RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive83

This is an archive page, last updated 4 December 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

I'm not selling anything

I keep getting people with Asian accents phoning me up; they have name, phone number and address, and start off by saying "Hello Mr. Khant, I'm not selling anything, I just want to ask you a few questions". Well I know damned well they they do want to sell me something but have always brushed them off. One guy who phoned asking for my wife (who was not in) got into a loop on his script when I wouldn't tell him my first name "so that he could address me properly" - Mister Khant is fine by me! So, just having had another call from some Malaysian sounding lady, I wonder has anyone else had these calls, and if so, what are they trying to sell or get out of me? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 15:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I get similar calls now and again. It's either a) a bunch of Chinese passing themselves off as a New York brokerage (the address they give is a basement in Queens apparently) or b) a bunch of Philippinos passing themselves off as an Aussie brokerage. Either way, they want you to buy non-existent shares in Dow Jones-listed companies. Tell them to fuck off. a - the shares don't exist and b - give them your banking details and they'll empty your account. My old got burnt by them. Luckily his UK bank manager was sharp enough to phone and ask why he was closing his account and transferring his funds to Manilla (he wasn't). But they do have a scary amount of personal information. --Ψ GremlinFale! 15:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I get a call, roughly ever fortnight, from somebody with the most terribly poor English saying, "Hello, I'm [Dave/Steve/Alan] calling from [Birmingham/Leeds/Chester]." It amuses me. ^EXTERMINATE 15:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I just use the "I don't do business like this so fuck off and die" routine. Remember, rudeness saves time. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I get a lot of the phone calls from call centres based in India. A greeting of "Suck my cock, you pig eating bastards," usually does the trick.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 16:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I regularly get calls from telecoms companies who want me to change my supplier. Obviously they speak to me in Spanish and it's great fun pretending that my Spanish is worse than it is. "Are you calling to speak to Maria?" "Are you Maria?" "Is Maria there?" "I don't understand - why are you calling me?". All great fun. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I get phone calls, that hang up (so I see a bunch of missed calls). If I call them back, they are actually to a premium/chargeable number. That's a sneaky one. Sen (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I had an international call from someone yesterday who was talking about a bank refund blah blah. I just said they had the wrong number and they hung up without another word. I presume the 419ers are having less luck with emails these days and have gone back to the phone. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Will no one rid me of this

turbulent priest? Jack Hughes (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I think he's quite funny, and people shouldn't be so easily offended. ^EXTERMINATE 16:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

His comments are pretty much on the money. & If he does organise that party, I would go (though there must be a more exciting venue than Calais). Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I am by no means a royalists, but I am amazed at how many people are unable distinguish between the institution and the individual people. I saw Janet Street Porter on 'This week' ranting on about how it 'wont last' and making some horrible comments about Kate Middleton while bigging up her own working class credentials (she hasn't been working class for years. It just appears unseemly to me. Michael Portillo on the same show said that meeting the Queen is a big event for most people and asked Streetporter if it was for her. She said she'd only met her twice. Bringing it back to the Bishop, it was probably inadvisable since the queen is technically his boss.AMassiveGay (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

His retraction is fun. It's kind of like one night claiming that Jews are all pigs, while the next day trying to wish them a happy passover. His criticisms of heredity are odd when one considers his church's claim to apostolic succession. If they lose that line to the original apostles then they're just a regular bunch of blokes in funny robes with an odd obsession with the step-son of a very gullible carpenter - which surely can't be the case. --Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 00:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, I'm not a particularly strong royalist, but anti-royal sentiment and attitude just baffles me. I think Stephen Fry put it best (in Moab is my Washpot IIRC) that hating the Royal Family is like hating a pimple on your nose; it might be unsightly, annoying and bad to look at, but blaming all your problems on it and thinking you'll become less of a prick if you get rid of it is plain stupid. Still, you would think a bishop wouldn't forget that the "Queen’s most excellent Majesty, acting according to the laws of the realm, is the highest power under God in this kingdom, and has supreme authority over all persons in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as civil", right? You don't slag off your future boss. ^narchist 16:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Left Behind Books

So I know some people have caught them on Facebook, but I thought others might be interested in my reviews of the Left Behind series of Christian apocalyptic books. There are thirteen books in the series (not counting the prequels) and I have been reading them and mocking them in order; I just finished the eleventh book. You can read my reviews from the links below, if you're interested.

1. Left Behind
2. Tribulation Force
3. Nicolae
4. Soul Harvest
5. Apollyon
6. Assassins
7. The Indwelling
8. The Mark
9. Desecration
10. The Remnant
11. Armageddon

I don't want to keep self-promoting, so if you want to see the twelfth and thirteenth reviews, keep an eye on my blog. I hope this has not been too annoying. Thanks!--^talk 05:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice. I'd say you should do something like Reasoning with Vampires but it looks like you've been tortured enough. ^narchist 09:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Slacktivist has been running an in-depth dissection of the books for quite some time now. His knowledge of where the authors are coming from theologically (he is a theist) allows him to offer some insights, e.g. an explanation of the whole "chaste romance" thing.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned on FB, I'm not sure which deserves the greater praise - your excellent reviews, or the fact you've managed to sit through 11 volumes of that drek. --Ψ GremlinFale! 10:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm surprised the 11th review wasn't just "euugghhh........can't... go... on.... must... not.... HELP!!" ^narchist 12:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't find the thirteenth book, which is kind of a bummer.--^talk 05:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Those Chileans miners got off easy....

...NZ's biggest loss of life, in a single incident, since 1979. A fucking tragedy. Ace^{word up} 07:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It is that. It is not just third world miners who die in mines. It seems to pretty risky business. Such is the price we pay for the metals and minerals we all rely on.AMassiveGay (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The best thing my grandfather ever did was to take his two sons down the mine in South Wales where he worked and showed them around. Scared the crap out of them both so that they never followed in his footsteps. Which was a good thing as he was dead before he hit 60. Coal lung and lung cancer.Darkmind (talk) 10:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Terrible news to wake up to this morning. One can only hope they had passed on before the second blast. One bit of good news, however, the 29 Chinese coal-miners were rescued. @Darkmind - my dad's da did the same to him. Brought home a mining helmet and told him if he didnt buck up his marks, it was his to wear down the mine. Needless to say, it worked. --Ψ GremlinParla! 10:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a few generations back, but I've got upper East Tennessee coal miners in my background. Some of them fought in the Coal Creek War and others were lost in the Fraterville Mine disaster. It's that side of the family I get my politics from. (Though none of the ones I knew were especially political. But several people have said I remind them of my great-grandfather, who was very political, and, for his time and location, very liberal.) MDB (talk) 12:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Having grown up in one of the largest mining areas in the UK (although the industry was almost completely defunct by the 1990s) the recent stories have been weighing on me quite a bit. The memetic memory of mining is really hard shake off, and coming from that sort of place I feel like I have a different understanding to people who don't. I can see people and firends who are clearly viewing it as a tragedy but they don't quite get how much mining disasters burn themselves into the local cultural history. ^narchist 12:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean. My Mom and Aunt are a couple of generations after the Fraterville disaster, and they still talk about how families around there lost all of their adult men. MDB (talk) 12:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. My family grew up in a little village in the Rhondda, with it's mine (now gone, of course) - which wasn't far from Aberfan. Then we moved out here to Sasolburg (home of the oil from coal plant) which had the Coalbrook colliery and its [disaster just around the corner. Fortunately, both were before my time, but left a big scar on the locals. --Ψ GremlinTal! 12:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Mining is the most dangerous job in the world, according to some statistics I once read. That said, Aberfan was fucked up - the miners came up out of the hole in the ground, and their children were dead. Cefn Coed - I lived 7 miles north of that valley so green. Where you Psy? ħuman 03:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I've read some stories about the Fraterville disaster that almost move me to tears. Some of the miners survived the blast, but knew the air was bad, and they wouldn't survive long enough to be rescued. They wrote letters (or had their fellow trapped miners who were literate write them -- this was a dirt poor town in 1902) to their families. Oh my, some of them are just agonizing to read. And just remembering that they may not have been my direct ancestors, they were the type of people I come from. MDB (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

When I was off at University, a guy sitting next to me in some class says "If you're going to mine, mine a metal mine, not a coal mine" something about that's what his grandfather had told him, and he was from a mining area in Tennessee. I just responded, "If I end up in a mine, something has gone drastically wrong in my life" I mean, we were sitting in a lecture hall together. Quaru^{diamond - You can't explain that!} 13:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Gremlin, where did your family grow up? My grandfather's village was Ynysybwl. Darkmind (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Do we have cluster going on here or what? ħuman 03:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

In Maesteg, near Bridgend. --Ψ Gremlin話しなさい 14:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

What kind of mood am I in...

... this Thanksgiving eve?

I can't think of a better way to sum it up then with Carl Orff, helped out by a Welsh (?) choir.

MDB (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Erm, the kind that can't differentiate between TWIGOCP and the Saloon Bar? (not meant as snarkily as it sounds) --Ψ GremlinTala! 12:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoopsie. I've moved it. MDB (talk) 12:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Fuksake, are all singers blonde and Welsh?? ^narchist 12:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Including the three who are trying to escape from inside Charlotte Chruch. --Ψ Gremlin말하십시오 13:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ysgol Glanaethwy - A school choir from Bangor in north Wales.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I went to Ysgol-Y-Graig (the school on the rock - yes, we had a cliff to play with behind the playground). What's with the all-Welsh day here? Fun, memories are what the Merkin holidae is aboot, eh? ħuman 03:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you be so kind as to explain how that's pronounced? ("Like it's spelled" is not an acceptable answer.)

And now that you've pointed out that's a high school choir (or the Welsh equivalent), I want to see O Fortuna performed on Glee. MDB (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There's more here including Rhythm of life with Welsh lyrics. Good, innit? 13:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

On the other paw, a friend pointed me to this, which improved my mood immensely:

Though as someone points out in the comments... "You think it's a great ad? Tell me... what is the name of the beer advertised?" MDB (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

OOh!! OOh!!!! I KNOW! I know I know!!! ooh! Pick me, teacher I'm ever so smart!!! 14:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

@MDB, I'm afraid I have a morbid fear of spitting to be able to pronounce any Welsh. Ask Human or Psy, they're both sheepshaggers.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget Bob. Actually, my pronunciation of Welsh begins and ends with LlanfairyouknowtherestsoIwon'tfinishitgogogoch. At a guess I'd say it's something like Eyesgul Glanethy. --Ψ Gremlin講話 14:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Close. It would be either Us-gol(not goal) Gla-neye-th-wii, or, because place names in Welsh can sometimes have pronunciations that have changed away from the way they would have originally sounded (Twyn becomes pronounced as Toy-n not T-wii-n): Us-gol Gla-neye-thoy. But I'm going to guess that, because the school is in North Wales, the original ponounciation was kept so it would be pronounced as the former.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 15:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Spam blog heading of the day

http://rss.web.id/rationalwiki-dramatica.htm - David Gerard (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

When will people learn? Auto-generated content. Just. Doesn't. Work. ^narchist 16:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Those Goshdarned Koreans

The North and the South are having at each other again. EddyP (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Just as long as they don't drag everybody else into it, like last time. Still, the North with nukes... scary. Maybe AD can keep us posted on developments. --Ψ GremlinZungumza! 15:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat disturbing. The President of South Korea has said he believes "enormous retaliation is going to be necessary to make North Korea incapable of provoking us again".--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wipe that hellhole off the face of the earth already. It's second in clusterfuck only to Israel. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

@ OU, for a moment I was thinking "no, that's wrong", but then I remembered, somehow Northern Ireland got "fixed"... ħuman 16:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. I'm not sure you could unbrainwash those people before they died fighting you. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

