# RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive70

This is an archive page, last updated 4 January 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

## Does Andy ever visit/read this website?

I always wondered if Andy ever visited Rationalwiki.........?Waronstupidity (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of his sysops definitely do, but Andy reading RW would depend on whether or not he's a total liar or as deluded as he appears to be. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 00:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Eh, his responses to what's here would probably just be like what's already in the assquote template. --GastonRabbit (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that he reads RW. The man doesn't have much interest in reading, let alone consider or think about, anything that doesn't promote conservatism. Hell, he sometimes doesn't even read what does promote his views. Have you seen him summarize some of the news articles he links to on the mainpage of Conservapedia? ~SuperHamster Talk 01:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
"Waronstupidity" (specialty not in breast cancer), you're embarking on a fool's errand. I looked at many of your edits before reverting them and found propaganda supporting tax-payer funded abortion and higher taxes, so admit it, you're committed to censoring the Bible. Denying this calls into question all of your credibility on the fact that homeschooling prevents genocide. Got news for you: it's a myth that were atheists in ancient times. There may not even be true atheists today. Help yourself by opening your mind, before it's too late. The truth shall set you free.--Aschlafly 23:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Human is Andy. The whole Conservapedia-RationalWiki dynamic is a figment of his and your imaginations. The rest of us are not real. Sterile caterer 02:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I certainly believe that Andy has visited RW as he has made requests to have certain items removed, so he must have checked beforehand, but I doubt that he is a regular reader in the way that TK, Rob, Ken & Karajou are.  Lily Inspirate me. 08:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Andy who? P-Foster (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You have to have at least a little knowledge for hunger to seek out the opinions of your detractors. why would Andy have any knowledge hunger, he already knows everything right? --Opcn (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hunger for knowledge, surely? But I suppose that's a fair assessment. If you think that "I believe that..." is synonymous with "it's clearly true that..." you're not going to change your mind. And not ever wanting to change your mind, and thus avoiding painful cognitive dissonance, means avoiding looking for evidence that could prove you wrong - overcompensating will then mean avoiding looking at evidence at all, which we observe when he posts likes to news articles that clearly don't support his interpretation, as if he's just linking to them as a superficial attempt at what we might call "cargo cult citation". Of course, there'll be a different post facto explanation for this in his head, specifically in this case "they're scum", "they're irrelevant", "they're hateful" - and these tinted mental glasses are going to apply even if he was to read this site, it's certainly true of the ones we know read it and have observed reacting to it - and this makes a bit of a protective filter from cognitive dissonance, letting through the few things that support you while turning those things that you don't agree with into "lies" or "misrepresentations", or perhaps going as far as turning them on their head as proof some some sort of conspiracy (I call it a dissonance filter, I'm not sure if there's a proper term for it). If you're under the impression that it's all lies then even the blatantly factual detractions, say, LArron pointing out issues with his "exponential growth" thing, becomes lies; they're no longer true because the source is not trustworthy, and therefore "I'm still right regardless" (does the same apply at the more liberal RationalWiki? Yes and no, but that's a different matter). It's possible that Andy's extreme conservative rhetoric about hateful liberals (everything falling just short of seriously accusing them of baby eating), might be this dissonance filter triggering, protecting him from dissenting opinions in order to fully preserve his own. d hominem 13:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

## Jon Stewart

said Loya Jirga! ħuman 03:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Dare I hypothesize that perchance he was not referencing ours? DickTurpis (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Surely he meant ours!!! I will be on show next week with Toast and Ace! ħuman 05:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd be more convinced if he said Lovely Jerboas.  Lily Inspirate me. 09:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Stewart asked but I am a busy man. AceX-102 10:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Ooooh... now that would be interesting... d hominem 11:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
what, seriously? what will you be talking about -- my name is slugboy 11:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The merits of aural gin intake. MARCVS ANTONIVS 13:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

## Recent incidents which have made you think of RW

Mine: Here, or perhaps here, about 30 seconds in. Megaten (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

## Mental health and other things

Please forgive the stream of consciousness writing...

Apparently a range of "new" disorders could mean we're all a bit mentally unstable. But while that interests me, the related article on why patients want to be pipolar is even better. I know a few people who are genuinely bipolar and a know a few people who claim to be pipolar (similarly, I know people who are autistic and people who claim to be autistic). On the one hand, I agree with the conclusions in the first article about people liking to have a name for their symptoms - I have first/second hand experience of this - because it focuses the mind on something to cure. You can't fight it if it doesn't have a name, you can't rally a battlecry against it, basically - it's part of the therapy. However, I think there's also a buck-passing aspect; you see it with many addictions, such as sex addiction and internet addiction, that have been shown to be non-clinical (at least in 95%+ of cases). You don't want to blame yourself, you want to blame your disease, it's not your fault and you don't like believing it is - again, part of the therapy, I suppose.

This brings me back to people wanting to have a mental illness and claiming that they do so. My rule-of-thumb for the difference between people claiming to have depression/autism/pipolar/etc and people who actually have those is that the genuine sufferers tend to keep quiet while the ones who claim (I'm not going to say that they're "faking" but I'm going to say that they very clearly exaggerate their symptoms, and apply a "disorder" status to what are perfectly normative personality traits) happily shout it from the rooftops. I think a lack of stigmatisation caused by people like Stephen Fry "coming out" isn't enough to make people want a disorder; it's a trend, and a compensation for a perceived lack of personality. The people who claim to have disorders, in my experience, tend to be alternative kids who are a bit insecure - although I agree you could reverse the cause and effect here, I'm not totally convinced that's the primary factor. These people seem to think that their disorder makes them more interesting; they bring it up in conversation about themselves, it's like "oh shit, I'm not interesting enough for people to accept me, let's tell them I'm autistic!!" (maybe this is autism speaking, I don't know). There's one girl I know who has perfectly normative mood swings, is usually fine but can be a bit bitchy - nothing out of the ordinary, she gets a bit drunk, she shouts and makes a scene, hands up who hasn't done that at some point and secretly enjoyed the attention. But instead of calming down and just either saying sorry or "well, I was a bit of a bitch there" it's just "it's my bipolar talking!!". While this is just attempting an excuse to cover up and save face there is an element of it being trendy and more interesting to have such an excuse to hand.

The thing is, I think this applies to a lot of irrational thought too; face it, the universe is boring - "what you see is what you get" (I'm not going to address the issue of quantum mechanics or scientific discoveries, the vast majority of the population aren't scientists, or don't find the world's true intricacies particularly fascinating). No one likes this mundane existence; they want the action of the movies, the lives of the movie stars, the rocks tars, and the people who inexplicitly get on the cover of OK! magazine. They want this escapism not just to exist at a distance, but to apply to them because they're afraid of admitting that reality, for lack of a better term, sucks. I think it's ultimately an insecurity; you're life is interesting but because it doesn't appear on a magazine cover you don't think it's interesting enough (I'm not literally blaming celebrity obsessed magazines, this is more metaphorical). Gods, miracles, magic medicines, ghosts, demonic possessions, urban legends and increasingly equally mental disorders - they're all tools just to escape how mundane reality is.

All these things seem to be governed by the same set or principles of making the world a more "interesting" place, rather than adapting your own views of what "interesting" means to find the universe fascinating. d hominem 12:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The dl;dr version: life sucks and everyone is just in denial of it. d hominem 12:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have a severe case of paragraphedolia: I am incapable of reading large amounts of text unless they are appropriately paragraphed. MARCVS ANTONIVS 12:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
That would be a by-product of it being far longer than intended. It has been rearranged. d hominem 13:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Nicely put sir, nicely put. I know that, in my youth, I liked to think that having "issues" made me more interesting - in reality it made me a pretentious burke. Now, having watched my son have some very real issues - I'm glad he made it through adolescence without being one of the rising number of teenage male suicides, it was a close run thing at times and the NHS mental health services are next to useless - I know that it has far more to do with a very real pain and he would do anything to be clear of it. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
That's another good point, I might incorporate it into my "rule of thumb". The people I know with the real problems have tried to do something about it, the others tend not to. Or they go for medication and little else - and again making a very big show and dance about taking their magic pills (which they are as it seems a lot ant-depressents are just placebos). d hominem 16:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I basically agree that we are all a bit mentally unstable, & it's healthy to be aware of our own "issues", since the people who are convinced that they're 100% well balanced tend to be less self-aware about their own insecurities & mental/emotional habits. As for actually being diagnosed with a named condition, it's a double-edged sword. Obviously clear definable conditions such as bipolar or schizophrenia should be diagnosed & treated, but overdiagnosis of vaguer conditions such as personality disorders is risky, especially with children & adolescents.
There's something a little bit like political correctness at work - whereas we might simply regard somebody as bad-tempered, for example, or easily embarrassed or sulky or socially awkward, these behaviours are increasingly viewed in the context of some form of mild disorder. This isn't necessarily always wrong, but it does divide people's behaviour into categories & can give a convenient excuse for negative behaviour as Armondikov said.
As someone who's struggled with a lot of this stuff myself, I can certainly understand the desire to be diagnosed - it's appealing to look for an easy answer that makes sense of the things you don't like about yourself or that others may not like about you. But the crux of it, going back to my comment about us all being a little mentally unstable, is that we all have our own insecurities and mental habits and (sometimes negative) thought patterns and emotional issues, & sometimes these can lead us to do or say things that we probably shouldn't, but we do ultimately have responsibility for acting on those impulses or otherwise.
Labelling people as just bad-tempered, awkward, etc. can be too negative as it just blames the individual without really acknowledging the psychological context for that behaviour, but on the other hand labelling the individual as having a condition goes to the other extreme by placing the blame on the condition rather than the individual. It's hard to find a middle ground, but the best attitude is just to be aware that we're all a bit mental in our own ways, and better off for knowing it & dealing with it, without necessarily needing to find a name for it. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
"...genuine sufferers tend to keep quiet while the ones who claim [to have them] ...happily shout it from the rooftops." —Armondikov Pardon me for turning your "is" into an "ought"—I believe that it's impossible to express any personal observation without letting some amount of personal judgment seep in — but that's a bit old-school of you, isn't it? Keeping it quiet just feeds into the old-fashioned idea that mental conditions are something to be ashamed of — i.e. "it is best for people who are different to keep quiet about it".
Another thing—don't forget to blame the parents'! Many parents with "problem children" (regardless of whether said children are "problems" because of the parents' own behavior, the child's social environment, or because of an inherent condition) are desperate for some sort of help—any help. Giving the problem a name — even a misdiagnosed one — provides something for them to latch onto so they can "solve" the problem. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 19:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not an "old fashioned" opinion, it's an observation based on people I know. There are people who have gone into some quite intense therapy, but they rarely talk about it. It's not that people are ashamed of it or want to keep it to themselves - after all, they are getting help. They just don't brag about it. And the ones that are bragging don't tend to be the ones going to get any help. d hominem 23:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

## Spain is losing its Machismo!

Adios to bullfighting in Catalonia? Olé?......olé?......olé????? DickTurpis (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Already been WIGOW'ed CS Miller (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
D'OH! DickTurpis (talk) 13:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

## Kevin Trudeau's Secret Societies

Dunno if this is old news but there was a series of YouTube videos thrown up on 10JUL10 of a radio interview in Los Angeles where Kevin claims to have been a member of "The Brotherhood", a secret society that controls everything and that they can use devices to detect people with DNA that vibrates at certain frequencies.

