and Articles of Confederation

I'm probably the only one interested in this, so I didn't want to overtake the WIGO board with it. This quote from the Human Events article on the Menendez recall (the case Andy is not involved in, just filing his opinions like anyone else can):

Asked to gauge the group’s chances before the U.S. Supreme Court in a likely appeal, Luzzi demurred. But he said nothing in the body of the Constitution or the 17th Amendment—which provided for the direct election of U.S. senators—precludes recall. Luzzi said that the right to recall federal officials predates the Constitution, going back to the Articles of Confederation where it is specifically granted in Article V. “If you go back in the history of the United States, and if the court decides that all political power rests with the people, then the people have the right to recall,” Luzzi said.

I haven't studied the recall thing because I see it for what it is, a publicity stunt for everyone involved (including Andy), but I also don't know for the life of me how Luzzi can legally cite anything as a right deriving from the Articles of Confederation, as they hold no legal sway in our law whatsoever. Because I don't care enough to investigate this publicity stunt to seriously answer it, here are some Google News hits for "Articles of Confederation" that will make my point:

• The Articles of Confederation was so heavy on states' rights that little could be accomplished.
• The Articles of Confederation were designed to ensure weak government. The whole point of the Constitution was to replace that do-nothing government and create a federal government that could get things done when necessary.
• Twelve years after thirteen colonies on the east coast of North America claimed independence from the most powerful empire at the time, they still did not have a constitution. They had a weak central government, without the power to tax and under the Articles of Confederation required unanimity in decision making.

These descriptions are of course the Teabaggers' wet dreams, but do they really think using the Articles of Confederation to create rights will hold any sway? Even the Founding Fathers saw it as so flawed as to be useless. --Leotardo (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

First, Andy does appear to be the lead council for the case, and will be arguing tomorrow. Second I agree with you that it is legally unsound, but its a symptom of the reasoning of these people which is some weird hand over of scholasticism in religious doctrine that the "older" the source the "purer" it is. It is why creationist think the most powerful arguments against evolution are those that deal with things Darwin said, rather than addressing the 150+ years of science since then. tmtoulouse 21:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I see. Luzzi is "co-counsel and chief legal spokesman for the Committee to Recall Robert Menendez from the Office of United States Senator" and Schlafly is "Recall NJ's counsel in the Menendez case" and is now lead counsel? Sorry - I'm being sloppy with sorting it out, but there aren't many decent mainstream articles on it b/c it's an obvious publicity stunt. You're right about the older=purer thing, but it devastates one of their primary arguing tactics, which is "The Founding Fathers intended..." It's very frustrating to be an American liberal because we'd like to address their arguments, but they end up all over the board that you can't figure out what, exactly, they are arguing beyond "My way, any way". Beyond annoying, it's presenting a real challenge in fixing problems that need to be fixed since no meaningful discussion can take place. --Leotardo (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about being confused, I am confused myself. I am hoping that who is doing what will be a little clearer after tomorrow. The real question for me though is if the NJSC is going to even address any of these issues at all. They can make a narrow ruling saying the state court was right in instructing secretary to process the petition, and there is no need to make a ruling on the constitutional issue until/unless they actually manage to get enough signatures. This is pretty likely what will happen, and a bit disappointing since it means these stupid arguments won't get a beat down. But it will be crowed as a major victory I am sure, even though it amounts to a "we don't think they will even be able to get enough signatures so why bother" ruling. tmtoulouse 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you're right on how it's likely to play out, but I'm not disappointed because we can actually read how these people think without all the BS we see on Conservapedia. At court, they have to make legal arguments that make historical and philosophical sense. Well, they don't have to make sense, but they will give it their best shot. I will definitely be reading these briefs at some point because I must know what's going through their heads. --Leotardo (talk) 21:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Acorn Pimp gets a talkin' to (but no trial)

Why is it that nothing sticks to this kid? By all accounts, he should be in jail, be sued and be forgotten. I know, I am the one who keeps bringing this kid up, but seriously. I have studied this kid. He fabricates controversy after controversy, yet he always gets away like Lupin III. If he was left wing, he wouldn't stand a chance. But as a right-winger, the lil bastards untouchable.--Thanatos (talk) 01:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Concernedresident for bureaucrat