From the time I was stationed in Korea, this kind of crap happens every couple of months over there. They usually don't make a big deal about it, but a South Korean ship will "wander" into North Korean waters or the North will shoot at something of the South's or a "practice" artillery barrage will hit south of the DMZ or a few rounds from a sniper's rifle will impact VERY near to U.S. or South Korean forces checking the fence... You have to remember, the war is actually still on over there. It's all chest-puffing and politics. (Also, this is near total rumor, but the story up near the DMZ is that in order for North Korean Special Forces to graduate from their training, they have to bypass or traverse the DMZ and perform a deep reconnaissance mission and return to the North. If they get caught, they fail. It could be bullshit, but a few times a year, reports would come across official Army channels that there was a fresh hole cut into the fence or a couple of disposable rafts had washed up on South Korean shores.) The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well HOLEE shit. Nevermind... I just read the news article (slow start today). So some RoK Marines are dead and civilians fled and homes are on fire, too... This is beyond anything I can recall. Wow. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I got to visit the DMZ once, it was kind of cool. Mostly eerie. My uncle has been working army intel in SK for years. One night, after a few too many drinks, he all but admitted it was a front. The DPRK is hardly a threat to anyone. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't the north koreans always pull this shit when they want more aid? It was hardly a military targetAMassiveGay (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Or myabe it was.AMassiveGay (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how relevant it really is, but isn't Kim Jong-Il in the process of handing over power to his son? I know he was officially announced relatively recently but I don't know when any true power is set to switch. Personally I figured it was something related to this. He's gotta do something to make a mark, I guess. I'd be interested in seeing how the incident has been reported inside NK to the citizens. X Stickman (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I've never seen a government that acts as randomly and unpredictably as North Korea's, and they seem to be taking pride in that as well. This isn't about aid, they've managed to squander any goodwill that the South Koreans and even the Chinese had towards them, they haven't succeeded in blackmailing anyone, and they don't seem to mind their ever-increasing isolation and economic decay. Succession politics are a possible explanation, but serious clashes like this one and diplomatic confrontations have happened regularly over decades, without an apparent correlation to where the current leader was in his "term". Then there's the problem of constant brainwashing and bunker mentality, you can't subject people to constant propaganda about how the nation is still at war, give them weapons, post them on a frontline and then expect them not to overreact to anything that might be interpreted as provocative behaviour on South Korea's part. These clashes won't stop. One can only hope that South Korea's government and military keep their cool. Röstigraben (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘From what I read, China's big concern is getting a flood of North Korean refugees across their common border. So, it's in their interest to see North Korea remains stable and not at war. And they're about the only country left that could seriously be considered an ally of the DPRK, unless you count the other members of the "nations that really hate America" club.

As far as North Korea attacking the South goes, as I understand it, the big concern is that the North Korean leadership will eventually say, "screw it, we have nothing left to lose, we might as well go out with a bang" and attack the South in one last gasp of nationalistic fervor. Plus lob a few missiles at Japan, too. They'd die, but at least they'd die with honor. If anything, they might use it as a way to burn off excess population if the food situation there gets critical again. MDB (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

If North Korea does escalate, expect China to annex it the 24 hours after that. China has no more interest in seeing that area of the world destabilise than anyone else, plus they would get to expand their territory permanently. In the short-term they'ld be seen as doing the necessary, if not right, thing, and in the long term nobody has the leverage to force China into making North Korea an independent nation again.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 01:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting analysis, Dented Swarf. ħuman 05:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

This will definitely not happen. First, NK is just about the least appealing target for annexation you could think of. China has been very concerned about getting flooded with refugees from the North, and there's not much point in obtaining more than 20 million of them. Second, it would devastate relations with the South, the USA and probably Japan, all very important trading partners, and provoke the encirclement and continued US presence in Northeast Asia that China is afraid of. From China's perspective, the best thing that could happen would be if the North Korean leadership changes its mind, accepts economic reforms and refrains from provoking crises right next door. They want a stable North Korea as a buffer, not another impoverished and unruly frontier territory. Röstigraben (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

For those unaware: I live in South Korea and have been here for a bit over two years now. I speak some Korean and follow events closely, so I think I have a decent handle on things. So the DPRK does this sort of thing regularly. Sometimes it gets really nasty, like when they sank the ROK Cheonnan warship earlier this year. Other times they just capture a fishing boat near their waters, or threaten to destroy the ROK loudspeakers near the DMZ, or declare how they'll turn the ROK into a "sea of fire." President 이명박 has been a little milquetoast on the matter, being unwilling to cease attempts at peace. This is for both good reasons (they truly want reunion, since separation occurred within the lifetime of older citizens here and they want to see their families again someday) and bad reasons (farming organizations that insist the massive rice surpluses be bought by the government to send north as aid). So fighter jets were scrambled, warnings were sounded, and so on - but nothing was done. This is probably actually a good thing. We're in the transition period between generations, and it might well be that the demise of Kim Jong-Il will mean that his son has to share power. Not a lot of news gets out of the north, but what news there was seems to indicate that the third Kim (Kim Jong-Un) will probably be in a weakened position alongside some of the more powerful generals. Thus, a lot of these sorts of thing will be attempts to demonstrate power and control. But the continuous famines and serious shortages of almost everything mean that the regime is just having serious trouble. China stopped supporting them for the most part. This was particularly demonstrated with their desperation to reopen tourism from the South (it was stopped after the ship sinking) which provides them with one of their few accessible sources of income (along with arms dealing). They're going to have to make compromises, and once the flow begins, it won't stop. Things that will not happen:

1. China will absolutely never annex North Korea.
2. North Korea will not nuke the south.

They want more aid. They have frequently rattled the sabre and demanded money in exchange for stopping their nuclear program or skirmishes, but they broke their promise too many times and Obama refused to give in. Look for more little things, and then in a few years after the death of Kim Jong-Il, an easing of relations and move towards reunion.--^talk 05:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I hope you are generally correct. I hope that NK ends up with leaders who realize how bad they look from space at night. ħuman 06:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that once the personality cult thing winds down it's going to be easier. Perhaps then North Korea will stop scaring the shit out of me. ^narchist 16:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just as an aside, there's lots of speculation that Kim Jong-Il is dying, and part of this is internal jockeying for position prior to the regime change. This has led to more than person using the term "Kim Jong Seriously-Il." MDB (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That's what's causing the problem. It isn't just jockeying for power, it seems like there's a push from some elements to shift the Kim-Jongs out of power. That's why you need to be really careful of statements like "North Korea will never nuke the south". A sane and stable leadership in North Korea will never nuke the south, but Kim Jong-il is nobody's idea of a stable leader, and if he thinks that his dynasty is going to end, or he is going to be deposed otherwise and he feels backed into a corner then yeah, I can see the crazy bastard giving the order. At that point he really does have nothing to lose, and I think it is safe to say that he places no value on the lives of his own people.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 19:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"This will definitely not happen. First, NK is just about the least appealing target for annexation you could think of. China has been very concerned about getting flooded with refugees from the North, and there's not much point in obtaining more than 20 million of them. Second, it would devastate relations with the South, the USA and probably Japan, all very important trading partners, and provoke the encirclement and continued US presence in Northeast Asia that China is afraid of. From China's perspective, the best thing that could happen would be if the North Korean leadership changes its mind, accepts economic reforms and refrains from provoking crises right next door. They want a stable North Korea as a buffer, not another impoverished and unruly frontier territory." Well, okay, for a start, 20 million displaced refugees is a very different matter to 25 million new subjects, and that is something that China will take into account. Secondly, no China doesn't want to annex NK, if it did it would already happen and, yes, given a choice, China wants to see a stable NK. But word is that NK is starting to destabilise internally, with some suggestion that a new military regime wants to take over and displace the Kim-Jongs. The new military regime would probably be exactly the stable government that China is looking for, but the problem is Kim Jong-il. As a said above, if he gets backed into a corner he has already proven that he has a habit of escalating problems with the outside world because that tends to cement his power and reputation inside NK. If Kim Jong-il thinks he's going to lose everything then I can see him committing an irretrievable act, something that will either keep him power, or result in the eventual destruction of his enemies. If that does happen then you're looking at a new Korean war with a highly unstable government in charge of NK, the one thing that China doesn't want. And at that point China will have one of two choices, either sit back, have 20 million refugees stream across their border, and let the West fight the war and gain more influence in the region, or take action of their own. And if China does take action of its own, then the easiest and simplest option available to them is straightforward annexation. And yeah, the West won't like it, and Japan won't like it, but it won't devastate relations with China for the very simple reason that China now has far too much economic clout for that to happen. Don't forget, a frighteningly amount of the world's debt is currently being held by China, and trade deficits with China almost always run China's way, again often by frighteningly large margins. Two reasons, incidentally, why the West's relations with China consist of basically nothing more than 'grin-and-bear-it' policies.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 20:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't know what's happening inside North Korea, that place is the single most intransparent country in the world. Back when Kim II succeeded his father, there was a lot of talk about how he would be just a figurehead for the military and wouldn't last for long anyway, and he's managed to stay in power for 16 years now. Not even the Chinese have much of a clue what's going on over there, they've been stumped and frustrated again and again, even though they're the only ones still maintaining regular high-level contacts with the NK leadership. Regarding China's motives and options, the world isn't the same place it was back in the 19th century. You can't just annex whole countries nowadays and not expect a backlash, especially when there's yet another country claiming that same territory. Doing so would net them the privilege of managing one of the most impoverished areas in the world, in exchange for engaging in a new Cold War that would see it pitted not only against the US and South Korea, but against just about every other country in the region as well. Letting North Korea collapse would shift most of the economic burden on the South (which is why they're so afraid of prevailing in this manner) and remove the primary reason for a continued US presence in Northeast Asia. That's still not as good as maintaining an independent buffer, but it sure beats a long-term standoff against a vastly superior coalition much like the one that eventually exhausted the Soviet Union. Regarding China's economic clout, it sure is the biggest success story of the age of globalization, but keep in mind that China's economy is still nowhere near US or European levels. Their famed stash of US treasury bills amounts to about 7% of overall US debt (see here), just slightly ahead of what Japan holds, and nowhere near a level that would allow them to dictate policy. Röstigraben (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Palin calls North Korea an American ally. Ouch. FreeThought (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree about many of your points, Stunteddwarf.

This whole "Kim Jong-Il is unbalanced" thing is not borne out by reality. There is very little evidence to indicate that he's in any way irrational, despite how often we hear that line recited. He has acted in his own interests very successfully in the past in a demonstrable way, getting billions of dollars in aid blackmailed out of richer countries and ensuring a massive disinformation campaign to keep himself in power. So there's no reason to think he would suddenly start nuking the south, when (a) he has nothing to gain and (b) his dynasty and people and legacy would then be eliminated.

Your reasoning for an annexation by China is equally unfounded. An inter-country civil war in the north will probably not happen (there's no reason to think so, even with the "word" you have) but if it did, there's every reason to think that it would not be China who intervened. If anyone intervenes, it will be the south.

Why would China find it easier to annex half the Korean peninsula than it would to close their border? Do you not see that it's rather a simpler exercise to deploy more border troops against fleeing civilians than it would be to try to invade such a heavily-militarized country?