For an initiation fee and annual dues, he has moles planted in ALL of the SEEKRIT SOCIETIES (CIA, former KGB, Freemasons, Bildergerg, Illuminati, Skull and Bones, etc.) and can "get you access" to their SEEKRIT INFORMASHUNS to make YOU a billionaire.

But he's not in it for the money. He just wants to help you. I guess that's what the fees are for.

The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention... IN ADDITION, he's willing to teach YOU the techniques to make your OWN DNA vibrate at the SAME FREQUENCIES as those in THE HIGHEST LEVELS of these very secret societies! For FREE! Just pay your initiation and dues and it's all yours! The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I've heard of the DNA tracking before. Is this the same guy who caused a minor uproar in the rationalist community when it was offered to help track down Madeline McCann? d hominem 16:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
No. It's Kevin Trudeau, the same shyster that brought the world Mega-Memory and Natural Cures, among other atrocities. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 22:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

## Greatest. Painting. Ever.

What more do you need?

MDB (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Moar rule 34? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 21:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Moar electric guitars (interesting to note that many of the copies of this crop out Leia...) d hominem
Indiana Jones fighting Mecha-Godzilla and with Death Star II blocking the sun. Now that would be an epic picture --Thanatos (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

## Comparing new governments

New UK government and new(ish) US government. While Cameron and his cobbled together coalition of the largely willing have seemingly done an awful lot in their few weeks in power, Obama looks dead in the water.

Is that right? Just prompted by Heffer's piece in today's Telegraph. Or is it just an outsider's perception because we don't experience the detail? Ajkgordon (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the actions the new UK government has taken so far, but this is an apples-to-oranges comparison, and a pretty biased one at that. The UK has a parliamentary system that ensures the government will always have a legislative majority backing it and seeing its programme through. Obama, on the other hand, was elected indpendently of Congress, and although he has Democratic majorities in both chambers to work with, the supermajority requirements against filibusters and the small-state bias in the Senate make it incredibly difficult to push controversial laws against a determined opposition. What is he supposed to do if, for example, not even a watered-down cap-and-trade bill gets the unanimous support of his own caucus and the few sensible Republicans that are left? He did score some victories, the health care overhaul was a significant progress, if not exactly what his base was hoping for, and recently, he got his financial regulation bill approved, but given the likely outcome of the midterm elections, that'll probably be it for the foreseeable future. As for bias, it seems like the author has bought into that whole supply-side-economics bullshit, and his criticism about Obama's performance here couldn't be more incoherent - "There's a huge deficit, but we mustn't let the Bush tax cuts expire! We've got huge unemployment, but stimulus is evil!". Just the same old nonsense that the right has been peddling for decades, and the talk about Newt Gingrich suggests that the author would like nothing better than having Obama replaced by another Republican ideologue.
If there's one thing that I'd criticize Obama for, it's his refusal to formulate a coherent liberal philosophy and defend it against the raging loons on the right (that's assuming that he actually is a liberal, which might not be the case). I agree with that article that the Sherrod episode is a perfect illustration of this administration's overly sensitive approach to completely unfounded allegations and criticism from Fox News and the like - they're going to attack him no matter what he does, and there's no use in placating them. This indecisiveness will put him in danger of facing an energized opposition, while his own base is dissatisfied and won't give him the necessary support come 2012. Röstigraben (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it's difficult to compare the two. I think sometimes that the US system is geared up to resist change because there is such a disparity between the different branches of government that all need to work together independently to bring something into force. I think we've yet to feel the force of what Cameron's government has done, though. It'll take a while to realise how naive it is to think you can slash public spending that much and not be heavily affected, there is a bit of waste terms but they're not going to save that much (what is it, up to 25% or more in some places?) by buying cheaper pencils and cancelling things like "sensitivity training" or whatever. We're going to see roads fall apart, schools slowly crumble and see the bureaucracy - as much as people hate the word, they don't understand how important some of it it - disintegrate leaving us fucked if we want to do something as simple as get a passport. I'm not saying a deficit can be ignored, but it's too much and too soon and it's too much to assume that the slack will be picked up by wilful volunteers and the private sector. d hominem 11:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Any of the columnists in the Telegraph can be safely regarded as space-fillers, loons or both. They are a waste of electrons to read. Heffer in particular. Even if he was right about something, he'd still be wrong - David Gerard (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
@ Armond, yes, the US system is intentionally designed to make it difficult to get anything done, especially big changes. ħuman 22:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, like riders. WHAT IN THE FUCK IS THAT SHIT ABOUT?!?!!? d hominem 16:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

## Atheist Campaign - NZ

Across the road from my office
Downtown

Both these billboards have lasted 1 month, neither of which have been vandalized. Wouldn't last long in the states though I bet. AceX-102 02:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Would that be because the choice of green on white ensured that no one could read them? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 04:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Add them to our Atheist bus campaign article.  Lily Inspirate me. 06:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
this crap is ridiculous.Waronstupidity (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
You'll have to clarify that, as most of these are reactions to larger, more prominent, and better funded campaigns by churches that have a tendency to be very fearmongering. I suggest reading Ariane Sherine's early articles on the subject. d hominem 16:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
How so? EddyP (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I want to move to NZ now. Pie, Alps, beer and atheists. Oh, Maoris and rugby too. Uhm, and Ace, I s'pose too. There are indeed many estimable things about your interestingly far-away nation, Dr.McWicked, Sir. DogPMarmite Patrol 16:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget the orcs! Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Don't forget the low crime, high standard of living, more broadband access than anywhere else in the world, cheap cannabis and Wellington has more cafe's, bars and restaurants than New York (per capitia that is). AceX-102 20:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Must admit that it's one of the places that I've always wanted to visit. It does seem to have a lot of things packed into a small area. (Ok, many of those things are sheep - but still...)--BobSpring is sprung! 20:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Population wise though it is quite sparse. Particularly inland as 90% of NZ's population live within 30km of the coast. AceX-102 20:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Any R.Wikians that want to visit I'd be more tan happy to show them around and offer a bed for a few nights. AceX-102 20:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd really love to take you up on that - but unfortunately it ain't going to happen.  :-( --BobSpring is sprung! 20:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
A few friends I know are moving to NZ for jobs. Apparently it rocks. £1000 minimum for flights, apparently, so no. d hominem 00:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh well. Any takers, just let me know. AceX-102 00:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll be moving there in March for grad school. I have been watching Flight of the Conchords to learn how to say "eggs." Eiiiigs.--talk 00:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Careful, Ace, if my life continues on this aimless path I may take you up on that eventually. DickTurpis (talk) 00:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
AD, look forward to seeing you in the flesh. Dick - bring it on. AceX-102 01:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

## Nomination

Inspired by GoonieSpunk2012, I would like to nominate Tom Lehrer as our Poet Laureate and Official Songperson Mascot. ħuman 05:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 05:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thirded, I've been a Lehrer fan for yonks, despite the fact that he predates me by several decades. One has to curse Henry Kissinger for putting an end to his writing career.  Lily Inspirate me. 08:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
P.S. Following the YouTube links I came across an interview with John Cleese - "why people, who haven't commited any punishable﻿ offence, listen to country and western music is absolutely beyond me."  Lily Inspirate me. 08:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
You might like Roy Zimmerman
Then it is settled. Tom Lehrer is officially RationalWiki's Poet Laureate and songwriter. Lord Goonie Hooray! I'm helping! 06:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

## Friends?

Who wants to be friends? Please sign below using asterisks. ħuman 07:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

## Girl sues Uni to hate gays

We have another Chase Harper here--Thanatos (talk) 02:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, she's training to be a counsellor. I'm afraid bigotry of any sort is not a good asset for that.  Lily Inspirate me. 08:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Someone needs to sit that girl down and explain to her that she is practicing her right to hate gays at the same time as she is practicing her right not to get an advanced degree in counseling, and that she should think hard about the difference between having the right to do something and having the ability to avoid the consequences. --Opcn (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
A right to do something and a right to avoid the consequences... I like that. d hominem 11:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Cenk Uygur is right, as usual. People would be far less sympathetic if she said she was intolerant of black people, but it amounts to the same. I'd go further, what it amounts to is the same as someone in medical school saying "it's my right to not believe in Germ Theory so I can skip these classes". It doesn't work like that. People who practice phrenology will not pass the requirements to become psychiatrists. ID advocates won't pass the requirements to be a biologist. Racists and homophobes won't pass the requirements to be a counsellor. People have a right to not believe in steering wheels, but they won't get a drivers license with that in their heads. d hominem 12:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Step 1: Make your sadistic and control urges part of a religion.
Step 2: Complain about "freedom of religion"
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Profit! Sen (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I think she is a c*nt and general scum of the earth... but I do think I might agree with her on this. It's a pathetic belief she holds, but it's still her freedom to have it. And in this case it wasn't so much that her misguided belief was making her fail part of the required eduction, the school was making her follow courses to change her mind. Armondikov's analogy is incorrect in this case, it's not that someone is failing medical school because they don't believe in germ theory, it's that someone is passing the tests in medical school even though they don't believe in germ theory, but the school is giving them extra assignments because of their retarded beliefs.. And that's kind of unfair. If these kinds of beliefs were a requirement for the degree, it should have been part of the curriculum in the first place. --GTac (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
She is training to be a counsellor, a job which basically requires that you do not have prejudices against the people you are counselling. Would you really be happy if a racist or sexist was allowed to do the same? MARCVS ANTONIVS 18:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Why make everyone "learn" things they already know? She doesn't meet the University's standards for a counselor. I'm doubtful any amount of counseling is going to change that, but I could be wrong. To me the issue is whether we should be taxed to fund institutions we disagree with. Because it is a State school, she has the right to determine the curriculum to some degree. Lumenos (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