I nominate User:Concernedresident for bureaucrat status. He's been around a while, used sysop powers sensibly, contributed good content, & gets involved in mission-related & site-related discussions. Plus he's currently front-runner in the LJ by-election. AFAIK cratship is still supposed to be a requirement for LJ membership, so it's probably better to sort this out now rather than later. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Aye

1. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:08, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
2. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
3. Absolutely would make a useful bureaucrat. He's makes good contributions, and has never had an admin abuse-type issue. It's very concerning. AnarchoGoon ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 20:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
4. Willing to discuss the overgrown hedge at number 8 till the small hours. Ideal resident. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
5. As long as he keeps his/her shrubberys trimmed so as to not prevent my gooseberries from fruiting. That's a strong "yea", by the way, since he/she/it does not live next to me. ħuman 09:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Too many bureaucrats

1. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 20:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
2. Don't need to be a crat to be in the LJ.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
3. We do have a lot of 'crats. Though just to add - I think CR is a fine gentleman. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, thanks Weasel, but the LJ seems more about being able to reach a decision than have the crat buttons. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 08:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Yes, there are. But as crats don't really have power, does it really matter? ^moral 08:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Probably not in the grand scheme of things, so long as we don't just grab homeless drunks off the street and hand them database access. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 09:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Remembering some did suggest Human have the keys to the server.....Aceⁱ⁹ 09:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

He's technically not homeless, but yeah, we should consider setting up a refugee camp over at telfpedia - just in case. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 09:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

So remove the inactive ones

• Sez me. So there. Keep things simple, like my mind. Where is my mind? ħuman 09:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• AND PUT ME IN THEIR PLACE EddyP (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I vote Eddy. He was the first person to welcome me here - so he's kind of like the head vampire but without evening dress and the emo stuff. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 10:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Velcome to ze castle. Vould vou vike vo voin ve vabal? Forgot that I welcomed you. And anyways, you have more edits than me :P. EddyP (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a recovering forum whore. Must make people on the Internet know my opinions!!!11! --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 15:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Then again, according to my RWW page, I am "unusual among RationalWikians in that it's pretty difficult to justify hurling him over a cliff - due mainly to a shortage of erratic or irritating habits." EddyP (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That Mr Fancy Pants is a smart guy. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 07:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Indifferent The main point of having the crats around is to take care of a day to day janitorial stuff, so it's not as someone would immediately drop in respect if they're not a crat or a sysop. Probably only worth doing if we think there could be security issues, such as a dormant account with omgwtf powers being hacked and then going invisible to cause damage, but then I assume the existing crats can see the stuff being done when someone switches themselves to the bot group. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 07:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Goat

1. Kels (talk) 20:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Egg

1. Wibble wibble. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 00:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

True freedom is the freedom to say wibble! --Kels (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Give me wibble or give me tea and cake! (yes, I was raised Anglican). --PsyGremlinPrata! 09:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

England vs Mexico

Anyone else watch it? Pretty poor display I thought. SJ ^Debaser 11:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

England always have crap pre-world cup friendlies. I think we lost or drew evrything before the 1990 world cup, but in the tournament itself we only beat Egypt inside 90 minutesreached the semis. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Second half was better than the first, but yeah... not good. Carrick and King were really, really bad. Baines wasn't good either. Rob Green did his chances a lot of good. Now if only Theo Walcott could actually pass the ball... –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Crouch's goal would've been better if he was onside and it wasn't a handball. That's Walcott for you; he can clear it but can't pass for shit. I thought Rob Green made some cracking saves in the first half. SJ ^Debaser 11:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I liked the commentator's remark that apart from being offside and a handball, Crouch's goal was perfectly legitimate. As for Green, while I thought he had a solid half, most of the saves he had to make were from shots that were right at him. Still rather have him than Calamaty James. Bondurant (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think many of the fringe players did themselves any favours, keepers aside. Johnson's goal was impressive though.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 13:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we actually have a forum dedicated to discussing sports... ħuman 18:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is we have a team of multi-millionaires (many of them on £100,000+ a week), who simply couldn't give a flying fuck about playing for their country. Yes, we have a great teamsheet, but we don't have a good team. That is why they will go out in the quarters, or possibly scrape through to the semis. The Spanish will win it. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

More article rating please!