Also where do you get this idea that China is the one running the world?--^talk 05:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of your assessments. Korea would be too big a hornet for China to swallow, there is too much history between them for China to annex. It's not like marching into a sparsely populated, underdeveloped Tibet. Also the "leader is unbalanced" thing is a common tactic used by governments to demonise their opponents. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Tony Blair autobiography

Just reading Tony's opus. It's remarkably readable and quite funny in places. Interesting how he was always right though. He makes the point that he knows little about computers - a fact he proves by claiming that the money spent on the YK2 in order to stop aeroplanes dropping out of the air and nuclear plants exploding was wasted because, after spending the money and making the changes, none of the bad things happened.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

To be fair there is some self-criticism. So far he regrets spending cash on YK2, pushing through freedom of information legislation and banning fox hunting.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I always thought that the Y2K criticism was/is a bit unfair. I know that tons of programmers worked, a lot, exactly in order to ensure that nothing happens, and when nothing happened, people complain that nothing happened? Wasn't that the point? I guess we will never know. Sen (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I know somebody who was in charge of fixing stuff up for the banks. Although it was ten years ago he's still annoyed when people dismiss all the work they did as unnecessary. As he like to point out they can't win. If everything had gone wrong they would have been blamed for doing it badly. Instead most things were fixed and people say it was not necessary.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and everything went terribly in those few highly technologically-equipped countries who just didn't bother to spend money on fixing it. Oh no, it didn't... ^EXTERMINATE 22:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

[Citation Needed]

Italy did fuck all, and nothing went wrong. Plus: [1] ^EXTERMINATE 22:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand I spent most of 01/01/00 in the office fixing the bits we missed - oh, and you couldn't buy our products on the 11th Jan either because of another we missed. I'm with Bob's friend - I also work in Banking computing - and although no planes would have fallen from the sky there would have been a number of failures had we not acted. Jack Hughes (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The only Y2K problem I knew of what that Video+ on my mother-in-law's VHS recorder stopped working. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall Video+ ever working for me. ^narchist 09:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The main problem with Blair's autobiography is that the man simply can't write. I occasionally entertain myself by picking up a friend's copy, picking a sentence at random, and reading it out loud. Awful.Webbtje (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought the publisher would have insisted on hiring a ghost to work with him. ħuman 20:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm on Iraq now. It seems that although there weren't any WMD's when we went in - Saddam probably had plans to get them if we hadn't invaded so the decision was, in fact, OK. At least I think that's the argument.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

On connections between Iraq and 9/11. According to Blair ... There was no connection between 9/11 and Iraq although some sections in the States thought there were. However he says the attack on Iraq would not have taken place were it not for 9/11. The reasoning goes - the 9/11 terrorists would use WMD's if they had them. Saddam has WMD's. Although relations between him and the terrorists are not very good at the moment they might improve in the future. At that point he might give them WMD's which they could use against the west. Thus the attack on Saddam was justified by 9/11.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I miss Adam West

Who here would buy DVD's of the 1960's Batman if they were made? That was the greatest part of my childhood (well, that and Power Rangers) and it seems like a crime that they are not available even on VHS format. I have the serials from 1943 on two VHS, but that not the same as Adam West. Fuck Nolan. My Batman does stupid dances and has chalk on his mask.--Thanatos (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Lol, I remember being a kid and watching TV with my dad during the day, and we'd always watch reruns of that show. Classic! Conficker^{International woman of mystery} 23:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I watched a few. One of the few TV shows I was allowed to watch. ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 23:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd buy them. He's the Batman I grew up with, so later reading Frank Miller's work was a bit of an eye-opener. If I ever become a criminal I'll certainly build a giant tea pot full of acid just in case I need to execute my enemies while I wander off to do something else. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 00:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You can probably get all seasons from a torrent. You'd think piracy was some sort of crimeAMassiveGay (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe that they're not rerunning them on some cable channel somewhere. As for being a superhero, Adam West's Batman was in the same league that your dad was a superhero.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is copyright. With all the cameos and everything else, no-one is sure who owns all the rights to it, so until EVERYTHING it it goes into public domain, it cannot be release onto DVD. So, in the US that'll be mid-late 21st century. TvTropes, as always, has more detail. ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 18:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The way I heard it is it's the differences between who owns Batman the character, and who owns Batman the TV series. Oddly enough, the movie based on the TV series is available on DVD. That's the movie that gave the world the immortal sentence, "some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb."

Batman: The Animated Series, which absolutely rocks beyond all comprehension, is available on DVD, though. MDB (talk) 09:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Plea for Ubuntu/Linux help

I used to play chess (badly -i am sure i got beat by 12 year olds regularly) on Yahoo. Now I cannot. I get the game select/list of players screen, but when I actually start a game, the board does not appear - I just get a blank grey screen. Anyone have some kind of fix or suggest another decent online Chess site? I really the need to practice. PS. if you suggest anything technical, please phrase it terms an imbecile can understand as befits my level of intelligence and practical abilities. ThanksAMassiveGay (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Go here, tell me which version you have (it's in a little box to the right that says "You have version ... installed"). Then open up a terminal and type "uname -m" and tell me what it says (it should be i686 or x86_64) -- Nx / talk 04:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I have flash v.10,1,102,65 installed. Typing the above in teriminal gives me i686AMassiveGay (talk) 06:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Then it's not what I thought. Found this after some googling:

There is a known issue with *some* games (like pool for example) where it just shows a grey window. The workaround for this is to go to the game options and select "Small Windows".

Hope that helps. -- Nx / talk 06:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That has fixed. Thanks alot for your help. However, in my own attempts to fix the problem, I now get a JavaExtendedFrame pop up, which I can't seem to shift. Any clue as to fix that? Sorry to be such a burdenAMassiveGay (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

What did you do? -- Nx / talk 06:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, it seems to have resolved itself. thanks again.AMassiveGay (talk) 09:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8w3eW1huCM Real first name and last initial (talk) 18:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Conservatives4Palin

My Poe sensor is acting up, is this real or not? - π 11:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I have an awful feeling that is in fact the real deal. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 12:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw it t'other day - I linked to it from some tea party site so I think it's real. 12:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There are however 29 contributors to the site and some articles seem more genuine than others. - π 13:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The poor quality of the writing would indicate that, yes, these are real Palin supporters. DickTurpis (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Quick question, they're referring to her as Governor Palin, didn't she quit? ^narchist 16:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I see they're linking to a site that collects donations to finance her lawsuits. Because she obviously couldn't be expected to pay for them with a small slice of those $12 million which she had raked in until last spring alone. Who says conservatives don't care about welfare? Edit: and they seem pretty unfazed by her quitting, one guy actually compared her to Caesar for it. This site should really find a place in the Poe's law article. Röstigraben (talk) 16:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

1. I think the titles President, Senator, and Governor are held for life.

2. Favorite word of the day: "refudiation".

3. How about an article on the site, or a section at Sarah Palin? ħuman 17:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanksgiving has truly begun

Now it feels like Thanksgiving. The annual sacrifice of the Lions is about to begin. Jolly good.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, for the seventh year in a row the Lions were stripped, gutted and stuffed in the great annual tradition of being the Thanksgiving turkey. I do so love the Lions, they pretty much guarantee a play-off place for the Packers every year.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 20:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

People from New England have something to be thankful for today, as the lions continued their proud tradition of sucking at american football. --Onion <talk> 21:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

So a friend of mine, knowing I'm rooting for the Lions this year, calls me up to tell me they're beating the Patriots. I tune in to see them up by 7...then go on to let the Pats score 4 unanswered touchdowns (or was it 5?). If I gave a shit about football I'd be mad. DickTurpis (talk) 23:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Stating the obvious

Jimmy carter and religion and women's rights 18:17, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Serious Disney

So I have been looking at old Disney songs for, eh, some reason.

Have you ever realized how much this one describes a certain often encountered conservative mindset?

• Step A: Conservative thinks he is more pious, righteous etc than all of em liberal sinners.
• Step B: Conservative has strong emotions generated by something.
• Step C: Rather than suck it down, this is somehow the "other person's" problem and fault. You can see this mindset every time a mullah says that women ought to be covered because "they entice men" and such. Also see public breastfeeding debate in the US. Sexuality, Homosexuality, Music etc.
• Step D: Ashamed of / Unable to satisfy his urges, said individual wants to sadistically destroy said something in order to "cure" his discomfort. (The bit where gross violations of liberty and human rights usually occurs).
• Step E: "It's not his fault" of course. It's the victim's. It's the devil's. It's God's plan. The more proxies between objective responsibility for the act and reason the better.
• Step F: Feels bad about it and is very sorry. (As if that ever fixed anything).

Quite a piece of art really. Sen (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that is the motivation of the Frollo in the book tooAMassiveGay (talk) 23:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but the cartoon didn't end with the hunchback fondling a corpse. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Protesting without causing trouble

I'm getting on a plane in a few hours to go hang out with my family for T-Day. As I'm not all that reassured that those TSA dummies are making us any safer by being able to touch or take pictures of our genitals, I'd like to subtly protest the intrusion. Something like painting a picture of an erect penis on my torso in metallic paint that will show up on their newfangled fancy-ass machine. Or wrapping my cock in tin foil and requesting the hand-pat session. Any ideas that aren't going to cause me to get arrested, miss my flight, or attract any more attention than I usually do (I'm fabulous) appreciated. 16:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You can pass through the scanner and say "on days like this, I'm glad I recently converted to Islam". But as has been mentioned before, just get a semi - it'll be fine. ^narchist 16:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Just remember, airport security & customs people tend to be little men with more authority than should be allowed. And they don't have senses of humour. I learned this by chirping 'Oh, good, it hasn't been reported stolen then' at Heathrow's passport control... --Ψ Gremlin話しなさい 16:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

My family was once coming back from a day trip over the Channel to Calais to pick up some wine and beer. Coming back we were asked by an emotionless passport control officer if we had anything to declare. "Nothing," said my father cheerily, "Apart from the illegal immigrant in the boot!" And so we came to spend the next half an hour having our car searched. And no, we've never let my bloody father forget it. Darkmind (talk) 16:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

How cute of them to hassle you when all it takes to immigrate from France is a rowboat and clear weather. 16:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

At least in the States, I think they have signs that say, basically, "Don't make jokes. We will take them seriously." MDB (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd opt out of the body scan. Then, I'd tell them that I was a rabid homosexual and needed to be patted down by a woman. Then, I'd will myself into having a raging erection. You know they have to check out what that bulge is, especially when you could hang a coat on it. I bet you make her day. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Put something fun up your ass. --62.142.167.134 (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"But I always keep a figurine of the virgin Mary in my ass!" Occasionaluse (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't you get done for sexual harassment for doing that? ^narchist 16:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Only if the Virgin Mary complains. --Ψ GremlinSiarad! 16:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Being the naughty minded sort, my temptation would be to consent to the pat down search, on the condition I get to pick which guard does the pat down. "Oooo.... I want him to do it!" I'd never have the nerve to go through with it, though. MDB (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Better yet, just pop a blue bomber and let the chips fall as they may. There's nothing illegal about having an erection, especially one you no longer have control of. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of having an urgent hardon. What's a blue bomber and will I be able to score one in the next few hours? 19:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly score-able? Don't know, never seen one. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Viagra. My friend's dealer has those. 20:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You could point out that you haven't given yourself a self-examination in a while and ask them that, as long as they're down there, could they do you a favour and check for any lumps.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You do realise that I'm never going to be able to talk to Nutty with a straight face ever again. --Ψ GremlinSermā! 17:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's illegal to act like you're in a Carry On film, either. Although if they don't quite roll with the jokes make sure you're not too bunged up, those guys won't be liberal on the lube. ^narchist 18:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

My advice: Fly incognito, protest elsewhere. Flying in the US sucks ass now, it used to be fun. I'd dress all euro-trash and stuff. Now I just try to blend in and shut up. Although I did make out with a stranger on a plane. ħuman 03:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Was that you then? I alway's imagined you to be taller. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 07:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I was wearing anti-heels. ħuman 06:38, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy your anal cavity search when you all next flyAMassiveGay (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Purdy pictures

At first I thought the first one was a painting. EddyP (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I wish that I could have taken any one of six of them. Today I received my brand new camera. Next week I may get a lens to put on it and a memory card or two. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 20:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

They're all fantastic, but I especially like the one with the guy above the street - the perspective to make him look like a human Godzilla is great. ~SuperHamster Talk 20:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

That one must have had an odd lens on it. It looks like there's absolutely no DoF whatsover even though the range must be huge... But I'm most concerned about the motion blur on the cars. It seems to be implying that the yellow van is going to have a serious accident. And that the white car on the right is emerging out of the stationary taxi. And that the two soft tops have stopped in the middle of the junction even though there's a stream of traffic passing right through them... ^narchist 01:58, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh? It has tons of DoF, of course the trade-off for a small aperture is a longer shutter speed, hence the blur of moving objects. Piccy is amusing, but shite from a photographic perspective. ħuman 06:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

...like this view of sheep being herded in Yorkshire by Stephen Garnett. What a strange name for a dog. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:24, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I confused my terminology (not having a dramatically awesome SLR camera to work with my only encounters with DoF is in CG rendering, where it's either "on" or "off"). I meant whatever-is-technically-the-opposite-of-shallow depth of field. Everything is in reasonably good focus making it look pretty weird when you expect pro photographers to isolate their subjects and drop the background into a blurry haze of light circles. But the motion blur just appears... well, inconsistent, making it look like those cars are seconds away from a serious pile up. ^narchist 02:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

No biggie. I'd expect pros to do whatever makes the shot work. ħuman 05:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh noes!!! Poor wittle Christians!!!