what the fuck wikipedia? What the fuck? --Opcn (talk) 19:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes Marcus, I'd be ecstatic when a racist or sexist would become a counsellor, you saw right through me! But the thing is, there is no such prerequisite at all to become a counsellor. If she hates the gays and becomes a career counsellor, then it shouldn't matter a damn thing. The only thing that matters is that you have to be professional enough to keep your own personal opinions out of your work. By your logic, I should be forced to take extra lessons if I would follow a career in counselling, because I loathe people wearing fedoras.. --GTac (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you trust someone to keep their opinions out of a professional context, especially considering the context of this occupation we're talking about? A non-judgemental attitude is a requirement, just as a grasp of mathematics is a requirement for most science degrees. If you don't grasp maths well, you can get put on an additional course to "change your mind" about how well you grasp maths. A tolerant attitude to all comers is something for a counsellor, so you get put on a course to educate you further in the world of The Gays. The line between what constitutes a mere personal opinion and what constitutes professional knowledge gets quite blurred in many occupations, so it becomes nothing more than special pleading when you want to say what is opinion and what is knowledge for the sake of what is allowable. d hominem 16:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
IF that were so, it should obviously have been reflected in the curriculum. If she were able to pass everything while being a homophobic, then apparently she has the requirements. Otherwise, they should adjust the curriculum and apply it to EVERYBODY, it's nonsense to suddenly give higher demands for a single student. Yes, it's easy to hate bigoted cunts like that, but that doesn't mean she doesn't have the same rights as others. --GTac (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
You're assuming that "being able to meet all the requirements" and "being a homophobe" are compatible. Part of being certified as a counselor is being able to treat anyone who shows up at your door. If you turn away gays, then the university can lose it's accreditation. Or at least, that will, I assume, be their argument. Quaru (talk) 20:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
There's a problem with adjusting a curriculum to fit people rather than adjusting (the politically correct would call it "teaching") the people to fit the curriculum; and that is standards. The point of a qualification is to raise yourself above others and prove it through testing an examination. Quaru mentioned accreditation, which is where larger organisations gather together to define these standards and say what to teach and what to accept for a qualification - and it return people who pass the standards get the clout of this massive collective of institutions saying "this person is competent". If you cut standards to fit everybody then there is little point in having them because they become merely the lowest common denominator; not only can anyone be a doctor, but everyone does become a doctor because the standards have been lowered to apply to everyone. Now, regarding singling people out, if a single person doesn't fit a certain standard you fight to bring them up to it, not fight to lower your standards to their level - that's unfair on others. The reason you don't see this specific case "applied to everyone" is because everyone else undoubtedly fits that standard already, and thus educating them further in that subject is pointless. You don't waste time giving extra maths lessons to a science student who can grasp it perfectly well any more than you lower the standard of qualification to accept people who can't do it. In this case, most of the students won't be openly homophobic so there's no need to make a fuss in that respect, they've already got the right attitude that is needed to reach the standard. d hominem 07:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Put another way (harken back to the math for science example), the other students "test out" of the "sensitivity training" by not needing it. Like is you want to study physics but they discover that not only haven't you been exposed to calculus, but you haven't taken any trig yet. Pile on the catch-up courses! ħuman 16:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

### same thing happening in Michigan

...a trend? P-Foster (talk) 17:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

## IRC 107 <pretty big news if you ask me>

I just stumbled upon this case, and am surprised it is not getting a little more attentoin. The IRC 107 is the internal revenue code that makes housing and other support for ministers of churches not part of their income. It is this code that lets the mega churches pay for the multi-million dollar mansions and gold toilet seats of the seriously corrupt, but is common practice for many smaller churches as well. The Freedom from Religion Foundation is challenging it on establishment clause grounds. tmtoulouse 16:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I notice that the wording is "a minister of the gospel". Does this exclusion only apply specifically to Christian clergy? If so, that would seem to be a grossly unconstitutional discrimination & I'm surprised it's been allowed to stand unchallenged for so long. WëäŝëïöïďMethinks it is a Weasel 17:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Very interesting. A further bit of Googling shows that the relevant section states:

TITLE 26 - INTERNAL REVENUE CODE

Subtitle A - Income Taxes
CHAPTER 1 - NORMAL TAXES AND SURTAXES
Subchapter B - Computation of Taxable Income
PART III - ITEMS SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM GROSS INCOMESec.
107. Rental value of parsonages
In the case of a minister of the gospel, gross income does not include -
(1) the rental value of a home furnished to him as part of his compensation; or
(2) the rental allowance paid to him as part of his compensation, to the extent used by him to rent or provide a home.

So it appears to be specifically Christian. And in IRC 256 it appears they can also claim tax relief for the purchase of another home at the same time,

PART IX - ITEMS NOT DEDUCTIBLE
(6) Section not to apply with respect to parsonage and military housing allowances
No deduction shall be denied under this section for interest on a mortgage on, or real property taxes on, the home of the
taxpayer by reason of the receipt of an amount as -
(A) a military housing allowance, or
(B) a parsonage allowance excludable from gross income under section 107.

There is an article from Journal of Accountacy (2002) which deals with the constitutionality issue and notes that Bush renewed the act in 2002.  Lily Inspirate me. 14:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I very seriously doubt it only applies to Christian ministers -- there certainly would have been a legal challenge by now if it did. MDB (talk)

## How Cruel!

I can't believe this. People are eating clever cuddly creatures like squirrels. Don't they understand that we should only eat ugly stupid creatures like pigs and cows?--BobSpring is sprung! 18:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If one needed any indication that the recession is far from over... Vulpius (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you posting this to bait resident vegetarian Tom Moore? Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Not at all. Actually I'm sympathetic to many of Tom's views. I'm just amused by the outrage that people feel when squirrels get eaten rather than composted.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I love the reaction from Viva (which I always thought was one of those "music" channels). MARCVS ANTONIVS 20:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I am ok with this, although I'd like to know the opinion of some microbiologist/zoonose experts. There are a ton of illnesses/parasites that can be transmitted from animals to humans (because we are animals too, imagine that) and he is basically talking about wild squirrels, which are basically rodents. Our other non-cuddly self-replicating meat factories might be "common" but they are also the ones we have learned how to keep relatively healthy/clean and healthy from. Sen (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
We eat deer, wild boar and a whole lot of wild birds. Doesn't seem to cause a big problem.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that a lot of commenters are missing the point: the complaints quoted here are not about "cute" animals - they're cynical attempts at manipulation by the powerful, covert vegetarian / vegan lobby. Jenny Seagrove, despite her fluff pretending that this is just about "wildlife", is a known militant vegetarian activist, and, like most vegetarians, a bona fide nutcase who also advocates for deregulation of the quack "herbal remedy" industry [1]
We all remember Sea Kittens, right? d hominem 20:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I do! In particular, I am fondly remembering the sea kitten sticks I ate with tartar sauce for dinner last night and an absolutely to-die-for Cajun spiced cat-sea kitten sandwich I had at the Louisville RV show last weekend... Mmmm... Cayenne and hot sauce... *drool* The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 22:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I have "The Joy of Cooking" from Bobbs-Merril (apparently the Thirty-third printing). It has a drawing of how to skin a squirrel on page 515. It's hilarious to look at, as it appears fairly comical. Also, on the opposing page 514, there is depiction of how to skin a rabbit, equally humorous. Picture not included, because I have no authorization to replicate it. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 23:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Skinning them is a lot like peeling a grape. Off with the head, out with the entrails, and then peeeeeel away the hide.--talk 00:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not cool to eat Tree Kittens. Secret Squirrel (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Do Red Tree Kittens taste different than Grey Tree Kittens? I have plenty of Red Tree Kittens within range, might be worth picking up a .22 rifle to augment the chili. For Teh Greys I'd have to patrol the woods where I growed up, I think. Simpler to Kill Teh Tree Kittehs I bait with my compost buckits... Yum! ħuman 06:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
OMG, now you have me craving squirrel chili... --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 06:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Cannibals. Secret Squirrel (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
According to Joy of Cooking, you neither disembowel it nor decapitate it prior to the skinning. Pic would be related if it were ok. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 06:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
JoC is so 20th Century. Nowadays, you pop a cap in its ass, bite off its head, rip out its guts, peel off the skin, season to taste and eat it raw. ħuman 06:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I've been told that you should only eat baby grey squirrels as the adults are extremely tough and require a lot of cooking. We are fortunate to have some red squirrels near by at Formby. Personally I am all for grey squirrel culls along (nasty American imports) as well mink and other aliens which are destroying our native species. There was a mink farm not far from where some friends lived and the stupid animal rights people came and let them all out. Needless to say it has a terrible effect on the other wildlife, both mammals and fish.  Lily Inspirate me. 07:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
A red squirrel is as big as a small dog, I'll be damned if I'm eating its slippery sack of guts when I stew it. Although I guess I'm out of the Scouts and a vegetarian now, so it might be a bit moot.--talk 14:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
You must have verrry big red squirrels in USA or mighty small pooches. European reds don't get over 12 oz. including bones & fur.  Lily Inspirate me. 15:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
American dogs are evolutionarily adapted to fit in the tiny handbags of C list celebrities. It's a sterling example of symbiosis with fashion designers. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh, also. A decade or so ago, there was a weird little bubble fad for more exotic meat in the UK, with stuff like ostrich and kangaroo meat appearing briefly in supermarkets. It's kind of shame that went away about as quickly as it came. I'd be nice to have Elvis brand microwaveable squirrel burgers and such like. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Kangaroo exotic, pfeh! It's damn fine done right. Mind you, that wasn't until about 15 years ago, up to then it was regarded as dog meat - David Gerard (talk) 16:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

## Lymphatic Drainage Techniques

Amusing topic? Sounds perfect for Leechology, but I suspect that's not what they "do". ħuman 06:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem that amusing. Macmillan are pretty reliable and woo free. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmmmm, thanks! ħuman 16:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

## I seriously Hope God Exist.

For I prefer that to the Nihilistic Atheist view that life is meaningless and end dramatically with oblivion.

Seriously how you people live knowing that (your belief) there is nothing after life and that all the beautiful thing you saw was useless. Also how did you prove that there nothing after such death? Did you ever die?

I must admit that i am Obsessed with death and made lot of research and personal opinion tell me there must be something, but i know you guy will call me a Moron for not believing that after life there is Abyss and Oblivion.

But seriously how did you know (since that what you are sure it is truth) that there nothing after death? what are your proof? I can't prove the existence of God but can you disprove the Existence of the Afterlife?Waronstupidity (talk) 23:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