See the criteria. A coupla hundred bronze-rated articles, 25 gold-rated (cover) articles ... and 10 silver articles. What are the best of the bronze and what's keeping them from making silver? What's keeping the silver from making gold? - David Gerard (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the fact the people only marginally care about the rating system. - π 23:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

True. I have nominated several to bump up to "silver", however most seem to have been ignored (maintenance category for nominations?). However, I don't think we want to lower the standard by demanding more get bumped up. We want to bump them up by making them better, not by setting a quota for each group - obviously. ^moral 08:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I demand quotas! And Ratios! After all, we are the Wiki of Ratios! ħuman 09:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Bugger, I keep meaning to look at the rating system but other things come up. I'll have a look next week and start to mess things up. Anything with too many commas should automatically qualify for gold. Due to Human Forkbeard's reckless pillaging of commas we have a lot of them to use up. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 09:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Due to my efforts, WikiPedia is now one run-on sentence, from beginning to end. ħuman 09:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if any religion, outside of C coding standards, has ever expressed an opinion on camel case? --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 09:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I only used CamelCase, as in RationalWiki, because I was saving commas for surgery. Also colons. ħuman 09:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Semicolons are the one true way! Bronze for one semicolon in an article, two for silver and 3.14 for gold. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I bronze one of mine? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a pretty decent article to me, although I've not had a chance to read-up on this strange fad. Good layout, good writing, and at a glance the sources look good. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 12:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have bronzed it, per a proposal, one person more or less agreeing and me agreeing too. I proofread it too. Needs moar Hitler but is a nice intro - David Gerard (talk) 13:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I've bronzed dozens without asking. I don't think it's necessary to ask for bronze, as long as you think it qualifies. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we need new cover articles, which means we also need new silvers. A maintenance category might be a good idea - David Gerard (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. We have categories for stubs, deletions and so on, but I'm not aware of categories to prod people in the direction of articles that need some polishing. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 14:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

As well as more cover articles, it's also worth re-evaluating current ones and moving them down a grade if needed. For instance, I don't think the Poe's Law article is good enough by the standard of the others on that list, the Holocaust Denial is quite verbose and appears disorganised and there are several CP-centric ones that I don't think are right for it. ^moral 15:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

And the 101 evidences sidebyside can ge de-silvered too - it's still not complete. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

A category then to mark articles as containing substantive information, but looking like a bulldog chewing on a wasp? Would be nice to group these things together. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 15:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"Needs finishing" - David Gerard (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't de-cover an article just because it was about that blog. Best thing is to put in the srs effort before de-featuring a cover piece - David Gerard (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

We have "articles needing explanation" and "articles requiring expansion" for that sort of thing. ^moral 15:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I found the "explanation" category a bit vague. Could we rename it to something more descriptive? Needs improvement, or rough diamond? ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 15:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I had a read through the doc for that template, and that doesn't seem to apply to articles as a whole - more specific examples within an article. Stubs are indeed covered, but I don't think we have a category or template that provides a more general "Give this article some loving" message. Templates are not my thing, unless we want it to appear pretty ugly. What I imagine though is a template with a frowning face, telling the reader that the article has potential but needs some work. A suggestion could be provided in the same way we do for the deletion template. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 15:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

To address the more general point of people not caring/CP centrism: I don't think this is why people aren't working on it. I think many people are a bit unsure of themselves to apply subjective ratings of quality to articles. Making open judgments on the quality of other peoples work is often difficult to do. Even on wikipedia their article rating system is often back logged from a lack of people willing to "make the call." And as for getting people to improve articles, I think this comes down to basic community management. People often don't know "where to start" on this kind of thing. Common techniques are to have project spaces that highlight a selected article for improvement for a week or something. tmtoulouse 17:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest looking at Uncyclopedia's peer review and Imperial Colonization group. Both worked reasonably well - cat herding aside. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 17:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