All upset because of a billboard put up by an atheistic group. Spare me! Conficker^{International womon of mystery} 05:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Are people oppressing them again by have a different belief? - π 05:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I know. They are sooooo oppressed over here in America. Perhaps they should all emmigrate back to Europe in honor of Thanksgiving. Conficker^{International womon of mystery} 05:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

We don't want them. -- Iscariot (talk) 06:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't get anything other than adverts on that link, + a message that "this content is currently unavailable". Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Greenland is mostly empty. I hear it's pretty in July. ħuman 08:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

My standard response to an American Christian complaining they're persecuted is to tell them they should visit a synagogue and find a member past the age of 75 or so who was born in Europe, and explain to them about the horrible persecution American Christians face. MDB (talk) 11:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

--Ψ Gremlin話しなさい 11:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Or possibly ask all the non-believers who have been hounded, lost jobs and ostracised for their lack of religion. Persecution of Christians in the modern world extends to them not being allowed to break uniform codes by wearing jewelery, even if it happens to be in the shape of a cross. We're hardly feeding them to lions (not that this actually happened, pre-Christian Rome did much, much worse). ^narchist 12:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Since the original link doesn't appear to work, here's the youtube link of the original video in quetion. Conficker^{International womon of mystery} 15:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Turned the volume right up; still couldn't hear a damn thing. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

"We have detected that the browser you are using is not fully supported by the Comcast. net web site . You can view this site using your current browser but it may not display properly , and you may not be able to fully use all features." Well guess what, none of the browsers that webshite recommends runs on my phone. --82.145.210.3 (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanksgiving

For those of us Americans, I was just wondering how everyone here was celebrating Thanksgiving this year? What food are you having, etc. I'm just curious. Conficker (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Turkey and "salad" by the evil aunt who cannot cook. My family will be bringing pearled onions and salmon dip. ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 23:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I will be having the usual turkey and stuffing. Of course, my favorite part is dessert: pumpkin pie. Conficker^{International woman of mystery} 23:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Pumpkin, Pecan, Chess, and Derby pie. ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 23:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm British, so I'm going to order an Indian and laugh myself sick at the shit you lot have sunk yourself into since your misguided attempts at independence. Well done chaps, you seem to have less and less to be thankful for each year. I should warn you that it's entirely possible I might not be serious. On the other hand, I might have been taken over by the spirit of the Daily Fail. Hard to say which.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 01:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, fuck off, you silly Brit. Roasting a turkey breast on Weds, with some weird stuffing I'll make our of random ingredients, and 5 lbs of mashed potatoes with lashings of butter, then enjoying Thursday with my neighbors. Then eating turkey breast sandwiches for five day straight. Yum! ħuman 04:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Turkey dinner in a box from the Westgate Linden Hills Co-op. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Myself and some friends are getting together in a pot-luck. I'm making mashed potatoes, and there will also be many other kinds of food there (reportedly). Not sure if there will be any chicken, since many of us are veggie, but there will definitely not be a turkey (there are none in Korea).--^talk 05:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I gotta say, potluck is the very spirit of thanksgiving. All the best to you. My kid sister was always a big potluck fan, especially in her vegan days, before she rediscovered cheese... ħuman 06:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a Brit but my wife's from Oregon, so we're celebrating Thanksgiving in London on Saturday with my slightly amused family. We've ordered the turkey and we're going to have three types of potatoes (roast, mashed and sweet), but Saturday is also the day that a load of snow has been possibly forcast for London. If the family can't make it then the two of us are going to need a lot of recipes for turkey-related dishes. Turkey enchiladas anyone? Darkmind (talk) 08:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I hate turkey. No matter how you cook it it always seems to end up like cardboard. I always do something different at xmas. For the last three years it's been lobster, uber-free range chicken (which I should have slow cooked because it was really tough and fibrous), and 6-hour slow roast pork shoulder (my favorite). Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh speaking of which, have a look in the comments on the recipe I linked to. Bear in mind the recipe is called "6 Hour Slow Roasted Pork Shoulder", the "cook time" is listed as 6 hours, and the timing in the recipe adds up to 6 hours, count how many people are asking how long you have to cook it for. Amazing! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Crundy, my wife cooks the turkey so that it's always amazingly moist and tender - she bastes it with white wine and sticks butter all over it... the smell of it cooking takes over the entire house and is just amazing... damn, I'm hungry now! Darkmind (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Crundy, a few years ago I made turducken. That's the way to go if you want moisture. Debone a small chicken, stuff it, then put it inside of a deboned medium duck along with stuffing, then put that combo inside of a deboned turkey along with a third kind of stuffing. I made citrus, cranberry, and plain stuffings (in that order). You can leave the bones in the wings and thighs of the turkey. It's important to be precise when deboning, because if you split one of the birds, it's a serious pain to deal with. Stitch the turkey shut with twine when you're finished, then bake at 350 (I think). A delicious melding of meats that will feed a dozen people. Also horribly unethical blah blah meat is bad.--^talk 11:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

How about this one which is the same idea, but on crack. ^narchist 18:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

We have an 8 lbs. roasting turkey, a 3 lbs. boneless roaster for the crock pot, whipped potatoes, turkey dressing, 50/50 creamed corn and niblets, whole cranberry sauce, cheesy potato casserole, green bean casserole, crudites (with whole black olives, my favorite), crescent rolls, shrimp cocktail and pumpkin, mincemeat and chocolate pies. I am going to eat myself retarded at the actual meal, but my FAVORITE part of Thanksgiving is the leftovers. I can almost taste the "Thanksgiving Hash" and "Thanksgiving Stew" now! Also, I have a case of Guinness, a case of Rolling Rock and a fifth of Captain Morgan's 100 proof spiced rum, none of which will survive the weekend. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Normally, I'd spend Thanksgiving with my parents in Tennessee, but they're spending November in Germany visiting my sister (her husband is in the Air Force.) They are in Paris today. A friend is hosting Thanksgiving dinner, and I'll be joining him. I've already got a loaf of Hawaiian Sweet Bread in the bread machine, and I'll be making a loaf of multi-grain later. I need to go to the grocery store, also -- I'm making a salad. I had hoped to go last night, but had to work late. At least I'm up early enough I can get there as soon as they open.

Oh, and I'm working on Thanksgiving, too. The reason I was working late last night is that I was getting ready to start running a content import program (it essentially takes our customer's old web site and puts it into the web content management system we're building for them), and I had some last minute changes to implement. I need to check on it occasionally to make sure it's working properly. I started it Wednesday at 7:00 PM; I'm expecting it to complete sometime Sunday afternoon. MDB (talk) 09:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I know time has passed since the original post but I've been travelling and away from computers. On my travels I was at a Thanksgiving dinner. The spread was pretty traditional according to the comments above: turkey, creamed/mashed potatoes, corn, peas, creamed broccoli (a new but pleasant taste), various breads (including corn bread which I didn't particularly like) and sweet potato with marshmallows. Now that was a taste combination I couldn't understand! It was apalling. Is that usual? (On the advice of some 'merkin friends I contributed a banana cream pie.)RagTop^{Gone sailing} 12:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, even as a kid I could never understand, or even begin to palate the sweet potato and marshmallow mix. I don't know who first put those together and forced them into my favorite meal, but they should be flogged.Eyeaskew (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

As for me, I had the driest turkey I've ever eaten, but with a vat of good homemade mashed potatoes and fruit salad. I did not eat any of the stuffing, which was celery and bread crusts poorly mixed into a bowl with no other ingredients. We ran out of hot sauce, so it wasn't as good as it could have been, but it was OK. Onion <talk> 18:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

My girl and I got out of town for fours days in a swanky hotel suite with a kitchen and brought a shitload of food. We started with prosecco, moved on to homemade carrot & ginger soup, had roasted chicken with lemon, rosemary and garlic, sauteed brussels sprouts and baked sweet potato, followed by creme brulée, berries, chocolates, grappa and followed it all up with 12 hours of outrageously kinky sex. I rule. DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 20:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Slightly diverting

A couple of variations on a theme, that I found quite interesting. Firstly, drop the names of the US States in the right place - link Then, similarly, drop the States into the right place on the map link, then when the US crowd have laughed at the lack of knowlege of the rest of the world, try a similar exercise with English counties link. I'm now quite good at both, but still find the Midwest of the USA and the Home Counties in England something of a trial. ETA: There's also the very challenging African version. Worm^{(t | c)} 14:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Seventh place worldwide on the first, thank you very much, right above the charmingly named "lickmyballs". MDB (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

That's only for today though. Check the monthly high table. Worm^{(t | c)} 15:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I suck at this. US West coast & south were easy, but for the rest, there were states in totally different areas to what I thought. And where the fuck is the rest of Virginia? As for UK, know Devon/Cornwall/Somerset/Hampshire/Wilshire, but clueless after that. But then, I am just a silly furriner. --Ψ GremlinSprich! 15:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

How old was the information they used for the English one? They abolished all the counties in Wales 13 years ago.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 16:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The American ones I found damn easy. British counties were tough, though I eventually did pretty well for a yank. I used to know the counties pretty well, but that was 15 years ago, and they were the 18th century counties, not the modern ones (and English only; never did Wales). Took me many tries to get through it all, but finally did. I found Africa pretty easy too. But I've always been a geography nerd. DickTurpis (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The lack of precision is frustrating. Dragging MA tot he correct place seven times and the ap not acknowledging that it's correct is a bit tiresome. Couldn't they have used am arrow or + sign instead of a fucking glove? ħuman 03:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The Welsh counties that we have now are a modern invention but with old names. Where I live now used to be known as "Part of Flint". And I agree with Human trying to drop those small east coast states into position was a bit hit and miss, I found that it's better to do the big ones first. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I used to be from Cefn Coed in southern Breconshire, now I'm from northern Merthyr Tydfil. ħuman 17:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been playing the African version and it is hard because of the tiny little countries like Eritrea and Swaziland that make Connecticut look huge by comparison. There are also errors, the Ivory Coast is properly referred to as Côte d'Ivoire in every language since 1985[2], and "Zaire" has been the DRCongo since 1997. Onion <talk> 20:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

HeMan is a Nazi.

And here I thought he was gay. He is truly Adolf Elizabeth Hitler and I am glad I was into Power Rangers than this shit.--Thanatos (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC) p.s. The creator has some really good videos that might be more on mission. Check them out.

o_O. This is full of shit. While He-Man may be a racist stereotype/idol, being a white "barbarian" and all, the ways this guy tries to force Nazi connections is worthy of Glenn Beck. For example, the cross thingy is a variant of the Maltese cross or the Cross pattée, both of which are not exclusively Nazi symbols. All types of the Iron Cross looked like that, not only the Grand Cross, and like the "Gott mit uns" motto were inherited from the Prussian military tradition. The Iron Cross itself was inspired by the cross used by the Teutonic Knights. So: may be (seen as) racist/white supremacist, but not in the way the author of the video thinks it is. As for the rest, it's even worse, i.e. the connections are non-existent. Racist or white supremacist ≠ Nazi.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Saying He-Man was racist is as bad as folk saying that all kids TV is about drugs. Its probably nota good idea to read too much into a program designed soley to sell toysAMassiveGay (talk) 10:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Or is Thundercats all about Black Power?AMassiveGay (talk) 10:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, HRPuffnstuff wasn't about drugs?^{An iron, yet caring fist} 12:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what that show isAMassiveGay (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I actually think its kind of pretty.