i would prefer Hell over Oblivion. Waronstupidity (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I hope God exists, too. I just doubt it very much, and see no particular reason to think it true. I can't embrace something I don't think is true just because the lie is comforting.--talk 23:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
If there nothing after death it mean life is meaningless, life is just here to make us suffer for nothing. why make us intelligent then?
why!? seriously its driving me crazy..... i can't stop thinking about it.Waronstupidity (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I would find a life with God more purposeless than one without. What would be the purpose of life if afterwards you knew you'd have an eternity more? Without an afterlife everything in your life has importance for it could all be your final act - so make it count. AceX-102 23:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
i am obsessed over this and its driving me nut and that one of the reason i stopped coming here, you guy scare the shit out of me with your Nihilistic comment, i feel a void each time i read an Atheist message, you guy scare me.Waronstupidity (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Atheism =/= Nihilism. AceX-102 23:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I hope god exist and i would burn in hell if i could choose between hell and Oblivion.Waronstupidity (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
there many sub proof that afterlife may exist but scientific seem to want it to not exist........... if i were a scientist i would persue my study to prove it then prove the existence of god over disproving it. Scientific don't want god to exist Waronstupidity (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you OK Waron? Last time we got a little worried about you. AceX-102 23:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry we're scary. But really, think of atheism as just removing something you don't need. There's been a big dingy couch in the corner of the room, left there by well-meaning parents. It's stained with disgusting events of the past and is silly in its own right. We're moving the couch out. Now you get to decide what you want to put there instead. You can study philosophical Buddhism, and use zazen to strive for greater intellectual enlightenment. Or you can build a secular philosophy of kindness. Or you can find meaning in art and literature. The couch is gone: now you can decorate how you want, with something that's actually beautiful and useful to you.--talk 23:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I personally believe in God and feel it ignorant to think otherwise but I know most will differ here. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
technically i am not okay...... my new med make me stress more........ its calm my paranoia ( i suffer from schizophrenia) and my other symptom but it make my anxiety worst by like 5x more.......... and i can't stop thinking about death.......... its driving me mad...... i stopped comming here cause this site make me stress more.........Waronstupidity (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I went to church some week ago and i felt so good..... but this site and many other make me lose faith... i know you guy must think i am weak.....Waronstupidity (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you shouldn't stop by here if it upsets you? AceX-102 23:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
And you should really tell someone about your meds dude. AceX-102 23:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe in God and dont tell me Im weak or Ill have to block you, lol. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to Canada health care system i can only see my psychiatrist once per month so if my med are bad i must wait it out.......Waronstupidity (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
If there is a god then let's hope it's not the one described in the Bible. That god has serious issues, and I reckon I'd rather spend eternity with nothing to read but Gene Ray. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 23:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
just curious what is the % of Atheist/theist on this wiki? Waronstupidity (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
That's a good question. I assume atheists/agnostics in in a very high majority, but that's about as much as I know. Shame. It's nice to have intelligent theists around for their views and help in the theological side of things. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 00:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
i consider myself a mad(you know what i mean) Open minded Theist :-) hahahehe Waronstupidity (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
You're not a firebrand preacher, and you don't appear to have explosives strapped to you, so you're very welcome here. Just maybe best to avoid the religious stuff on RW if it's getting you down at the moment. Concernedresident omg!!! ponies!!! 00:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
you're right, but i like it here (beside the blatent Atheist strict view) Waronstupidity (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
You must not think highly of this life if you think it has no meaning without an afterlife. I think that kind of thinking is rather sad, because it's implying that you think life is meaningless and an afterlife is all that matters (I'm agnostic and personally think a lack of afterlife means that people should make the most of this life, and derive meaning from what's in it and not something outside it, especially if there's no evidence for said thing outside it anyway). I also agree with what Concernedresident said about the Biblical God. --GastonRabbit (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I would say do whatever makes you feel comfortable. If going to church helps you, then go; there's lots of worse things you could be doing, and no-one here will think the worse of you for it. I personally intend to start believing in some sort of afterlife; it probably makes life a lot more comforting. EddyP (talk) 08:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to start believing I'm rich and famous for the same reason.--BobSpring is sprung! 05:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
And I'm going to believe that Lumenos is an alien from another planet in order to bring some comfort to me. Lord of the Goons The official spikey-haired skeptical punk 05:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I got your "meaning of life" right here, buddy. Prepare to spend 6 1/2 minutes in heaven. ħuman 02:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Waron - you might try reading an article of ours which covers many of these points.--BobSpring is sprung! 05:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Although the relevant answer on that FAQ could be trebled or quadrupled in size if you want to make it thorough. d hominem 11:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Whether there is an afterlife or not is immaterial to me. I either fade into oblivion or I get some sort of come-uppance. If the latter happens then I expect to be judged by my actions and motives which happen not to be based on any arbitrary religious edicts. Can I really respect an omnipotent being who demands that I prostrate myself and worship him at least once a week like some sort of petty despot, or says that I must discriminate other people for their sexuality, or that I may not appear in my natural state on a beach, but then overlooks whether I respect other people or creatures, or try not to leave the planet in a worse state than I found it? To me, religion often promotes the petty over the principal. Personally I think that you can be more moral by not believing in a god where your actions may be driven by the threat of punishment or promise of reward.  Lily Inspirate me. 15:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
"Whether there is an afterlife or not is immaterial..." Haha, I just noticed that. Very funny. ħuman 16:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Creative writing can often seem like an uphill struggle so it's nice when people appreciate carefully crafted phrasing.  Lily Inspirate me. 14:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

### Pantheism

If life is "meaningless" because it is temporary, an eternal life is all the more meaningless. There could be something that is somewhat god-like and somewhat impersonal. The Eastern pantheistic God, is eminent instead of transcendent. This God is with us, we are a part of it and it is us. Life has meaning because we can experience things like pleasure, pain, love, etc. Meaning is obviously everywhere. Atheism (meaning the disbelief in a personal god) says nothing about afterlives. (But since we are persons and we are a part of God, this God is personal.) To understand the afterlife, don't listen to the promises of magicians and charlatans, but instead try to understand our essence and self-identity. Is there life after this moment? Or have you died and been born again? What connects our past self to our future self? What part of "you" do you want to live and what part do you want to die? These are questions that get us closer to understanding the meaning of "life" and the meaning of "afterlife". ~ Lumenos (talk) (other talk pages: LI1, LI2, WP) 00:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was fairly coherent. Nice job. ħuman 02:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I made my biggest fopaux, right before I left for my hike and now that I got some sunlight in my eyes and blood to my brain I have successful lumenation! I have the music video accompaniment also, with a psychedelic Hinduish theme. This is Carmensita by Devendra Banhart with his girlfriend Natalie Portman and a blue woman.
Fopaux?  Lily Inspirate me. 08:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I suspect Lumenos meant faux pas. CS Miller (talk) 11:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, sorry. I guess the Urban dictionary had a neologism, although I did mean it was a mistake and not merely unnormal. ~ Lumenos (talk) (other talk pages: LI1, LI2, WP) 17:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

## Any Mac Users Ever Have This Problem?

ahhh, the YSOD!

This morning, while I was playing a game of Civilization IV, the display on my iMac suddenly went all yellow. I couldn't do anything on the system, not even shut it down by holding the power button. I unplugged it, and plugged it back in.

When I restarted it, the screen stayed dark, and I got the start-up chime repeatedly, with it fading each time it repeated till it was almost silent, then the "sound cycle" repeated.

I've got an appointment at the Apple Store this afternoon, but I'm curious if anyone else ever experienced that, and what the problem was.

A little googling indicated it might be a power supply problem. I'm hoping for that, since it's apprently rather cheap to fix. MDB (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I had a similar problem when I accidently set all permissions on my disk improperly. The solution was to revert to the last Time Machine archive. You're using Time Machine to backup your disk, aren't you? It will take a few hours or more depending on the size of your disk image, but it's certainly worth trying. Just pop in your install disk to see if you can boot to DVD. If so, see if you can access your HDD and poke around. That will rule out your power supply hypothesis. ÑR/Señor Admin/¡hablen ustedes! 16:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I do have a time machine backup, yes. I hooked it up to my old MacBook and the last backup was less than an hour since it failed. So, all I'll lose is my crushing of the Dutch in Civilization. MDB (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Ha! If you try to crush the Dutch, we crush your computer's puny HDD! You should welcome your orange overlords! --GTac (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Sure, what are you going to do, force me to wear wooden shoes with splinters? MDB (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Either that or kick you in the chest with aluminum cleats... ScientificRigor (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I think your problem is that you were playing a game on a Mac. Macs are only designed for posing with your laptop on your knee and typing one handed (because your other hand is stroking your well kept ironic beard) while you make videos and use media applications in a coffee house in North London. d hominem 21:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
What Armondikov is of course true, but what's actually happened is your graphics card has snuffed it. The yellow screen is a classic symptom. Probably heat damage, and it'll very typically finally die when you're playing a game. The motherboard will probably need to be replaced. This will learn you for buying anything from Apple. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 03:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The wierd startup sound is called the "chimes of death", see WP:Macintosh startup. I had a Mac back when I was a little girl that had this problem and it had a frown on the monitor. Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 05:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Way-ull, I tried to boot it again when I got home from work yesterday. It did boot... and I got video corruption again shortly after I logged into my account. So, I shut it down and hauled it to the Apple Store.

## Help with html

I have a blog at blogspot. As you may know, I can put a html script in the sidebar of my blog. It would be so nice to have some pictures and text there, and I can do that, but is it somehow possible to make them appear in random order, just like a random article is featured on RW's main page? You know, one second this picture and text, the other second another picture and text. Is there some html script that allows to do that? Can I find it anywhere? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Randomising requires either JavaScript or something server-side. You can't do it with just HTML (which is a markup, not scripting, language). MARCVS ANTONIVS 08:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Hmm I found this:
<script language="JavaScript"><!--
images = new Array(2); //init array -- change the number here to the number of images you have
//Creates the first image -- note: MUST start from 0
images[0] = "<a h ref = ><img src= alt= border='0'>";
//Creates the second image -- duplicate or remove where necessary
images[1] = "<a h ref =
><img src= alt= border='0'></a>";
images[2] = "<a h ref = ><img src= alt= border='0'></a>";
index = Math.floor(Math.random() * images.length); //select from the array
document.write(images[index]); //output
--></script>
And it works fine expect that it allows only pictures. Is it possible to change it so that I could add some text as well? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
All the code does is build an array of <img> tags, and then write them into the document in a random order (allowing duplicates). You could replace them with image[0]="&nbsp;Witty comment 1&nbsp;" etc. CS Miller (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
And if you want both, just use the html to image[0]="<a h ref = ''><img src='' alt='' border='0'></a>&nbsp;Witty comment 1&nbsp;" or some such.. Quaru (talk) 17:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I never realized "h ref" could be broken in two EDIT NOTE, oh, I see, it's blacklisted. What might work better, if you want it to be caption-like, is image[0]="<a h ref = ''><img src='' alt='' border='0'></a><br/><center>Witty comment 1</center>" For long witty comments, drop the "center" tags. You might also want to use "size" parameters inside the "img" tag - "width=x height=y". ħuman 03:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Also you can drop the "a" tags if you don't want to link the image to anything. ħuman 03:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all very much. Strange thing is that it works on my webpage and it works on my OTHER blogs but it actually doesn't work on the blog on which I wanted to put it. That blog has all other sort of crazy html and java stuff, can it be the reason? Or what else? --Idiot number 57 (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

## Harry Houdini

We should have an article. [5] ħuman 07:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

We did, but it escaped.  Lily Inspirate me. 08:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Damn, he's a sneaky bastid! ħuman 09:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Is that two drums and a cymbal I can hear falling off a cliff... oh, oh... wait... BA-DUM TISH!!! There it is. d hominem 13:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I stubbed my toe on it. Moar help? Please? ħuman 06:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I was going to look at this last night, but forgot. I've got a couple of books on Houdini - I'll have a flick through later and add what seems on-mission. Worm(t | c) 09:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Houdini's debunking was the inspiration behind Penn & Teller: Bullshit!. They make a few references to him directly throughout the series, though mostly in the first few episodes. d hominem 09:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