An "article of the week" would be an interesting idea. Something to stick on a potential WIGO:RW. My idea for article rating involved criteria to help guide the judgements - however, I'm not sure they were fool proof and no one added to modified them much (apart from clarification about what counted as references/external links). So that was designed to give people a little more authority just to rate without discussing them. The issue is when you want to nominate or suggest because you really can't decide and no one spots the edit on the talk page. Again, if you did that sort of thing, add a mention on WIGO:RW to draw attention to it. ^moral 18:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's the noticeboard, the todo list, and the forums... ħuman 20:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

(drunken post) I think what we need is more than one thing and perhaps a realistic understanding. Projects, like Imperial Colonization worked well but relied on a very small number of people keeping them going. The article a week club here is the same. The club has been wittled down to the point where numbers of regular people can be counted on one thumbless hand, and even then it's irregular - but still good stuff has come out of it and will continue to do so. It's about aligning expectations with reality. This place shouldn't be a chore, and the more driven people shouldn't have unrealistic expectations. I know my interest will drift if it's an ongoing project, and I suspect the same will happen with others, but it's worth doing even if it makes a few of us happy and produces one decent article. I think a project to tart up some of our stuff makes sense, but on a long-term thing one thing I find frustrating is that through random browsing I stumble across articles that could use some love, but I don't at that moment have time. A quick template to add would be handy. A way to flag articles seems pretty damn useful to me, and then we can randomly work our way through them. Perhaps silver/gold needs a more focussed effort, but realistically we've a lot of shit that is best turned to bronze over a longer period of time. Need to use fewer commas. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 21:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the things I threw out randomly in another discussion was implementing something akin to the WIGO voting for articles, allowing a quick easy assessment of quality from anyone, even people who will never sign up and edit the site, but whose feedback on the 2 article they read is useful. We could add a bit of complexity to it by allowing something like "terrible, promising, good" so we could find the "promising" articles or something. tmtoulouse 21:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be very cool. We have a lot of buried articles that are pretty much only randomly found, but some way to flag them for improvement would be handy. I've found some odd stuff at CP when looking at the more obscure articles and suspect we risk a similar thing - except ours are intentionally funny. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 21:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What we need is a list of articles without a rating. tmtoulouse 20:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Can DPL do a list that excludes 3 categories? ħuman 20:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that would help. With 3000 articles, the majority of which are unrated, a list of unrated articles would be huge and would probably be no more useful in finding articles worthy of upgrading that special:random or just browsing through. ^moral 22:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Up/down voting

So what if we implement some kind of up/down voting in an attempt to identify articles that are likely candidates for our rating system. If an article has a lot of positive responses but no rating perhaps we are missing a silver or gold. Or if an article gets some sort of middle "promising" rating we have a bronze sitting here. We can still use people to make a subjective decision but we use the "community and readers" to help us identify articles that need more specific ratings? tmtoulouse 22:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

An interesting interactive system, but liable to be affected by popularity and controversy of individual topics. It all depends on whether this outweighs the benefits of community interaction. ^moral 22:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well lets not use the results to make a determination of article quality but rather as a prioritizer for articles to apply the rating too. I think we would want to change up the way article voting worked relative to the wigo, so we are not assigning an overall "number" based on up+/down-. We could make it a pseudo "categaroizing" type thing with a few simple options "needs work/promising/good article" and could use absolute values to mark articles for our attention. tmtoulouse 23:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I can see that working better. Or we stick it on Article of the Week. ^moral 23:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, categorising stuff would be very useful. I'm sure many people browse randomly but don't have the time or expertise to fix a specific article, but flagging it would be useful. I was fiddling around with this very crude template. ==Examples of shaming in popular media==

Slut shaming

It's not below the knees, but it's okay because he doesn't have a vagina up there

Slut shaming is the practice of criticising women perceived to be far too expressive of their sexuality. Among social groups that expect women to be publicly chaste and modest, behaviour contrary to this draws insults, such as "slut" and "whore" - even from other women. By contrast, it's remarkably rare for men of the same social group to be criticised for similar actions. Efforts to complicate or deny access to birth control methods and abortion have been criticised as examples of slut shaming, as they're painted as being something to which only a slut should wish to have reasonably unfettered access. Some have gone so far as to claim that women would habitually become pregnant, and pop down to their local clinic for an abortion at a frequency of occurrence more commonly seen in trips to the cinema.