[Random Rant] I always disliked how simple geometrical symbols etc get "locked down" by historical events and then you can't use them for all eternity or something. If this continues, and assuming a sizeable future history of mankind, we are going to end full of things you can't do. I always believed that to treat something like this, simply gives said ideology a further victory since it allows them to still control your behaviour. (The winners having their behaviour controlled by the losers? That doesn't sound right). Total cultural victory is to take their symbols and make them yours. Wipe their memory from them. Neo-nazis/trolls etc for example, scribe swastikas and get satisfaction for having done something "dirty" and "meaningful" because they of society's taboo against it. Had their symbols been assimilated and now meant "good luck" or "sugar free", their job would be a bit more difficult. Sen (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Sen, but perhaps one generation after the last holocaust survivor has left this mortal coil, the symbol can start being redeemed via other uses. ħuman 06:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)to

... in the West. I remember a version of wikipedia:Swastika a few years ago, after pissed-off Indian editors had got to it that actually failed mention Nazis in the intro; they got a short section at the end - David Gerard (talk) 08:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There are actually swastikas on India House just off the Strand. On an other note, I was doodling in class at college years ago, just simple geometric shapes. I was horrified to inadvertantly drawn lots of swastikas. Very worrying considering I looked like a Hitler youth poster boyAMassiveGay (talk) 23:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that I have said it before but there was a swastika on the wall of the Methodist church in the midlands where I attended scouts in my youth. Like the toothbrush moustache we should try and reclaim these innocent symbols that have been usurped by the nasties. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about Richard Herring? Making it hell on Earth to fly on a plane into the United States is the big victory for terrorism; losing the ability to name your child Adolf or grow a Charlie Chaplin 'tache is the lasting victory for Hitler's Reich. Perhaps Human is right about saving it a few more years for the Holocaust to slip from living memory, although only in practical terms. I don't agree with that position exactly as it's too much like waiting for it to go "out of sight and out of mind". ^narchist 00:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Goats!

Fainting goats to be precise. Lord Jerboa thinks the goat lovers must be so proud. --Ψ GremlinПоговорите! 11:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I have this strange feeling of déjà vu. Hasn't his been posted here in the past? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 12:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... now that I search for 'fainting goats' I find [3]. Seems it was a Ken-ism or something. But that was yonks ago. Good deja vuing skills you have there. --Ψ GremlinSnakk! 12:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Which makes me think - what is the evolutionary advantage of going stiff-legged and falling over when startled/excited/breathing/etc? --Ψ GremlinTal! 13:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Selective breeding, not natural selection. These goats were discussed on QI once. Shepherds (not sure where/when) would keep a fainting goat with their flock of sheep. If the flock was attacked by a wolf or other large predator, the goat would collapse in panic & thus "take one for the team" while the much more valuable sheep escaped to safety. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

They're also utterly hilarious, which I think played a large part in their breeding. Flocks of fainting goats (flocks? herds? Whatever) were the olden times equivalent of TV. Unfortunately, my "our ancestors selectively bred animals for their hilarity" theory hasn't been accepted by mainstream academia. For some reason. X Stickman (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

wp:Cataplexy, I assume? ^narchist 16:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No, wp:myotonia congenita. The muscles go rigid rather than giving way as with cataplexy. See wp:fainting goat. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Happens to kittehs as well. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 23:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Same old conservative bullshit.

[4]

I love how conservatives try to portray themselves against the, "Washington ruling classes," but Fox news can get so much behind the idea of a part-time legislature where people have to find other sources of income. That's bullshit which excludes poor people. It doesn't mean lawmakers have other jobs and keep "in touch with reality," it means that poor people are excluded from democracy and only those who can afford not to work full time are able to stand. Also, complaining about the cost of Capitol Police increasing so much? How much of that is because of post-9/11 scaremongering, from the conservatives? ^EXTERMINATE 10:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It's a good idea in principle but I see your point about excluding poorer classes. Blatantly when they're talking of second jobs they're talking about being on the boards of big oil firms or members of paid right-wing think tanks or something similar, and certainly not flipping burgers in MaccyD's. And in that case, I think it could potentially push these people further from reality. ^narchist 12:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It would certainly open the door to a lot of conflict of interest. --Kels (talk) 17:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It was an idea not thought all the way through. I liked it at first too, but the potential conflicts of interest that Kels pointed out is the biggest problem. Poor people are already basically excluded. Senator Harrison (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The argument that a part-time legislature "excludes the poorer classes" has no logical basis whatsoever. If you honestly believe that the current Congress is somehow representative of the poor class currently, I want to have whatever the hell it is you're smoking. Congress Has Wealth to Weather Economic Downturn Jindal does not specifically say we should lower the salary of congresspersons; he simply says the legislature should work part time (of course costs to run the legislature will go down as less overhead would be required.) Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 02:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but what would they work "part time" as? If they're rich enough to not require work, they'll just go ahead and do without the second job and have an easier time of it. Whether you think they should work or not, if they have the cash to not work, they just won't. As I said, he's not envisioning them flipping burgers so if anything it'll increase the already massive barriers to entering US politics. ^narchist 02:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

We have one of them "part time, underpaid" legislatures here in NH, IIRC. ħuman 05:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

"The argument that a part-time legislature "excludes the poorer classes" has no logical basis whatsoever."

• If being a member of the legislature pays enough to live quite happily, then anybody can hope to stand for congress.
• If being a member of the legislature does not pay enough to live quite happily, then people who can afford to support themselves without income are completely able to take part, but those who cannot will either (a) not bother, and seek employment elsewhere, or (b) look for 'other' jobs, which makes them far less impartial and influenced.
• You can (and do) point out that congress doesn't represent the poorer classes well. The point I'm making isn't about if the poorer classes ARE represented well but CAN be represented well. Saying, "But there are no poor people in congress!" is attacking a strawman: I'm simply claiming that any measure which either makes it difficult to support oneself from a congressman's salary will exclude people from the process and will lead them to be influenced. ^EXTERMINATE 15:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a higher salary increases the probability of impartiality (at least to the point the legislator is truly voting his or her conscience, whatever that may be). I'm sure we could model this out economically to prove this theorem. However, what I don't agree with is that the amount of time the legislature is in session has any bearing on impartiality. In fact, the less time the legislature is in session, the less opportunity for legislators to come up with dumb laws proposed by lobbyists. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Flood

Just finished a rather awful sci-fi novel called Flood by Stephen Baxter (I think). It's basically about sea level rises gone mad. He taps into the whole 'subterranean oceans' theory as a source for the water, but where I had a problem is he carries the flooding through the point where Everest is submerged and I'm thinking that surely the mantle couldn't possibly hold enough water to flood the entire planet to that depth. --Ψ GremlinTala! 16:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Goddidit, duh. ^{— Unsigned, by: Theemperor / talk / contribs}

I attended a lecture by him; he admitted that it was utterly implausible and that he had just taken the absolute upper bound for the amount of water in the crust and dumped all of it on the surface. Mindless evil Hoover! 19:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Awful? It's a novel, FFS. You know, fiction. Stephen Baxter is ace and anyone who says otherwise is a cu....

I'm sorry, I got a bit carried away. Yes, Flood is a bit shit. And Ark, the sequel, is only a bit less shit. Still, he has credit after Voyage and some of his Time's Tapestry, Destiny's Children and Evolution books. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

No, there definitely isn't enough water in the combined hydrosphere to drown the Earth to the top of Everest. In order to get an entire water world you'd also have to couple the flooding with extreme erosion. I think he may have been taking liberties even with this supposed "upper bound" for how much water the Earth has. The average depth of the ocean is just over 3km and Everest is 9km over that. You'd be doubling, if not tripling or more, the volume of the ocean to get it there. ^narchist 02:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The upper bound of 2 is 7, remember. ħuman 05:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely if a lot of water (aka mass) came out from underneath the surface/mantle, the surface itself would recede lower to take its place, no? Sen (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

He does talk about subsidence which probably plays some part. But still, if you want to cover Earth up to Everest you need a volume of water equal to 4,607,312,897.53 liters (diff between volume of earth + 9 (for Everest's height) and volume of Earth). That's a shit load of water to hide somewhere without us finding it yet. And on the subject of science fiction, Wang's Carpets is still the best SF short story evah. Except maybe Sandkings. --Ψ GremlinKhuluma! 13:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but if it sank to displace the water, the force would send the water flying into space where it can splatter into the moon. ^narchist 23:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Snow business

[5]

• 
• 
• 
• 

LIKE SHOW BUSINESS LIKE NO BUSINESS I KNOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWW X Stickman (talk) 04:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Um, gee, wow, it snowed. ħuman 05:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I apologise, Human, for not having 20ft drifts from October to March. This is probably the most snow we've had here in November for ten years. 07:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

35C here and as clammy as a jogger's jockstrap. Just sayin'... --Ψ GremlinZungumza! 08:41, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The earliest snow for 17 years and all of half an inch!  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That's a lie, not even a quarter of an inch where I am Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

About an inch and half here in Leeds. ^EXTERMINATE

I'm not an expert, but could it be that different parts of the country received different amounts of snow?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thou Shalt not Crossdress

Have you ever seen Jesus depicted wearing trousers? ^{— Unsigned, by: 71.197.164.193 / talk / contribs} 06:14, 27 November 2010

Have you ever traveled further than thirty miles from your village, or studied any history? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I get your point. But to expand on mine, I was prompted by conservapedia's discourse on Scotsmen and the kilt which they argue is really just a skirt and therefore crosdressing. So is a robe not just a dress by that logic? ^{— Unsigned, by: 71.197.164.193 / talk / contribs}

That doesn't sound like logic, + the only "discourse" I can find on the subject at Conservapedia is some back-&-forth trolling back in 2007 on CP:talk:Scotland. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

TWIGO:CP. I have not, but robes are obviously manly clothes as priests wear them. --85.76.87.120 (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Ah, guess I missed the context of BoN.71.197..'s question, that being CP's special take on history. Point being that gender implications of clothing style vary by place and time. About the time of the historical Nazarene rabble-rouser, trousers might not have gotten a fashionable toehold in much of the Roman-influenced Mediterranean. More likely to be worn by inhabitants of a colder region e.g. transalpine Gaul, or horsy sorts from Scythia, and later by Turkic invaders from out Mongolia way. Classic Greeks and Romans thought trousers looked silly.

The antecedent of a kilt is yet another "seamless garment" pleated and belted at the waist, with a tag end thrown over the shoulder, maybe pinned with a manly brooch. Good for virile striding through wet furze, broom, or heather without getting one's trouser cuffs all cold and soggy-like. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

UFO watchtower

Found this on io9: http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/16782 On-mission?--ZooGuard (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This is my favorite from Roadside America. I'm from about 3 miles from there, and I've donated to help preserve it. MDB (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it...

Hitchens-Blair Debate on Religion in Toronto on Friday the 26th. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 02:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

ID =/= creationism (Oh really?)

Interesting comments on this "news" blog: is that in Texas? 10:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't find it interesting. The author's argument seems to be mostly based on a narrow definition of creationism as "you believe literally the creation account in the Bible" (so that's young earth creationism), then pointing out some ID believers don't believe the literal six-day account (i.e. there are other forms of creationism). Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

+ He says that one of the strongest arguments for ID is the argument from adverse consequences that without ID emotions are nothing more than biological impulses and instincts and life has no intrinsic meaning. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"...but one of the strongest arguments for me is the point that without ID, life would be meaningless." oh dear, indeed. If that's the strongest then they should give up now. If you need "meaning" to come from some magical external source in your life you probably lead a very empty life. At least the comments seem to have torn into it; whoever Richard Forrest is, I'd give him more article space than the original author. ^narchist 17:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Weasel: I did say interesting comments. Quite good many of them. 17:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

As if the Creation Museum weren't enough

According to YECer Todd Wood, now AIG is planning a theme park near the Creation Museum. I'm guessing Ace will be disappointed by the lack of research fund allocations. sterile seaweed 12:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Dawkins downfall

Hahhh-haha

--Idiot number 59 (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a few of these Hilter Rages videos. What movie is that scene from? Looks good.--Thanatos (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Downfall.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Goddamn fucking stupid pain in the ass bullshit.