## Glenn Beck

Living on the eastern side of the pond I have only a vague idea of who Glenn Beck is from what people write here and the occasional mention on Radio 4's Americana. However, I came across an article in the LA Times which appears to insuate that Beck is ratcheting up people's fear and encouraging them to buy gold while at the same time being sponsored on Faux News by a company which sells gold with comparatively high mark-ups. Our Glenn Beck page doesn't mention him saying "buy gold now", perhaps someone who watches him could comment and maybe even add this to the article.  Lily Inspirate me. 10:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Mother Jones has an article on that very topic. MDB (talk) 11:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I made a brief addition to the Glenn Beck article, referencing the MoJo article. MDB (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Goldline - David Gerard (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
What I truly love about this gold hysteria right now is how half the commercials on TV are telling you that prices are high and you should sell your gold for cash. Then you get another group telling you how great an investment gold is, and how it's the perfect time to use your cash to buy gold. Maybe I should do both, then I'm sure to come out ahead! DickTurpis (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
One of the reasons I'll be glad when the economy picks up is we'll finally quit seeing those damn "sell your gold" commercials. MDB (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
But then I won't be able to start my business "Crisp Ca$h", where people trade in their old, wrinkly dollar bills for new, crisp ones. (For a small fee, of course.) Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC) You, my friend, just might be a fucking genius. Don't let on that banks do it for free is all. DickTurpis (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC) I think Glenn Beck is the personification of the Mormon oath of vengeance HE is destroying America--Thanatos (talk) 02:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I don't know if it's goldline, but most of my liberal radio hosts are sponsored by someone selling gold, and they all do the voicing for the ads. Randi Rhodes' ad scared the shit out of me until I realized it was an ad, not "editorial" content. ħuman 03:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I couldn't find it in the on-line version of the Mother Jones article, but I think the print version did acknowledge that some of the leftie hosts sold gold, too. (It was only a couple of paragraphs in the article -- it is Mother Jones, after all.) MDB (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC) ## Richard Dawkins on BBC World Service Richard Dawkins is presenting a 4-part series on the Human Genome, on the BBC World Service. It's on at 10:30BST Wednesdays and repeated on 14:32BST Saturday (in Europe at least). The first episode has been broadcast. For those of you in the UK, it's on iPlayer, here http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p008r4l4/Discovery_Age_Of_The_Genome_Episode_1/ . Otherwise, tune in. CS Miller (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Alternative link http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p008r4l4 , with other broadcast times. CS Miller (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC) I think that I already mentioned this when it was on Radio 4 about a month ago. The home page is at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00ssmcp so you can listen to all episodes without waiting for the rest of the World Service series. I saved them all as mp3s. Lily Inspirate me. 18:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Now that I think about, I vaguely remember someone (probably you) mentioning it before. CS Miller (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC) ## WHo's got better sense of humor Or who is funnier.... me or MC? Honestly.... --Idiot number 59 (talk) 05:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Lumenous, and RobS, both have you beat. To a cinder. ħuman 06:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Ace. Definitely Ace. His quotes are top notch. d hominem 09:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Personally, I can detect no difference between #59 and MC. But having a sense of humour is not the same as being funny. Lily Inspirate me. 09:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC) No difference between me and MC? Seriously? MC is an ass, but I am wonderful, humorous, exciting, good-looking, have lot of class and good pottery writing skills that you might have noticed. Lily, if you want me to write a poem for you, you just need to ask. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Idiot number Spilling his food on the floor Autumn leaves perish AceX-102 10:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Well, this is simply boring, but I appreciate your attempts to compete with me, not that you have any chances whatsoever. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC) vomitous mutant a pestilence embodied where are my trousers? AceX-102 10:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC) And what makes you think that we are interested in a trouserless Ace? --Idiot number 57 (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Well, his fiance certainly is : ) Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 16:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC) He has a fiance? Really? I thought that everyone here are either gays or nerds. (Except me, obviously). Well, Ace, congratulations! And please upload one trouserless picture of yourself and I can tell if your fiance really wants you or maybe she has some other motives that makes her stay with you. --Idiot number 57 (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I would be lying if I said Im not a nerd, but then again, so is my boyfriend. Ex-Troll CheerleaderI'm a teenage girl; get ALLstate to protect yourself from Mayhem like me 02:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Right? I catch my wife editing wookiepedia all the time.. I'm waiting for her to make an account here, I've noticed her lurking recently. And on topic, neither of you are funny. Quaru (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Of course the resident cheerleader has the awesomeist sense of humor. Ex-Troll CheerleaderI'm a teenage girl; get ALLstate to protect yourself from Mayhem like me 23:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Ace = hilarity. AceX-102 23:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I'd like you to write me a pottery, Idiot number 57. ħuman 02:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Do you want love, hate or joke pottery? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 03:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC) ## Evangelical kids I found this in a footnote to Chapter 1 (The “evolutionizing” of a culture) from War of the Worldviews on AIG. "It is estimated by the Barna Institute that in this generation two-thirds of the children from evangelical homes will leave the church after they leave home. For more information, see State of the Church: 2002 by George Barna." Now I wonder why that may be the case? Do they just find out that all they've been taught is crap after all? Lily Inspirate me. 12:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I was hearing of some study recently about kids that go off to university and their religious beliefs. Ones doing STEM subjects are likely to have lost any faith long before getting there. On the other hand those doing humanities tend to start off believers but a staggering 90% (I forget the precise figure, but it was staggering) lose religious belief in college/university. This is postulated to be due to exposure to alternative ideas, which invariably will happen if you leave home to live on your own, either in the "real world" or in college. Without the constant barrage of demands from a close family unit, specific faith dies pretty quickly under exposure to other faiths - how many people figured religion was bullshit after discovering that there was actually more than one? d hominem 12:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Bob Altemeyer documents this with numbers in The Authoritarians - David Gerard (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC) When they talk about "leaving the church", do they mean that the kids become atheists, or does that include those who simply switch to a mainline denomination? I've got no idea how they even arrived at those numbers, but if it's the former, that would be a pretty radical break for a strongly religious group in a country that is still 80% Christian. Röstigraben (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC) When these people say "the Church" they usually mean "our Church". So yes, they probably do become more mainstream or liberal in their religious views. d hominem 13:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I'd be willing to bet that many "left" the church long before going to college, but just didn't feel free or comfortable "coming out" about it until they had some (even slight) independence of living situation. And I used the phrase "coming out" intentionally, since it is a similar story. ħuman 20:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC) ## More questions than Answers Staggering my way round the AIG site I came across their Answer books which are available online. Just to show how well researched they are I noticed that in the section Real Scientists of Can Creationists Be Real Scientists they state that Nicolas Steno was Dutch, when everyone knows that in fact he was Danish. Lily Inspirate me. 12:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC) "Hollywood has often portrayed Christians as ignorant, mean-spirited Bible-thumpers, while skeptics are depicted as reasonable, intelligent thinkers." Since when?? In most things I see the skeptics are nihilistic killjoys who disbelieve everything at first sight while the people with faith end up proved right and convert them to the religion/conpiracy theory/paranormal explanation/whatever. d hominem 12:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I love how their list of famous creationists falls over a cliff in the later half of the 19th century. We go from famous scientists to nothings, failures and self-promoters. It's almost like something happened in the 19th century that made the scientific community get some new ideas on origins. Funny that. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 13:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC) That was going to be one of my main refutations if I can ever be bothered. It's a bit like Andy appropriating historical figures as homeschooled before there was wide-spread public schooling. Lily Inspirate me. 13:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Well, that's one of the main reasons that an "argument from authority" is fallacious. When you're an expert, not only are you an expert just in your own field, but also in your own time. Good scientists change their mind as they age and do research; something that you can't do when you're dead pretty much by definition. So we see this march of progress, evolutionary biologists are very unlikely to cite Origin in a paper published today, just as much as physicists aren't going to cite Principia. Equally, these modern scientists are unlikely to get referenced 150 years from now. Invariably, dead people are going to have outdated beliefs and theories, it's stupidly obvious. d hominem 13:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC) The above comment shows an Extreme prejudice against Dead People.--Tolerance (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC) ## Help! Hopefully one of the techies here can help lil' ol' me. Just loaded Skype on my laptop and now for some reason, altho calls play through headset, all other sounds come out through the speakers, even when headset plugged in. Any ideas? Running Win7 with HP IDT High Def codec? At the moment, the playback tab under sound, shows speakers as default device and headphones as default comm device, but there seems to be no way to set headphone to default device. Any ideas? Ta muchly in advance. --PsyGremlinPrata! 12:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC) It's nothing stupid like the headset just being plugged into the microphone slot and not headphones jack? Usually the sound only shuts off automatically when you put something into a headphone jack - so it probably won't if it's just a microphone or going through USB. See if you can get it through the headphones when you've shut off the sound via the laptop's mute button (most have them on the same row as the keys for monitor brightness and volume). d hominem 12:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Would that it were so simple. With sound muted, nothing plays on speakers or headphones, but when I dial Skype Sound test - perfect sound through headphones. Very odd. seems to be a common problem but the Skype forum doesn't answer the question. --PsyGremlinPraat! 12:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Well, I thought it'd be more helpful than "have you tried turning it off and on again". Anyway, the mute button tends to be overall mute, hence why Spotify can pick it up and inconveniently pause adverts when you hit it, I wasn't sure if Skype would be affected the same way. Other ideas would be to check your volume mixers to see if the headphones are a separate channel to the speakers, and making sure all your drivers for that headset are up to date and working. Is the sound test only through the headphones? I'd just graze around the Skype options to see if anything looks like it would isolate headphones and speakers. d hominem 12:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks AK, much appreciated (and I saw what you did with that IT Crowd line :) ) I'll keep fiddling and hopefully something will happen.--PsyGremlinParla! 12:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Hahaha. Foolish mortal. You've just fallen victim to DRM. Because your headset isn't certified as a trusted audio path, there is no way to make it play all the audio from your computer. If they let you plug in just any old device, you might be naughty and copy music through the analogue hole. You filthy pirate. Enjoy the computer you "own." --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC) That is very strange indeed. I presume it used to work properly, ie, plugging in headphones killed the speakers in the flappie? Mine works fine, though I think I am plugged into line out, not 'phones. Heck, it ought to not even be a "computer" thing, it ought to just be a mechanical switch in the jack. ħuman 20:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC) ## Jeremy Clarkson On "Yesterday" "Inventions that changed the world": Florida has more gunshot wounds per annum than the rest of the world together. Most Floridan gunshot wounds are caused by spouses and lovers. - I know it's only anecdotal but WTF!.Him (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC) This WikiAnswers site give conflicting information. From that the vast majority of gunshot deaths are suicides. WP:Gun_violence_in_the_United_States seems to back this up. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC) He might have said that - I wasn't actually watching the odious twerp it was just on in the background. Him (talk) 13:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Zimbabwe and several East European and South American countries actually have higher murder rates per capita than the US. Colombia much higher. As for Somalia and Afghanistan I'm not sure the statistics are very reliable. I would be inclined to treat this as seriously as when Jeremy Clarkson described a car's horsepower in terms of how many inches deep it can cover Belgium. Remember he is a comedian. WSC (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Note that the original comment suggested gunshot wounds rather than deaths. Hard to find stats though. Worm(t | c) 15:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC) >EC) "Comedian" - that's a strange way to spell "idiot". Him (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC) ## Order a poem about yourself! If you want a poem about yourself, just tell me I write mainly love and hate poems, but also some ironic/mocking stuff. NB - you must be an interesting person, because there is nothing to write about boring persons. Take a look at my other works: --Idiot number 57 (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Even if you aren't charging for the service, I'll still say it's not a very good deal. OH SNAP! Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Psh, you and your silly poems. I'd love a poem about myself, Idiot number 57. Though something tells me that it will be quite the opposite of a love poem. ~SuperHamster Talk 17:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC) You are the most boring person on this wiki. What on Earth should I write about you? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC) You could always write a poem about how boring I am. ~SuperHamster Talk 21:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Oh Super Hamster How boring you really are makes my anus weep AceX-102 21:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC) ## What should I do about the mouse my cat just caught? My cat just caught a mouse, which is on its back, twitching every now and then. Do you think it's playing dead, or actually dead? If it's still alive I'll toss it back into the field, but if it's already deceased I'll let my cat have it. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Eat the mouse. Or if you don't like the taste of mice, let your cat have it. That's what I would do. --signed by an Oniontalk edits 17:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Did he bring it to you or did you catch him with it? If he brought it to you, you should take it and reward him. 207.67.17.45 (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I caught her with it. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I am not a veterinarian (though I play a zoo guard on teh Internets), but the twitching sounds like damage to the spinal cord. I suggest throwing it back in the field - if it recovers, good for it, if it doesn't... well, birds of pray need to eat, too.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Birds of prey, I mean. Freudian slip? --ZooGuard (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I think it only counts as a Freudian slip if you say "birds of penis" : ) Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I would just let the cat have it anyway. Put it out of its misery. --signed by an Oniontalk edits 17:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC) There was an early Victorian recipe on Radio 4 to make sugar mice. Basically you boil the mouse for about 5 minutes, remove the skin then steep in a concentrated sugar solution for about two weeks until fully preserved. They don't tend to use real mice now just use pink sugar and gelatine with string for tails. Lily Inspirate me. 17:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Thanks everyone! I let her have it—I've waited a while and it appears quite dead. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Then you followed the advice I was going to give- "Let God decide".--BobSpring is sprung! 17:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC) As an aside, mice don't "play dead". They try like hell to get away while the cat "plays" with them until they stop being "fun". Some domestic cats will actually eat them, but since they don't smell or look like cat food, most just leave them on their pet human's pillow. ħuman 19:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC) ## FBI goes after Wikipedia for use of logo http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-10851394. Guess who else reproduces it. I think the Federal Bureau of Investigations should be spending their time, you know, actually investigating stuff. Just a thought. --signed by an Oniontalk edits 17:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Mike Godwin responds, I love that guy. tmtoulouse 17:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC) What gives? Godwin doesn't compare Larson to a Nazi once. DickTurpis (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Having now read the response above I've got to admit it's pretty good. He gives Lenski a run for his money in terms of put downs.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Deep in the festering bowels of Wikimedia as I crawl, I've seen some really quite marvellous letters from Mr Godwin. Mostly of course he spends his time quietly sorting out problems in a mutually beneficial manner. But I think the word "Godwinated" should mean something along the lines of "Lenskied". Perhaps in thirty years they can be packaged and reprinted - David Gerard (talk) 19:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Especially investigating crimes against Conservapedia. Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 17:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Actually CP has a nice copy of the logo too. How come our FBI article doesn't have one? Should we add one in solidarity with WP, or leave it out because the fools at CP have one?--BobSpring is sprung! 18:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I think we should add it. The FBI are seemingly just being douches about it. QuaruSuzuki - You can't explain that! 03:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC) HEIL THE FBI AGENT ADOLF SHITLER! Ex-Troll Cheerleader (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Probably the agent that went after them is a butt-hurt vandal. Ex-Troll CheerleaderI'm a teenage girl; get ALLstate to protect yourself from Mayhem like me 23:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC) ## TK strays from party line TK just posted this on mainpageright, showing how RINO McCain is 20 points ahead of the Democrat, but primary challenger and Teatard Hayworth (Andy's favorite) is 5 points behind. This isn't the story you should be highlighting, Teacake. DickTurpis (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Are you sure you're in the right room? Lily Inspirate me. 17:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC) No. DickTurpis (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC) ## SEX tape The Eva Mendes sex tape. Thanks to PZ Myers Him (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC) And that is despite it currently competing with Omid Djalili! d hominem 23:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC) LOL. ħuman 03:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC) ## Apropos of very little, does anyone besides me read Homestuck? I mention this because it just occurred to me that TK's compulsive scheming reminds me of one of the characters--arachnidsGrip. Except I'm pretty sure TK doesn't have a giant spider for a mother. --Gulik (talk) 22:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC) ## Wire in the Blood Highly recommended guys. The episodes where the motivation is religious are definitely very poignant. These are probably less frequent than the BDSM related episodes, but really, they're very good, especially the one that's just been on tonight (so should be available on ITV player if you can get it). I reckon I identify with Tony Hill very much in the "compassionate atheist" routine. But yeah, definitely recommended. d hominem 23:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC) ## The Ground Zero Mosque I'm curious... what do you good people think about the proposed mosque near Ground Zero? My initial thought was that the opposition was a bunch of anti-Muslim crackpots. But then I heard that the Anti-Defamation League was opposed to it, and, while they're hardly likely to be especially sympathetic to Muslims, they aren't the standard garden variety bigots either. On the other paw, I've heard it said that it's only a "mosque" in the broadest sense; it's more of as Islamic Community Center with a prayer space. (There won't be any minarets, for instance.) The impression that I got was that, were it not for the signage, you wouldn't think it was any different from any other Manhattan building. On yet another paw, I've seen charges from at least some reasonable sources that the group building it does have some ties to extremist groups. I'm not sure how deep those ties go, though. And while I'm not going to join in with the "ZOMG! Muslims!" crowd, I do think that there's merit to the argument that this is rubbing salt into the wound of 9/11. Even if the Muslim group building the center has no intention of that sort, it will still hurt people directly affected by the attacks. And switching sides again, America shouldn't be denying building permits based on the religion of the occupants. So, I'm conflicted. MDB (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure there's mosque-building efforts anywhere in any western country that can't be claimed to have "ties" to "extremist" groups. It's worse than conspiracy theorists using the term "linked to", because people might take it seriously. What you're describing above contains huge amounts of fog - David Gerard (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC) You can read the ADL's statement here. The most telling part is the last paragraph: "Proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam. The bigotry some have expressed in attacking them is unfair, and wrong. But ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain – unnecessarily – and that is not right." This is simply bullshit. Of course it's about rights, and there is no question in the juridical sense. As long as they properly applied for the relevant building permits and obtained them on purely technical terms, Muslims have the right to build mosques anywhere they please. You either uphold this right for everyone, or you dismantle it. You can't affirm a universal constitutional right to religious freedom and then turn around and say, "But not in this case! Some people don't like what they're planning!". Just imagine where society would be headed if we started chastising people for - or even prohibit them from - doing things that piss some others off? The freedom of speech and artistic expression would be gone in an instant, and we'd have to accomodate those people with the most restrictive opinions about morality. I used to have a small amount of respect for the ADL because they're usually very firm proponents of the separation of church and state, but this statement is completely opposed to the philosophy they claim to uphold. Röstigraben (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC) That's a valid point -- "linked to" is a weasel word. Well, a weasel phrase. MDB (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC) It's also a question of motive and intent, which you can't easily show or prove one way or another. Specifically, do people want to build a mosque just to piss off 9/11 victims and their relatives? If yes, then they're being assholes and in the wrong; if no, then the objectors are assholes and in the wrong. As you can't prove this either way (very easily, at least) you're torn between upholding religious freedom for all, or play a fairly dangerous game of a special exception for an exceptional event. I wouldn't like to call that one as there's a fine line between standing up for universally accepted principles against the wishes of a majority and completely destroying the idea of democratic freedom to decide what does and does not happen. d hominem 13:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC) The point of constitutional law and human rights is to establish a set of principles that must not be violated, no matter how large the majority opposing them should get, and religious freedom is one of those. I find it hard to imagine that this building would have been designed for the exact purpose of pissing off 9/11 victims, but as you said, we can't prove it either way. In such cases, presumption of innocence applies. Röstigraben (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC) THe ADL's statement isn't quite clear, but I'm taking them as not calling for the NYC gov't to stop the building; they're asking the Islamic group "please find another location". There is a difference. MDB (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC) The point is that constitutions get amended, moral zeitgeists evolve, views and tolerances change. One mechanism for this sort of change are major, unpredictable and catastrophic Black Swan type events. That's why it's a difficult call, because when the majority wants something badly, you have to change, and you can't easily pick and choose when you're going to listen and when you're not going to listen. d hominem 14:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC) This also draws you into some interesting line-drawing arguments. At what distance from the WTC would a mosque be allowed? A mile? Two miles? What? And what kind of Muslims? Shia? Sunni? Would athiests who saw Muslims and Christians as equally wrong be allowed to build a community?--BobSpring is sprung! 14:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC) "building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center" - ignoring the very sick joke implicit in that (well, and I guess there are still four buildings that are part of the WTC?), what time of day is this shadow measured, does the community center simply have to be hidden behind another building... etc. etc. Reminds me of the NRA convention soon after Columbine - tacky, legal, makes sense (and is legal) to protest, does not make sense (and is illegal?) to outlaw. ħuman 19:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC) (EC)I'm not advocating a pick-and choose approach at all, quite the opposite. Freedom of religion is a universal human right that is enshrined in the constitutions of all modern democracies, and Americans in particular should be proud that their country broke new ground in establishing it. It's a right that all humans enjoy from birth simply by virtue of being human, it's not granted by the state, and can't be taken away by the state. That means that no state and no majority of its constituents can legitimately infringe upon it. It's obviously not universally respected around the world, and in a majority of Muslim countries, for example, there might not even be a popular demand for it. But those governments and societies which violate it are rightfully regarded as backwards and criticized for it. This concept did take quite some time to develop (at least in its modern universalist form), but it undoubtedly represents a monumental progress that can't be overturned. No matter what happens and how many people want to abrogate these rights, they just can't do it as long as the rule of law prevails in a country, because domestic constitutional and international human rights courts would stop them from doing so. Röstigraben (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I don't think you're going to find many people on this site that will argue that the community center should be stopped legally. There is, though, at least something to be said for the argument that even if they should have the right to build it there, they still shouldn't build it there. The head of the ADL compared it to the effort some years back to build a Carmelite convent just outside of Auschwitz. I don't think anyone thought a bunch of nuns were intentionally trying to offend Holocaust survivors, it was a question of sensitivity. I realize that there are definitely differences, but there are parallels, too. MDB (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC) It can't be stopped legally by anyone, there's just no case against it. As for sensitivity, there's nothing wrong at all with stating your concerns and asking them nicely to voluntarily stop this project, even though I don't think they should have to. If they still want to go ahead with it, it must be accepted. But that's not what the opponents of the mosque/community center have been doing, they've been crying bloody murder for months now and show no sign of relenting. Some right-wing lunatic even compared this project to erecting a kamikaze memorial at Pearl Harbor, if I remember correctly. Ideologues have taken over and are now trying to turn this into a national wedge issue. This would've been an excellent opportunity for the ADL to affirm their commitment to universal religious freedom, but instead, they chose to lend credibility to people who are fundamentally opposed to these rights and try to exploit the issue for political gains. Röstigraben (talk) 15:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Well, usually, by default I am against nay kind of church building getting build, anywhere. On the other hand it makes the west/secular societies look good and will/can be used as a talking point by "freedom of thought/beliefs" groups inside various islamic countries. And I think that in the end, that is more important. I belong in those who think that you can't win against religion by "banning" it, rather by slowly making it laughable and impotent. Having the moral high ground so that other groups can easily push for more multireligious (or a-religious) environments inside islamic countries is worth it more, since I believe that having multiple "street shops" for various religions, creates an effect of making them look silly. Freedom of religion, does eventually actually lead to deterioration of a religion's "dominance" aura and "unquestionable" status in an area. So to sum up. It's because I want to start eroding islam in islamic countries, that I want the mosque to be built, so that rights group can then all might and high say "see, we/they even allow mosques to be built on ground zero!" and on occasion an islamic politician to be saying "oh well, whatever" and give permission for churches and synanogues, which in turn will lead to more islamic high streets where different preachers will be saying "we are the truth", "no we are!", and kids will be able to more easily start suspecting that all is bullshit. Finally there is a rather important "freedom" aspect, regarding property rights. I mean, they bought the land. It's theirs. If conservatives/the mob can now start removing property rights by simply "not liking them" then this can set a dangerous precedent. Frankly, I say fuck it, they should have the right to erect a big, fat neon sign there saying "Islam pisses over all", and in turn of course conservatives can erect signs all around saying that "Mohhamet sucks pigs". Which in turn, as they look silly, gives me the freedom to erect billboards saying "all religions are stupid" and "hey, look at this cool gadget. Isn't science great? Has religion ever done anything as cool as that?". And it is my personal theory again, that in such freedom respecting societies "we" again have the advantage, because true egoists don't care what other people say about them anyway, while the religious can't stand to have their Gods/Symbols despoiled without being able to respond. It makes them look powereless. Finally, the opposition never had an actual moral point in the first place, because the entire thing is driven by the idea that all muslims are terrorists. That's the beginning of ideas that start dehumanizing people without evidence, rather than focusing down on the individual level, and should not be pandered at. And the muslims in question rightfully don't have any obligation to be "sensitive", because 9/11 it is not something they are supposed to recognise as "theirs" in the first place. It's like saying that a new church is a monument to pedophilles, because lots of christian priests are that. Or that I am supposed to care if someone shot a school, simply because he wore the same brand of shoes as me. Its one thing to call the religious stupid, its another to start making people responsible for stuff they didn't do. Collective guilt of people is an extremly dangerous meme, only a tiny bit away from collective punishment as well. And a conservative who is ready to dehumanize someone and grab someone else's property rights because "he is terrorist, cuz muslim, thus justified", is only a tiny bit away from starting violation other rights as well "cuz muslim". So to re-sum up. I "don't oppose" the construction of the mosque even if I want to see it empty & bankrupt. If you start banning those things it creates a tangled moral & legal mess to navigate through when you can go for freedom(tm) and be done with it. Excellent trolling too. Sen (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC) There's also the sort-of issue of whether there are any other appropriate sites for the structure in the general area. I suspect decent real estate is hard to come by in Manhattan. ħuman 20:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Bloomberg lays the smack down. Sums up why freedom of religion is an absolutely vital freedom - David Gerard (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC) ## The paediatrician story I vaguely remember seeing a retelling of the "paediatrician mistaken for paedophile" story somewhere here, but I can't find it at the moment. Here's a link to a BBC article that tracks down the original incident - a female paediatrician returned one day from work to find "PAEDO" spray-painted over her front door. --ZooGuard (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Stories like that show how brainless people are. Both words begin with the letters p-a-e-d, so they must be the same! --signed by an Oniontalk edits 17:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC) That's fair enough. In this case paedo is obviously short for paediatrician. I have yet to return home and find electro scrawled on my wall though. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 23:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC) ## Yea sayeth the LORD, I containeth not the empty set Marvel at this pile of mathematical nonsense I found on the interwebs: Genius. I'm not that hot of a mathematician, but isn't A (THE FATHER!) exactly the same set as E (THE IMPERFECT UNIVERSE!)? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 17:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Not necessarily; E = B, but B is a proper subset of A, so they're not equal. Whether the whole mess is inconsistent, I can't say. MARCVS ANTONIVS 18:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Is B actually guaranteed to be a proper subset of A? Seems to me that only happens if A contains the empty set. I guess there's nothing in the definition of A that actually prevents that happening. I can't for the life of me figure out what the fuck it's all supposed to mean though. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I have no idea what it could possibly mean, and I suspect the writers haven't either, given how they use the word "perfect". MARCVS ANTONIVS 18:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC) -scratches head- So does God contain the imperfect universe or not? You would have though that to be a True or False question. Sen (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I really don't know. I have no idea why they keep going on about Failed to parse (PNG conversion failed; check for correct installation of latex and dvipng (or dvips + gs + convert)): B \cup \emptyset either, since union with the empty set is the original set; it's like adding 0. Also, if they define "perfect" as "not containing the empty set", it doesn't follow that A is perfect. MARCVS ANTONIVS 18:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC) It's probably quantum. Sen (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I suppose you could take the statements that "foo is perfect" as declaring that the empty set is not a member of foo. In which case, the intersection of P and A really would just be A. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC) The intersection of P and A is not A, since $\emptyset \in A, \emptyset \notin P$. MARCVS ANTONIVS 18:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC) As far as I can tell, P, B, C, D and E are all perfect, and the only imperfect set is A (still assuming "perfect" means "does not contain the empty set"). We can therefore conclude that the Father is the only imperfect thing in existence, and therefore Christianity is false. MARCVS ANTONIVS 18:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC) QED. I'm glad we cleared that one up, then. I wonder what the pope will do for a job now? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 18:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Where'd you find this, by the way? MARCVS ANTONIVS 14:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Atheistic version. Now that was simpler, wasn't it? Sen (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC) ## Im a terrible person Should I reveal my true identity to everybody on Wikipedia where I am an admin and a bureaucrat? I dont deserve it as I am a bad, bad person. Someone slap me with a trout for being such a bad bad person. Ex-Troll CheerleaderI'm a teenage girl; get ALLstate to protect yourself from Mayhem like me 23:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC) YES! I'd like it if you do, for I'm dying to know who you are on there - right now, I'm in a doubt as to whether or not you are what you really say you are. And you're not a bad person - you're an ex-bad person. ~SuperHamster Talk I have something called split personality syndome. Im afraid to tell people my white-hat user account at WP after some of the things Ive done as a black-hat. You wouldnt believe me if I told you what my white hat account was, but youll believe that I was LBHS Cheerleader and Grawp among other things. Ex-Troll CheerleaderI'm a teenage girl; get ALLstate to protect yourself from Mayhem like me 23:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Oohhh, you're pretty notorious. So you like 4chan and enjoy email bombing, huh? ~SuperHamster Talk 23:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Aahhh, and you're also part of the whole "Hagger" thing - I've heard of that before. You've got a lot of time on your hands to not only make a ton of accounts to violate Wikipedia's rules, but to work your way up to a bureaucrat (which I am still in doubt that you are one). ~SuperHamster Talk 00:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC) I wasnt the only "Grawp" only one of them. There were many. Im also part of the "Phone Losers of America" (Google it). Ill email you my name on Wikipedia not that youll believe me. Ex-Troll CheerleaderI'm a teenage girl; get ALLstate to protect yourself from Mayhem like me 00:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Wouldn't Checkuser reveal your real account? Or did you use some fancy-schmancy way of avoiding it? And nah, I probably won't believe you. ~SuperHamster Talk 00:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Stop messing around, Godwin - David Gerard (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Checkuser would not work. Ex-Troll CheerleaderI'm a teenage girl; get ALLstate to protect yourself from Mayhem like me 00:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC) I don't want to be needlessly rude, but this sort of repeated thing just sounds like boasting to me. Yes, you're very clever for fooling everyone, but questions like these seem more like advertising yourself than ethics or conversation.--talk 02:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC) If I discuss anything else people get mad. Ex-Troll CheerleaderI'm a teenage girl; get ALLstate to protect yourself from Mayhem like me 03:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC) I hereby offer to solve your dilemma: Simply email your pal C®ackeЯ with your username and password and I will carry on in the same vein (and style if needs be) so that you are free in mind and body to werk your dark woerks of nastiness. I might even promise NOT to share the username/pw with a certain TK person. 03:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC) C®ackeЯ Going back a bit: I'd normally agree with you AD, but this actually led to a nice email conversation between me and ETC (ooh, fancy little acronym there). So it's not all boasting, per se. ~SuperHamster Talk 03:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC) All claims concerning Wikipedia in this section are best treated as being of literary value only - David Gerard (talk) 07:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC) I care about this question just enough to write this comment about how little I care.--BobSpring is sprung! 08:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Cheerleader; send me you evil alter ego and I will troll wikipedia for you. 86.40.103.195 (talk) 09:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC) I've a lot of experience there. If you think Gerard is a moose, wait till you see some of the feckless asperger's ridden morons I've destroyed over there. 86.40.103.195 (talk) 09:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Marcus gets more and more like Ken with his silly "Essays", persona of many disguises and imagined vanquishing of his enemies like some modern Don Qixote. I can well imagine that both of them are still living with their mother. Lily Inspirate me. 10:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Actually, I would LOVE ♥ to see you write that youre a cheerleader at lemon bay high and how much pchs sucks and be sure mention what whores the pchs cheerleaders are. Oh and dont forget to write all about how "PCHS NJROTC" fucked the port shithole cheer captain and gave her crabs. Do it all at wp:Talk:Port Charlotte High School. And do it from your infamous 86 range. While youre at it entertain TK over at CP with tales about how he licks young girls cunts for shits and giggles. Do that from you 86 range too. Ex-Troll CheerleaderI'm a teenage girl; get ALLstate to protect yourself from Mayhem like me 19:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC) ## Anne Rice and christianity Anne Rice has quit the christian faith: "In the name of Christ, I refuse to be anti-gay. I refuse to be anti-feminist. I refuse to be anti-artificial birth control. In the name of Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian," and predictably gets lambasted by christians for her trouble. http://www.facebook.com/annericefanpage FreeThought (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC) I think this has been mentioned elsewhere. AceX-102 04:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I couldn't find it anywhere except a brief mention on the conservapedia talk page. FreeThought (talk) 04:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC) WIGO somewhere. I can't find myself responding with more than "meh" though. I mean, it's the woman who's fundamentally responsible for the trend of teenage girls being obsessed with homoerotic vampires just stating the freaking obvious about religious fundamentalists. d hominem 15:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC) ## Damn we need rain We've only had 1.5 inches, and that fell in 15 minutes, since like late May. The trees are wilting. ħuman 06:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC) June was really dry here but July was quite wet (especially in Wales), and it's raining again this morning. There's still a shortage of water in the reservoirs of the North West though. I heard on the radio that globally 14 weather records have been broken so far this year. Lily Inspirate me. 07:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Good thing there's no global warming. QuaruSuzuki - You can't explain that! 16:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Coincidence: it started absolutely stair-rodding down at 17:10 BST here. Him (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC) ## Help for Karajou? http://www.cracked.com/article_18680_political-cartoons-lowest-form-communication.html - π 13:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Enjoyable article. I just automatically sniggered when I spotted "After Eden". d hominem 13:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC) I always laugh at After Eden, but probably not for the reasons the illustrator intended. - π 13:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC) I don't think After Eden would be funny even if I accepted its basic premise. It reminds me of Mallard Fillmore in that it's little more than a soapbox for the artist. MDB (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Don't forget their earlier article about (web)comics! http://www.cracked.com/article_17607_the-5-circles-baffling-web-comic-hell.html Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 03:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC) ## Wherein I get my political news from CP, probably regret it. I ought to know better than to place any stock in what CP has to say, but this week they seem to be gloating about how many republican incumbents are losing their primaries to more "CP friendly" candidates. Now I have no idea who either the incumbents or their challengers are, but I can only assume if CP is happy then the winners are all fringe whack jobs who want guns, theocracy and to bake the poor in to soylent green. Can someone in the know tell me if this is going to backfire hilariously on the reps when the non-crazy portion of the electorate find out just who they're being asked to choose between? I have my fingers crossed. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 15:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC) I voted in the republican primaries yesterday, as I had to vote against a lot of douches. It worked. The guy I voted for will be on the ticket. So I know in my state, it's already backfired. I mostly find it funny, because the tea party is trying really hard to get their people on the ticket, and mostly they have no chance of winning against a democrat if they do, as they simply do not represent anything but the extreme right, and no one in the middle will vote for them. And if you have noticed anything of the gubernatorial races, Rick Snyder, "One Tough Nerd" made the ticket in Michigan. (I saw his ad on CNN when they were discussing the races, so I assume it's gotten around, maybe not..) And the guy I voted against, Mike Cox. Literally his ad was along the lines of, "I stood against Obamacare. I fought for lower taxes. I stand with Arizona in their immigration law" There was another tea party talking point, maybe abortion. Yeah. Fuck that guy. I honestly don't know who's running on the democratic ticket. But there's my "news from the street" or some shit. QuaruSuzuki - You can't explain that! 15:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC) It reminds me of growing up in a small, Free State town (the Free State is our big sky/cow/backward hick country for the uninformed). At election time, the choice was between the Konservatieve Party (Conservative Party) and the Herstigte Nasionale Party (Reformed National Party), both ultra right-wingers, who broke away from the National party, because they felt the latter wasn't enforcing apartheid strongly enough. Hopefully the US electorate will wise up to the lesser of two evils.--PsyGremlinPrata! 15:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC) It seems to me that the smartest move for the GOP this midterm would be to run centrists against Democratic incumbents. Instead, the teabagger types are running extremists against their own incumbents. Very strange strategy. ħuman 19:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC) And I thought it was just a ruse to throw the election so the Democrats would have to deal with the recession. But since they haven't shouted "BAZINGA!" yet, I assume they must be serious... d hominem 22:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC) The primary results were mixed, with some establishment and some tea party candidates each getting in the running. There is no one particularly extreme right now, so there probably won't be a backlash. Not very exciting and not exactly a sweeping indictment of the establishment. However the big story of tea party v. GOP establishment is the Nevada Senate race. CP is mostly parroting that one, but basically Reid (Democratic Senate majority leader) is like twenty points down versus a generic Republican, but because the GOP candidate is tea partier Sharon Angle - and she turns out to be crazy and stupid in equal measure - Reid now has a comfortable lead. It's early yet, so a lot will depend on the behavior of the new candidates - it's too hard to guess how extreme some of the tea partiers are right now.--talk 01:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC) ## Palin daughter breaks off engagement - again Here. Is mummy meddling, do you think? EddyP (talk) 08:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Heaven forfend! - David Gerard (talk) 10:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Every time I hear a news story about Bristol and Levi (America's Sweethearts), I'm reminded of the time I was watching the local news while visiting my parents. Some sordid news story was on, and I remarked, "Feh. Trailer park trash." Mom replied, "son, they may be all they can afford." I responded, "Mother. It's a story about a twenty eight year old woman who got her eighteen year old boyfriend to go into her trailer and shoot her estranged husband with a shotgun." Mom thought for a second, and said, "okay, they're trailer park trash." MDB (talk) 13:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC) There's some Jeremy Kyle material right there! d hominem 15:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Is that good? MDB (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC) No. Absolutely not. The Jeremy Kyle show features people that make trailer park trash appear like educated royalty (if that's not an oxymoron). DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 23:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC) I always think "The Palins are filmed in front of a live studio audience"--Thanatos (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Ah, so, to put it in analogy terms, Jeremy Kyle:Great Britain::Jerry Springer:United States. MDB (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC) ## Evil socialist National Health Service Had a nasty fall whilst playing footy and landed very hard on my left hand. It swelled up and was pretty sore. I've broken my scaphoid in my right hand before, and I was concerned that if I'd busted anything in my left and it healed incorrectly I'd be fucked, so off I went to the local hozzy. Walked in, seen by the triage nurse, examined, x-rayed, nothing broken just soft tissue damage. In and out in less than an hour, the staff were extremely professional and impeccably polite. I do hope the communist Kenyan doesn't force such horrors on the US. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 15:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Me too. That shit is scary. And you weren't just put down like a horse? Lucky you. QuaruSuzuki - You can't explain that! 15:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Fuuuuck. You escaped the death panels? Lucky - David Gerard (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC) He's just been added to their list for consideration later. It'll take the Evil Socialist Bureaucracy (tm) a few years to get around to him. MDB (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC) How long before the Cameron Clegg mafia fuck it up? Him (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Until the new government gets its rules sorted out, I believe there is a firm eighteen-week limit on the waiting list for the death panels - David Gerard (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC) I believe the death panels are one of the quangos that are going to be abolished and replaced by local referenda. Lily Inspirate me. 15:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC) So you didn't come out infected by Marxism? d hominem 15:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Marxism is sexually transmitted, you can only get it by sleeping with a Cultural Studies major. --The Emperor Kneel before Zod! 03:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC) So how exactly does the NHS work? Arent hospitals owned by companies just like in the US but just the government dictates the insurance? A friend of mine was admitted to the London Bridge Hospital while on vacation in England and I heard its owned by an American company. Ex-Troll CheerleaderI'm a teenage girl; get ALLstate to protect yourself from Mayhem like me 13:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC) No. The NHS is part of the state, and is funded by taxes. MARCVS ANTONIVS 13:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC) ## Yes Men I'm not sure if you guys know about the Yes Men. Saw their "Change the World" feature yeserday. I must admit, I'm in two minds. I love them taking big business to the cleaners, but some of the tactics made me feel uncomfortable - like the Bhopal hoax. --PsyGremlinHable! 15:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Bhopal Hoax? QuaruSuzuki - You can't explain that! 15:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Never mind, about the cash? I was worried you were going to say something about people not believing it happened.. I know people at Dow, I know it happened.. :p QuaruSuzuki - You can't explain that! 15:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC) That would be a pretty shockingly stupid conspiracy if they thought the Bhopal disaster was a hoax... d hominem 15:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC) No, no. What they did is pose as a spokesman for Dow Chemical and were interviewed on BBC, and said they'd be paying$12 billion to Bhopal survivors. a) that shaved \$3-billion off their market cap that day, b) forced them to admit there was no Bhopal relief, c) sadly, raised hopes of the sufferers in Bhopal for a few hours. That part I didn't like. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 16:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely fucking brilliant. I have never heard of them before, but they are now my new heroes. Thankyou Psygremlin. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 22:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
That was pretty awesome. They've done some amazing stuff, like suggesting an 'acceptable loss of life vs profit' model. The "Change the World" film is very good, and very scary when you see what big business is prepared to believe.--PsyGremlin講話 10:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, my bad. It's "Fix the World". handy dl linky here. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 10:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