A particularly disturbing manifestation of this phenomena is in blaming women for encouraging rape. Although there's no strong evidence that dressing "immodestly" is a strong contributor to being a rape victim, without excusing the rapist from blame for their crime, it's not uncommon to hear people commenting that the behaviour or dress of the victim was an important enough factor to warrant mentioning. Even though there may indeed be a connection, it's by no means conclusive, and it's odd that sexual assault against women is one of the crimes where victims are more likely to receive part of the blame for the crime.

footnotes

The only problem with templates is that they are reminiscent of the old "Under construction" stuff from the early days of the www, so maybe a category alone is enough. ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 15:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If they are the talk page where they belong it might not be so bad? Trouble is, that template isn't really a reply to what trent was suggesting... ħuman 01:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sticking that sort of thing on the talk page is certainly where they belong. Although it's not exactly a warning as people don't always jump over to the discussion page unless they're wiki-savvy. So WP puts it's "this article has multiple issues" template on the cover then lists them elsewhere. But I like the idea behind CR's template there - even if it is reminiscent of "under construction" stuff - as it's a good balance of appropriate snark and serious message. ^moral 11:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

To my RW friends on the other side of the pond

How are things in Britain? I ask because I am coming to the slow understanding that my current country is full of idiots and, sadly seems to be rallying behind their idoicy. I am currently checking out new homelands and I've always wanted to see Tower Bridge (or as Andy calls it, London Bridge)...... SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 02:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Most USians' first reaction is "It's small!" Everything from burgers to roads to farms to buildings is smaller than the US counterpart. This is not a bad thing. It's great Lunnon be a bit too much for the likes of me though! 02:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

NZ is the greatest country to live in the world. And to keep it that way everyone else should stay the fuck away. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What I've seen on t' telly I agree with you, Ace. Seems like a lovely place. 02:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

File:AceinNZ.jpg

The rest of you fuckers can stay the fuck away from my paradise

Yeah, but there is sheep shit all over the place. ħuman 06:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

And hobbits. The U.K. may or may not be a good choice. It depends a lot on how the U.S. is running and how far up the arse of the president our prime minster wants to climb. I'm reasonably optimistic with regards the new government but we've a lot of damage to undo. --ConcernedResident ^{omg ponies!!!} 07:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