Spending the next 4 days at some boring ass, lame fucking conference. Sitting at my company stand, humid as fuck and its like 34 degrees c in here. Only on 3 hours sleep out of the last 48, drank a bottle of wine in the car on the way down here at 8am. Its now 4pm and I have had enough of this fucking stupid bullshit. Keep getting these text messages from people wondering what time the BBQ starts so don't know what the fuck Mrs. McWicked is up to but I bet its a damn sight more entertaining than sitting here, sweating through my third shirt of the day and moaning and bitching to you fuckers. Got some great painkillers in my bag so waiting until 5pm so I can get the fuck out and coast for awhile on my hotel floor. Fuck. Ace^{word up} 03:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

As yes, teh business conference. The one event in the world where the words 'killing spree' can cross one's mind and somehow seem justified.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 04:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been on several and found that it's the company (people not corporation) that makes 'em or breaks 'em. Just switch of during the day. Luckily those within living memory (last 10-20 years) the company was great: Munich & L.A. with a crowd of semi-alcoholics. The 32 year old office manager^(female) was refused admission to a club without proof of age - she was annoyed 'cause she was & I pretended to be 'cause I wasn't, so it goes. 10:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ace, guess what. 17:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

So that Political Science degree is paying off then Ace? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hate Email with Richard Dawkins

This is quite funny - a heartwarming fireside scene with Dawkins reading out some of his hate mail. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

At 1:50 in the above, "this one is from somebody called Ann Coulter". Could be real, I guess. A lot of these are repeated from this earlier vid of Dawkins reading hate mail. I guess he must keep a folder of his favourite hate mail. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Re the Coulter quote, it's from her book Godless, so not really a "hate e-mail". Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That's fucking brilliant. ^narchist 17:15, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Though I can't help but think it would have been better if he was wearing a smoking jacket while reading it from a huge armchair. ^narchist 17:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hysterical. I'm glad he has the sense to take such mail lightheartedly. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I bet there's never a dull moment in the Dawkins household.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

He's always been quite open with the hate mail he receives. I'm sure he's selecting the ridiculous ones and censoring the serious ones, of course, but they don't half add to his argument pretty well. ^narchist 15:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Lotus

Just reread Dirk Gently's Holistic ... early on he compares Gordon Way's company with "Microsoft and Lotus". Whatever happened to Lotus? 16:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

IBM bought them in 1995: [6]--ZooGuard (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

And they're alive and well as a unit inside IBM, continuing to inflict misery upon office workers - David Gerard (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I only remember the spreadsheet - twas good for its time. 17:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Say what you like about Lotus 123 1) their navigation keys are better than Excel (home means A1, not column 1) and 2) you try selecting a variable range in VB with {end}{right}{end}{down} --Ψ GremlinPrata! 19:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Excel has always provided the option to use Lotus navigation keys although I can't vouch for how effective they are. However, I agree that you can't always use the nav keys to record a VB macro, you sometimes have to use VB commands which are not available from the keyboard. My own pet beef is that in recent XL version you can't control charts as easily through VB. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Their cars were good too. 82.153.251.65 (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Last tweet and testament

Lady Gaga, Justin Timberlake and Usher are among stars signing off social media including Facebook and Twitter in aid of singer Alicia Keys' charity... ...They will sign back online when the charity raises $1 million.

I don't get it, is this supposed to encourage us to donate to the charity or not? ^narchist 21:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say, in my case, no. In fact, I will hereby not donate to charity, in hopes of keeping these morons off the internet. Conservative Punk (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

When they ran the Tim Tebow ad here, abortion rates increased. ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 13:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's an idea -- what charity would have to raise how much for Sarah Palin to promise to shut up forever? I'll give, big. MDB (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Skylines...impounded...

damn...So it looks like one of the world's most powerful and efficient supercars could get you a lot of time in jail. The TEA Party must be happy....Quackpack11! | Talk! Scream! Share! 06:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I do like the US pollution laws - no 60mpg+ Euro or Jap cars, but 15mpg yank-tanks are fine! Correct me if I'm wrong, but they measure the amount of pollution per gallon of fuel burnt, rather than distance travelled? Great! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 09:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Tribute to Sagan

Looks interesting tho. Part 1 - A Universe Not Made for Us --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 11:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

TIMC

I just caught up with this afternoon's The Infinite Monkey Cage on BBC Radio 4, it's about randomness and features Tim Minchin whom I know is quite liked here. You can listen to it on the BBC iPlayer or download the podcast.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 18:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Cox isn't ½ as good lookin' when you can't see him. 04:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Potatoes

RE: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11864290

I couldn't resist sending in a snarky response to William from London (comments section) regarding E numbers. That horrible, horrible E300. :D ^narchist 13:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, maybe this will allow me to eat baked potatoes more often. ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 13:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Or that deadly E948. Should be banned. . CS Miller (talk) 14:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Time E45 was banned. No, wait……-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 14:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

They didn't publish my comment. Are these people not interested in SCIENCE! ^narchist 15:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Facts aren't interesting to the media. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, not so much facts as extreme pedantry. But I think the lack of knowledge and mass generalisations like this can be outright dangerous and can contribute to a lot of health scares. ^narchist 15:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I remember my sister-in-law using the expression "the poison that is monosodium glutamate". After admitting she didn't know what glutamic acid was, she was surprised when I listed loads of foods it's naturally already in, like marmite (about 2% glutamic acid w/w) and broccoli. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 17:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You should offer her some potato berries, saying "The berries from a staple food crop"; just make sure you take them of her just before she eats them. CS Miller (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Or some nice nutty castor beans. They're 100% natural after all. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 19:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

With raw cassava. Is she a raw foodist as well? CS Miller (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

All served on a bed of rhubarb leaves. CS Miller (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Asterisk (talk) 03:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

MSG sucks donkey balls and I can't touch the stuff even in the tiniest quantities. But I'm on record (clearly) as being a staunch Marmite Defender. 'Splain please. Doggedpersistence (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Glutamic acid is in almost everything. Some common foods here. Bet you didn't know that the proteins in wheat flour are about 35% glutamic acid? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Irvin Kershner

…as just died as well, aged 87. Lots of people dying at the moment, and the news all getting buried under the Wikileaks thingymabob.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That's why websites get split into categories, I suppose. Nielsen and Kershner are pretty prominent on the BBC's "arts and entertainment" section. ^narchist 19:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes but who cares about farts and entertainment in the first place. --151.81.175.123 (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I was going to watch Empire sometime this week anyway. Think I'll do it tonight. (I have to admit, contrary to conventional wisdom, this one is not my favorite.) DickTurpis (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Excluding the Ewoks, Return of the Jedi is my favorite. If they had gone with what was supposedly Lucas' original plan, and set it on the Wookiee home planet, I'd have no reservations in calling it my favorite. MDB (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Limbaugh: Smoking is not harmful

He uses a 2001 study to attack a more recent one. What's next, he will take the words of these doctors?--Thanatos (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I love how the same "experts" who were paraded around by the "smoking doesn't cause cancer" crowd, are now being paraded around by the "climate change is a liberal plot" crowd. However, Limbaugh was probably was probably high when he said that. --Ψ GremlinHable! 12:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Andy's gonna LOVE that line of argument. Doggedpersistence (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't remember their name but the major lobbyists that big tobacco used are also hitched up with the likes of Exxon and climate-change deniers. A good site that deals with this stuff is Sourcewatch. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 20:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Днем Святого Эндрю день.

As above. CS Miller (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

What is St. Andrew's day anyway? ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 22:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Not so much fun as a well-pitched ноча Бёрнс, I guess. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Despite what Google Translate might say, the title of this section doesn't make any sense. --I'm bored (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Mind your language

The BBC has an interesting article on what you can and cannot say in public nowadays.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 21:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I liked that article. It's a good illustration about how taboos are all relative and depend on who you are, where you are - and if the media pick up on it or not! Although the selected comments are a little Daily Mail for my liking... ^narchist 00:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not read my crappy blog?

Opcn's Crappy Blog is sitting there waiting form someone to stumble on it. If you read it I might have some incentive to finish some of the 30 or so half finished posts, if you don't want me too you could leave a comment about how I should stop. That is all. --Opcn (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it looks good, and it got your RWW article updated. ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 00:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

UFO sightings explained by lightning

From the BBC. Personally I think this is one of the coolest science articles they've had in a while. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Mind if I relieve you of an excess "e", changing the topic from the opposite of "darkening" to what happens just before thunder? Asterisk (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. This is what happens when I don't get sleep. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 06:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Simon Jenkins--

I stumbled across this pile of uninformed stupidity and now have a distinctly lower view of the Grauniad's journalistic standards. Mindless evil Hoover! 22:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

At least it's been roundly shredded in the comments. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Says a guy posting on the internet, after undoubtedly writing something on a word processor, with his picture compressed by a JPEG fractal compression algorithm... all technology that is based on otherwise useless and esoteric maths. Taking advanced and, according to Jenkins and his supporters in the comments, irrelevant maths allows you to more thoroughly and ably grasp the basics. I'm currently seeing a lot of students come through into their first year of university without enough of a grasp of maths to do the basics of kinetics, quantum theory or thermodynamics. Mathematics is not just something for egg-headed geeks to ponder in ivory towers, it is relevant and it is applicable but you never realise that it is until you don't know it! ^narchist 02:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Further investigation suggests that Simon Jenkins is a completely anti-science nutcase. I would suggest he merits an article; after all, he's a very prominent Grauniad columnist, and represents a left-wing, liberal front of the anti-science movement that is rather neglected here in favour of conservative and religious ones. Mindless evil Hoover! 13:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I've red linked it in your post and will try and do some more reading too. ^narchist 14:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I find that very disappointing but there is a certain section of the left that sees science and technology in the evil capitalist camp. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the radical feminists who see science and technology as tools of the patriarchy, or those who see them as western thinking that is no more valid than non-Western superstition (although it's obviously better than that Christian lunacy). Mindless evil Hoover! 22:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The thing with that crowd is that they seem to confuse opinion and testable statement. Say, if you dare to do research that ends up suggesting that there may be certain gender differences (especially ones that could be construed as negative for women) then you're told that you're a patriarchal bastard and that you're not doing it right. I suppose you could generalise distrust of science (on both sides of the political spectrum) as a paranoia that reality might conflict with your opinion. ^narchist 23:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the best books I've read on this topic is The Sceptical Feminist by Janet Radcliffe Richards, in which she speaks up for sexual justice while putting a rationalist worldview rather than some neo-pagan, backward-looking, Wiccan ideology that some feminists seemed to aspire to.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 09:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Jenkins made similar points in his column just lately. I don't think he is anti-science, he just doesn't see why maths and science should be mandatory up to 16 while history and geography can be dropped earlier. This country obviously needs good scientists, but a bunch of people with no interest in or aptitude for science being forced to take the subject for two extra years under duress will not give us more good scientists.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 13:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

But it will aid those students in finding work. GCSEs in Maths & English are a basic requirement of thousands of jobs at all levels, since they're the most obvious demonstration that an applicant is competently literate and numerate. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, the maths issue is a bit different to science. Yes, everyone needs to be numerate, but do you really have to study maths up to 16 for that? I've seen others advocate splitting the maths GCSE into one qualification for basic skills and one for more advanced bits, which are obviously very important for lots of people but aren't needed by everybody. Surely that's worth considering.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 14:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but consider this rubbish. He's not at all reasonable or rational; he has a raging hate for science and the fact that it is immensely more relevant to the modern world than his little pet studies. Mindless evil Hoover! 12:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's a polemic and he overstates his case. But the basic point is a valid one - some people do go beyond the rational and end up almost worshipping science. I find it hard to dislike Simon Jenkins when he's so good on drug legalisation and the banks.--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 16:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

A chemistry teacher friend of mine made a similar point. She was trying to teach her lower set groups and they just wouldn't get even the simpler things. It's frustrating for the teachers and nonconstructive for the students. Maybe this attitude won't get us more scientists and engineers (part of me thinks we should cut the "hey kids, ain't science cool LOOK AT THIS EXPLOSION!!!1" attitude and start empowering those quiet and diligent geeks and nerds who already have an interest in it) but at the same time scientific literacy is essential. We're living in a world where technology is dominant and science is pretty much at the core of every development we make. If we even consider for a moment slacking back on science education we run the risk of turning into some kind of technocracy where understanding science and computers becomes some cultish secret. And then there's the technology and health scares that rattle the public every so often (has the LHC destroyed the world yet?), this could only get worse if people aren't exposed to science as an educational discipline and become completely ignorant of it. We can't give it up, we have to try harder with science education. ^narchist 01:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Business travel to Turkey - do I need a visa or a work permit?