## ¿Español?

¿Estàn otros hispanohablantes en RW? Porque hablo inglès... pero no es mi idioma nativo. ¡Tengo curiosidad! Ricardo 18:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

¿Que? QuaruSuzuki - You can't explain that! 18:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Puedo hablar Español, pero cuando tengo que escribir entonces todas mis faltas son muy obvios.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
This wiki is also available in Serbo-Croat. (Not!)  Lily Inspirate me. 18:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I look forward to having to move all our previous work to en.rationalwiki.org... ħuman 22:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Translations wouldn't be a bad idea, but fuck me, the workload... let's just leave Google Translator to do the hard work for us, right? d hominem 00:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
¡Hola Ricardo! Mis padres vienen de Nicaragua, pero vivo en Canadá. Donde estoy casi nadie habla español, entonces no tengo mucho oportunidad de practicar. --Night Jaguar (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Bonjourno! Jeg sprechen ikkje de Deutch. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 01:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Spanish speaker rising hand & containing urge to correct details in comments above --Xyr (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Creo que sería tan difícil traducir artículos existentes que sería sin punta intentarlo... crear contento nuevo sería mejor que traducir. Yo participaría en eso. Lyra § talk 06:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Ehkä sekin energia olisi paremmin käytetty tämänhetkisen sisällön parantamisessa. Timppeli 07:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

if I vaporized this page just for lulz? Ex-Troll CheerleaderI'm a teenage girl; get ALLstate to protect yourself from Mayhem like me 00:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont think anyone would be mad, more they'd think you were stupid and deliberately inciting drama. AceX-102 00:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
People already think that. Im really not as stupid as I act here but its just become habitual to act stupid here since that seems (no offense) to be the in thing here. Ex-Troll CheerleaderI'm a teenage girl; get ALLstate to protect yourself from Mayhem like me 00:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think you'd get any laughs for vaping MC's userpage. AceX-102 01:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
No. As much as he deserves it, no. Do not delete his page, do not say his name three times. He will be back, I know, but why give him another thing to bitch about?--Thanatos (talk) 01:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Although I agree with you all, that it'd be a bad thing, I do admit that I've often been very, very temped to vape it. Or just alter it up. But I kinda' like that he calls me out on it. It makes me laugh. So that's kept me from it so far. He's such a useless tool. Like a broken shovel, that just won't stay in the garbage.. QuaruSuzuki - You can't explain that! 02:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Im with Quaru on this. I know what to expect from MC and I could give a shit less if MC wrote about me in chicken coop, called me the devil, or pissed all over himself, but I dont want to piss off everybody else over it. But I still think itd be funny to troll the troll. Ex-Troll CheerleaderI'm a teenage girl; get ALLstate to protect yourself from Mayhem like me 02:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
itd be funny to troll the troll we did that a year ago - wasn't funny. AceX-102 02:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

We wouldn't have let anyone get away with it when *you* were actively trolling the site (i.e. a few weeks/months back), so I would count on the same amount of respect from you. P-Foster (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Christ on an Easter stick, kiddies, who remembers the first RW "troll" who people thought was every troll on sight? ħuman 05:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Who could forget everybody's favorite bogeyman TK? Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 08:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Heh I thought perhaps you meant Bohdan, grand master of sockpuppetry, if I recall correctly. (Or whatever he calls himself now.) Lyra § talk 09:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
You do realise that I am a sock of Bohdan? I came out as a sock many moons ago. Nobody believed me. 86.40.106.235 (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
No Marcus, you came in your sock.  Lily Inspirate me. 17:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Nah, MC, I knew Bohdan, I worked with Bohdan, you, sir, are no Bohdan. ħuman 18:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)