People who've visited the States tell me that a big difference is that in a lot of places in the States, people don't walk anywhere. So if you like walking to the shops, come and live in Britain. Norwich is nice.-- Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 10:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was once asked (well, it was more "told", really, but I may as well quote it out of context) by some yank wing-nut that I lived close to Oxford. Which is true, in the same sense that I live close to Paris. And I was always amused by the line in an episode of Sexcetera where they said they were now going to a town a few hours north of London... called Sheffield. So yeah, you have to get used to the entire country being the size of a US state. However, the population density is much higher. You have to search pretty hard to find the sort of wilderness that the US has. So I suppose that this tightness could give it the illusion of being larger than it is. But certainly, if you want to live here, it'll have ups and downs like anywhere else. ^moral 10:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It's rainier than Colorado. And there's racism but it's not as blatant as in the US, BNP fuckwits notwithstanding. And evolution vs creation is barely an issue. And we eat burgers with a knife and fork. Most importantly, grab a copy of Notes from a Small Island by Bill Bryson. he'll explain it to you. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It kinda depends whereabouts in the UK you wanna live. I was born and raised in England and have lived here my whole life, and I like it for the reason that I can call it home (and England have the only mediocre national football team in the UK), although people have become a lot more nationalistic with the World Cup and a combination of this with the shite state of affairs the country finds itself in has seen a bit more movement from the radical right, whereas if you were to go to Scotland, Wales, or Ireland it's a lot easier to be proud without being branded a racist. However Chuck, send me a message if you're ever in London. I've always wanted to see if other RationalWikians are as much alcoholics as they say they are. SJ ^Debaser 10:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Contrasting US and UK racism, now that would be a topic in itself. ^moral 10:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Could be good, if it doesn't descend into "our racists are better than your racists" which would be a little ironic. Totnesmartin (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Weather here is nice at the moment. As someone said, creation vs evolution is a non-issue, and churches are basically relegated to looking pretty - a pity, since I think a few more Vicar of Dibley-style areas would be nice. Politics isn't taken nearly as seriously as it is in America, for which I am thankful, and we have the best authors - even Bill Bryson defected to us. Hopefully the BNP will be as good as dead as soon as someone deals with the immigration issue. EddyP (talk) 11:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Openly racist people are a tiny minority in the UK though. Yeah, the BNP got half a million votes in the election 3 weeks ago, but I don't think all of them were outright racists. Then there are a few who are just stupid, casually racist without any real conviction behind it. Generally I think Britain's alright though, people are relatively tolerant. SJ ^Debaser 11:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Screw Mud Island, with their lousy weather, binge-drinking, and terrible accents. Come to Africa, where it all happens... and you get to spend more than one day a year outdoors. (and before my English colleagues declare a fatwa on my ass, my tongue was in cheek.) ^{— Unsigned, by: Psygremlin / talk / contribs}

Don't worry psy, Your payback will be when the SA football team goes out in the first round. Totnesmartin (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha! never underestimate the power of the Vuvuzela. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 17:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of turning this into a conversation about football, I shall start a subsection... ^{— Unsigned, by: Superjosh / talk / contribs}

The UK is full of idiots too - it's just not a political movement. I find myself increasingly annoyed that everywhere you go here (particularly in town centres & on public transport) the people you're bound to notice most are coarse shouty obnoxious ignorant people. They're not necessarily the majority, just the most obtrusive, & it's something I notice much more here than in other countries I've visited. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think everywhere has its loud, brash and annoying minority. But if you're talking charvers in the UK, then yeah, I don't think you really get that sort of attitude anywhere else. ^moral 11:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The area where I live definitely does not have a loud, annoying minority. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 22:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

We have the best chavs in the world! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Atheists don't give to charity

One in the eye for Andy. Go UK! EddyP (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It's only the christians in the UK who donate to charity, silly. Bondurant (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There aren't any christians in the Atheist UK, remember? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Kitten rape

File:CatRape.jpg

"He was begging for it"

What the fuck? I look out into the garden to see one of my cats bumraping the kitten. So he's gone from extreme violence and murder of lesser creatures to paedophillia. Do you think he might have a career in the Catholic church? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It's no wonder some workplaces and schools block us. ħuman 07:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't have put that dog collar on him. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 07:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I just have bunnies in my yard. When I see one of them, I call it Jeannie.

Why, you ask?

They're all light brown hares. MDB (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I refer to very short miniskirts as "greyhounds", because they're only an inch from the hare Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else disillusioned?

Recently I've become extremely disillusioned with the blogosphere, including my former favorites PZ Myers and Ed Brayton. The same goes for Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, etc. I've come to the conclusion that they are nothing more than talking heads who spout insults at the opposing team without really analyzing what they are saying. No, I'm not suggesting that the "other side" is right or even reasonable, but from what I can tell most atheist/rationalist bloggers have pretty much sunk to their level. No one is interested in explaining why the opposition is wrong, they just want to hurl insults without discretion. They've even developed their own persecution complex, the fear that the "religionists" are going to take over the US. Sure, the possibility of the Christian Coalition influencing policy is very real (as we saw in Texas), but we don't need to get our panties in a paranoid knot like the NWOers. I dunno, is it just me, or what? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 20:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 20:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No and yes. Endlessly blogging about one topic will tend to cause a writer to run out of new things to say (which is why our wiki is a better way to build such a case). So you're correct there. However, the Christian nutjobs explicitly want to model the US Government and laws after their interpretation of their instruction manual. So I disagree with you about the paranoia. ħuman 21:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I think. Once you run out of original material, you stop having to justify everything because all the arguments you're working against just become PRATTs. So then you resort to mockery or controversy just to court the attention, or just out of boredom. Obviously that's not an excuse to lower your game, but it's something to stay aware of to try and reduce it. ^moral 21:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