Sorry this is a strange one to post in the SB, but I'm really struggling to get a straight answer relating to my specific circumstances. I work for a UK based service company, and a rig offshore in Turkish waters has requested someone out to fix some of their drilling equipment. As such I will be working (for about a week) in Turkey, but I will not be employed in Turkey. Sites I have looked at say that anyone needs a work permit to work in Turkey, and these take months to obtain. My boss is saying because I won't be there permanently and I'm employed in Britain I don't need one, and can just buy a tourist visa at the airport. I really don't like the sound of this, as I reckon the Turkish authorities might wonder why a tourist would have a bag full of test gear along with coveralls, hardhat and workboots... Can anyone confirm or correct my understanding? A solid source to show my boss would be great too! Thanks dudes...... DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I can suggest, if you want a cast-iron answer, would be to send an e-mail (or phone) the Turkish embassy, or get in touch with the Foreign Office, see what they say or advise.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 19:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a work permit would be required, as its a business trip rather than employment in Turkey, but you should look into getting a proper business visa sorted out. AFAIK, that's likely to mean applying to the embassy, filling in a form or two, with some official letter(s) from your employer and/or the Turkish contacts, and will probably take about four weeks. A tourist visa can be bought at the airport/border, but you might get refused a visa or get into some trouble if it's too obvious that you're there for business purposes. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No idea, but from years of lying & cheating: get your gear shipped as parcel post or something & carry only holiday gear yourself. 20:04, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The Turks use (or used to use) a document called a beyanami which amounts to an inventory of certain goods brought into the country, and hence not subject to customs duty when you bring them out again. Test gear might be that kind of thing; worth investigating. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Contact them?--cm² 20:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I travel to Turkey from the UK quite regularly for business purposes, and all I do is buy a visa at the airport. It's good for 3 months and even though it's a tourist visa and I'm clearly there for business (suit, laptop, etc.) it doesn't make a blind bit of difference. It only costs £10. Normally, there's a place before customs to get your visa stamped, and then you come through passport control. You can always tell the people who are on their first visit, because they queue for ages in passport control only to get to the front and be told to go and queue over there to get the visa first. Bondurant (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely your employer has a department to manage such trivia??? Asterisk (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes they do, but they don't. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I buy turkey at the local supermarket. No need to travel. --I'm bored (talk) 19:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Just buy the Visa at the airport. What are they going to do? Deny you entry? You are there to fix a problem that they can't fix themselves so that they can be productive and make money. You are not there to take a job but give them jobs. If they fine you then your boss will pay the fine. If they send you away then it's on your boss for telling you to get the tourist visa. --Opcn (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Well despite everything I read telling me that I need a 'maintenance and installation work visa', my boss decided to send me (with all my gear) anyway and "just buy a sticker visa at the airport". However my flight was cancelled due to the half inch of snow, so I'm still in Blighty and am using the time to apply for a proper visa. The worst they could do would be to take all my gear of me and stick me in an immigration holding cell for a few weeks I suppose - or if I get through then break my back on the rig then my company insurance won't touch me as I was working on a tourist visa........ DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Leslie Nielsen is dead.

[7] I'm gutted. SJ ^Debaser 11:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely you can't be serious... --Ψ GremlinRunāt! 12:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And don't call me Sirius - David Gerard (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Great shame. "Who are you and how did you get in here?" "I'm a locksmith. And I'm a locksmith." Webbtje (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Connie must be devastated. And Priscilla's beaver.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Who's going to look after the ratings now? --Ψ GremlinHable! 12:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Truly tragic. A superb deadpan actor. I was incandescent with rage earlier when the fucking imbeciles on BBC Radio 1 news gave one of his famous one-liners as "You need to go in to hospital. What's that? It's a big building with Doctors and Nurses in it." That doesn't even fucking work. Stupid fucking twats. "What is it" you fucking talentless morons. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(it could work if there was a loud noise) Webbtje (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahhhhhhhh. D'oh. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 13:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Police Squad. An ABC exec got a lot of flack when it was canceled, for saying you actually had to watch it to appreciate it. The thing is, he was right. You couldn't just turn the TV to Police Squad and watch it over dinner or something. You had to pay close attention to get all the jokes. It would do much better now, in an era of DVR's, TV on DVD, and TV shows generally expecting more of the viewer. MDB (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Airplane was in the Skyplayer's list of "most watched" since they first released it. Classic film.

"How soon can you land this plane?"

"I can't tell"

"You can tell me, I'm a doctor"

"No I mean I don't know"

"Can't you take a guess"

"Well, not for another two hours at least"

"You can't take a guess for another two hours?"

Awesome. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Airplane is absolutely top-notch. I think the scene in which the press guy finishes his interview and says "Now let's get some pictures!", then journalists proceed to remove paintings and photos from the wall - is one of the all-time top comedy moments. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Cleaner shrimp

Thought y'all might like this. I added a couple of cleaner shrimp to my tank yesterday and they're absolutely obsessed with trying to "clean" me. If I look into the tank they face me and start waving their white front legs back and forth, and occasionally jump at the glass to try and get to my face. If I put my hand in the tank, this happens:

Cute! I think I might hand feed them to keep them tame. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

What's the purple staining on your fingers, are you trying to poison them? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 15:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's the reflection from the purple algae on the live rocks. Oh, and presumably the actinic / moonlight bulbs. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried sticking your feet in the tank. I understand it's a popular treatment for people with skin problems. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 15:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That's "Doctor Fish". Cleaner shrimp don't eat dead skin from your hands. They're looking for parasites like Marine Ich. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure they'd have a go. How long do you think before they're eating size? I can imagine you cooking up a mean shrimp curry. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 16:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh, now that would be an expensive dish! Considering they were £13 each (which is cheap, the other LFS near me sells them for £18 each). Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"Naow, dahnt make me keel de fakin prawn!" Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 19:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see you do that with lionfish... Asterisk (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd really like a lionfish, but now I have cleaners and clowns it would end up eating them all :( Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I miss having my reef tank (ask about it on the SGU forums!). Way cooler than any lousy old skunk cleaner, every once in a while sealifein.net will get some petersons anemone shrimp. They do some light cleaning but mostly hang out on nems and mushies. I had a big green and pink Ricordia and a mated pair that would hang out in it being absolutely amazing. --Opcn (talk) 10:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I'd like a nem for the clowns but I hear they need very established tanks and are quite hard to look after. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The best way to buy clowns and nems is together. Nems is hard to feed, they can slowly waste away, sadly. Asterisk (talk) 05:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Many clowns will host in leather corals or even on mushies. Most of the easier to keep nems will not host a clown. Porceline anemone crabs will also host in a variety of cnidarians. --Opcn (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it even worthy of a WIGO at this point...

to mention that the courts shot down the birthers again? MDB (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

birther ... copying ... Asterisk (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, the birthers will just interpret it as more evidence that Obama isn't from the US. Which is silly, really, given that P(appeal rejected|Obama from US) ≈ P(appeal rejected|Obama not from US). It really only be approved if there was an extremist court, but since P(appeal approved|(extremist court)&(Obama from US)) = P(appeal approved|(extremist court)&(Obama not from US)), even approval wouldn't give evidence to either hypothesis. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 05:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a broader point here. Why the big push for Bayesian analysis by liberals, and big protests against any objection to it? If it turned out empirically that promoting Bayesian analysis tends to cause people to read the Bible less, would you still push this so much? - David Gerard (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Conservative statisticians like the great Andy Schlafly are obviously superior. Deny this and lose posterior probability. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Student protests

There's one being organised for around here, with a fairly sizable contingent from my university going. Now, do I go, freeze my tits off with a bunch of chanting wierdos, risk "police brutality" (not that I'm actually paranoid about it like some people are) and possibly get my face smashed in by an anarchist hi-jacking group or one of the people who are clearly bent on causing trouble (I've read the Facebook event and can tell some of them are up for a ruck, "bring a first aid kit 'in case someone slips'" indeed). Or do I stay in the warm and diligently mark a dozen lab reports. Gee, I wonder which will better help students... ^narchist 15:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's face it, no amount of protesting will make the government change their minds, so why bother risking injury / arrest. Stay home and watch CountDown like a normal student. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It certainly won't change their minds if you call the government "scum" and break their stuff and attack the police. And this is the thing I really don't get; they're all ATTACKING the people they want help (specifically financial) from! Fucksake. Students; the intellectual elite of society! ^narchist

Yeah, the students in Leeds are still occupying the Rupert Beckett lecture theature and surrounding rooms... I can't help but think that it's only affecting the university and other students, not the government at all. But meh. ^EXTERMINATE 16:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't all these kids be in school/college? They are gonna have to work hard to get the scholarship they'll now needAMassiveGay (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

At my uni there's some students carrying out an occupation. One of my classmates is so up in arms about the cuts that she's been in the occupation and hasn't been in to class for a couple of days. I admire her self-sacrifice. EddyP (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, when we had budget cuts here, we just held symbolic protests(burying fake coffins in the parade ground and such) and wrote a lot of nasty letters. They are responding by cutting us more. How much is tuition over there? I know that most college stusents in some nations just go to college rather than work and college at the same time, so how much are we talking here? ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 17:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

[I have put the figures in bold in case you don't want to read the tl;dr ranting] In "my day" (dear LORD that's not good...) tuition was £1150 or something like that per year. Paid mostly up front by those who were liable for it. It was heavily subsidized and the same regardless of the course so if your family earned less than £30,000 a year you paid nothing and it slid slowly up so only your proper rich kids had to pay a grand a year. Then "top up" fees came in - don't ask me why they call it this, it makes it sound like a pay-as-you-go phone plan, it isn't. This was pretty much the "buy-now-pay-later" option (and IMHO was very bad because it turned kids from "students" into "customers" and I've noticed the change) but meant the fee became closer to £3000 per year. Because this was a completely bullshit system (and not least because the Labour government at the time had previously "promised" not to introduce "top up" fees) they brought in a load of extra compromises (like how the health care reform in the US was destroyed by compromises with the Republicans) including extra maintenence loans and grants. So this basically meant all the extra cash they were raising through this system was immediately spaffed on grants - and then the money came in afterwards. The "top up" fee was "capped" at £3000 so that universities couldn't charge more, but could charge less if they wanted to. About two institutions charged less than the maximum, go figure. The situation as it stands now is that they want to remove this cap completely meaning it will go to about £9000 a year and possibly higher - despite pledges against doing so and strong opposition from the more liberal in the government. This is still "buy-now-pay-later" but it means the basic amount of debt a graduate will leave with will be about £30,000 (after 3 years). This is contrast with my current student debt (after 4 years) of £17,000 - which was the maintenance and living loan, not the fees. So under that older system that I went through, if you had rich parents or could afford to work practically full-time (an option for your History of Art students that do, frankly, fuck all) you didn't need to take the loan and graduated with no debt. Yippidedo for those people, but I still can't look at my Student Loans Company statement without sighing. But even now under the "top up" scheme there are still sliding-scale means-tested loans and grants available. 06:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Not me!