School gives out abortion Barbies

The school principal is a fundie.--Thanatos (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

DeltaStar's top tip no.1

Don't pick your nose after chopping chillis. Anyone got a top tip of how to stop one's nose burning after sticking a chillified digit up there? (Now I have a rough - although I would imagine greatly reduced - idea of how my poor girlfriend at the time felt when we got 'spicy' after I'd been making spicy food) DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Oil, milk, alcohol should all dissolve the compounds. Pick your poison. tmtoulouse 19:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think a mild acid will, too. Time to huff some lemonade! ħuman 20:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, jax0ring is not a good idea after making curry either. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Mother nature took care of it, I just had to be a big brave boy. I was aware that capsaicin is insoluble in water, but it does dissolve in fat, so I've scoffed natural yoghurt and drank milk before after ODing on the spice. I didn't know oil (veg oil I imagine) and alcohol (and mild acids!) did the job too, so I shall bear them in mind next time! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 21:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The mild acid part is why some fine Schezuan restaurant serve fresh lemonade along with their "fire". The fire is oily, so a glass of water won't unburn your mouth so you can enjoy the next bite. Apparently the mild acid in the lemonade cleanses the palate. But anyway, glad you survived your toxic nose-picking incident! PS, when I chop hot peppers, I triple wash my hands immediately in case I accidentally rub my eyes, or, um, pick some sensitive tissues. ħuman 01:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll tell you my trick: use the fork, Luke. Simply stab the fat end of the chilli with a fork and then cut it in half lenghways through the prongs. Then if you want to deseed it, stab each half in the fat end, cut side up, and then scrape down the length with your knife to remove the seeds. Turn over, stab the fat end again cut side down, and then chop! No touching at all. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a forking good (if a little boring!) idea, Crundy. I'll give that a go next time. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 08:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The seeds sprayed up into my eyes (Hi {{ken))!). Just chop and wash hands three times. ħuman 08:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. A few undergraduate chemistry courses go one further than this and actually extract the capsaicin (soluble in alcohols too, which would explain how chili vodka works). So this purified stuff is even stronger. Besides a few splashes into eyes (which I've been on the receiving end of) there's a legend of a guy who went to the toilet without washing his hands first. The screams could be heard for miles around... ^moral 11:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

We used capsacin in an experiment at uni once. The stock solution was heavily diluted down, and we all had to wear gloves, but by the end of it when the lecturer was writing up the conclusions on the whiteboard no-one could see straight. Everyone's eyes looked like we'd smoked an ounce of weed each. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What on earth were you people doing in a chemistry lab without eye protection?! ħuman 20:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Biology lab. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not a reason, that is not an excuse. Do you claim you're the son of god or not? ħuman 09:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes but that's irrelevant. I can't remember if we were wearing eye protection or not. Even if we were it would have had the same effect. It seemed it was fumes rather than touching that was causing it. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

A scientist rants against the uninformed non-scientists

I just came across this rant from a scientist against the Ken's and Andy's and PJR's of this world, though it seems like it's nine years old. Well said! DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 20:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Nice! Surely we have a few articles that can EL to that? ħuman 21:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we all feel like that sometimes. ^moral 21:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

He's also got a good piece about the "Science Wars." Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This may be a bit early but this year's Reith Lectures broadcast by the BBC are on the topic of challenges of science in the 21st century by Martin Rees, president of The Royal Society. They will be available as podcasts starting June 1.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 07:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

From the Self-appointed Experts screed: "What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining." (Hey RobS, can you feel your ears burning?)  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)