If you're poor, they'll still fling money at you, so current students do get slightly more "living" money than I did. The difference is that there are bigger tuition fees, which they pay back later. Basically, they still graduate with a debt, but it's focused more on paying fees than living expenses. Frankly, compared to the older system (and before that system it was practically entirely free) this one is bollocks, and because the payment is now fees rather than living expenses it's free to spiral upwards according to whatever institution wants it. Suddenly the idea of going to university becomes much less appealing. ^narchist 18:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind reading, you have every right to rant, so I shall now explain how it is here. My tuition is ~$2,800/semester, if I want to be a full time student(if I'm part time it is less, but I am full time) +$747 in "fees" electric fee, technology fee, subscriptions to the student magazine(mandatory), sewage fee, water fee. I live with my parents, so I;m not paying ~$5,000 in dorm fees/semester. Textbooks is expensive, buying used a student can rack up $700 in textbooks for a semester easy. In addition LSU offers a "meal plan" (which I don't use) for some more money, and it offers more food than one can possibly eat. I work whenever I can get a internship student job, usually 10-20 hours a week at $8 an hour. Taxes are kindly auto-deducted from my paycheck, making it closer to $5.40/hour. Please note that this is undergraduate at a state-run university at the bottom of the top academic tier. I could have gone to an Ivy league college(I has the test scores), but for example, they take 10% of your parent's income +fees&textbooks, for added fun. And I would have to live in a dorm etc. Grad school is more expensive, ~$3200+1800in fees/semester. At LSU, which is one of our nations more inexpensive universities. And grad students are paid... $8 an hour. This is why I work in the summer(pay is better too $10/hour). Average undergrad student loan debt here is $24,000. This is why I'm glad I was a planned child(add that to the article :) ). But yeah, you are screwed. ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 18:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to add on your opportunity cost, that must be at least another 25-30 grand. There are people my age who avoided university and are already earning far more than PhD stipend, and I imagine the university graduates from my cohort who avoided postgraduate study are doing well about now. Consider the debt added to that and it's almost like the entire thing isn't worth it at all. ^narchist 19:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Here in the US, a PhD closes doors in some professions, probably due to perceived elitism. My father has no degree, and makes more than my mother did when she was working, and she has a degree(in Accounting). I want a masters for the extra salary, a PhD would be nice, as I would be the first person in my family history to get one, but I don't know if I'll be able to. A lot of my friends in Grad School here are switching to get MBAs, rather than PhDs. ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 19:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised about that. I know the US has a very "anti-elistist" attitude but it still can't help but being very elitist when it comes to opportunities and wealth. Like all the politicians acting like they're "fighting for the little guy" or "just one of the boys having a beer because I'm cool" - ignoring the fact that they're obscenely wealthy and have no idea what they're talking about... Anyway, PhDs are useful if you want to continue in academia, other than that you do it out of a labour of love - which few people seem to, these days. It might be some kind of inflation; degrees aren't seen as "enough" now so you need postgraduate qualifications to feel distinct enough. From what I remember of my induction week meetings I must be the only person doing it because I actually like the research! Everyone wants it for better job prospects but that's bollocks, you can do much better on a decent private sector graduate recruitment scheme. If you want "Dr" on your credit card, be sure to do it because you want it, not because of jobs. As an aside: "Smashing up windows was necessary in the beginning to get the demonstrations on the front pages, but now any violence would be counter-productive." What a fucking tit. ^narchist 19:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... My eldest is a marine biologist doing a masters and wants to continue through to his doctorate. He doesn't want to be an academic. He's doing it for the job prospects (and the love). Is he wrong, ADK? Ajkgordon (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If he likes it enough to spend 4 years being paid next to nothing to be at the bottom of the scientific food chain, moving boxes from one end of a room to another for 9 hours a day for 5 minutes on a roller-coaster (not my metaphor) then that's really great. If you can survive a wall of existing graduates shouting "DON'T DO IT!" then go for it. I won't deny that it does open up other opportunities and this is just my opinion, though. I just don't think you can ever recoup the opportunity cost of it (this is four years, at least, at the bottom of the pile without any prospects), so doing it for job or financial reasons isn't the most worthwhile motive. ^narchist 00:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

What did the student protests of the sixties and seventies achieve? Thatcher and Reagan, that's what they achieved. Violent protest feels good and worthy at the time but it just leads to a backlash. Real first name and last initial (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The protests of the sixties? They were more than students, but they were most visible. Nah, did nothing at all, surely. You're gonna blame Reagan on the people who tried to levitate the Pentagon? People who stuck flowers in young National Guard members' rifles? People who marched on Washington demanding peace? Asterisk (talk) 05:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The protests are useless and undemocratic. If you dislike what the government are doing, vote them out. A noisy minority in the street should not dictate policy. Having said that, how else does an aggrieved minority get its voice heard?AMassiveGay (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That rather assumes that you agree entirely with one party, most people pick the party who they agree with the most; you can't exactly say I'll have this policy from Labour, this from the LibDems and this from the Tories. It also assumes that the parties will keep the promises in their manifesto, unlike Messrs Clegg, Cable et al. CS Miller (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Even so, in the last election the Lib Dems got a near unprecedented increase in popular support (though the coalition has fucked their chances of pulling that one again) yet their actual influence in parliament decreased. So why bother voting anyway? If you're in a safe seat your vote is wasted. ^narchist 00:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(EC - you bastards)Well, okay, for a start protests and even riots can have the effect that people are looking for. The Poll Tax riots and Thatcher's reaction, in amongst other internal politics that was happening at the time, led to her reputation and standing being fatally harmed and destabilised the Thatcher government enough for her to be deposed. And as for these demos, they've already got Lib Dem ministers saying that they'll abstain on the vote. If the students turn around and say 'not good enough', and state that any Lib Dem that votes for the measure or abstain will either be recalled or voted out at the next election in those seats where students hold the Lib Dem majority then you are going to see one hell of a lot of Lib Dem MPs looking over their shoulder. Most MPs, including Nick Clegg, have small majorities in the seats that they hold, and a lot of Lib Dems, including Nick Clegg, hold seats in places with universities, the seats that students vote in. If enough Lib Dems break ranks, decide to save their seats and vote against the measure, then the Bill gets defeated and at that point I can't see the coalition holding together, the government falls and a new general election gets held. On top of that, the protests have already had an effect. The Welsh Assembly have just said that any Welsh or EU student, but not English or Scottish (the Scottish have made their own tuition fee arrangements), studying in Wales, or any Welsh student studying elsewhere in the UK won't pay any more than the current maximum tuition fee, the difference will be picked up by the Assembly.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You think the LibDems haven't blown their credibility already by joining the Tories? I'd put any of their councillors/MPs chances of re-election at 95% less than last time. They've demonstated that they're opportunistic scum of the first water. 06:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Jesus. Some people really don't get the concept of coalition politics. LibDems and Tories (and Labour) have been working as coalition partners at local government level for decades. Of course it's opportunistic. It's politics! Ajkgordon (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The thing I really don't understand (which someone here raised a while back) is that these fees increase to £9k a year are because of the current financial climate, apparently, and students have to pay their share. Considering almost all students will take the loan (paid for by the government), how is this saving money in the short term? They still have to pay the money out, and won't see any of that cash coming back for at least 5 years per student, god knows how long until they get the full amount back. That's ignoring the people who will have their loans waived because they haven't earnt over the threshold for x years. So in the short term this costs them more, and in the long term it's probably going to cost them more. How does this help with the credit crunch? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That's because the debt is on the SLC's books, and not the government's, so like the PPP and PFI, it doesn't count as public debt. <sarcasm>Don't you know the first thing about public finances?</sarcasm> CS Miller (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

So it doesn't count as government debt if you give the cash to another government owned company and let them deal with it? It's so simple! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it was clear that a Labour-Liberal coalition wasn't going to work and something had to give. You can't just leave a defeated party in power and a minority government would have been tedious. At least the Tories backed Lib Dem proposals on civil liberties grounds and the Lib Dems reigned in what could have been a very, very harsh tax change. I don't think their chances were hurt that bad by joining with the Galactic Empire those many moons ago, but now they've got that bit of power and media attention they're being shown up to be considerably more feckless than we hoped. ^narchist 15:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's have a whip-round

and buy Trent this as a present. EddyP (talk) 18:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... we can store the RW server on it and be the first website that can not only flaunt FLOUT the legal system by being in international waters, but also effectively defend ourselves too. ^narchist 19:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I know that I don't have to tell you what you got wrong there, don't I?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 19:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless it's the spelling error on "too" I'm going to assume there's already a website that has taken up arms... it's 4Chan isn't it? ^narchist 14:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I know a guy, who knows a guy who sells WW1 HMGs. Just saying. ^{An iron, yet caring fist} 19:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The upkeep will bankrupt him. But it sure would mean going out in style! PS, who's Trent? Asterisk (talk) 05:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Gee as such a long term lurker you would at least know who Trent is, he is nearly as well known around here as Human. - π 05:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, is that on eBay? "EX-MIL WARSHIP NO RESERVE L@@K!!!" Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Flout not flaunt. Pardon be while I flaunt my pedantic correction. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Feck. ^narchist 15:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

How about "flaunt our asses at" the legal system? ^narchist 15:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Well now sounds like an invitation to be bum-raped by the law ;) ^{ONE / TALK} 15:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Never has police brutality sounded so fun... ^narchist 16:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Where is the line on Truthers?

Ok, I have been seeing alot on Judge Napolitano's truther beliefs. I just have to ask the question about where the truther belief crosses over into hostile territory? I am a low-grade truther who believes that the Bush admin. allowed 9/11 to happen to make political gains. I'll admit that I have an older copy of Loose Change (a gift from a teacher in high school), but I don't believe in all that controlled demolition BS. I do not have a degree in engineering and really try to go into arguments that I know nothing about. I also like to point out there are similar claims of the U.S. allowing Pearl Harbor. The Film Tora! Tora! Tora! (again, I own it) raises concern over such an issue and there is the occasional special on the Military channel. But where is the line between skeptic and nutbar? Any answers?--Thanatos (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The line is whatever you define yourself as! Do you think that full on conspiracy theorist think they're nuts? It all depends on what level of evidence for your idea you're willing to believe. Specific to 9/11 and Pearl Harbour, it is entirely possible that these were hinted at in advance - but this doesn't mean they were allowed to happen. They may have had the sort of intelligence that they deal with every day that says "attack imminent" and these just happened to be those one-in-a-million times where it was right. Thus such things would only be "known about in advance" if you commit an extreme hindsight fallacy. ^narchist 19:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Further (I'm feeling wordy today) you should ask yourself what method you use to arrive at your conclusions. However, this does arrive at the same problem as above (that even the most ridiculous conspiracy theorist will assume they have proper evidence and have the skeptical method behind them!). But, you can ask yourself 1) what alternatives have you considered and 2) how open are you to these alternatives. Figure out what you think you know, what you think you don't know and add a little consideration for what you don't know that you don't know (I have a copy of The Black Swan on my desk, so forgive me for going all Nassim Taleb here) and then appraise not what you believe but why you believe it, how confident you are that you're right and what it would take to change your mind. When you've considered this, you are a skeptic and not a nutjob. The difference is in the method of thought, not the actual thought. ^narchist 19:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd never be able to get out of bed in the morning if I applied that to... well, anything. I'm not smart enough not to take most things on faith and gut instinct.AMassiveGay (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

My belief stems from my interpretation of the events leading up to and following 9/11. I will concede I may be wrong. It's either the Bush Admin. allowed 9/11 to happen and reaped the benefits or was ignorant to it an reaped the benefits. Based on intelligence, declassified documents and how quickly the PATRIOT ACT was written up, it appears more like a plan to me than a coincidence. Again, I concede I could be wrong.--Thanatos (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

My early "truther" perspectives have waned to "the Bush administration was as incompetent as they typically were" plus "the Bush administration planned to attack Iraq on the slightest excuse anyway". Asterisk (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Rather than standing tough and tall and "unfazed", the admin chose the "panic the public" approach in order to pursue their agenda. So the real crimes against humanity occurred after the attack. Asterisk (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The 9/11 attack was carried out by Mossad, those in denial need to get the fuck over it. They can continue to drone on in their media induced frenzies about how "Al-Qaeda" is going to get us all, but it is a fact that 9/11 was a directly Zionist attack and Al-Qaeda is no more than a Zionist myth. SpringlynMeredith (talk) 07:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You have evidence? 07:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of places to find evidence, unless you are scared to look for them because they criticise your precious Israel. SpringlynMeredith (talk) 07:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Burden of proof is on the claimant. You claim Mossad carried out something or other, burden is on you to bring evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that they did. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 07:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

EC) I have no positive feelings for Israel, on the contrary. Where is this evidence? Put up or shut up! 07:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious to anyone else that Springlyn is taking the piss? DickTurpis (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep. ^narchist 14:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Israel has way too much to lose to get involved in a stunt like 9/11. Think that they could successfully cover up their involvement? They were completely unmasked bumping off just one Palestinian in the UAE.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)